Division of Food Safety

Division of Food Safety

AUTOMATED SYSTEM

What is the current criteria being used for the automated Pass or Fail functionality?

Any one of the specific citations involving lack of roach and rodent control, improper sewage disposal, and not complying with employee exclusion/restrictions triggers an automated fail rating
5 or more Priority citations accumulated in a single rated visit calculates a fail rating.

The Division stated they implemented modifications for the criteria by which the Pass or Fails were based. What were those modifications?

The Division evaluated the FIMS generated ratings based on feedback. The criteria were simplified and some modifications made.

The automated rating of Pass or Fail is now based only on priority violations.
Automated Ratings based on points and repeat violations is no longer being used as a determining factor.
The criteria for insects infestation resulting in a Fail was separated to be more specific to allow an automated fail to only be for rodents and roaches at this time. A separate citation was developed for insects and other pests which will result in an automated Pass unless justification is determined otherwise by the inspector. A third citation was developed which addresses harborage which will also result in an automated Pass
The Food Code requires that a direct connection may not exist between the sewage system and a drain originating from equipment in which food, portable equipment or utensils are placed. This is a priority citation, however, the Division does have a policy that firms who are currently permitted and who have a direct connection will be cited for the violation; however, correction is not required unless there is a backup into the equipment or other food safety problem. A remodel of a food entity requires the violation to be corrected and any new food entity permitted is required to have indirect connections unless provided an exemption to this requirement, in writing for the regulating plumbing authority. This priority citation will not be counted toward the 5 priorities for an automated Fail under the situation listed here.
The Food Code requires that a hose bibb have a backflow prevention device. This is a priority citation, however, an adjustment has been made and this citation will not be counted toward the 5 priorities for an automated Fail.

Many times, larger retailers such as Publix, Walmart, and Winn-Dixie are treated unfairly as opposed to other retailers. How will FDACS address fair and equitable inspection across the board?

All food entities are inspected based on the food processes conducted. Regardless of size, processes must be evaluated in a consistent and uniform manner. To provide a standardized inspection scoring system, 5 Priority citations result in an automated Fail rating in all firm types. The risk for foodborne illness is the same whether it is a large entity or a small entity. By defining Fail ratings on priority citations, a standardized evaluation is conducted on all firm types regardless of size.

Assessing Fail/Pass: Is there any tiered system for assessing if a fail or pass is applied? For instance, a warning could be offered with sufficient time to correct? By allowing the store to correct the situation, this falls in line with the FDA’s “Educate While We Regulate” mantra. Certainly, if the Priority violated is repeated on the next inspection, this could result in a failed inspection. The 2009 FDA Food Code under 8-405.11 (B) states: “considering the nature of the potential hazard involved and the complexity of the corrective action needed, the regulatory authority may agree to or specify a longer time frame, not to exceed 10 calendar days after the inspection to correct P and Pf violations.”

There is no tiered system for assessing if a fail or pass is applied as the same standardized, uniform and consistent system is used for all food entities. Section 8-405.11 of the 2009 Food Code was not adopted in Florida Statutes 500. The automated system was developed using the definition and criticality as guidance for priority citations as defined in the Food Code. The corrective actions taken regarding ratings and re-inspections in response to cited violations and Fail (and previous Poor) inspection ratings remains consistent as corrective actions taken for over 20 years for the previous system of Good, Fair, Poor. As in the past, when findings determined a Poor rating, the rating was issued and documented as such. This process remains consistent in the FIMS system. When violations are present that are determined to be a Fail rating, a Fail is issued and documented on the report. The food entity will receive a re-inspection on or about 14 days. This will allow inspectors to determine compliance with the previously cited violations. A rating is issued for the re-inspection and becomes the new rating for the food entity whether it is Pass or Fail.

Failed Rating due to Scoring: Is the rule that 5 Priority violations is an auto fail the same for convenience stores as it is for larger supermarkets/hypermarkets with multiple fresh departments? Similarly, larger supermarkets/hypermarkets could have many more core violations than a small grocery store or convenience store. For example, having torn pipe insulation in a freezer, chipped paint on a display case due to a customer’s grocery cart, and employees wearing jewelry can add up more quickly in larger store versus small stores. It seems the determination for defining a failed inspection based on Priority violations alone should be adjusted for the size of the facility.

To provide a standardized inspection scoring system, 5 Priority citations result in an automated Fail rating in all firm types. The risk for foodborne illness is the same whether it is a large entity or a small entity. By defining Fail ratings on priority citations, a standardized evaluation is conducted on all firm types regardless of size. Torn pipe and chipped paint are not priority items.

Repeats: Does a repeat refer to the prior inspection only, or does it go back further beyond the last previous inspection? Are repeats cumulative for all past inspections? Can a violation from one department in an inspection in 2015 (e.g. deli) results in a repeat (and possible failed inspection) from a different department in an inspection in 2016 (e.g. produce)?

A repeat citation goes back to the previous rated inspection and will reflect as a repeat when cited on two consecutive rated visits. There is no time limit between rated inspections. Repeat citations are not separated by department or by specific observation but rather by specific citation.

What is considered a repeat violation? Is it the citation description that is repeat or the equipment? For example; Citation “non-food contact surfaces of equipment not cleaned at a frequency necessary to preclude....” would this citation be defined as a repeat if it was found on a different piece of equipment the second time or is it just based on the citation number?

Repeats are calculated at the citation level not the violation level. A repeat citation is calculated when a specific citation has been debited on two consecutive rated inspection reports.

Who developed the scoring methodology and calculation?

The scoring methodology and calculations were developed by subject matter experts within the Division based on the FDA Food Code and the risk factors.

What external food safety experts were involved in the development, including anyone from industry or with UF IFAS?

The methodology and calculations were developed by subject matter experts within the Division based on historical ratings and inspection result information.

Does the FDACS Specialist have any discretion in the rating process? If they do, what does that look like and can you give examples of how that might be done? If they do not, why not?

The automated rating system is designed to issue a rating for an inspection based on the citations which were documented in the report. The system does have the option for an override by an inspector provided they have justification for the override. This would allow for ratings to be able to be changed from both Fail to Pass and Pass to Fail as deemed warranted. An example would be a sewage problem that was under control and the risk had been removed (as previously discussed). Ratings that are overridden are subject to review by management.

By taking the evaluation skills out of the hands of the Inspector, a combination of innocuous violations such as raw over Ready to Eat (RTE) foods and no separation of species for raw meat products may result in a failed rating. It that intent of the new process or is that unintended consequence of the process?

The violations mentioned above are designated as Priority violations in the Food Code and are significant sources of cross contamination. These are considered to contribute directly to the elimination, prevention or reduction to an acceptable level, hazards associated with foodborne illness or injury and there is no other provision that more directly controls the hazard. Because of the significance of the risk, these would be considered in the automated rating system.

CITATIONS IN REGARDS TO RATINGS

If a food establishment has sewage backup and uses active managerial control and stops all food processing and access to the affected area until resolution is achieved, would an automatic Fail rating still be issued if an inspection is conducted on the firm?

Plumbed Sinks vs. Air Gaps: Many older stores have permanently plumbed connections from the sink to the sewer system without an air gap. Inspectors previously advised us that our stores have been grandfathered in. These are also being cited and the points are deducted in the rating process. If they are “grandfathered”, can these be noted rather than cited for the record?

FDA 2009 Food Code: 5-402.11 (A) requires that a direct connection may not exist between the sewage system and a drain originating from equipment in which food, portable equipment or utensils are placed.

FDA 2009 Food Code: 5-402.11(D) allows for a warewashing or culinary sink to have a direction if allowed by law.

The Division does not have statutory authority to grandfather any violations. The Division does have a policy that firms who are currently permitted and have a direct connection will be cited for the violation; however, correction is not required unless there is a backup into the equipment. A remodel of a food entity requires the violation to be corrected and any new food entity permitted is required to have indirect connections unless provided an exemption to this requirement, in writing, from the regulating plumbing authority.

Water Intrusion: If we have a situation with a drain backed up, a busted drain line, cooling equipment condensation, or a roof leak and the store has already identified the process and is taking the appropriate steps to mitigate the situation, including diverting water to a container and awaiting the maintenance service provider to arrive, would this not indicate the retail operator is practicing Active Managerial Control? Citing this as a Priority violation leading to a failed inspection does not seem appropriate when the retail operator clearly has control of the situation.

This issue can be categorized as a general question of concern for any violation that exists whether there is active managerial control or not. If a violation exists it is the responsibility of the inspector to document it regardless of whether the PIC is proactive or not. The violations specified in the question are not necessarily all priority violations. Likewise, not all of the specified violations would cause an entity to fail an inspection. There’s a greater risk if a roof leak is over a food preparation area than if it is over the mop sink. In the case of a wastewater back-up, the level of concern is much greater if the wastewater is blackwater (sewage carried off by toilets, urinals, kitchen sinks, etc.) as opposed to graywater (wastewater from laundry, handsinks, etc.) A blackwater issue may be an imminent threat to public health, even if the PIC is already trying to rectify the situation. An inspector may determine if an override is warranted for a failed inspection rating if the violation that would usually cause a failure was already under control, and affected Food, Utensils, Equipment, Linens, and Single Service items (FUELSS) and processing areas were appropriately handled prior to the inspector’s arrival.

Pest Infestations: What defines pest infestation for different type of pests, including ants, small flies, large flies, rodents, roaches, birds and stored product pests (e.g. weevils, beetles, and/or Indian meal moths)? Is there a number or is this subjective to the inspector? What “evidence” would trigger a fail for each of these types of pests? Would “infestation or evidence of” at the exterior weigh the same as the interior? Would two or more flies in a store result in a failed inspection?

FDA 2009 Food Code: 6-501.111 states the premises shall be maintained free of insects, rodents and other pests and that the presence of insects, rodents and other pests shall be controlled to eliminate their presence on the premises. The Food Code does not define a number but rather indicates the premises shall be maintained “free”.

The citations which can be issued for Violation #36 – Insects, rodents, & animals not present are:

Premises not maintained free of roaches and rodents; not controlled by routinely inspecting incoming shipments of food and supplies for evidence of pests; routinely inspecting the premises for evidence of pests; using methods, such as trapping devices or other means of pest control as specified under FDA 2009 Food Code: 7-202.12, 7-206.12, and 7-206.13 . 6-501.111 (A)(B)(C) AUTOMATED FAIL
Premises not maintained free of insects and other pests; not controlled by routinely inspecting incoming shipments of food and supplies for evidence of pests; routinely inspecting the premises for evidence of pests; using methods, such as trapping devices or other means of pest control as specified under FDA 2009 Food Code: 7-202.12, 7-206.12, and 7-206.13 . 6-501.111 (A)(B)(C)NOT AN AUTOMATED FAIL AND WIL BE ASSESSED TO DETERMINE CRITICALITY.
Premises not maintained by eliminating harborage conditions. FDA 2009 Food Code: 6-501.111(D)NOT AN AUTOMATED FAIL

Would old evidence that might be uncovered during an inspection such as old rodent droppings result in a failed inspection?

As part of active managerial control, the assessment and observation within the facility for rodent activity is necessary. Findings of rodents or evidence would result in a the citation Premises not maintained free of roaches and rodents; not controlled by routinely inspecting incoming shipments of food and supplies for evidence of pests; routinely inspecting the premises for evidence of pests; using methods, such as trapping devices or other means of pest control as specified under FDA 2009 Food Code: 7-202.12, 7-206.12, and 7-206.13. 6-501.111 (A)(B)(C) being debited and may result in a Fail rating.

Would a roach on a pest control report card result in a violation or failed inspection, as this is part of our good retail practices and pest prevention programs through Active Managerial Control?

The inspector does not determine violations based on third party observations but on their own observations.FDA 2009 Food Code: 6-502.112 states dead or trapped birds, insects, rodents, and other pests shall be removed from control devices and the premises at a frequency that prevents their accumulation, decomposition, or the attraction of pests. A single roach would not constitute a violation.

CITATION CLARIFICATION

Food Protection Manager Certification: Is the original CFM certificate required in the food entity?

Florida Administrative Code 5K-4.021 contains the Bureau’s rules regarding food manager certification. Entities are not required to provide an original food manager certificate on site but rather a copy, and it would be acceptable for the originals to be maintained at corporate headquarters. A violation of the requirements for food manager certification would not, in and of itself, cause an entity to fail an inspection.

Date Marking: What is exactly meant regarding date marking with priority foundation violations? Does this refer to open items without dates? There is not much information recorded by the inspectors that allow retail operators to understand what the violation means. Similarly, we understand required date marked items are not allowed for sale past 7 days after a container is opened.

3-501.17, 2009 FDA Food Code requires ready-to-eat (RTE), time/temperature control for safety (TCS) foods held cold for more than 24 hours to be date marked. This requirement applies to foods prepared onsite as well as commercially processed and packaged foods once they are opened, such as milk, deli meat, etc. [There are exceptions for specific food items – see paragraphs (E) and (F). In addition to the exceptions in paragraphs (E) and (F), foods packaged and displayed for retail sale are exempt from date marking.]

RTE TCS foods must be marked to indicate the date or day the food is opened or prepared OR the last date or day the food may be sold or served. Date marking may be done in many different ways including with a date, Day Dots, color coding, etc. If Day Dots are used and the entity uses the full 7-day shelf-life permitted, the entity must have procedures in place to ensure the Day Dot for today is not confused with the same Day Dot from one week ago (i.e., a RTE TCS food item opened or prepared Tuesday should be discarded at the end of the day the next Monday or the beginning of the day the next Tuesday before any new product is opened or prepared to ensure the food is not held for more than 7 days). If a color coding or other alternative type of date marking system is used, a key must be readily available to explain the date marking system (i.e., red = Friday, green = Saturday, etc.).