Back when the county's food service code was adopted, Dwight D.Eisenhower was president and a crab leg entree at a fancy restaurantcost maybe $2. If you paid much more than that, it was on account oftoo many of the 50-cent cocktails.
The 1954 code is decades past its pull date. Like a holidayfruitcake, it was created, looked at from time to time, andultimately left on a shelf for 52 years.
At a Wednesday work session, the county commissioners digested aone-hour briefing from Health Department employees who are wrappingup the first re-examination of the code in a Twinkie's half-life.
With input from three committees whose members include operatorsof nursing homes and restaurants, the Health Department proposes tochange everything from the penalties for non-compliance (in 1954, afine of all of $25 to $100, and up to 30 days in a facility notrenowned for its cuisine) to how often restaurants and such areinspected.
Even the name of the '54 code would change, from 'EatingEstablishments,' with its verb-like structure evoking Godzilladining on a diner, to the more accurate 'Food Establishments.'
John Wiesman, Health Department director, said the shift of thedepartment from a separate entity to the county prompted a cleanupof the long-outdated, and essentially ignored, rules.
'They are so antiquated,' he said.
Although the ordinance is still on the books in its Cadillacs-with-tail-fins form, the county already has been following staterules, or WACs. The new rules align the local code with the WACs andthe Health Department's current practices, said Jonnie Hyde, publichealth services manager.
The ptomaine reason for all this is the protection of visitors toany facility that serves food to the public, from the county fairand Vancouver Farmers Market to restaurants, schools and stores.Another, said Hyde, is to help food establishments succeed. TheHealth Department doesn't actually want to see restaurants fined; itjust wants employees to wash their hands so 300 patrons don't spenda week throwing up.
Among the other proposed changes:
n The new rules revoke those of March 3, 1954, which at the timeapplied to Clark and Skamania counties.
n In 1954, the rule said a restaurant's well was not to bepolluted; now an operator would have to prove it with yearly tests.
n The old rules say inspections are required every six monthsregardless of the type of facility. New rules would requireinspection one to three times a year, varying with the risk to thepublic as determined by types of foods served and methods ofpreparation. (For example, grocery stores and bakeries would have alow inspection frequency; nursing homes, with their 'immune-compromised' residents, would be among those in the upper category.)
n In 1954 there was no immediate consequence for refusal to allowan inspector on the premises; new rules allow immediate shutdownuntil the owner changes his mind.
n The old $25-$100 fine and jail time are dropped in favor oflanguage saying offenders would be guilty of a misdemeanor ifconvicted, and may face fines set by the Board of Health.
That board is in fact the county commissioners, who will set apublic hearing on the proposed rules in the next few weeks.
Wednesday, commissioners Marc Boldt and Betty Sue Morris quicklydigested the health officials' report, asked numerous questions and,in the casual setting of a work session, wondered out loud to thegathered experts about everything from food handling and Tupperwarecontainers to restaurant inspections and mobile food service trucks.
'I bet it's not acceptable to let a gallon of milk sit out allnight, is it?' said Morris. 'Happens at our house all the time.'
Boldt sheepishly mentioned that he had been in charge of dinnerpreparation for a number of people.
'I cooked for the fair board last night,' he said. After a pause,'I hope that wasn't a violation.'
No, it wasn't, he was told; it was for a group, but not a publicfunction. Somebody asked what was on the menu. Hamburgers.
'Did you cook them medium well?' asked Bill Barron, the countyadministrator.
'Oh, no, I didn't have time,' Boldt quipped.
Barron noted that commercial food-safety rules have always been adelicate balance between protecting the public and settingreasonable requirements.
He recalled an incident 20-some years ago when he was a deputyadministrator for an Illinois county that was hosting a PGAtournament. A food inspector had a run-in with what he determinedwas improperly stored soda and was threatening dire consequences.
A frantic golf tournament director called Barron, pleading, ''Cansomebody please be reasonable?'' he said. 'I had to go down therewith the prosecuting attorney to keep them from closing down theentire tournament on account of a bucket of pop.'
