Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Name and shame dodgy restaurants: yes/no?

By steve_aust - 17 February 2011 24

The ACT Government is considering whether to ”name and shame” restaurants which breach hygiene standards or to introduce a more comprehensive hygiene ”star-rating” system for all food businesses.

ACT Health has refused to release the names of the restaurants which were subjected to breach hygiene orders because the information could ”unreasonably affect” the affairs of the businesses’ owners.

It was reported recently in The Canberra Times an Ainslie woman, Esther Agostino and her partner began suffering stomach cramps about 30 hours after they ate dinner in an unnamed north Canberra restaurant.

It was later discovered they had contracted salmonella and had to be cared for by the women’s mother who took time off work to care for the couple.

It was also reported that Ms Agostino was taken back to hospital by ambulance after becoming violently ill again and is now taking powerful antibiotics. She and her partner both lost several kilograms and have still not recovered their health.  Tests confirmed the couple had salmonella and that that infection almost certainly occurred in the restaurant.

Ms Agostino said the public should be informed when a business breached food safety standards.
Do you agree?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
24 Responses to
Name and shame dodgy restaurants: yes/no?
1
Spoono 9:37 am
17 Feb 11
#

Salmonella can “unreasonably effect” some people’s lives i.e. = death. Name and shame, they should get a web site and database like NSW health.

I wonder how the ‘star’ system would work? One star for Salmonella, two stars for Listeria,
Three for a 24hr wog and four stars for mild diarrhea and 5 stars for a-ok.

Report this comment

2
colourful sydney rac 9:43 am
17 Feb 11
#

Yes. Name and shame.

Report this comment

3
trix 9:49 am
17 Feb 11
#

Not for a one-off – that can happen to any establishment. For restaurants that fail their inspections, yes. There are other places that follow a “traffic light” system, showing the minor, moderate and major breaches of the health regulations. This seems fair.

Report this comment

4
Davo111 10:01 am
17 Feb 11
#

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Yes. Name and shame.

totally agree. All offences, with descriptions explaining the issues

Report this comment

5
threepaws 10:28 am
17 Feb 11
#

Yes, yes, yes!

I am sure that pregnant women would like to be reassured that their favourite restaurant is not serving up a tasy dish of salmonella, listeria and toxoplasmosis which could cause the death of their unborn child.

There are more serious consequences of food poisoning for some people than a case of the runs…

Report this comment

6
screaming banshee 10:32 am
17 Feb 11
#

Name and shame the people that dont pick up their game yes, but their should be a severity level to trigger the naming, or repeat low level offences that clearly they make no attempt to rectify.

Re the salmonella, 30 hours seems a bit of a stretch for first symptoms??

Report this comment

7
fernandof 10:34 am
17 Feb 11
#

Yes, name and shame. Even if it’s a single incident.

By refusing to publish the details of the establishments that failed hygiene inspection, the council is basically saying that the interest of the restaurant to do business is more important than the interest of the public to not get ill. I’m having real difficulties in understanding this decision.

Then again, I might be wrong here, and there’s an entirely different way to look into this matter. Anyone with formal knowledge around hygiene inspections care to clarify this for me?

Report this comment

8
Georges 10:57 am
17 Feb 11
#

Similarly name and shame dodgy sickie takers. A woman working for a large government department took two weeks off from work in 2009 claiming Salmonella poisoning at her work cafeteria. Although not news to her work colleagues who were by then copping a string of sickie excuses, it was certainly news to the cafeteria manager whom was never advised of the incident. Glad to report the Salmonella victim returned to duty, refreshed, hearty and healthy and apparently not an ounce lighter.

Report this comment

9
Diggety 11:00 am
17 Feb 11
#

No. The only reason I eat at Canberra restaurants is to strengthen my immune system.

Report this comment

10
Texpat 11:07 am
17 Feb 11
#

Yes! Name them, provide details of the breaches, post copies of the inspection reports, etc. Set up a website, send out tweets when there are problems, and more tweets if/when follow-up inspections are done and they get the all-clear.

Report this comment

11
Swidt 11:15 am
17 Feb 11
#

Definitely name and shame. People have a right to be informed of potential risks to their health.

Report this comment

12
Davo111 11:42 am
17 Feb 11
#

trix said :

Not for a one-off – that can happen to any establishment..

pretty sure the get warnings for first offences if they’re marginal health issues.

Report this comment

13
Buzz2600 11:46 am
17 Feb 11
#

screaming banshee said :

Name and shame the people that dont pick up their game yes, but their should be a severity level to trigger the naming, or repeat low level offences that clearly they make no attempt to rectify.

Agreed. There should be a severity level before making it public. Having worked in a number of eating establishments back in my uni days, I’d be surprised if there would be very many restaurant/cafes who would pass inspection every time! Being ‘named and shamed’ for minor breaches would be overkill but serious offenders should be outed in the name of public health and safety.

Report this comment

14
fernandof 1:38 pm
17 Feb 11
#

Buzz2600 said :

Having worked in a number of eating establishments back in my uni days, I’d be surprised if there would be very many restaurant/cafes who would pass inspection every time! Being ‘named and shamed’ for minor breaches would be overkill but serious offenders should be outed in the name of public health and safety.

So, why do many establishment fail to pass inspections?

Report this comment

15
boobook 1:59 pm
17 Feb 11
#

screaming banshee said :

Re the salmonella, 30 hours seems a bit of a stretch for first symptoms??

According to NSW Health – http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/factsheets/infectious/salmonellosis.html
“Symptoms often start 6-72 hours after infection.”

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site