It’s the same refrain every time: when a media publishes an article on a kebab or a catering establishment amended after hygiene checks by the authorities, readers ask for the name of the boui-boui to be revealed, in order to be able to ‘avoid. “Why are you hiding where it is? I don’t understand why we want to protect these companies,” said a reader after a case in St. Gallen, which caused the hospitalization of five children after food poisoning and while the name of the kebab remained secret.
It is the law that protects establishments. Ten years ago, Parliament debated the introduction of more transparency. It had been imagined, for example, the possibility for the public to obtain, on request, the inspection reports once they have been carried out. But the elected officials ultimately refused, to the great dismay of consumer associations. “If something does not comply with the regulations, it must be declared clearly, it is a question of safety. People can then form their own opinion,” said Sara Stalder, director of the German-speaking consumer protection association.
If the names are not published, it is to protect the reputation of the establishments. Even if a company improves its hygiene standards or changes ownership, its reputation, once damaged, is difficult to rebuild, notes GastroSuisse, which opposes publication by the authorities of the names of poor performers.
This is what happened a year ago. K-Tipp magazine conducted its own analyzes and published the results. The “worst kebab in Switzerland”, still in St. Gallen, had noted a 50 to 60% drop in attendance, despite taking immediate measures to remedy the shortcomings detected. The Vaudois authorities are also not stingy in pinpointing slightly dubious kebabs. Here too, the names are not disclosed, sometimes not even the locality, in the event that its mention would make a tenant identifiable.
Zougoise solution not so effective
Zug has set up a system aimed at greater transparency. Establishments that are audited and obtain good results receive a certificate that they can display voluntarily. The aim was to encourage: places without a certificate could have seemed suspicious. However, according to the Federal Council, this system has not had a significant influence on the hygiene assessment statistics. On the other hand, the last change in the law ten years ago, which strengthened controls, had an impact. “From 2011 to 2014, the number of establishments classified in the “very good” category increased from a little over 50% to almost 70%,” he noted in a response to a parliamentary inquiry in 2015.
