But what may seem like a big deal turns out to be a common occurrence in Chicago restaurants, according to a Tribune analysis of newly available city data. The records show that 1 in 5 Chicago restaurant inspections over the last two years resulted in a failure.
So what does this mean? Are Chicago's restaurants especially dangerous? Not really, health officials say: Chicago restaurants don't fare much worse than those in other big cities, and no restaurant can remain open if its violations pose a threat to public safety.
"Let's put it in perspective: A fail should not necessarily scare a customer away," said Efrat Stein, spokeswoman for the Chicago Department of Public Health. It's not uncommon for any type of food business to fail an inspection, whether high-end or mom-and-pop. What's important is how quickly they fix the problem."
The records posted by the health department show that most Chicago restaurants do respond quickly — especially to critical violations, the most serious of three categories. Restaurants that can't correct critical violations during an inspection have their licenses suspended and can't reopen until the problems are corrected.
The most common critical violations cited in health reports, Stein said, involve food temperature. At Lincoln Park's Alinea, the restaurant was written up for a potato soup measured at 51.8 degrees; the soup was cooling in an ice bath but had not reached the required 40 degrees, a report said. At nearby Boka, kimchi was found between 50 and 51.4 degrees, according to a report. Both restaurants were cited with critical violations and the food was discarded. Neither was required to close, and both passed reinspections a week later.
Before last month, citizens had to file written requests to get this kind of detail. But the new inspections website, though somewhat cumbersome to use, shares complete details of every restaurant inspection performed after January 2010 and is updated weekly.
Launched in November with minimal fanfare, the website has gotten more than 11,000 hits.
While some chefs agree that making more inspection information available is welcome in the interest of public safety, others fear diners may overreact.
"I can understand it, but I think it's just too much information for the public," said Giuseppe Tentori, executive chef of Boka. "They'll be scared to go to a restaurant because it got some minor violation and think, 'Oh my God, it must not be sanitary and so we should skip it.'"
Both the health department and restaurateurs say they hope the public uses the site wisely. Department representatives advise concerned consumers not to focus on whether a restaurant passed or failed, but to examine the nature of violations and how soon the restaurant was able to fix the problem and pass reinspection.
For example, some patrons may view certain "critical" violations as not particularly alarming, such as insufficient water pressure or tap water that doesn't reach 110 degrees.
Visitors to the site also should be aware that a licensing inspection failure usually means the restaurant is not yet ready to open.
While many food establishments dread unannounced visits from inspectors, Merlin Verrier, director of operations for Graham Elliot restaurants, said: "We've always felt the health inspector is part of our team. They have the same standards that we expect our employees to hold to."
"I like it when a health inspector comes; it keeps us on our toes," said Paul Kahan, executive chef of the Blackbird restaurant group.
But others interviewed by the Tribune — many of whom wouldn't speak on the record for fear of repercussions — say it's a strained relationship.
"All I can say is that the health department has a history of treating restaurant owners and managers with great disrespect, and if you push back, some of the inspectors will find anything to put you in your place," said Shin Thompson of Bonsoiree in Logan Square. "It's a form of corruption and abuse of power that's been going on for too long."
Many chefs contend that their restaurants often are cited for violations that they say illustrate a misunderstanding of safe kitchen practices. They feel the health department errs too far on the side of caution.