Food Code is in JCAR!!!!!

 FOOD SERVICE
DPH proposed amendments to
Food Service Sanitation Code (77
IAC 750; 40 Ill Reg 1503) that
incorporate the US Food and
Drug Administration’s model
2013 Food Code and repeal
numerous Sections of the present
code to avoid conflict, duplication
or inconsistency with the FDA
Code. Food service establishments
and local health
departments are affected by this
rulemaking.
Questions/requests for copies/
comments on the 4 DPH
rulemakings through 3/7/16:
Elizabeth Paton, DPH, 535 W.
Jefferson St., 5th Fl., Springfield IL
62761, 217/782-2043, e-mail:
rules@idph.state.il.us

Thanks Chris.

Three major issues I see with these proposed rules:
1. Sets an implementation date of Jan 01, 2017. This is impossible but I guess IDPH is used to setting impossible implementation dates that they finally get around to years later. WE need to fight for language to be changed that will establish a minimum of a year implementation date after adoption that begins at the start of the following calendar year.

2. Rescinds the entire section on Temporary Food Rules. I have absolutely no idea where this came from. The mobile food rules I understand since mobile food stands are covered in the FDA Code. There is nothing in the FDA Food Code that covers Temporary Food Stands. These rules need to be reinstated and when new rules are proposed they will replace what is currently in the code.

3. Another huge issue revolves around what a "repeat violation" is as it pertains to the grading system matrix. A huge discussion topic within workgroups that a concensus agreed should be "a repeat violation is a violation occurs at the same location in the same area". I have heard different definitions from the workgroups that IDPH believes is a repeat violation. This cannot be left up to IDPH in a guidance document for LHD's to follow. If guidance LHD's will decide whether to use that or not and defeats the goal of uniformity within all jurisdictions. The definition agreed upon by the workgroups should be within the rules to keep IDPH from tampering with it and to bring more uniformity.

To bring clarity to this issue, think of your large multi-department establishments like a schnucks, wal-mart, county market, etc, where a repeat violation could be if on one inspection no paper towels were found in the deli and the next inspection no paper towels were found in the bathroom. Should that be a repeat violation. You also need to think of how this will skew the grading matrix as more repeat violations are found in these establishments based on their size and multi-department functionality.

I agree with Donnie's points.

I am not enthused about adding the FDA food code onto portions of the Illinois Food Code that will still be in effect (food-service managers, food handlers, etc.) I think the positive changes and improvements resulting from changing codes will not balance the inefficiencies and turmoil caused by the change. How will the FDA code make OUR jobs better ? How will this improve food safety at OUR establishments ?

I am disappointed at the training model that IDPH is using for this rollout. In my opinion, IDPH central office staff should be travelling the state, explaining the new code and its implementation to every interested LHD employee. Instead, IDPH is using a "train the trainer" model and has cancelled the Food Safety Symposium.

This is also a bad time to change the rules on us. We are all being asked to do more with less. Many EH divisions are working shorthanded, or are working fewer days, and are trying to meet contractual obligations with fewer resources. Demanding that I use an unfamiliar code and inspection form is going to slow me down and reduce my efficiency in the field.

Those are my concerns.

How can they do any training when they themselves are not trained or have experience using the FDA Food Code. The best training was last year put on by FDA. Those who attended are way in front on the implementation.

The food program should not be about how we make our jobs better but the statement how will this improve food safety. One of the main emphasis is it puts ownership on the owner/manager of the facility to provide documentation of certain activities that they must incorporate into their operation that we can review.

I am in agreement with Doug.  The IDPH Food Program, is yet again wanting to implement something to our departments when we, a.) Are short staffed, b.) Are not receiving funding, c.) The state is not supporting us when we do contact them with questions or concerns, d.) Regional offices also are short staffed AND not allowed to assist us.

LHD's are barely able to meet LHPG requirements now, let alone without implementing these numerous changes.  Sure, it is easy to make the rules, but do any of them actually know what it is like to do the job!?!  Maybe if there was someone at IDPH that could give a clarified answer to one of our questions once in awhile, I would put a little more faith in their ability to implement rules effectively!

When do comments need to be posted so that they can be added to the letter IALEHA plans to send?

Below are comments and questions that I have on the food code.

1. The proposed Code has an implementation date of January 1, 2017.  This is not a realistic implementation date with the numerous challenges that the State, Locals, and the Food Service industry has in preparing for what will amount to a complete overhaul of the current food safety inspection system.  There will need to be extensive training with the food service industry and public health professionals to ensure that they know the code, how to use the inspection form, and what the violations mean.  Additionally, many local health departments use digital inspection forms and will need to change their inspection tool to match the new state form.  None of these items can occur overnight and adequate time needs to be allotted for proper implementation.  I suggest that the implementation date be no sooner than one year after adoption and that it be at the beginning of a calendar year.  This means if the Code is passed in 2016 then the implementation date would be January 1, 2018.

2. The proposed rules do not adopt the annexes that are part of the model food code.  The annexes associated with the model food code can provide tremendous assistance to those charged with applying Food Code provisions. The annexes are provided specifically to assist the regulatory authority apply the provisions uniformly and effectively. It is, therefore, important for users to preview the subject and essence of each of the annexes before using the document. Some of the annexes (e.g., References, Public Health Reasons) are structured to present the information by the specific Food Code item number to which they apply. Other annexes provide information and materials intended to be helpful to the user such as model forms that can be used, a delineation of the principles of HACCP, guidelines for establishment inspection, and criteria for certain food processes for use in evaluating proposed HACCP plans.

3. The proposed changes repeal Subpart I Temporary Food Service. The FDA Food Code covers Temporary Food Stands in a limited format. These rules need to be reinstated and when new rules are proposed they will replace what is currently in the code.

4. It appears that the definition of Food Establishment includes the need to regulate food delivery services.  The only piece of equipment many of these companies utilize are vehicles and there is no way for a delivery vehicle to comply with all the requirements of the proposed rules.  Additionally, many of these services contract drivers and they are considered self-employed. This would create complications. I supports the concept of regulations that encompass this growing sector of the food service market. However, the proposed rules do not properly address the unique niche in the food service industry they represent. If the intent is to regulate this segment of the industry, rules need to be developed that take into consideration what the service actually does rather than try to force them to fit rules that do not apply to what they do.

5. In section 750.20 Inspection Report b:  There needs to be clarification on the term “substantially similar”  the proposed rules only requires minimum of same information, however, the interpretation I have received from members of the IDPH staff is that the forms must look alike that is not the same thing.

6. The proposed rules have the grading system referenced in Appendix A.  It is my opinion that the grading system needs to be spelled out in section 750.20 Inspection Report in addition to the Appendix. Additionally, what is the definition of a repeat violation?

7. Incorporated and Referenced Materials include the Management of Chronic Infectious Diseases in Schoolchildren.  In reviewing that document it appears to be very specific to requiring schools to develop infectious disease plans for the entire school.  There are no references to food service or any other activities that environmental health would conduct in a school, therefore it does not appear that this document needs to be referenced.  Is this a plan to require health departments to inspect non-food service areas of schools?

8. Inspection Form – Violation #2 references Food Protection Manager which is not an Illinois term. It should be changed to “Food Service Sanitation Manager” to be in line with Illinois terminology.

9. The definition of “full-time” is being repealed. The term “full-time” is referenced in Section 750.540 a) 2). Without defining full-time it leaves the interpretation up to the jurisdiction which could contribute to this being handled various ways by various jurisdictions throughout the state.


Will we be sent a copy of the letter that is sent?

Excellent comments Wil, thanks for posting.

CUPHD comments submitted on March 3rd.


Champaign-Urbana Public Health District
201 W. Kenyon Road
Champaign, IL 61820


March 3, 2016

As a member of the Retail Food Workgroup, I support the adoption and implementation of the Food and Drug Administration’s Food Code (2013 and subsequent updates) as the Illinois Food Code; however, I have the following concerns, comments, and suggestions.
1. The proposed adoption and implementation date of January 1, 2017 is a very fast and unrealistic time schedule. Like state government, local health departments have a process to complete before final approval and adoption. In Champaign County, I need two boards of health and one county board approval before the food code is uniformly adopted and in effect for implementation. It is now March 2016 which allows for 10 months to complete the process which is likely not enough time for study sessions, legal reviews of ordinances, and board meetings to obtain final approval. For example, it took Champaign County about 18 months from start to finish to adopt an updated Health Ordinance.
a. I suggest that the adoption and implementation dates be separated for local health departments.
b. I suggest that a local adoption date be at least one year after state adoption and that it be at the beginning of a calendar year. This means if the Illinois Food Code is passed in 2016 then the adoption date would be January 1, 2018.
c. I suggest that a local implementation date be at least one year after local adoption and that it be at the beginning of the next calendar year, e.g. January 1, 2019. This time schedule would allow time for public health staff training, food industry understanding with training, public education, updating enforcement provisions, adding vending machines to the list of food establishments, and for any changes in inspection forms, inspection software, and technology.

2. The proposed changes repeal Subpart I Temporary Food Service.
a. Although the FDA Food Code addresses Temporary Food, it is organized by principle rather than by subject, which creates a fragmented structure for temporary food operators and for public health professionals. Either keep this Illinois Subpart so that there is easy access and understanding of the food code for the temporary food operator or provide a temporary food matrix (plan review and inspection guide) similar to the FDA Food Code Mobile Food Establishment Matrix.

3. The proposed inspection form does not support local health departments in complying with an Illinois food program standard.
a. Local Health Protection Grant Food Program Standard 615.301 b-7 requires “Discussion of at least one HACCP concept during the inspection shall be documented on the inspection report.”
b. The proposed inspection report lacks a place for documentation. Either add a place for documentation on the inspection report or change the standard. (I prefer changing the standard as inspections should be HACCP-based and risk-based per our training, standardization, and use of the code, including the new inspection report.)

4. The FDA Food Code has structural nomenclature which includes code provisions that are not intended for citing/debiting or are not requirements.
a. The “nondebitable” provisions fall into two categories, those that end with two digits after the decimal point and the last digit is a zero, e.g., § 1-201.10; and those that end with three digits after the decimal point and the last 2 digits are zeros, e.g., § 8-805.100 (FDA Model Food Code 2013, Preface ix).
b. Portions of some sections are written in italics. These provisions are not requirements, but are provided to convey relevant information about specific exceptions and alternative means for compliance (FDA Model Food Code 2013, Preface x).
c. Although these provisions may assist in and should be used for understanding, they also add confusion for the public, food industry, and public health professionals. Can these “extra” provisions be eliminated from the Illinois code to create a simplified code for compliance by listing only requirements and only those that can be cited/debited?

5. Subpart N: Farmers’ Markets should also be repealed. This Subpart does not refer to any provisions in the food code, but to a special certificate with its own requirements and implementation procedures.
a. Unlike the subparts of other food code certificates, e.g. Food Service Sanitation and Food Handler Training, there are concepts (not code provisions) to understand with no requirements to be assessed (tested) or and no compliance to code provisions.
b. I suggest that the Subpart N be transferred as a new code of IDPH regulations separate from this food code.

6. Section 750.20 b) states “substantially similar” which needs clarification.
a. To me, “substantially similar” means an inspection report that has, at a minimum, the same information, same format, and same appearance of the inspection report in appendix A. The only acceptable change is how the local health department displays its individual agency information, logo, or letterhead. “Substantially similar” is meant to create a uniform inspection report throughout Illinois that is easily recognized by the public, food industry, the press, and public health professionals.
b. However, there may be a need for local jurisdiction requirements that have been added to food inspections, e.g. smoking compliance, posting health permit, posting inspection performance, nutrition labeling, etc., so I suggest that documentation of these requirements be permitted on page 2 or page 3 in a separate panel like the temperature observations panel.

7. Section 750.20 d) requires the use of the grading system in Appendix A. Although it may be redundant to the Food Establishment Inspection Report, this section would be a place to clarify the grading system and its components.
a. What is the grading system? It is known as the Illinois Uniform Grading System that is a compliance matrix used by all local health jurisdictions throughout Illinois, e.g. local health departments, local health districts, and local municipalities.
b. What is an FBI Risk Factor violation (vertical axis of matrix)? What does FBI refer to? Is it only risk factors as defined in the panel on page one of Appendix A ,or is it a term used to describe the combination of risk factors and public health interventions?
c. “Risk factors require immediate correction” as in the panel on page one of Appendix A, but why is there a COS column space for public health interventions? Again, does the term refer to risk factors per definition or is it used as a term to combine risk factors + public health interventions?
d. Which of the 29 number detailed statements are risk factors and which are public health interventions? The public, food industry, and press will want to know. Can they be identified and delineated in some way, e.g. italics for risk factors?
e. Does FBI Risk Factor violation refer to only the 11 broad categories, such as Time/Temperature Control for Safety or Approved Source, or does it refer to the 29 detailed statements, such as Proper cooking time and temperatures or Proper cold holding temperatures?

8. A definition for a Repeat Violation is missing. Define in 750.20 or in the “Definitions”. The definition needs to clarify:
a. Did a repeat violation occur when the violation is of the same code provision as documented in the previous routine inspection in any location (e.g. the lack of hand soap at the ware washing room hand sink today, but the lack of hand soap at the cook’s prep line previously) or at the same location (e.g. the lack of hand soap at the ware washing room hand sink today and previously)?
b. Should the definition be applied the same for any violation or differently for a Risk Factor/Public Health Intervention violation? If a Risk Factor/Public Health Intervention violation in any location is indicative of the lack of active managerial control, then a food safety hazard repeatedly continues to exist.
c. My suggestion: Determine the food operations operated under the risk category that is permitted/licensed and the extent of operational supervision of the Food Service Sanitation Manager (FSSM). For example:
• In a large restaurant with multiple food departments yet one risk category classification (Category I), if the FSSM supervises the hot food, cold food, and meat cutting departments, the lack of hand soap at the cold holding department hand sink today is a repeat violation if there was a lack of hand soap at the meat cutting department hand sink on the last routine inspection.
• In a retail food store with multiple food departments classified with different risk categories and with different FSSM supervision, then the lack of hand soap at the hot food deli (Category I) hand sink today is not a repeat violation of the lack of hand soap at the meat cutting room (Category II) hand sink on the previous inspection.

9. Inspection Report – Violation #2 is a “Certified Food Protection Manager” which is not an Illinois term. It should be changed to “Certified Food Service Sanitation Manager” as used in 750.540.

10. The definition of “full-time” is being repealed; however, it is used in Subpart J: Section 750.540 a) 2) which is not being repealed. Reinstate the definition.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jim Roberts, MS, LEHP
Director of Environmental Health
jroberts@c-uphd.org
(217) 531-2909

Champaign-Urbana Public Health District
201 W. Kenyon Road
Champaign, IL 61820

Here's what I have after adding all the comments. Hopefully, it's comprehensive.

While IALEHA is in agreement with adopting the FDA Model Food Code, there are several issues that we as an organization would like to address.
1. Sets an implementation date of Jan 01, 2017. This does not provide adequate time for many counties to update their current food ordinances. To adequately prepare for these changes, local health departments need a minimum of one year after the adoption to implement the changes. IALEHA suggests that the implementation date be no sooner than one year after adoption and that it be at the beginning of a calendar year. This means if the Code is passed in 2016 then the implementation date would be January 1, 2018.
2. Rescinds the entire section on Temporary Food Rules. As temporary food is not covered in the FDA Food Code, this should stay. These rules need to be reinstated immediately. When new rules are proposed, they can replace this section.
3. The proposed rules do not adopt the annexes that are part of the model food code. The annexes associated with the model food code can provide tremendous assistance to those charged with applying Food Code provisions. The annexes are provided specifically to assist the regulatory authority apply the provisions uniformly and effectively. It is, therefore, important for users to preview the subject and essence of each of the annexes before using the document. Some of the annexes (e.g., References, Public Health Reasons) are structured to present the information by the specific Food Code item number to which they apply. Other annexes provide information and materials intended to be helpful to the user such as model forms that can be used, a delineation of the principles of HACCP, guidelines for establishment inspection, and criteria for certain food processes for use in evaluating proposed HACCP plans.
4. It appears that the definition of Food Establishment includes the need to regulate food delivery services. The only piece of equipment many of these companies utilize are vehicles and there is no way for a delivery vehicle to comply with all the requirements of the proposed rules. Additionally, many of these services contract drivers and they are considered self-employed. This would create complications. I supports the concept of regulations that encompass this growing sector of the food service market. However, the proposed rules do not properly address the unique niche in the food service industry they represent. If the intent is to regulate this segment of the industry, rules need to be developed that take into consideration what the service actually does rather than try to force them to fit rules that do not apply to what they do.
5. In section 750.20 Inspection Report b: There needs to be clarification on the term “substantially similar” the proposed rules only requires minimum of same information, however, the interpretation I have received from members of the IDPH staff is that the forms must look alike that is not the same thing.
6. The proposed rules have the grading system referenced in Appendix A. It is my opinion that the grading system needs to be spelled out in section 750.20 Inspection Report in addition to the Appendix. Additionally, what is the definition of a repeat violation?
7. Incorporated and Referenced Materials include the Management of Chronic Infectious Diseases in Schoolchildren. In reviewing that document it appears to be very specific to requiring schools to develop infectious disease plans for the entire school. There are no references to food service or any other activities that environmental health would conduct in a school, therefore it does not appear that this document needs to be referenced. Is this a plan to require health departments to inspect non-food service areas of schools?
8. Inspection Form – Violation #2 references Food Protection Manager which is not an Illinois term. It should be changed to “Food Service Sanitation Manager” to be in line with Illinois terminology.
9. The definition of “full-time” is being repealed. The term “full-time” is referenced in Section 750.540 a) 2). Without defining full-time it leaves the interpretation up to the jurisdiction which could contribute to this being handled various ways by various jurisdictions throughout the state.
10. The “repeat violation” as it pertains to the grading matrix system is another problem that we have with this legislation. The definition of “repeat” must be defined and clear. One definition that a concensus agreed upon in the workgroup was “a repeat violation is a violation that occurs at the same location in the area.” For example, the hand sink at the make table is without hand towels. Another definition proposed was that the same violation existed within the facility. An example would be no hand towels at the make table during the first inspection, and no towels in the toilet room during the second inspection. As you see, this is an area that is defined differently among many jurisdictions. Workgroups should be included in the definition. A later document provided by IDPH will enable them to change the definition as the administration changes. This defeats the goal of uniformity within all jurisdictions. The definition agreed upon by the workgroups should be within the rules to keep IDPH from tampering with it and to bring more uniformity.
11. IDPH is proposing the adoption of the FDA food code, but continue add sections of our current code. This is not an adoption of the code, it is an adaption. While there may be improvement ahead, does it balance the inefficiencies that is going to be caused?
12. IDPH has not identified how the FDA food code will improve food safety in our establishments. A different code will not increase food safety. It appears that we are adopting parts of the code for no apparent reason.
13. IDPH had done a poor job to date of training the rest of the state to use the FDA Code. They utilized the “train the trainer” approach. Unfortunately, trainers were not permitted to do anymore that reiterate what the code states. IDPH did not offer interpretation to the trainers, and it is unlikely they will offer that to local health departments. IDPH staff should be traveling the state to provide training rather than to depend on others to do it for them.
14. IDPH is no longer a resource for the local health department. Regional offices are short staffed and are no longer permitted to answer questions from the local health departments within their region. The central office is not available by phone. There is no longer any support from IDPH, which makes any change more difficult. Many of our questions need immediate answers. Once upon a time, you could phone the regional office in the field and they would provide guidance. Emails are not the ideal form of communication in the field, and yet, that is the only means of contact with IDPH.
15. Considering the budget issues, this is a poor time to make such a drastic change. Local health departments are being asked to do more with less and they are rising to the occasion. This is not the time to add more to the pile. Many environmental health divisions are working fewer days with less staff to meet the contractual obligations. Implementing an unfamiliar code with less than adequate training will guarantee that 1) the rules are NOT interpreted the same throughout the state; 2) inspections will be slower; 3) staff will be less efficient in the field.
The intent of adopting the FDA Food Code is to bring uniformity throughout the state. However, expediting the adoption beyond the capabilities of local health departments, omitting valuable sections of our current code, and undefined language will hinder this goal.

Looks good !