L.A. County Department of Public Health should re-evaluate its vague grading procedures

Naturally, as college students, there are few things we look for in a good restaurant ““ it must be affordable, open late and satisfying. Oddly enough, however, adjectives like “sanitary,” “clean” or “unadulterated” rarely make it onto the list.

Perhaps this is because we have come to rely on the Food Facility Rating system developed by the L.A. County Department of Public Health to determine sanitation for us.

The big, blue letter “A,” when displayed on a restaurant’s storefront window, has become a demarcation of good practice and integrity; one would assume that if a restaurant receives this letter grade, it is a credible and hygienic facility.

But the current grade distribution for restaurants is quite deceiving. In the L.A. County alone, 80 percent of restaurants are reported to meet the criteria for an A rating.

However, there exists varying degrees of health violations within the A range, and because of this reality, the rating system, as it is presented to the public via storefront signs, needs to be far more detailed.

Online, through the L.A. County Department of Public Health’s website, a plethora of information regarding the grading specificities is available. Almost every single restaurant in Westwood is listed with its individual grade breakdown, which includes why points were deducted during their facilities inspection, and a complete list of violated health codes.

Enzo’s Pizzeria, for example, received a 91 percent overall and is in violation of a code labeled by the Food and Drug Administration as “major,” which implies potential contamination and sanitation issues. Additionally, Enzo’s violated a few lesser codes as well. Denny’s, Gushi and Fatburger, to name a few, struggle with sanitation problems that have also placed them in the low-A range.

Lamonica’s New York Pizza, on the other hand, received 96 percent overall. They violated only four trivial codes, which could be anything from not labeling a trash can, to having an excess of ice build up in their walk-in freezer.

Yet, regardless of their blatantly differing health conditions, all of these restaurants will still proudly display the same letter grade on their windows.

The diverse range of conditions found within the A range is unsettling, and there is no way of knowing whether a restaurant has a major health violation or several minor ones merely from the letter grade pressed upon its window pane. Therefore, what purpose do these signs really serve?

An A-rated restaurant can have refrigeration issues or improper raw egg storage. Both problems lead to an increased chance of contracting foodborne illnesses, such as salmonella or Norwalk virus, and this is something people should know before even stepping foot into a restaurant.

Although health risks are not made clear through the grade sign, the system is still transparent. Aside from finding the information online, customers can also ask the restaurant manager or owner directly for grade specificities. Legally, a facility has to provide that information, but the problem is that very few people inquire.

If an A-rated restaurant has major health violations, restaurants rated “B” must be far worse. A handful of restaurants like Ami Sushi and Mr. Noodle in Westwood have recently received B ratings yet still remain popular among Bruins. Regardless of the rating, it still proves worthwhile to further investigate the details of the restaurant-specific health conditions.

“For facility ratings, a lower grade, in general, means more problems overall,” said Jonathan Fielding, director of the L.A. County Department of Public Health and health officer for the L.A. County. “It’s a continuum, just like your grades in school.”

But if restaurant ratings are meant to mimic our grades in school, then there should be a more telling grade distribution that holds restaurants more accountable for their specific health standards. The real solution is to create a system where the letter grades displayed on a restaurant’s storefront window matches their detailed online assessments.

Though costly, a potential idea could be to create individualized signs including each restaurant’s specific percentage alongside their letter grade. Currently, the grade signs on the restaurants’ windows do not represent the differences between an A- and an A ; having individual percentages visible would mend that ambiguity, said Dr. Christian Roberts, a lecturer in UCLA’s School of Nursing and a nutrition expert. This solution would apply to B and C ratings as well, as their percentage spectrum is just as broad.

A detailed rating sign would aid diners by drawing immediate attention to the seriousness of potential health repercussions after eating contaminated food while simultaneously removing blind trust in the blanketed A rating.

If customers see that restaurants have A-‘s rather than A’s, there will likely be a drop in business. This negative effect may give eateries more of an incentive to maintain top-notch health standards, improving the quality of Westwood dining overall.

Having nationwide, regulated standards by which restaurants must follow is a necessity. The whole idea of inspecting retail food establishments is to keep Los Angeles healthy by preventing foodborne illnesses that can be avoided. The L.A. County Department of Public Health needs to stay true to its objective and start implementing it on the most iconic feature of their system: the facility rating signs.

Think health ratings are an easy A? Email Rubin at [email protected]. Send general comments to [email protected].