Allegheny County health board answers questions on proposed restaurant grading system |

Allegheny County health board answers questions on proposed restaurant grading system

A proposal to post letter grades at the entrances of Alle­gheny County restaurants will improve food safety but not put eateries out of business, according to a document members of the county’s Board of Health received Wednesday.

The document, which health department staff prepared, answers concerns about the proposal posed by members of the restaurant industry, said department director Karen Hacker.

“We do feel that there’s some misunderstanding and miscommunication out there,” Dr. Hacker said. “We want to address that.”

The document identifies and answers eight criticisms of the grading proposal that restaurant owners commonly pose.

Health department officials said that the desire of restaurants to earn an A will improve food safety. In Los Angeles, where restaurants have had grades since 1997, establishments with a C reported a 1 percent drop in revenue, according to the document given to board members.

The Board of Health passed the grading proposal Sept. 3. It would post A, B and C grades that reflect how restaurants score on their health and safety inspections.

Allegheny County Council members must approve the plan before it takes effect. The proposal awaits a hearing in council’s Health and Human Services Committee. Councilman John Palmiere, chair of the committee, said a final vote could wait until next year.

Aaron Aupperlee is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7986 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.