Directors Group
<< Back to Directors
Letter to the Department of Agriculture Regarding Inspections

January 23, 2006

Mr. Robert Eadie
Chief Policy and Program Development Branch
Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service
Department of Agriculture
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 634
Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594

Dear Mr. Eadie:

I am writing this letter on behalf of the Minnesota School Food Service Directors expressing our expert opinion that two school food safety inspections per school year is ineffective. These inspections and data collection of the inspections are ineffective according to the dictionary because they will yield no useful result and will not have the desired effect.

As a Director of Food Service, I have consulted with other ServSafe trainers and NSFMI HACCP trained professionals in school food service. Linda Dieleman, Nutrition Services Manager, Saint Paul Public schools has conducted HACCP workshops in many states and has already sent comments to USDA in June, 2005. I now restate these comments.

The current inspection process does not accurately determine whether there is adequate managerial control to assure that food safety procedures are being followed. It is our belief that having two inspections will not improve it!

The current inspection process is often arbitrary and does not allow schools to provide the documentation that the food code is being followed. An inspection process that audits procedures taken to assure safe food would be more helpful to both the staff and to the public.

As trainers in both ServSafe and HACCP, Linda Dieleman and I have heard many incidents of so-called violations that were arbitrary and were not based on knowledge of food safety principles.

Example of false critical violation of improper hot holding:
A hamburger is cooked to the CCP (Critical Control Point), the temperature is recorded, and the hamburger is placed on a warmed bun, put in the steam table pan, and taken to the preheated steam table 5 minutes before serving time. When placed on the bun, the temperature of the hamburger drops 20 to 30 degrees. The inspector takes the temperature of the hamburger on the serving line and declares a critical violation regarding hot holding temperatures. When the supervisor/manager informs the inspector that the CCP was reached and recorded just 15 minutes before serving, the inspector continues to cite the critical violation of improper holding. The FDA food code allows for holding at certain temperature or serving within 4 hours. As long as there are procedures in place, schools are not in violation of improper holding temperatures.

“Time as a public health control” is approved by most, if not all, health departments for potentially hazardous foods. For example, the following could be the guidelines for a food safety program.
Hot Holding: Hold at 135º or 140º F or above (depending on code passed). The maximum time a product will be above 41º and below 135º or 140º F will never exceed 4 hours. The time and temperature of each cooked batch will be recorded on the daily temperature log.

When the media covers these stories, hot holding violations are frequent. The experts they consult fail to talk about time controls. This is not different than an inspector waiting to take the temperature of food once served at a table in a restaurant. To assure a safe burger, the school food service operations must purchase, receive and store the hamburger properly and then cook to the critical control point of 155º for 15 seconds. It is more important that the inspector checks that the hamburger reached the critical control point and that the flow of the product was under proper controls.

Example of false critical violation of improper cold holding:
Salads are made from cold ingredients and kept at refrigeration temperatures. They are pulled from the refrigerator in small batches, placed on the serving line and served within a 20 minute period. The inspector may cite the facility for improper holding because the food was not under constant refrigeration, even though the manager can prove that all salads are either served or discarded at the end of the serving time.

These reported violations are not indicative of the possible food safety risk, which brings up another point. It appears that most inspection agencies do not have a process for appealing inspection results. Even if the HACCP procedures are in place and followed, but the inspector reports critical violation of hot-holding, the inspection report is not corrected based on documentation provided by the facility. There is no assurance that the inspection process is based on proper application of food safety knowledge.

With regards to the pending legislation on collection of data, we believe it is more important that the local (state, city, or county) inspection and the state food and nutrition service agency observe school food safety operations and hold the schools responsible for taking appropriate action, verses spending time to collect and post data that may give the public false security or false alarm.

The requirements that inspections be conducted by state and local agencies and then require another agency (state FNS) to audit and submit those inspections to the federal Food and Nutrition Service seems like adding a level of bureaucracy for the sole purpose of data collection. In this day of reducing budgets and government staff, such added bureaucracy does not seem appropriate.

There are 87 counties in Minnesota. Forty seven (47) counties (approximately 700 schools) are inspected by the MN Department of Health. To cover the cost of additional inspections, staff has been added, fees for inspections have increased and the cost of the 2nd inspection is $300. Other school districts are inspected by their city or county who set their own fees. License fees have been raised 200 to 400% to cover the burden of two food safety inspections.

Rather than ineffective food inspections, research and data analysis by networks of health departments and Center for Disease Control identify strengths and weakness of food safety programs from the original food source to the customer. This provides information about foods that may be potentially hazardous and enhances our food safety program. Active managerial control and continuing education are needed to provide safe food. Food service personnel must be committed to food safety. The Minnesota Food Code requires that there be a certified Food Manager at school food service operations. In order to be certified, a manager must take an authorized food safety course, pass an approved exam, and then recertify every 3 years with continuing food safety education. In states where this is not required, there is definitely a difference in knowledge. Also, by July 2006 all School Food Service operations must have a written food safety plan in place. Minnesota School Food Service Directors believe the proactive approach of having trained managers/supervisors is more important than having more inspections. Furthermore, the data collection from inspection reports does not serve a purpose when the inspection process itself has so many weaknesses.

Sincerely,