Sue Leabu on mon 12 jan 04
conferences, etc.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:11:42 -0800, Earl Brunner wrote:
>BUT, it's NOT safe. The newspaper in our town regularly posts a list of
>the restaurants that have failed or received poor ratings on their
>health inspections. They list the score and exactly what violations
>caused them to get a bad score. There is absolutely NO correlation
>between whether a restaurant is part of a chain or not.
Very true from a health standpoint. But, one generally can expect that
whatever they have on the menu at your hometown Bennigan's is exactly the
same stuff that will be on the menu at any other Bennigan's. So "safe" in
being able to expect what your choices will be.
Sue
Kathi LeSueur on mon 12 jan 04
conferences, etc.
suekzoo@AOL.COM wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:11:42 -0800, Earl Brunner wrote:
>
>
>
>>BUT, it's NOT safe. The newspaper in our town regularly posts a list of
>>the restaurants that have failed or received poor ratings on their
>>health inspections..........
>>
>Very true from a health standpoint. But, one generally can expect that
>whatever they have on the menu at your hometown Bennigan's is exactly the
>same stuff that will be on the menu at any other Bennigan's. So "safe" in
>being able to expect what your choices will be.>>>>>
>
I worked in the restaurant business all through school. Upscale, chains,
and family owned businesses. There is only one factor in whether a
restaurant is offering you safe food. That factor is the manager on
site. If you have a manager that demands a clean restaurant, it will be
clean. If that manager demands that the food be prepared with care and
safety in mind then that will happen too. Beyond that, the quality of
the food will depend on the cook. If that person is talented (and I've
seen talented cooks with no training and mediocre ones who went to
cooking schools) your meal will be a pleasure. If not, it will be edible.
Kathi
>
>
| |
|
