Minnesota took over St. Paul’s food establishment inspections, citing “serious error”…Does that really make us safer?

Until recently, St. Paul, along with Minneapolis and a handful of suburban cities, had delegation agreements with the State of Minnesota allowing each city to conduct its own food safety inspections of restaurants. In July 2013, the city lost a court battle to continue the delegation agreement with the state. AMinn Post Story about the court's decision is here. Minnesota is now responsible for inspecting food establishments in St. Paul.

According to Ramsey County’s website, "Food Establishments" are defined in the Ramsey County Food Protection Ordinance (pdf) as restaurants, boarding houses, taverns, cafeterias, delicatessens, snack bars, grocery stores, convenience stores, caterers, clubs, public and private schools, day care centers, and similar establishments where food or beverages are prepared or served for consumption on the premises or immediate consumption off the premises.” This means the state now has many more establishments to inspect.

Ramsey County’s website details a tiered system for inspections; the length of time between inspections is based on the type of establishment being inspected. (for example, a high risk establishment includes “serves foods that require extensive processing on the premises, including manual handling, cooling, reheating, or temporary holding for service; prepares foods several hours or days before service; or serves menu items that are known to be common vehicles of food-borne illness.”) RamseyCounty FAQs are here.

The state revoked its delegation agreement with St. Paul citing “serious errors in inspection reports.” According to the StarTribune, the state told the city to more than double the number of inspections it was doing each month, asking for an increase 8.25 to 25 per month. St. Paul added employees and funding after failing the state’s evaluation of its inspection system. According to a PioneerPress article detailing city action, this apparently did not remedy the problem, and the state decided to step in.

As a resident of St. Paul, and of Minnesota, I am not sure which entity is better equipped to inspect food establishments. I could not find detailed information about the type of errors inspectors made in their reports, but it seems like the answer should hinge at least in part on exactly what the inspectors were missing.

 Local officials probably know the area more thoroughly than state officials. Most likely the city would be better able to build relationships with business owners, who have to deal with the city in other aspects of their businesses.  St. Paul theoretically would be more readily available to respond to concerns due to the smaller number of complaints it would have to respond to.

On the other hand, the state technically is in charge of food inspections; St. Paul and the other communities that have a delegation agreement had the privilege of being trusted to carry out these inspections to the state’s satisfaction. The state sets the standard. The state also is generally better funded, and can retain a greater number of experts in the field. A quick Google search shows that most states implement their own inspection standards and inspections; it appears to be the typical practice. The state may have been correct in revoking the delegation agreement.

This post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Abby Lindekugel.