One of the first conferences I attended after 9/11 was a convention on food safety. The meeting had been planned in the pre-September days when viruses and other micro-pathogens were regarded as the main threats. But the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington hijacked the focus, shifting it to food security. Instead of discussing accidental restaurant poisonings from E. coli and other bugs, speakers spoke of the supply chain’s vulnerability to purposeful contaminations by fanatics looking for a stealth weapon of mass destruction.
In one memorable breakout session, two renowned safety experts worked with the audience to identify the greatest risks. They noted that common ingredients like spices and coffee lent themselves to tampering, and were often harvested in areas known to be at odds with the United States.
Sugar was cited as a particular vulnerability because it wasn’t very regulated and was used in so many processed foods. Poisoning that ingredient sounded so easy that I used a made-up name for the sweetener in a column covering the conference. As crazy as it sounds today, I didn’t want to give terrorists any ideas.
We were all worried about monsters under the bed back then. After awhile, that level of suspicion seemed almost hysterical. Life for the food business remained more normal than the conference might’ve suggested, and bacteria and viruses again emerged as the main threats.
Then came the CBS News report earlier this week that terrorists were planning to poison the salad bars of restaurants and hotels in a coordinated weekend attack. It said an anonymous intelligence official had confirmed the threat as “credible,” and noted that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had gathered safety officials from the restaurant and lodging industries to brief them on the potential danger.
The report was exclusive to CBS. In the news business, that makes you suspicious. If the account was true, why couldn’t any other medium independently verify it? Certainly they would’ve tried with a story that big.
Nor have other authorities come forward to confirm it.
But they haven’t denied it, either.
Joe McInerney, the straight shooter who heads the American Hotel & Lodging Association, told USA Today that his group wasn’t invited to any security briefing by Homeland Security.
But he did shed some light on the matter. There was what he described as a standing meeting between Homeland and hospitality officials on the Friday before the CBS report. He also noted that the hotel industry has long been considered a “soft target” for terrorists.
And he said the lodging trade is taking precautions. The AH&LA is putting together a webinar for hotel employees on averting an attack on buffets, McInerney explained to USA Today.
It will also provide properties with info cards that can be inserted in employees’ paycheck envelopes, alerting them to say something if they see something suspicious.
The restaurant industry has so far been mute. But it’s just a matter of time until the issue gets a finer, more prodding point. What happens at a salad bar or buffet concept with employees who are believed to be Muslims? Will management try to hide them? Or just dismiss them? It's not a stretch to think buffet places could take a hit, regardless of who's working for them.
Similarly, how will employees and other customers react when they see a possibly Muslim patron head to the buffet?
Clearly there are two issues the industry has to address.
First, there’s the report itself. Is it true?
Second, and perhaps regardless of the answer to that first question, how is the industry going to deal with the suspicions? At the very least, the report poses a very real threat to places with salad bars and buffets, whether the story is accurate or not. Consumers may not be willing to undertake what they see as a risk.
Time extinguished a lot of fears after 9/11. But the restaurant industry shouldn’t count on that remedy this time around.
Showing posts with label food safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food safety. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Restaurants fight panic along with the flu
The last thing restaurants need is a bad (and untrue) rap about being incubators for H1N1. Yet those assertions are out there. Traffic may be down dramatically for the business, but not enough to reassure the nervous sorts who see the lines at a fast-food place as a modern-day malarial swamp.
It’s bunk, of course. The experts have said again and again that the virus causing swine flu can’t be passed through the ingestion of food. That reduces the risk to airborne contact with the virus or touching a contaminated surface, or the same peril a person faces in any public place with a lot of people moving through.
Yes, restaurants collectively serve much of the population on any given day. But, if memory serves me correctly, the average adult stops at a supermarket more than three times per week. The worrywarts aren’t calling for masks and gloves on the checkout line.
Pleasantly, the coverage of restaurants’ reactions to the threat has been overwhelmingly positive. Yesterday, for instance, a spokesperson for the Florida Restaurant & Hospitality Association was given airtime on a Tampa TV station to reassure the public that staffers with symptoms of swine flu are being directed to stay home.
In the same report, the operator of a local independent mentioned that she’s now sanitizing everything from tabletops to salt shakers, and an official of Sweet Tomatoes noted that the serving utensils on the chain’s buffet tables are now changed hourly.
Last month a Texas TV station quoted the same sort of reassurances from a Cici’s franchisee who heads the Texas Restaurant Association. Bob Westbrook stressed that any employee with flu symptoms is sent home. He also noted how kitchen workers are randomly dispatched at five-minute intervals to go wash their hands.
The report added assurances from the local sanitation department that it will check to see if restaurants are wiping down tables between uses and that enough supplies are on-hand to cover the increased handwashing by the staff.
Of course, highlighting the actions of responsible operators makes the irresponsible ones seem all the more loutish. Good deal. Hopefully they'll be stigmatized as the public dangers they are. Sen. Christopher Dodd told a Senate subcommittee yesterday that an employee sick with swine flu could spread it to 10% of his or her co-workers, a statistic he attributed to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Connecticut Democrat cited the factoid to bolster his argument that all businesses should be required to provide paid sick leave, something that’s virtually unknown in the restaurant business. It's something the industry will eventually have to adopt. But the trade isn't currently in a condition where it could absorb the cost. So, in the meantime, turn up the peer pressure.
Then again, it’d be difficult for many restaurants to match the efforts of some colleagues. For one thing, some of the steps could be illegal. A restaurant in Canada was reported to the authorities for allegedly turning away the husband of a local woman who was known to have contracted swine flu. The proprietor contended that she was just trying to protect the staff and other patrons.
And then there’s the germophobic effort of Silk and Soya, a new Thai restaurant in Madrid, Spain. To safeguard its guests and employees, the place reportedly takes each staffer’s temperature before a shift starts. News reports indicate that menus are wiped clean after every use, and that servers use cloth napkins to handle plates. Those safeguards are touted as points of distinction for the place--and the focus of its publicity efforts, judging from the coverage it's garnered.
An unrealistic reaction to a manageable risk is apparently not just an American thing.
It’s bunk, of course. The experts have said again and again that the virus causing swine flu can’t be passed through the ingestion of food. That reduces the risk to airborne contact with the virus or touching a contaminated surface, or the same peril a person faces in any public place with a lot of people moving through.
Yes, restaurants collectively serve much of the population on any given day. But, if memory serves me correctly, the average adult stops at a supermarket more than three times per week. The worrywarts aren’t calling for masks and gloves on the checkout line.
Pleasantly, the coverage of restaurants’ reactions to the threat has been overwhelmingly positive. Yesterday, for instance, a spokesperson for the Florida Restaurant & Hospitality Association was given airtime on a Tampa TV station to reassure the public that staffers with symptoms of swine flu are being directed to stay home.
In the same report, the operator of a local independent mentioned that she’s now sanitizing everything from tabletops to salt shakers, and an official of Sweet Tomatoes noted that the serving utensils on the chain’s buffet tables are now changed hourly.
Last month a Texas TV station quoted the same sort of reassurances from a Cici’s franchisee who heads the Texas Restaurant Association. Bob Westbrook stressed that any employee with flu symptoms is sent home. He also noted how kitchen workers are randomly dispatched at five-minute intervals to go wash their hands.
The report added assurances from the local sanitation department that it will check to see if restaurants are wiping down tables between uses and that enough supplies are on-hand to cover the increased handwashing by the staff.
Of course, highlighting the actions of responsible operators makes the irresponsible ones seem all the more loutish. Good deal. Hopefully they'll be stigmatized as the public dangers they are. Sen. Christopher Dodd told a Senate subcommittee yesterday that an employee sick with swine flu could spread it to 10% of his or her co-workers, a statistic he attributed to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Connecticut Democrat cited the factoid to bolster his argument that all businesses should be required to provide paid sick leave, something that’s virtually unknown in the restaurant business. It's something the industry will eventually have to adopt. But the trade isn't currently in a condition where it could absorb the cost. So, in the meantime, turn up the peer pressure.
Then again, it’d be difficult for many restaurants to match the efforts of some colleagues. For one thing, some of the steps could be illegal. A restaurant in Canada was reported to the authorities for allegedly turning away the husband of a local woman who was known to have contracted swine flu. The proprietor contended that she was just trying to protect the staff and other patrons.
And then there’s the germophobic effort of Silk and Soya, a new Thai restaurant in Madrid, Spain. To safeguard its guests and employees, the place reportedly takes each staffer’s temperature before a shift starts. News reports indicate that menus are wiped clean after every use, and that servers use cloth napkins to handle plates. Those safeguards are touted as points of distinction for the place--and the focus of its publicity efforts, judging from the coverage it's garnered.
An unrealistic reaction to a manageable risk is apparently not just an American thing.
Monday, October 19, 2009
India's Rx for food safety: Poisoning courts
Because death is even less popular than taxes, you’d think more politicians would rail against the perils of food contamination and make it their headline-snagging cause.
Then again, look at how that tactic’s working for Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior senator from my state. The upstate Democrat held a press conference on Sunday to awaken the populace to the dire threats lurking in supermarkets and restaurants. More than 900 food products have been yanked off the market since 2005 because they posed a danger, the result of disturbing safety violations, she stressed.
You probably didn’t know she’s calling for all ground beef to be tested for E.coli contamination, a major step toward neutralizing a safety scourge. But who can bother with matters like that when Balloon Boy’s father is being questioned by the police?
You have to feel sorry for the proponents of food-safety reform. The reaction they’re drawing just seems out of sync with the cause. Today, for instance, 16 people personally touched by a food-poisoning catastrophe visited the White House to push for more stringent safeguards. They were foisted off on the assistant White House chef, Sam Kass, who was described in statements as one of President Obama’s advisors on food policy. “I’d recommend the sweet potato fries today because they’re in season, Mr. President.”
Okay, the entourage also snagged ear time from David Lazarus, a senior-level official at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, the lead White House staffer on Obama’s Food Safety Working Group. But the Beer Summit was treated as more important.
Maybe the notion of regulatory or legislative reform just isn’t sexy enough. Perhaps we should consider using the judicial branch of government as a powerful agent of change.
That’s what India is considering. A proposal has reportedly been aired there to create a secondary court system exclusively for cases involving alleged instances of food contamination. The new ministry would be a place of recourse when food-safety authorities find a processor that isn’t adhering to standards.
Not that infractions are difficult to detect, apparently. The news coverage notes that 1 million cases of alleged safety infringements are currently waiting to be heard by conventional courts.
Then again, look at how that tactic’s working for Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior senator from my state. The upstate Democrat held a press conference on Sunday to awaken the populace to the dire threats lurking in supermarkets and restaurants. More than 900 food products have been yanked off the market since 2005 because they posed a danger, the result of disturbing safety violations, she stressed.
You probably didn’t know she’s calling for all ground beef to be tested for E.coli contamination, a major step toward neutralizing a safety scourge. But who can bother with matters like that when Balloon Boy’s father is being questioned by the police?
You have to feel sorry for the proponents of food-safety reform. The reaction they’re drawing just seems out of sync with the cause. Today, for instance, 16 people personally touched by a food-poisoning catastrophe visited the White House to push for more stringent safeguards. They were foisted off on the assistant White House chef, Sam Kass, who was described in statements as one of President Obama’s advisors on food policy. “I’d recommend the sweet potato fries today because they’re in season, Mr. President.”
Okay, the entourage also snagged ear time from David Lazarus, a senior-level official at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, the lead White House staffer on Obama’s Food Safety Working Group. But the Beer Summit was treated as more important.
Maybe the notion of regulatory or legislative reform just isn’t sexy enough. Perhaps we should consider using the judicial branch of government as a powerful agent of change.
That’s what India is considering. A proposal has reportedly been aired there to create a secondary court system exclusively for cases involving alleged instances of food contamination. The new ministry would be a place of recourse when food-safety authorities find a processor that isn’t adhering to standards.
Not that infractions are difficult to detect, apparently. The news coverage notes that 1 million cases of alleged safety infringements are currently waiting to be heard by conventional courts.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
600 Calif. restaurants sent back to food-safety class
A food-safety scandal has erupted in the San Francisco area , judging from the coverage that’s pouring out of the city this morning. This time the culprit isn’t a virus or bacteria, but three apparent knuckleheads employed as test administrators by the San Francisco Department of Public Health.
The trio reportedly undermined the tests they administered to more than 600 restaurant employees who sought to be certified as grasping the principles of food safety. Many states, counties and municipalities require that at least one person at a restaurant earn a so-called safe handler certificate by undergoing one of several accepted courses, virtually all of which require a final exam.
The certificate awarded to 345 restaurant managers in San Francisco and 183 elsewhere in the Bay Area were revoked because of what the health department termed “irregularities” in the testing process. The department explained that the alleged shenanigans included presenting the certificates without requiring the test and providing the answers either before or during the exam.
In any case, the certificates were invalidated. Letters sent to the affected restaurants instructed them to re-certify their managers within 60 days, this time by passing a legitimate test.
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, the occupational and environmental health director of the DPH, said he has brought the situation to the attention of state health officials and his counterparts in California’s 57 other counties. He explained that some persons holding the unearned certificates might have moved to jobs elsewhere in the state. Neither he nor the department specified the time frame during which the suspect certificates were awarded.
His department called the situation and its investigation “unprecedented.”
In announcing the situation, the DPH noted that two of the test administrators “are no longer employed with the City,” and the third is still being investigated. One news report asserted that the two ex-employees are being fined.
Press reports indicated that the affected restaurants were mostly chain-affiliated places.
There were no indications of anyone having gotten sick as a result of the certification problems.
The trio reportedly undermined the tests they administered to more than 600 restaurant employees who sought to be certified as grasping the principles of food safety. Many states, counties and municipalities require that at least one person at a restaurant earn a so-called safe handler certificate by undergoing one of several accepted courses, virtually all of which require a final exam.
The certificate awarded to 345 restaurant managers in San Francisco and 183 elsewhere in the Bay Area were revoked because of what the health department termed “irregularities” in the testing process. The department explained that the alleged shenanigans included presenting the certificates without requiring the test and providing the answers either before or during the exam.
In any case, the certificates were invalidated. Letters sent to the affected restaurants instructed them to re-certify their managers within 60 days, this time by passing a legitimate test.
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, the occupational and environmental health director of the DPH, said he has brought the situation to the attention of state health officials and his counterparts in California’s 57 other counties. He explained that some persons holding the unearned certificates might have moved to jobs elsewhere in the state. Neither he nor the department specified the time frame during which the suspect certificates were awarded.
His department called the situation and its investigation “unprecedented.”
In announcing the situation, the DPH noted that two of the test administrators “are no longer employed with the City,” and the third is still being investigated. One news report asserted that the two ex-employees are being fined.
Press reports indicated that the affected restaurants were mostly chain-affiliated places.
There were no indications of anyone having gotten sick as a result of the certification problems.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Panera keeps a cooler head
Panera Bread Co. is betting it can make more lettuce by boosting the quality of the garden variety.
The fast-casual chain has adopted “much tighter quality and much tighter temperature controls over our lettuce, all the way from the field through distribution to the bakery-café,” CEO Ron Shaich explained to investors during the franchisor’s quarterly conference call today. “Our lettuce will be far superior to anything you’ll find in the marketplace.”
Tighter management of the supply chain is a common objective of restaurant chains these days, though usually with the intent of squeezing out cost or better protecting the food from contamination or spoilage. Shaich did not mention either of those advantages.
The fresher lettuce, he said, will help Panera offer $12-caliber salads for $8. Included will be two new ones: a chopped Cobb, and a barbecue chicken chopped salad.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
NYC passes allergy-related requirement
New York City, the new role model for health departments worldwide, has adopted another food-safety requirement for restaurants. Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed a bill yesterday that will require all restaurants in the city to display posters aimed at educating staffs about the dangers of food allergies, according to the Food Allergy Initiative.
Restaurants that fail to post the placard in a place viewable by employees would be subject to $100 fines, according to a draft posted by New York City Council speaker Chris Quinn. The measure didn’t indicate whether eateries would be given the posters or would have to buy them.
FAI announced this morning that it will collaborate with the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to develop the poster. The placard will also be translated into Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Russian languages, to reflect the diversity of New York’s foodservice workforce.
A statement from the mayor was posted today on his website.
Lately, the city’s health department has become the standard-seter for similar operations as far away as London. It banned trans fat use by restaurants, and the trend quickly swept westward. It mandated that calorie counts be posted on chain menus, and everyplace from Philadelphia to California followed suit. Indeed, its decision to address salt content in chain-restaurant food was regarded as a development with national implications.
Is there any doubt that more allergy-related requirements are going to follow in the wake of New York's measure? At least that initiative seems like a relatively effortless one.
Restaurants that fail to post the placard in a place viewable by employees would be subject to $100 fines, according to a draft posted by New York City Council speaker Chris Quinn. The measure didn’t indicate whether eateries would be given the posters or would have to buy them.
FAI announced this morning that it will collaborate with the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to develop the poster. The placard will also be translated into Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Russian languages, to reflect the diversity of New York’s foodservice workforce.
A statement from the mayor was posted today on his website.
Lately, the city’s health department has become the standard-seter for similar operations as far away as London. It banned trans fat use by restaurants, and the trend quickly swept westward. It mandated that calorie counts be posted on chain menus, and everyplace from Philadelphia to California followed suit. Indeed, its decision to address salt content in chain-restaurant food was regarded as a development with national implications.
Is there any doubt that more allergy-related requirements are going to follow in the wake of New York's measure? At least that initiative seems like a relatively effortless one.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Germ Fighter in Chief
It was probably just an innocent oversight. “The United States is one of the safest places in the world to buy groceries at a supermarket or pills at a drugstore,” President Obama observed during his weekly radio address this morning. And meals from restaurants, an option apparently appreciated by our Consumer in Chief? Why wasn’t that thrown in there? Did his speechwriters get burned in the Quiznos giveaway fiasco and now harbor a grudge?
It may be an academic point. The President used his address to announce the formation of a Cabinet-level task force, the Food safety Working Group, to hammer out ways of better safeguarding our food supply. Presumably our whole food supply, including that branch of the pipeline that ends on a restaurant plate or sandwich wrapper.
Given how many things must be starred on Obama’s to-do list, the inclusion of “Improve food safety” underscores just how off-kilter the food protection system has been knocked. It should also stop the industry’s grousing that the party it traditionally favors isn’t sitting in that big cornerless office on Pennsylvania Avenue. Coming on the eve of what food safety specialists know as E. coli Season, the efforts by a Democratic White House can only be a good thing for a business that makes its money by selling food.
Best of all, the Administration is spending $1 billion on an upgrade of food-safety labs and the hiring of more Food & Drug Administration inspectors. It’s the additional funding that all stakeholders, from consumer advocates to food manufacturers to trade associations, have cited as critical to reinvigorating a withered FDA. The only party that seemed to disagree was the one previously occupying the West Wing.
More funding is still needed to help local jurisdictions hire sanitation inspectors, the individuals who visit restaurants to ensure they’re helping themselves in averting food-borne illness. Some towns have cut back or altogether eliminated those frontline watchdogs because of forced cutbacks.
Seems to me the industry has never had a better chance of making sure those grass-roots safeguards are in place.
It may be an academic point. The President used his address to announce the formation of a Cabinet-level task force, the Food safety Working Group, to hammer out ways of better safeguarding our food supply. Presumably our whole food supply, including that branch of the pipeline that ends on a restaurant plate or sandwich wrapper.
Given how many things must be starred on Obama’s to-do list, the inclusion of “Improve food safety” underscores just how off-kilter the food protection system has been knocked. It should also stop the industry’s grousing that the party it traditionally favors isn’t sitting in that big cornerless office on Pennsylvania Avenue. Coming on the eve of what food safety specialists know as E. coli Season, the efforts by a Democratic White House can only be a good thing for a business that makes its money by selling food.
Best of all, the Administration is spending $1 billion on an upgrade of food-safety labs and the hiring of more Food & Drug Administration inspectors. It’s the additional funding that all stakeholders, from consumer advocates to food manufacturers to trade associations, have cited as critical to reinvigorating a withered FDA. The only party that seemed to disagree was the one previously occupying the West Wing.
More funding is still needed to help local jurisdictions hire sanitation inspectors, the individuals who visit restaurants to ensure they’re helping themselves in averting food-borne illness. Some towns have cut back or altogether eliminated those frontline watchdogs because of forced cutbacks.
Seems to me the industry has never had a better chance of making sure those grass-roots safeguards are in place.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Food safety gets off to a bad start in MA
Add another problem to the list for foodservice operators in Massachusetts: A sharp increase in norovirus outbreaks. The state's Department of Health issued an alert yesterday about "a significant number of gastrointestinal illness outbreaks across the state this winter," most likely caused by the food and hand-borne pathogen.
The first six weeks of 2009 brought reports of eight outbreaks in food-handling facilities, compared with none during the same period of 2008 and '07, the department said.
Reported contaminations within schools and daycare facilities are running below prior-year levels, the announcement noted. But outbreaks are up at almost any other common site of contamination, the data show. The increase was particularly high within long-term care and rehabilitation facilities, with an 87% leap in incidences.
The department's statement noted that infected persons who handle food should not be back in the kitchen for three days after they "recover." But studies have shown that persons can still be shedding, or carrying active virus, for a considerable stretch after their symptoms disappear.
Unions and some health officials contend that restaurant workers should be given paid sick leave, to discourage those infected with norovirus from returning to the job prematurely. Many operations grant only a leave of a day or two, typically without pay, for employees who say they've been afflicted with a stomach flu.
This year has been a bitter one for Massachusetts restaurateurs. Gov. Deval Patrick is trying to raise additional tax funds by increasing the levy on restaurant meals by a point, to 6%. His initiative would also allow local jurisdictions to tack on another percentage point for themselves.
The state's restaurant industry contends that consumers will further cut back on dining out if the tax raises their bills by a dollar or two.
The first six weeks of 2009 brought reports of eight outbreaks in food-handling facilities, compared with none during the same period of 2008 and '07, the department said.
Reported contaminations within schools and daycare facilities are running below prior-year levels, the announcement noted. But outbreaks are up at almost any other common site of contamination, the data show. The increase was particularly high within long-term care and rehabilitation facilities, with an 87% leap in incidences.
The department's statement noted that infected persons who handle food should not be back in the kitchen for three days after they "recover." But studies have shown that persons can still be shedding, or carrying active virus, for a considerable stretch after their symptoms disappear.
Unions and some health officials contend that restaurant workers should be given paid sick leave, to discourage those infected with norovirus from returning to the job prematurely. Many operations grant only a leave of a day or two, typically without pay, for employees who say they've been afflicted with a stomach flu.
This year has been a bitter one for Massachusetts restaurateurs. Gov. Deval Patrick is trying to raise additional tax funds by increasing the levy on restaurant meals by a point, to 6%. His initiative would also allow local jurisdictions to tack on another percentage point for themselves.
The state's restaurant industry contends that consumers will further cut back on dining out if the tax raises their bills by a dollar or two.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Ah-nold, what are you doing?
You have to question the wisdom of furloughing employees of California's Department of Public Health during the ongoing four-alarm salmonella outbreak. Yet the staffers were among the thousands who were forced to skip work on Friday.
At least schools and other foodservice facilities could look for assistance on the department's website.
The Division of Workers' Compensation, another agency known to many California restaurateurs, was also shut for the day.
Governor Schwarzenegger ordered the two-days-a-month furloughs as a way of contending with the state's gaping financial deficit. The next furlough day is set for the second Friday from now.
At least schools and other foodservice facilities could look for assistance on the department's website.
The Division of Workers' Compensation, another agency known to many California restaurateurs, was also shut for the day.
Governor Schwarzenegger ordered the two-days-a-month furloughs as a way of contending with the state's gaping financial deficit. The next furlough day is set for the second Friday from now.
Monday, January 12, 2009
A big break for germs
Add another restaurant casualty to the list of recession victims: Food safety in one of Texas’ major cities. A local TV station reported today on the web that Arlington has laid off the five health specialists who monitor sanitation conditions within the municipality’s 2,000 restaurants.
Officials told reporter Janet St. James that the city would outsource oversight to a contracted third party. “However, no deal to do that has been publicly discussed or finalized,” St. James wrote.
The article notes that the sanitation inspectors will work until next Thursday, after which restaurants will be expected to police themselves.
The estimated savings: $100,000, or $50 per restaurant.
Officials told reporter Janet St. James that the city would outsource oversight to a contracted third party. “However, no deal to do that has been publicly discussed or finalized,” St. James wrote.
The article notes that the sanitation inspectors will work until next Thursday, after which restaurants will be expected to police themselves.
The estimated savings: $100,000, or $50 per restaurant.
No mas! No mas!
The business week is barely underway, but it's already shaping up to be a stinker. The early bad news includes the bombshell that Landry's is backing out of a long-awaited buyout by founder and CEO Tilman Fertitta because the backers don't want details of the financing arrangement revealed to shareholders, as the SEC is demanding. Then there's Ruth's Chris' disclosure that fourth-quarter same-store sales dropped 18.5%. And, just to put that last smiley face on the morning's restaurant headlines, there's a full-fledged food-safety crisis involving peanut butter sold by one supplier to foodservice operators in at least 42 states.
The Landry's situation is by the far the real startler. The deal has had more ups and downs than a roller coaster at one of the company's amusement complexes. Now, with the going-private process in the home stretch, the buyout is called off, for reasons that are murky at best.
As an announcement cryptically recounts, the SEC ordered that the terms between buyer, seller and the deal's financial backers be released to shareholders. Landry's said it informed the agency that the agreements prohibit the disclosure of that proprietary information. The SEC responded in essence with, "Too bad. Tell your shareholders all the specifics."
If Landry's decided to comply with the SEC's directive, the funding might've been pulled in retribution. But, even worse for the company, the lenders could back out of a stipulation that they refinance $400 million in notes. Landry's would lose its suitor and a chance to lighten a crippling debt burden. The most responsible choice, the company argued in a press release, was to terminate the buyout. That way it wouldn't have to issue a proxy to shareholders. The disclosures demanded by the SEC would not have be made, the financiers would be appeased, and the refinancing could continue.
The big mystery, of course, is what the lenders--several Jefferies & Co. and Wells Fargo affiliates--did not want revealed. Barring a new John Grisham novel, we may never find out.
Perhaps Fertitta should shift his attention to buying out Ruth's Chris instead.
The Landry's situation is by the far the real startler. The deal has had more ups and downs than a roller coaster at one of the company's amusement complexes. Now, with the going-private process in the home stretch, the buyout is called off, for reasons that are murky at best.
As an announcement cryptically recounts, the SEC ordered that the terms between buyer, seller and the deal's financial backers be released to shareholders. Landry's said it informed the agency that the agreements prohibit the disclosure of that proprietary information. The SEC responded in essence with, "Too bad. Tell your shareholders all the specifics."
If Landry's decided to comply with the SEC's directive, the funding might've been pulled in retribution. But, even worse for the company, the lenders could back out of a stipulation that they refinance $400 million in notes. Landry's would lose its suitor and a chance to lighten a crippling debt burden. The most responsible choice, the company argued in a press release, was to terminate the buyout. That way it wouldn't have to issue a proxy to shareholders. The disclosures demanded by the SEC would not have be made, the financiers would be appeased, and the refinancing could continue.
The big mystery, of course, is what the lenders--several Jefferies & Co. and Wells Fargo affiliates--did not want revealed. Barring a new John Grisham novel, we may never find out.
Perhaps Fertitta should shift his attention to buying out Ruth's Chris instead.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Very naughty ones among the nice
Coal prices will likely spike tomorrow as the market reflects several notable additions to Santa’s Naughty list. As any flying reindeer would tell you, the coal penalty is likely to be doubled because these infractions involve restaurants, and He Who Makes the List, a.k.a. the Chimney Clogger, is clearly a fan. And who wouldn’t be outraged by activities like these?
THE BIG CHECK SCAM: Businesses in Canada are being warned about a con that grifters tried to pull on a Winnipeg pizzeria, with similar stings apparently attempted in Toronto. According to the press coverage, the louts in Winnipeg almost succeeded. They contacted Gondola Pizza and said they needed $4,400 worth of pizza for a multi-day meeting of students. Then, two days before the deliveries were scheduled to start, the “customer” called back and said only half the original order would be required because of cancellations. Would the restaurant mind refunding half the payment ASAP?
Of course, the $4,400 check was no good. The crooks were betting that they could get the $2,200 refund before the place heard from its bank that the bigger check was bogus. It's another indication that restaurant scams are as common as snowflakes this holiday season.
Santa’s sentence: At least a ton of anthracite.
A THUMB IN WASHINGTON RESTAURATEURS' EYES: Operators in Snohomish County, Wash., caught a slush ball in sensitive parts when they recently opened their annual bills from the country health department. According to HeraldNet, a local news website, the department had raised the fee to $700, or double the charge for 2007. Places that didn’t remit payment within three weeks would pay double the charge, according to the news report.
Clearly someone forgot to inform the country health department that restaurants are fighting for their survival in the current economic environment. How can they absorb a hit like that? And, according to the coverage, it came as a complete surprise.
Santa’s sentence: The bituminous output of western Pennsylvania.
WISHFUL GREEN THINKING: News broke this morning of another ecologically minded initiative from Chipotle Mexican Grill, the burrito chain with a reputation of being far greener than the industry norm. This time around, according to the reports, the concept was switching to “sustainable” cutlery, or disposables that bio-degrade, starting with a restaurant in Millbrae, Calif. The only problem: It wasn’t true.
A supplier issued the press release without Chipotle’s involvement, approval or concurrence with the assertions made, according to the restaurant chain. It released a statement several hours later refuting the supplier’s announcement, explaining that it does indeed use compostable knives, forks and spoons at a Millbrae restaurant. But, it said, those eco-friendly disposables have to be used there because of a local ordinance. The chain stressed that it had no intention of switching to the degradable utensils at the other 799 restaurants in the system.
No doubt the home office was a little touchy because investors have been warily watching the one-time Wall Street sweetheart. Like every operator, it’s under intense demand to keep costs low. And bio-degradable disposables can cost anywhere from 10 to 40% more than the conventional type, according to suppliers.
Santa’s sentence: Three turns of a windmill blade. (Hey, the supplier is a green company. It’s probably allergic to coal.)
THE BIG CHECK SCAM: Businesses in Canada are being warned about a con that grifters tried to pull on a Winnipeg pizzeria, with similar stings apparently attempted in Toronto. According to the press coverage, the louts in Winnipeg almost succeeded. They contacted Gondola Pizza and said they needed $4,400 worth of pizza for a multi-day meeting of students. Then, two days before the deliveries were scheduled to start, the “customer” called back and said only half the original order would be required because of cancellations. Would the restaurant mind refunding half the payment ASAP?
Of course, the $4,400 check was no good. The crooks were betting that they could get the $2,200 refund before the place heard from its bank that the bigger check was bogus. It's another indication that restaurant scams are as common as snowflakes this holiday season.
Santa’s sentence: At least a ton of anthracite.
A THUMB IN WASHINGTON RESTAURATEURS' EYES: Operators in Snohomish County, Wash., caught a slush ball in sensitive parts when they recently opened their annual bills from the country health department. According to HeraldNet, a local news website, the department had raised the fee to $700, or double the charge for 2007. Places that didn’t remit payment within three weeks would pay double the charge, according to the news report.
Clearly someone forgot to inform the country health department that restaurants are fighting for their survival in the current economic environment. How can they absorb a hit like that? And, according to the coverage, it came as a complete surprise.
Santa’s sentence: The bituminous output of western Pennsylvania.
WISHFUL GREEN THINKING: News broke this morning of another ecologically minded initiative from Chipotle Mexican Grill, the burrito chain with a reputation of being far greener than the industry norm. This time around, according to the reports, the concept was switching to “sustainable” cutlery, or disposables that bio-degrade, starting with a restaurant in Millbrae, Calif. The only problem: It wasn’t true.
A supplier issued the press release without Chipotle’s involvement, approval or concurrence with the assertions made, according to the restaurant chain. It released a statement several hours later refuting the supplier’s announcement, explaining that it does indeed use compostable knives, forks and spoons at a Millbrae restaurant. But, it said, those eco-friendly disposables have to be used there because of a local ordinance. The chain stressed that it had no intention of switching to the degradable utensils at the other 799 restaurants in the system.
No doubt the home office was a little touchy because investors have been warily watching the one-time Wall Street sweetheart. Like every operator, it’s under intense demand to keep costs low. And bio-degradable disposables can cost anywhere from 10 to 40% more than the conventional type, according to suppliers.
Santa’s sentence: Three turns of a windmill blade. (Hey, the supplier is a green company. It’s probably allergic to coal.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
