"Health Dept. destroys thousands of dollars of local fruit"

With all the discussion about culpability and doing things "the right way" according to local codes, thought this report from Monica Eng in The Stew would be of interest.

Health Department destroys thousands of dollars of local fruit

I admire the owners and renters for attempting to navigate the bureaucracy, and though I am no expert on code issues and I'm sure more details will be forthcoming, my initial reaction is to despise the City for reacting in this way.

Clearly, the city needs to figure out their policy on this. But I do find it a little irresponsible to post a news story before essential facts are in (the story is posted 45 minute before Eng will speak with the Department of Health). Also, what difference does it make to the story if the food was "local"?

Darren72 wrote:Clearly, the city needs to figure out their policy on this. But I do find it a little irresponsible to post a news story before essential facts are in (the story is posted 45 minute before Eng will speak with the Department of Health).

It's not a "news story"; it's a "blog entry". Welcome to the new media world, where major outlets have convinced themselves that there there's a difference between those two things.

Edited to add that I feel like a heartless bastard after watching the video, then reading that my initial focus was on the media issue. I can barely imagine how devastating that must have felt for Flora Lazar.

Logan Square Kitchen just tweeted about this story, I'm dumbfounded how our city can come out and destory a woman's business. It's very, very disheartening.

Her son has a very thorough response on the Tribune blog via the comments, still doesn't add up, this man really had something to prove.

miss ellen

that's a real tragedy. my heart goes out to that woman.

The Stew wrote:Inspectors cited no health problems with any of the food. They even encouraged Lazar's son to eat the confiscated granola bars from Sunday Dinner Club. They only said the food was prepared by chefs who didn't have the proper business licenses to prepare and sell it.

I don't see any legitimate reason to destroy the food here, I'd love to hear why that was the action they chose to take. If this was really a licensing issue, wouldn't the appropriate response be a citation and fine?

Edited to correct coding

Would love to see a call to action come out of this... Not to get all "revolutionary" or anything but are we a society content to "Tweet off" on things rather than actually doing anything about it? This seems like an ENORMOUS abuse of power. I've experienced the illogical and infuriating Chicago licensing process. It could definitely suck less. Many of this site's contributors seem to be interested in efforts such as those described in this post. How can we help?

Edited to add that I'm not disparaging Logan Kitchen for using Twitter to get the word out about this--that's an example of a valuable use of the social media vehicle...

I'm really intersted in the reasoning behind this as well. Back in 2006, when Galewood Cookshack was getting off the ground, we tried to get our business license. We were told that only one license was issued per address, and since we were renting various kitchen spaces around the city, we couldn't get our own. Of course we had our own city and state food safety certifications, as well as insurance. My experiences with the city have been confusing, to say the least.

grace

I remember back in the 90's when the elotes cart thing was hot, elotes carts were impounded and all the corn was destroyed (thrown out). I think this might be standard operation procedure.

I know of a city inspector pouring bleach on "expired" shrimp in a clark street Italian restaurant to make sure it was discarded and not brought back in for use after she left.

Sad. This city is hurting for money and we're seeing the result.

An update, posted to today's Trib: http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-fruit-destroyed-20100205,0,2604241.story

Chicago Tribune wrote:The companies applied, paid the fees and invited the Chicago Department of Health inspectors. Lazar said they didn't know the inspectors would destroy any food that appeared to have been cooked, processed or opened before they arrived.

That explanation, at least, makes more sense. The problem seems to be that any foodservice operation going into Kitchen Chicago is getting an initial, before-you-operate, inspection, and they are expecting to see what you're starting with. The fruit purees, which had been processed offsite and didn't appear to have been processed or stored in a commercial kitchen (they're in ziploc bags, from what I could see) might fit into a scenario that violates code (essentially, the inspectors don't know where the fruit has been, whether it's been kept at temp, away from rodents, name your worst-case scenario. Not saying that any of those things are true or that I agree with inspectors, just that I get the logic.)

Obviously, this rule needs to be clarified to smaller purveyors - but I still think the reaction was extreme. I'm no professional but my understanding is that frozen fruit purees don't generally meet the health code standards for a "potentially hazardous food."

For what it's worth, labeled and dated Ziploc bags are used extensively in commercial kitchens.

I didn't say the logic made sense, just that it appears there was some logic.

Inspectors Trash More Food at Shared Kitchen

I'll admit that this story is confusing to me, but to the best of my ability to understand it, it seems to me the real sin is not the city destroying the food (stupid/tragic/wasteful though that may have been), but the city apparently not saying to the business owner(s), "We're destroying your food because of [violations x, y and z], and all you have to do is remedy [violations x, y and z] and you'll be in compliance." Or has this been spelled out to the owner(s)?

Cool! According to the article, Evanston has sensible rules for shared kitchens. Bring your business and tax dollars my way, guys, and welcome!

I don't think it's solely that they aren't being clear about the rules: it's also that they don't seem to be clear about the rules, themselves.

It sounds like, at least with the first one, this is what happened - The city is saying "we're here to give inspection for license. You have things here prepared prior to licensing. (Prepared off site?) These things can not be served, sold, etc. They must be destroyed because we can't be sure you won't serve or sell them."

In the NPR story it says " Many of the tenants started their business at home." They can't use anything they prepared at home, is my understanding.

I think, though, there's some wiggle room that's causing confusion - they also apparently can't use anything that was prepared in the location prior to the inspection...I assume in a shared kitchen there might also have a shared pantry with shared supplies? It also seems that the "can't use anything prepared at home" wasn't made clear at the time they applied for the license, since these were businesses that existed prior to using the kitchen, from what I gather.

I gather that Chicago is assuming that these businesses are setting up little, divided, completely segregated businesses in a shared space, which is a somewhat unreasonable assumption on their part. Either a shared kitchen is allowed or it isn't.

Another point - we're slowly edging in the direction of ALL foods needing to be prepared in a commercial kitchen by a licensed broker - what happens to school bake sales and potlucks if that's the case? I can see where there are some health standards everyone should subscribe to, but there are limits.

What concerns me most about this entire story isn't the people who've lost their ingredients and finished foods, though that is definitely brutal. It's the people who own Kitchen Chicago (and other shared kitchens), who have a lot more money on the line than the individual customers who use their space(s). What I've read, at least in the case of Kitchen Chicago, indicates that they went to the city for clarification of the rules and regs before diving into this project and now, due to frustrating, flip-flopping beaurocracy, stand to lose 'everything' they've invested. The city moving the goalposts has almost instantly converted their business from something viable to one that's on the brink of becoming obsolete. As Mhays implies, one important lesson here is that the city of Chicago isn't the only game in town. It's clearly not a conducive place to start a (food-related) business. Given the current economic climate, I'm guessing there are many better options out there, as reasonable communities compete to host businesses that will increase their revenue streams.

=R=

Yes, it appears that the city is incapable of telling you how to do it right, and so you are pretty much doomed to get it wrong and suffer this kind of potentially business-ending loss. I don't see, as it was all described, how a place like this could ever have its initial inspection without having everything on the premises trashed (because it was there pre-inspection). But would they inspect an empty, unused facility and license it? I doubt it, but who knows? You could probably get as many answers to these questions as phone calls you make.

I think this has to call into question the viability of things like the Green City Market as a city-promoted venue for promoting local, healthier food and a regional food system— why create those connections between farmers and chefs and so on if you've got a lunkhead bureaucracy who's going to follow right behind and destroy them? How long before GCM itself is raided by someone who by the way has some very good friends at connected vegetable distributors?

According to this WBEZ blog page, part of the problem was this:

Frances Guichard, food protection director at the Chicago Department of Public Health, says the city found no unsanitary conditions. Guichard says many of the businesses, rather, hadn’t labeled their storage areas and lacked receipts for some of the ingredients.

...

“It’s ridiculous,” Leverenz told me as the inspectors filled her garbage bins with food. “What purpose does this serve?”

Plenty, responds Guichard, who calls the paperwork vital for keeping tabs on the food’s transport, preparation and storage. “If someone gets sick, you can track it back to the source,” she says.

Whenever new details seem to emerge slowly like this, I think it is a sign that there's more to the story than a simple bad-guy, good-guy thing. Hopefully the city will establish, if they haven't already, clear rules for these shared kitchens.

Darren72 wrote:According to this WBEZ blog page, ...

The second comment under that linked article is an interesting one. A call to action directed at LTHForum from the Chicago Public Radio web editor.

So basically, government protects us from the possibility of bad fresh fruit one day, and the next day it announces an initiative to get kids to eat more fresh fruit. (Because the answer to government is always more government.)

Darren, I don't think the issue is so much that there may not be some logic here but it's obvious that Kitchen Chicago wasn't remotely expecting this action when they called for an inspection. Which means to me, by definition, that even someone who appears to have been pretty diligent about getting into the food business may well have NO FRICKIN' IDEA what the rules are and how they'll be applied by any guy from the city on any given day. Does anyone think that that is a system that will encourage better food, create new businesses and jobs within the city, make fat kids thinner or any other social good that you can think of?

Mike G wrote:Does anyone think that that is a system that will encourage better food, create new businesses and jobs within the city, make fat kids thinner or any other social good that you can think of?

No and it won't really make our food safer, either, which is deeply ironic.

=R=

As others have noted, information about this is coming in bit by bit, and it's easy to jump to incorrect conclusions. Based on what I've read so far, as sad as this certainly is for these businesses, it sounds like the city is being mostly reasonable, and some of the businesses have tried to get away with things that they really ought have known could get them in trouble.

At first, when the businesses tried to apply for licenses, the city said no, because there can only be one license per address. Wouldn't that mean to a reasonable person that you cannot legally sell food in this city? When the city refused to give these people a license, was it really reasonable for them to interpret that to mean that they could go about their business anyway? It certainly wouldn't sound that way to me, yet these businesses sidestepped what they'd been told and continued selling food anyway.

Rather than punish people for ignoring what seems like a pretty clear rule, the city tried to adapt to an emerging business model by reconsidering its original stance. OK, they said, we'll try to work with this innovative way of doing things. You can all apply for licenses now, which means you'll have to pass a Health inspection. Unreasonable? Not to me.

Regarding the inspection itself, details are sketchy at best. Initial reports said that food was thrown out because of a licensing issue, not a safety concern. More recent reports seem to say that food was thrown out because of poor labeling and record keeping. If the latter turns out to be true, then - while I still have sympathy - I chalk it up to the steep learning curve new restaurant owners/ food businesses often have. Clear labeling and documentation of source ingredients are not new requirements in the food biz, and only someone with quite a bit to learn would be surprised to have his/ her stuff thrown out if those practices were not followed.

Kenny Z's points are, unfortunately, correct (meaning "unfortunate" for the businesses, not because Kenny was right ). Even if the businesses were diligently trying to obtain the correct information and valiantly attempting to comply "as best they could," the business is still taking a risk if they choose to operate without clearly stated, written guidelines as to what is required. The answer, unfortunately, can't be, "we tried to comply but couldn't get a straight answer so we did the best we could"--when it comes to enforcement agencies such as this one, the response will likely be a traumatic one if you get caught on the wrong side of their rules--even if that seems like an unfairly shifting landscape.

Now, hopefully, the good that comes from this is that now there's one more reason for the City to find ways to support, rather than detract from "good" food initiatives (feeding the hungry, entrepreneurial businesses offering healthful food options, etc.). The Trib article spotlighting the ridiculous communication/policy gaffes leading to the waste of perfectly good, unused food in the Chicago Public School system is another.

If LTH members can find a way to get behind that, I think we should. As with any issue, the City's default is substandard service--squeaky wheels get a bit more effort towards less-byzantine processes and clearer communication. If the community makes it clear that this matters, someone may realize that it would be good PR and good business to iron out the licensing inconsistencies and process snarls. Foie gras anyone?

It's difficult for me to comment on what's happened because an organization I'm affiliated with shares a floor with Alexis & Jeff & Kitchen Chicago. I benefit nearly every day from the wonderful smells that come out of Kitchen Chicago and the smiles and hellos from the people who use that space. It makes me very sad to see their doors closed and locked. However:

boudreaulicious wrote:Now, hopefully, the good that comes from this is that now there's one more reason for the City to find ways to support, rather than detract from "good" food initiatives (feeding the hungry, entrepreneurial businesses offering healthful food options, etc.). The Trib article spotlighting the ridiculous communication/policy gaffes leading to the waste of perfectly good, unused food in the Chicago Public School system is another.

If LTH members can find a way to get behind that, I think we should. As with any issue, the City's default is substandard service--squeaky wheels get a bit more effort towards less-byzantine processes and clearer communication. If the community makes it clear that this matters, someone may realize that it would be good PR and good business to iron out the licensing inconsistencies and process snarls. Foie gras anyone?

Well, well said.

So--who is reading this and knows how we can help? I'm sure that there are plenty of people willing to do something-the question is "what"? Is there a politically savvy "foodie" amongst us? If so, let us know what will give us the biggest bang for our noise??

At first, when the businesses tried to apply for licenses, the city said no, because there can only be one license per address. Wouldn't that mean to a reasonable person that you cannot legally sell food in this city?

if it was me, I'd have tried to use my home address for the business license and listed the operating address as kitchen chicago.

At first, when the businesses tried to apply for licenses, the city said no, because there can only be one license per address. Wouldn't that mean to a reasonable person that you cannot legally sell food in this city?

This is what doesn't make sense to me: Kitchen Chicago was set up, well before these incidents, specifically as a shared kitchen space. Either shared space is allowed or it isn't - if shared space isn't allowed (which I understand completely, a municipality may legitimately decide it's too much trouble,) how was Kitchen Chicago allowed to open in the first place? I vaguely remember at the outset reading that they jumped through many hoops to make the "shared" concept work, and I could see how someone working with them would assume that the initial response from the City was incorrect for this reason.

I think the real problem is that the City of Chicago doesn't understand the word "share."

My suggestion to those of you who live in Chicago is to write letters to your Alderman asking for, at the very least, clarification.

Mhays wrote:

At first, when the businesses tried to apply for licenses, the city said no, because there can only be one license per address. Wouldn't that mean to a reasonable person that you cannot legally sell food in this city?

This is what doesn't make sense to me: Kitchen Chicago was set up, well before these incidents, specifically as a shared kitchen space. Either shared space is allowed or it isn't - if shared space isn't allowed (which I understand completely, a municipality may legitimately decide it's too much trouble,) how was Kitchen Chicago allowed to open in the first place? I vaguely remember at the outset reading that they jumped through many hoops to make the "shared" concept work, and I could see how someone working with them would assume that the initial response from the City was incorrect for this reason.

I think the real problem is that the City of Chicago doesn't understand the word "share."

My suggestion to those of you who live in Chicago is to write letters to your Alderman asking for, at the very least, clarification.

Obviously I wasn't there to hear what the owners of Kitchen Chicago were told when they opened, and the various blog posts and articles shed very little light on that. I suspect it was something confusing. Shared kitchens are a newish concept, and I suspect one might have gotten 3 different answers from 3 different city officials trying to interpret how existing rules might apply to a situation they'd never encountered before. I think the owners are even quoted saying something to that effect. That said, the city seems to be clear about it now: you can have a shared kitchen, but any business owner running a food business out of that location needs to apply for his/her own license. Is there still confusion about that? It seems pretty clear to me, and I give them credit for making it so.

The question about why Kitchen Chicago was allowed to open just highlights that people have different definitions of "shared kitchen". It does not have to mean a kitchen shared by retail businesses to prepare food that's sold to the public. The current problems have to do with only one subset of Kitchen Chicago's - and any shared kitchen's - possible client base. The problems do not, as far as I can tell, affect startups who may be using it as a test kitchen to incubate their ideas, existing restaurants that want extra space to test out recipes or train staff, private citizens cooking for their friends, or other assorted potential customers.

The Chicago foodie world is likely to despise me for straying from the way more popular Down With Regulators theme gaining so much momentum. Sorry, and I do hope that Paula Haney, who started Hoosier Mama out at the old Kitchen Chicago location, still lets me have some of her now-legal pie.