U-M Dorm Food: How Safe Is It?

by Lee Bockhorn & C.J. Carnacchio

The Michigan Review recently undertook an extensive investigation of food safety at the University's residence hall cafeterias and snack bars. Through the University's department of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health (OSEH), the Review obtained copies of reports from the semi­annual health inspections of the cafeterias and snackbars. (These documents are public record and available for public viewing.)

OSEH is a University department which provides health inspection services for U­M food establishments under an agreement with the Washtenaw County Department of Environmental Health. Dorm cafeterias and snack bars are inspected twice a year, as required by Michigan law. Inspectors review food safety with evaluation sheets designed by the state. These sheets list possible violations of the state health code which might be found at a food service establishment. In the past, these sheets assigned scores on a scale of zero to 100, with each violation subtracting a certain point value from a perfect score of 100, based on its importance. A score below 70 was considered failing. This practice, however, was ended in 1997. A new evaluation sheet was instituted which did not rate the food service facilities by scores, but instead listed the number of critical violations. Of 44 possible health violations, 13 are considered critical. Examples of critical violations include: foods being stored or served at improper temperatures, the presence of insects and/or rodents, improper storage of toxic cleaning materials, unsanitary food handling practices, and failure of sewage disposal systems. Some factors which may contribute to these violations are understaffing, occasional carelessness, the relative size of the establishment, and frequent staff turnover.

When violations are found by the inspectors, the facilities are either compelled to correct them immediately, or are given a certain time frame in which to rectify the problem. The time given to correct a violation depends upon the specific nature and severity of the situation; for example, a food temperature violation is usually corrected immediately, while a plumbing violation requiring the services of a professional contractor may be given a period of up to ten days.

Michigan state law, unlike several other states, does not require public notification when an establishment receives a failing score. According to Dan Lyon and Elizabeth Hall of OSEH, this is usually unnecessary except in the most severe cases, such as the outbreak of a foodborne disease (for example, e coli). They prefer to correct most problems by working with the establishment's management. Inspectors Al Hauck and David Wilson of the Washtenaw County Environmental Health Department concurred, saying they did not see any compelling reason to inform patrons of isolated poor scores.

"The score sheets should be taken with a grain of salt," said Wilson. "They're not necessarily accurate indicators of relative food safety. As an example, one restaurant may have a score of 95, with only one five point critical violation, but if the one violation is a number 27 (no hot water supply) which meant that the restaurant couldn't sanitize dishes, that would pose a much greater threat to food safety than another establishment which earned a score of 75, but only had non­critical or easily corrected critical violations. The biggest concern is not always what violations are found, but whether or not they are corrected in a timely manner."

This weakness in the 100­point score sheets is cited by Hauck and Wilson as the main reason why the state has changed the format of the evaluation sheets to simply note which violations are discovered, and how many of these are critical. Hauck also urged that isolated poor scores be considered in context. "Sometimes you just catch a place on a bad day."

The inspectors at OSEH and Washtenaw County do not see their relationship with the management of food service facilities as an antagonistic one; rather, as Lyon of OSEH stated, "One of our jobs is to go into a situation and help the manager assess the risks involved in his operation, and then help find a way to deal with those risks in a way that best protects the public."

The Scores: How Do U-M's Dorm Cafeterias Measure Up?

Overall the dormitory cafeterias' average scores, from 1987­1997, ranged from a low of 77.8 (East Quad) to a high of 97.7 (Martha Cook). During this ten year period, two dorm cafeterias received failing scores (scores below 70). The first was East Quad, with scores of 59 and 62 in 1987, and scores of 60 and a 68 in 1993. The second was Mary Markley with a 67 in 1987, a 68 in 1988, a 69 in 1995, and a score 64 in 1996. The average campus score overall for this ten year period was 87.0.

The four snack bars ranged from a low average of 85.3 (South Quad Snack Bar), to the high average of 92.4 (East Quad Snack Bar). The overall average snack bar score was 89.0 for 1987­1997.

So, is the food served to U­M students in the dorms safe? Are students in residence halls getting their money's worth from their cafeterias?

Based on the data, if we accept the abberation of an occasional poor score, it appears that U­M dorm cafeterias are doing a relatively decent job of providing a safe dining environment for students. Whether students are getting their money's worth is a matter of opinion. MR

This article was published in the 11 March 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 16, Number 8).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.