Food service health inspectors' opinions on the reporting of inspections in the media. (Features).

Introduction

Food safety is one of the most important issues facing the food service industry and it continues to dominate headlines across the nation. In recent research conducted by the International Food Safety Council in Chicago (Featsent, 1998), 52 percent of consumers reported that food safety has become more important to them than it was a year before, and 79 percent of those surveyed indicated that they had seen media coverage of food safety in recent months. Outbreaks of foodborne illness are estimated to cost up to $23 billion per year to food service establishments, consumers, and the national economy (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 1995). These outbreaks are thought to cause up to 76 million cases of foodborne illness, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year (Mead et al., 1999).

Health department inspection reports on restaurants are open to the public, but until recently were not widely read. Historically, consumers interested in inspection results for a particular restaurant had to visit the health department and request to look at the records. Health departments were sometimes reluctant to share results because of the concern that records might be lost, stolen, or altered.

Recently, because of growing consumer interest in food safety, results from restaurant inspections have become more widely available through newspapers, radio, and television. In addition, results may also be made available on Web sites or through telephone hotlines.

A variety of methods are used in cities that publish such information. Outlets generally include newspapers, television, and radio reporting done on a daily, weekly, biweekly or monthly basis. In addition, some cities, such as Atlanta; Denver; San Francisco; Oakland, California; New York; and Raleigh, North Carolina, either have searchable databases or post lists on their Internet sites (Downey, 2000; Lueck & Macfarquhar, 2000; Martin, 1998). Telephone hotlines with current inspection results are being used in some areas.

The type of information made available also varies widely. Some jurisdictions report only scores from the last inspection, while others include more complete descriptions of violations. In a few cities, previous inspection results also are included. Numerical scores, percentages, and letter grades are some of the ways that the inspection reports are summarized in the media.

The type of information reported depends in part on the type of food service inspection system used by the local health department. Inspections, as outlined in the Food Code, are the primary tool a regulatory agency uses for detecting procedures and practices that may cause foodborne illness and for taking actions to correct deficiencies (U.S. Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 1999). They may include the traditional system, a newer sys tem of analyzing critical and noncritical violations (as outlined in the 1999 Food Code), or a hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP)--based system, as well as variations on these methods.

The traditional scoring still used by some health departments relies on a demerit system and deducts points for each violation from a possible score of 100 points (Educational Foundation of the National Restaurant Association, 2000). Critical violations are valued at 4 to 5 points, and non-critical violations are worth 1 to 2 points. The simplest way to interpret this kind of score is by way of an analogy with a 100-point pass/fail test. Some health departments may even assign letter grades as a reflection of how well the operation performed during the inspection (Fielding & Ulene, 2000). For instance, a health department might assign a grade of A for a score of 90-100 points, B for a score of 80-89 points, and C for a score of 70-79 points. More complex systems might interpret results by including scores from previous inspections to analyze trends over time.

Many health departments have been moving to newer inspection scoring systems that include the use of HACCP methodology or to a system that monitors the number of critical and noncritical violations. The HACCP-based inspection is different from the traditional inspection system in that it focuses on the flow of potentially hazardous foods and observes food from receiving until the time it is served rather than simply doing a "walk-through" to observe the establishment at a given point in time (U.S. Public Health Service, FDA, 1999). During a HACCP-based inspection, times and temperatures of potentially hazardous foods are evaluated and compared against critical limits established for those food products. In addition, the handling of food, as well as the establishment itself, is observed with a focus on critical periods of time when the risk of contamination is greatest. HACCP-based inspections also are considered useful because they help educate managers and employees about implementing or improving the establ ishment's own HACCP-based food safety program.

The other new inspection system based on the monitoring of critical and non-critical violations is different from the traditional system in that it notes whether these violations are first-time or repeat violations (U.S. Public Health Service, FDA, 1999). Multiple violations of the same type (for example, more than one employee without a hair restraint) may also be tracked. This system is thought to provide more information for restaurants and health inspectors, but may be more difficult for consumers to interpret because there is no single summary result or number against which different restaurants can be compared. Consumers might have a number of questions about interpretation, including the following:

* How serious is a critical violation as compared with a noncritical violation?

* How many of each kind of violation are acceptable?

* What is a failing score?

* How do I compare different restaurants with different numbers of critical and noncritical violations? and

* What is my level of risk eating in these establishments?

Inspection systems (of any type) originate in the intention to give feedback to food service establishments and to enable them to exchange information with inspectors, as well as help regulate the food service industry so that the public's risk of foodborne illness is minimized. These systems were not originally intended to provide restaurant food safety information to the public. As a result, media reporting of inspection results may create several potentially serious problems.

The public is more likely to misunderstand or misinterpret the results than are health inspectors or restaurants. In addition, members of the public may not have an adequate understanding of the process and may not have the access to previous inspection results necessary to understanding individual inspection results as a pattern of compliance or noncompliance. The public also does not have access to the exchange of information that takes place between inspectors and restaurant operators, which would help clarify the results.

To further complicate the situation, the media may attempt to simplify the interpretation of results for the public by using a single number, percentage, or letter grade. Restaurateurs, realizing that it only takes one poor inspection report to turn customers away, fear that a single score representing a "snapshot" picture of the restaurant may not fairly reflect sanitation efforts within their restaurants over time (Liddle & Walkup, 1998).

In addition, to obtain maximum interest, newspapers may use catchy titles such as "The Daily News, Dining Hall of Shame or "Eat, Drink, and Be Wary" (Downey, 2000). Resulting misinterpretation of scores in newspapers has resulted in lawsuits between restaurants and the media (Journal-Gazette v. Bandido's, 1999).

Despite the potential problems, consumer interest in media reporting of food service sanitation is clearly evidenced by the impact of negative publicity on restaurant food sales. The 1993 E. coli O157:H7 foodborne-illness outbreak in Jack-in-the-Box restaurants, in which three children died and more than 300 people became sick after eating contaminated burgers, resulted in a 22.3 percent chainwide loss of sales. In the aftermath of a recent E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in Sizzler restaurants in Oregon, sales fell between 20 and 40 percent, and in the first day after the initial news reports of the outbreak, Sizzler's stock price fell to its lowest level in a year (Martin, 1993).

Media reporting of inspection results has been hotly debated by health inspectors. Some inspectors favor media reporting because they believe that the public has the right to make informed choices on where to eat. Supporters may also favor the greater visibility of inspection reports because they believe that it improves food service compliance and therefore inspection results. Others oppose media reporting because of the difficulty consumers have in accurately interpreting inspection results, or because media reporting may aggravate an adversarial relationship between health inspectors and food service establishments by causing the establishments to fear the loss of food sales that occurs with a publicized poor inspection report. Other possible impacts include an increase in the public's awareness of food sanitation, an increase in the number of consumer complaints health departments receive about restaurants, and an increased health department liability with regard to the accuracy of media reporting of insp ection results.

In summary, although media reporting of restaurant inspections is now occurring in a variety of ways, both health inspectors and the restaurant industry hotly debate the impact of media reporting. The purposes of the current study were to determine the attitudes of health inspectors in Indiana about media reporting, their perception of its impact on the inspection system, and the types of inspection systems and media reporting occurring in Indiana.

Methodology

Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire was developed from a literature review and anecdotal reports from state and county health departments in Indiana. The questions were grouped into three areas:

1. opinions about media reporting of rood service inspection scores,

2. health department practices regarding media reporting, and

3. general information about the health department.

The questionnaire was evaluated by an expert panel comprising two people from the Indiana State Health Department (including the head of food service inspections), the head of the Tippecanoe County Health Department, two food service inspectors responsible for food safety at Purdue University the president of NEHA, and food safety professors in the Hospitality and Tourism Management Department at Purdue University On the basis of recommendations received from the panel, the survey was refined and prepared for distribution.

The first section, an opinion section, questioned participants about the importance of media reporting of inspection scores and the value of reporting them through four different media: television, newspapers, radio, and the Internet. Questions solicited the importance of each type of media reporting for increasing customer awareness and the relative accuracy of each type when it comes to reporting scores. Finally, participants were asked which type of reporting media they would prefer to use to report scores and why.

The next section focused on the practices of health departments currently participating in media reporting of inspection scores. Participants were queried about the type of media reporting, the frequency with which scores were reported, and the percentage of scores reported. Questions also addressed how scores were selected for reporting, how scores were published, and who was responsible for preparing the report. The last series of questions in this section were opinion questions and dealt with the impact of reporting on public awareness, the number of consumer complaints received by the health department, concerns about the liability of the health department in reporting the scores, and the rate of compliance with health department requirements among local operations.

The final section solicited general information about the responding health department, including the type of inspection system being used, the length of time that system had been in use, the size of the department, and the area the department served.

Data Collection Procedures

The survey was mailed in October of 1999 to all 94 health departments in the state of Indiana. The surveys were addressed to the head of each department, based on a list of names provided by the Indiana State Health Department. Each survey was coded and tracked, and one week later, departments that had not returned their survey were sent a follow-up postcard. The coding was used only for the purpose of sending the follow-up postcard and was not entered with the data; anonymity of the respondents was thus protected.

Data Analysis

Microsoft Excel was used to enter the data from the questionnaires. Analysis was performed with SAS. The ordinal data were analyzed for frequency of response, and significance was determined with Chi-square statistics.

Results

Seventy-three of the 94 county health departments returned their surveys, for a 77.7 percent response rate. Over half (53.5 percent) felt that inspection scores should be disseminated via media reporting. The remaining participants were split between individuals who believed that inspection scores should not be reported through the media (22.5 percent) and those who did not express an opinion on the reporting of scores (23.9 percent).

The respondents' positions on media reporting of inspection scores were not correlated with the number of years they had been using their current inspection system. The majority (41) of the respondents had two or fewer years experience, followed by those with two to five years (10 respondents) and those with more than five years (nine respondents) of experience. Statistically, support for reporting was the same for all three groups: 56.1 percent, 50.0 percent, and 55.6 percent for two or fewer years, two to five years, and more than five years of experience, respectively.

Respondents' opinions on reporting of scores were highly correlated with current reporting procedures. Table 1 shows the breakdown of the relationship between current practices and opinions on reporting of inspection scores via the media. The majority of those responding, 55.9 percent (38 of 68), were not currently reporting scores though the media. Of those counties that were currently involved in media reporting, 23 out of 30 (76.7 percent) indicated that reporting of scores through the media was important. For those counties not currently reporting inspection scores through the media, the opinions were almost evenly split on reporting of scores, 13 (34.2 percent) for and 11 (28.9 percent) against. The remaining counties did not express an opinion on the issue. Almost all of the respondents that did not express an opinion on the issue were from counties that did not report the scores.

The type of inspection method employed by health departments did not have a statistically significant relationship, at alpha = .05, with either the respondent's opinion on media reporting of scores or the department's current reporting practices. The inspection system most often employed was the one outlined in the 1997 and 1999 FDA Food Code, which cites critical and noncritical violations. Fifty-eight of the respondents named this system as the one employed by their department. The next most commonly used method was the traditional demerit system; 12 departments reported using that system. Following behind the other two in popularity was the HACCP system outlined in the 1997 and 1999 FDA Food Code. Six departments reported using that system. Some departments reported using more than one system to rate operations. With one exception, all the counties using the HACCP inspection procedure were also using another inspection system.

Although the inspection method did not correlate with opinion or current practices, population of the area and number of restaurants for which the county health department was responsible were highly correlated with both opinion and practice. Both population and number of restaurants were divided into two groups. For number of restaurants, the dividing line was 200 restaurants, and for population, the dividing line was "over 60,000 people." Among health departments inspecting over 200 restaurants, 83.3 percent (15 of 18) of respondents thought they should report inspection scores to the media, compared with 58.8 percent (20 of 34) among counties inspecting 200 or fewer operations. The difference between the two groups was found to be even greater when it was based on current reporting practices. For those counties inspecting over 200 operations, 76.2 percent (16 of 21) of the operations currently participating in media reporting felt that it was important, compared with only 29.2 percent (14 of 48) of countie s inspecting 200 or fewer operations. It would be logical to expect areas with more operations to inspect to have larger populations; hence, for size of population the same relationship was found as for number of operations between population size and both opinion and practice. Ninety-two percent (13 of 14) of those serving populations over 60,000 felt that media reporting of inspection scores was important. That percentage dropped to 57.1 percent (20 of 35) when the population of the inspected area was 60,000 or less. As with number of restaurants inspected, the current practices in media reporting followed the same trend as the respondents' opinions on the issue, although the difference was not as pronounced. When the area population was greater than 60,000, 62.5 percent (10 of 16) of the counties currently participating in media reporting felt that it was important to do so, compared with 34.7 percent (17 of 49) when the population was less than 60,000. For the remaining questions asked of all respondents, no other statistically significant differences were noted between those who favored media reporting of inspection scores and those who did not.

All respondents were asked to rate the perceived accuracy of each type of media on a four-point scale, with 1 = "very accurate" and 4 = "not very accurate." Newspapers received an average score of 2.1, which was significantly better than the scores received by all other types of media, at alpha = .01. Scores did not differ significantly among the other three; their scores were 2.5, 2.5, and 2.6 for the Internet, television, and radio, respectively.

When respondents rated each media type on its ability to increase consumer awareness, television and newspapers came out on top with averages of 1.7 and 1.8, respectively The ratings were based on a 4-point scale, with 1 = "great increase" and 4 = "no effect." These two top scores were not significantly different from each other at alpha = .05, but they were both significantly better (at alpha = .01) than the scores received by the Internet and radio (3.1 and 2.5, respectively).

Based on the preceding ratings, it was not surprising that the media outlet overwhelmingly preferred for reporting of inspection scores was newspapers. Almost 90 percent of all respondents chose newspapers as the preferred media type. The next most popular media type was the Internet, the preferred choice of 13.6 percent of the respondents, followed by radio with 10.2 percent and television with 1.7 percent. A similar pattern was observed when those currently reporting media scores were asked which media they were using. Again, newspapers came out on top, with 81.3 percent of those currently reporting scores using this outlet. The next most popular media outlet was radio, at 12.5 percent, followed by the Internet and television, both at 6.3 percent. The total percentage for media usage adds up to more than 100 percent because some health departments are using more than one type of media to disseminate the results.

Once participants had selected a preferred media, they were asked to select reasons why they preferred that type of media. The top three reasons were "clearest way to report the scores," at 57.9 percent of respondents, followed by "most accurate way to present results," at 43.9 percent, and "results in the greatest public awareness," at 40.4 percent. The last two reasons for selecting a particular media were "least time commitment," at 33.3 percent, and "least expensive," at 28.1 percent.

Only health departments that were currently using the media to disseminate inspection scores answered questions in the final section of the survey When respondents were asked how often the media reported scores, the most frequent answer was once a month; 36.7 percent of the 32 respondents indicated monthly reporting. The next most frequent response, at 33.3 percent of the respondents, was that reporting occurred less frequently than once a month. The only other reporting period selected by at least 7 percent of the respondents was weekly reporting, at 20.0 percent.

The majority (66.7 percent) of respondents stated that the media reported 100 percent of the inspection scores. The next most frequent rate of reporting was 75-99 percent of the inspection scores; 23.3 percent of the respondents gave this rate. Only 10 percent stated that the media reported less than 75 percent of all inspection scores. Among those departments where less than 100 percent of the inspection results were reported, 55.6 percent left the selection of scores to report up to the media. Thirty-three percent of the health departments selected the scores to be released. In the remaining departments, the choice of which scores to report was a joint decision of the health department and the media. When respondents were asked what criterion was used to select results for publication, the most popular answer was that no criteria were used--the selection was left to the discretion of those making the decision. For those who did use selection criteria, the two most popular criteria were "inspection scores w ere held confidential for 10 days prior to being reported" and "only the scores for commercial restaurants were reported." In addition to publishing results of routine inspections, 71.4 percent of the respondents published results from the follow-up inspections, and 35.7 percent published repeat violations.

The most popular reporting method was to list the number of critical and noncritical violations. Over 80 percent of the departments reported results in that manner. Reporting of violations was often accompanied by a description of the violations; 41.9 percent of respondents utilized this reporting method. Finally, 25.8 percent of the respondents provided a numerical score either by itself or in conjunction with an account of violations. None of the respondents used a letter-grade system to report the results.

The final question was designed to gauge the impact of reporting food service inspection scores. Only individuals who were currently reporting scores were asked to respond to this question. The impact of media reporting was rated on a 7-point scale, with 1 equal to "greatly decrease," 4 equal to "no effect," and 7 equal to "greatly increase" (Table 2). Because of the limited sample size, however, responses were collapsed into three categories: "decreased," "no effect," and "increased." The vast majority of respondents thought that media reporting increased public awareness of food sanitation (92.9 percent) and restaurant compliance with health department sanitation requirements (96.3 percent). A majority of respondents (70.4 percent) also thought that reporting increased the number of complaints they received and the overall inspection scores of the food service operations. Most respondents felt that reporting did not affect the liability of the department either for the accuracy of the inspection score (76. 9 percent) or for the accuracy of media reporting (61.5 percent).

Even with the collapsed categories, the majority of the cells shown in Table 2 had counts less than five. While the low counts made it difficult to establish statistical significance, there were some apparent differences in opinions about the impact of reporting between those respondents who favored reporting and those who did not. Of those who favored media reporting of scores, 95.7 percent (22 of 23) felt that reporting would increase customer awareness, with half of those respondents indicating that the increase would be great. For those who did not favor media reporting, the number was significantly less, at alpha = .05; 80 percent (four of five) indicated that there would be some increase in consumer awareness as a result of media reporting, but none of them felt that the increase would be great.

While no statistically significant differences in the perceived impact of media reporting were found between the two groups (those who favored reporting and those who did not) for any of the other potential impacts, the results for the question about the impact on compliance suggest a need for further research. Among respondents who favored reporting, 100 percent (22 of 22) indicated that reporting would increase compliance of food service operations with health requirements. That number dropped to 80 percent (four of five) for respondents who did not favor reporting.

Conclusions and Discussion

The advantages and disadvantages of media reporting of restaurant inspection results have been hotly debated by health department officials. Results from this Indiana study found that the geographic areas of slightly less than half the respondents were already reporting inspection results in the media. It is clear, however, that some of the respondents to the survey see significant problems with reporting health scores. For the overall group, responses were clearly divided as to whether media reporting was advisable, with slightly over half favoring media reporting. Respondents were more likely to favor media reporting if they were from areas where reporting was already occurring, from areas with larger populations, or from areas in which more restaurant inspections were being done.

As expected, departments that currently are reporting scores responded more favorably about whether reporting should be done (76.7 percent) than did those not currently reporting scores (34.2 percent). While the percentage favoring reporting was significantly higher for respondents in jurisdictions where scores currently are being reported, the fact that almost 20 percent of the respondents in such jurisdictions did not favor media reporting (the remaining 3.3 percent expressed no opinion) indicates that some serious problems have been encountered with reporting of scores.

Newspapers were the media venue preferred for reporting, perhaps because they were rated as being the most accurate and the best at increasing consumer awareness, although television, too, received a high rating for improving consumer awareness. Newspapers also were found to be the type of media most commonly used for reporting results in Indiana.

The manner in which media reporting occurred varied considerably across Indiana. The survey found differences in how frequently the reporting occurred, what percentage of scores was reported, who selected the scores to be reported, whether follow-up inspections were reported, and whether repeat violations were reported.

On the positive side, respondents from areas with media reporting thought that the reporting raised the public's awareness of food sanitation, improved restaurant compliance with sanitation regulations, and raised overall inspection scores without affecting health department liability.

Limitations of this study include use of a limited geographic sample. Responses of health inspectors from other geographic areas may vary for numerous reasons, including differences in local food codes, inspection systems, and type of media reporting being done (if any); pressures from local government, consumers, and restaurateurs; and previous good or bad experiences with media reporting. A larger study using a national sample would be one suggestion for future research. Other suggestions include asking health department inspectors with no experience in media reporting what they believe to be the perceived impact of media reporting, as well as asking other groups, such as restaurateurs, consumers, and media representatives, their opinions about the impact of media reporting.

One final limitation to the study was that as of April 29, 2000, health departments in Indiana were required by Indiana law to move during the following year to an inspection system that monitors critical and non-critical violations (Title 410 IAC 7-20). This requirement means that the percentages of respondents using different systems in this study no longer represent inspection system use in Indiana. The advantage of this recent study, however, is that respondents using each of the inspection systems could be surveyed, as the type of inspection system clearly affects the form in which results may be presented to the public through the media.

Health inspectors' attitudes about the impact of media reporting were clearly divided. It would be important for future studies to address the issues underlying these attitudes. Because of pressure from the public and the media to report restaurant inspections, however, the publication of results is likely to grow. Many health inspectors will very likely need to deal with this issue in the future if their geographic areas do not already have media reporting. Health inspectors may be concerned about whether their inspections will be accurately reported and correctly interpreted for consumers without being overly simplified. Restaurants, of course, also have a vital interest in whether the inspection results from their operations are accurately represented in the media. It may be a fairness issue for restaurateurs that about a third of the respondents in this study said not all inspection scores were reported, with the selection most often being left to the media. Because of health inspectors' and restaurateurs ' mutual interest in reporting inspection results, one final area for future study might be to look at how these two groups might assist the media in clearly, accurately, and fairly providing food safety information of this type to consumers.

TABLE 1

Relationship Between Opinion About Reporting Health Inspection Scores
and Current Reporting Practice

                                           Current Practice

                                       Reporting      Not Reporting
Position on Reporting Scores            Scores           Scores

Scores should be reported                 23               13
Scores should not be reported              6               11
No opinion expressed on reporting          3               14
 of scores

Note: The were 68 responses. The Chi-square value of the table was
14.78, with 2 degrees of freedom and a probability of .0006.

TABLE 2

Perceived Impact of Reporting Food Service Inspection Scores in the
Media

                                      Impact of Media Reporting

                                Increase      No Effect     Decrease

Public's awareness of food     26 (92.86)     2 (7.14)      0 (0.00)
 sanitation
Number of consumer complaints  19 (70.37)     6 (22.22)     2 (7.41)
 received by department
Department's liability for     6 (23.08)      20 (76.92)    0 (0.00)
 accuracy of score
Department's liability for     10 (38.46)     16 (61.54)    0 (0.00)
 accuracy of media reporting
Restaurant compliance with     26 (96.30)     1 (3.70)      0 (0.00)
 sanitation regulations
Overall inspection scores      19 (70.37)     7 (25.93)     1 (3.70)

Note: Only departments already involved in media reporting of inspection
results answered this question. The number in parentheses is the
percentage for a given impact. The impact was rated on a 7-point scale,
with 1 = "greatly decrease," 4 = "no effect," and 7 = "greatly
increase." Because of the limited sample size, the responses were
collapsed into three categories: "decrease," "no effect," and
"increase."

REFERENCES

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1995). Foodborne pathogens: Risks and consequences. Ames, IA: Task Force of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology.

Downey, J. (2000). Restaurant ratings gain scrutiny Business Journal Serving Charlotte & the Metropolitan Area, 15(5), 25.

Educational Foundation of the National Restaurant Association. (2000). ServSafe coursebooks. Chicago: Author.

Featsent, A.W. (1998). Consumers' perceptions of food safety versus reality Restaurants USA, 18(6), 30-34.

Fielding, J., & Ulene, V (2000, October 9). Our health; Restaurant report card; Those ubiquitous letter grades at L.A. County food places are tough to miss. Here's a look at what the grading system means to consumers (home edition). The Los Angeles Times, p. 3.

Journal-Gazette Co. Inc. v. Bandido's, 712 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. 1999), No. 57 S03-9709-CV 495, 1999 WL 418697.

Liddle, A., & Walkup, C. (1998). Pandora's box or cyber revolution? Inspections media makeover. Nation Restaurant News, 32(80), 86-88.

Lueck, T., & Macfarquhar, N. (2000). Site listing restaurant inspection starts a feeding frenzy on the Web. New York Times, 149(51392), B1.

Martin, R. (1993). Oregon Sizzlers reopen following E. coli outbreak. Nation's Restaurant News, 27(15), 12.

Martin, R. (1998). Health audits evolve in era of food safety fears. Nation's Restaurant News, 32(8), 1-5.

Mead, P., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V, McCaig, L., Bresee, J., Shapiro, C., Griffin, P., & Tauxe, R. (1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5(5). http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm#Figure percent20l (20 Dec. 2002).

U.S. Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration. (1999). Food code. Washington, DC: Author.

RELATED ARTICLE: Practical Stuff!

* A survey of Indiana health inspectors was conducted to determine attitudes about the impact of media reporting.

* Slightly over half the respondents favored media reporting.

* In the geographic areas of slightly fewer than half of the respondents, inspection results already were being reported in the media.

* Newspapers were the preferred venue for media reporting.

* Among respondents who favored reporting, 100 percent indicated that reporting would increase compliance with health requirements.

* Among respondents who did not favor reporting, 80 percent believed reporting would increase compliance with health requirements.

* Respondents were more likely to favor media reporting if they were from

-- areas where inspection results were already being reported to the media,

-- areas with larger populations, or

-- areas in which more restaurant inspections were being done.

* Nevertheless, almost 20 percent of the respondents in jurisdictions already reporting scores did not favor media reporting.

* This result suggests that some serious problems have been encountered with reporting of scores.

* Among respondents from jurisdictions already reporting scores, about a third said that not all inspection scores were reported, with the selection most often being left to the media.

* A majority said that reporting had increased the number of complaints they received.

* A majority also thought that reporting increased overall inspection scores.

* Most felt that reporting did not affect the liability of the department either for the accuracy of the inspection score or for the accuracy of media reporting.

* Because of pressure from the public and the media, the publication of results is likely to increase.

* Many health inspectors will likely need to deal with this issue in the future.

* Restaurants also have a vital interest in the accurate representation of inspection results in the media.

* It might be helpful for future studies to look at how these two groups can assist the media to clearly, accurately, and fairly provide food safety information to consumers.

Corresponding Author: Barbara A. Almanza, Professor, Hospitality and Tourism Management, 1266 Stone Hall, HTM Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1266. E-mail: [e-mail].