POLITICS

Senate kills food-protection law

It is just about that time again when the state and the Seacoast are inundated with visitors from near and far. And it’s a good thing, too. Tourism is one of the state’s largest industries and without an income or sales tax, legislators would be hard-pressed to operate the state without the revenues these visitors bring.

In 2004, approximately 27.2 million tourists spent almost $4 billion during their visits to New Hampshire. They paid $121 million in rooms and meals tax. In fact, 71 percent of all rooms and meals taxes paid come from tourists, and 39 percent of those tourist come during the summer months.

One of the things that draws these visitors to the Seacoast region, other than our beaches, is our eateries. The restaurant industry here in Portsmouth, particularly, is booming with eateries literally lined up side-by-side along our quaint streets.

So knowing this, it is almost unimaginable that the state Senate would kill a bill designed to protect both residents and visitors from foodborne illnesses. Yet, that is exactly what happened just last month.

The Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee voted 4-2 to kill legislation that would have required food service establishments, retail stores that prepare foods and food processing facilities to assign at least one full-time employee to be a certified food protection manager.

One of the sponsors of the legislation was Portsmouth state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark. However, the majority of that committee felt the bill was not necessary.

According to Sen. Robert Flanders, Antrim, who voted against the bill, the committee heard testimony that led members to believe most communities had health officers who performed the functions that would have been assigned to a food protection manager.

The full Senate accepted the committee’s recommendation and killed the bill on March 22.

However, based on what has happened in Portsmouth over the past couple of years, it is entirely possible that community health officers are either unable or not qualified to properly protect those who eat in restaurants and bars.

Back in July 2004, articles in the Portsmouth Herald focused attention on the health inspectorís office and found some disturbing things.

Reporters found the inspector seldom kept records of the inspections he performed simply because he didn’t have the time.

It was also determined that since the inspector was hired in 1981, the number of city restaurants had nearly tripled. The inspector himself voiced concerns about how far he was stretched and had, in fact, asked the city manager for more help.

There were no indications that food served in any local restaurant or bars was unsafe. In fact, local restaurant owners were quick to point out the inspector was pretty much on top of the major health and safety issues in the city.

But the situation the health inspector found himself in - with the regulations and the number of locations to be inspected continuing to increase - was a disaster waiting to happen.

To the city’s credit, the decision was made to get some help. A full-time "sanitarian" was hired early the next year.

One can only imagine what health officials in Manchester and Nashua are going through or what is happening in small towns where there is no budget for a health inspector.

The legislation the Senate killed last month would have at least set a state standard for food protection - one that would not be subject to the budgetary constraints of a community.

And in a state that is so dependent on keeping tourists coming back - and telling their friends to visit - legislation that protects their health and safety should not be disregarded as quickly and without in-depth review as this bill was.

Shir Haberman is the managing editor for news at the Portsmouth Herald.