-As DHS scrambles to tighten standards on restaurants, some question motives, means

In response to a sensationalistic "exposé" series done by a local news program on the current status of restaurant health standards, the county Department of Health Services (DHS) has ushered in an array of stringent new policies and begun vigorously enforcing them. In the first week of December seventy-four county restaurants were shut down by the DHS. Simultaneously, legislation is currently on its way through the county Board of Supervisors which will force local restaurants to change the way that they do business. "All this for what?" some restaurateurs are wondering. Others confidently welcomed the new regulations, recognizing their potential to benefit the industry as a whole. Across the board, however, a general skepticism prevailed in regards to the role of seedy, ratings-oriented journalism in creating public hysteria and influencing governmental policy and enforcement.

Both Sharon Wanglin and John Schunhoff of the DHS were able to confirm, somewhat reluctantly, the causal role of the news story behind the new policies which the department has undertaken. Both seemed grudgingly appreciative, however, of the opportunity to elevate the standards of the agency. Among the steps already in effect, according to acting director of public health Schunhoff, an increased liberty to actually force closure of a given establishment seems to be the most visible. Closure, under the new standards, may be exacted in any situation where there is a perceived "threat" to public health, which may include anything from vermin infestation to unacceptable food temperatures. Previously, closure was only resorted to in situations where an establishment failed to pass the 100-point total evaluation twice in one year. Closed restaurants will also be forced to display a sign indicating the impetus of the closure, whereas previously, an innocuous "repairs" sign might have adorned the front door. To further the humiliation, and perhaps feed the public frenzy, the agency has begun posting a weekly list of restaurant closures on its web site. In order to field public comment, restaurant questions, and general snitching, the DHS has also created a hotline regarding restaurant health standards.

While DHS activities can be easily regulated within the agency itself, in order to expand the effect further into actual regulations of restaurant business operations, a new ordinance is awaiting final approval by the county Board of Supervisors. This legislation will require restaurants to post the results of inspections less than 70 out of 100, although these grades will be converted to letter format, apparently for no reason other than greater ease in public interpretation, but the historically minded may note the subtle nod to the puritan scarlet letter. All restaurants will also be under obligation to provide copies of inspection reports to any customer who inquires. Perhaps most interesting, and certainly most involved, is the condition that will require the presence of a "certified food handler" on staff at all times. The cost of certification may be absorbed by either restaurants or individuals, and training will amount to the equivalent of a one-day community college course. A certification fee, naturally, will be collected by the DHS. The new ordinance may be in effect within thirty days following final approval by the board at their December 16 meeting.

One local restaurateur pointed out the apparent injustice of continuing the punishment of businesses long after sanitary situations have been amended: "You get cited, you fix it up, they come back and check it out, but there's this thing hanging over you're head. It's too drastic". Another business owner voiced a similar concern: "I support DHS regulation, but they may be going overboard here". Specifically in regards to the certification condition, it seems clear that the smaller restaurants will be hit the hardest. Andrew Silber of the Whale and Ale pointed out, "I could see it being a real budgetary headache for the smaller ones". Furthermore, one regrettably finds the dogs of racism lurking somewhere in here. Clearly, ethnic and immigrant owned restaurants have suffered the worst of the closings to this point, and things will not be getting any better for them. The reasons for this are perhaps impartial, but considering the blatantly racist comments of one of the Channel 2000's web page visitors (a visitor from the Rush Limbaugh chat line, no less) regarding Mexican personal hygiene, and the DHS's primacy of inspection upon public complaint in tandem, one might argue otherwise.

The new legislation and policies, however, were not without their supporters. Some restaurateurs see this as a boon to the business, with the hope that the poorer restaurants will be weeded out, alleviating the current situation where the better restaurants "take the brunt of public and governmental abuse which is provoked by lesser establishments".

In the final analysis, however, the questionable motives of the Channel 2000 news story and the dramatic effect which the story has had on both the business and the governmental end of things has escaped no one's notice. Voicing a concern which seemed to unify the opinions of many in the business, Silber remarked, "No industry should be accountable to a TV network".

the DHS hotline number is 1-888-700-9995. Weekly closures can be found at http://www.dhs.co.la.us/