USDA central kitchen plan could raise costs for food-service chains

Nation's Restaurant News, Dec 16, 1985 by Amie Snider

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed rule change requiring hot menu items to be transported hot from central kitchens would unnecessarily increase food-service costs, the National Restaurant Association has charged.

That practice will "raise unit costs, since transporting hot makes scheduling a very difficult task and eliminates the economic benefit of prior preparation," NRA said in a letter to the department's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

The USDA's proposed "ready-to-eat" rule would implement provisions of a law passed by Congress last year to deregulate centralized food preparation facilities servicing several establishments in order to reduce the burden to kitchens that are currently subject to state and local inspection.

Although the NRA supports the legislation, the association expressed reservations about the ready-to-eat provision, under which centrally prepared meals "that are to be served hot may not be chilled or frozen for transportation," while foods intended to be served cold must be "maintained cold."

"The proposed [ready-to-eat] rule seems to be so narrowly drawn as to exclude operators who had hoped to be relieved of the burdensome requirement of dual inspection," the NRA said.

In addition, the association charged that many food-service operators would have to make expensive equipment changes "for simultaneous hot and cold trnasportation," and that the "hot" shipment of food would "significantly increase the probability of thermal abuse."

Arguing that "there is no valid food-protection rationale to prohibit rethermalization of cold food at point-of-use," the NRA offered the USDA an alternative to the ready-to-eat rule.

The NRA asked the USDA to permit food to be shipped at refrigerated temperatures for "rethermalization at point-of-use" provided that the packaging of food is dated for "shelf life" by the central kitchen.

That "alternative" would permit operators to transport their products cold and to reheat in the restaurant to serving temperatures with no additional cooking, the NRA said. The product would be date-stamped "for the maintenance of food quality."

"The constructive alternatives the NRA has offered to the rule are consistent with the intent of Congress when it approved this legislation. It would assist the food-service operators who must comply with the regulations, and it satisifies the concerns that have been expressed by the USDA," the NRA said.

The association's letter was one of the many that the USDA received concerning the ready-to-eat rule. The American Cafe, a Washington restaurant, charged that the proposed rule would "cloud the advantages of batch cooking and raise questions concerning bacteria prevention and quality control."

In addition, The American Cafe said the rule would be very costly. "The refrigerated trucks that we [now] use to ship foods would have to be converted to comply; our units would have to buy and store more products than are neede; and chilling facilities would have to be added at the unit level at great expense," the restaurant said.

Boudin King Inc. owner Ellis Cormier called the USDA's ready-to-eat provision foolish and said it would be impossible for the central kitchen serving his Louisiana restaurants to transport products hot.

Cormier said he sells "several hundred pounds" of Cajun sausage per day and "wouldn't have the slightest idea how to keep that much warm." Cormier also said the sausage would "dry up, lose its salable appearance and deteriorate" if kept under heat for too long.

Officials from San francisco Reps, an organization that represents a central commissary food production, storage and distribution system, told the USDA they oppose the ready-to-eat provision because it would lead to "unnecessary hardships.

"This result will run contrary to the original objective of the USDA rule change, which was to free chain restaurants and other [nonprocessor] central commissary operators from the 'burdens' of government inspection requirements."