LOW RISK FOODS; INSPECTION & CERT REQS S.B. 144 (S-2):
SUMMARY OF BILL
REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE
Senate Bill 144 (Substitute S-2 as reported by the Committee of the Whole)
Sponsor: Senator Tom Casperson
CONTENT
The bill would amend the Food Law to allow a local health department to conduct an in-office consultation and an operational review of, rather than an inspection of, a proposed temporary food establishment that would serve only low-risk food. The bill would take effect 90 days after its enactment.
"Low risk food" would mean any of the following: a) raw or prepackaged food that is not potentially hazardous food (time/temperature control for safety food); b) potentially hazardous food (time/temperature control for safety food) that is prepared in a licensed facility and is not prepared on-site; or c) commercially processed potentially hazardous food (time/temperature control for safety food) that is fully cooked and heated only for hot holding.
The Law requires a local health department to review an application for a food service establishment license and to inspect a proposed or existing establishment if the application is proper, complete, and accurate. The bill specifies that if a temporary food establishment would serve only low-risk food, the local health department, based on a public health risk assessment, could conduct an in-office consultation, including food safety education, and operational review of the proposed temporary food establishment with the license applicant, instead of the required inspection. The person in charge of the establishment would have to be present during the consultation. A local health department would have to conduct an inspection (as currently required) or an in-office consultation, as applicable, before making its recommendation to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on the issuance of a license.
MCL 289.1109 et al. Legislative Analyst: Jeff Mann
FISCAL IMPACT
The bill would result in a minor reduction in costs for local health departments. In-office consultations would be less intensive than inspections and thus would be less costly for a local health department to conduct. The amount of savings is indeterminate, due to limited information on the number of temporary establishments that would serve only low-risk food and the marginal costs of food inspections and in-office consultations.
Date Completed: 5-14-15 Fiscal Analyst: Steve Angelotti
This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.