LANSING — On Wednesday, the Michigan House Agriculture Committee conducted a hearing in order for its members, as Chairwoman Julie Alexander put it, “to better understand the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD)’s role” in Michigan’s Public Act 92 of 2000, more commonly referred to as the Michigan Food Law.

Gary McDowell, MDARD director, and MDARD Food and Dairy Division Director, Tim Slawinski, provided the committee an overview of that department’s background, accomplishments, missions, as well as actions during the emergency pandemic order issued by the Dept. of Health and Human Services (NMDHHS) on Nov. 15, 2020.

McDowell told the committee that the primary mission of the department is the health and safety of Michigan’s people and agricultural industry animals, which is carried out through the Food Law. That includes licensing and regulating meat processing plants, restaurants and other food service industry establishments, as well as what the law refers to as “drinking places.”

Chapter II, Section 2102, of the Food Law details the power and duties of the (MDARD) director. Sec. 2101. (1), for instance states that: The director shall provide for the administration and enforcement of Act 92. Under this, the director “may delegate enforcement and administration of this act to certain local health departments in the manner provided for in Chapter III.”

Slawinski told the committee that of the roughly 45,000 food service establishments in Michigan, a very small percentage of those are being investigated.

“In terms of assessing the risks in something that would be escalated from the local health department to MDARD,” Slawinski said, “in that assessment, out of the stuff brought in, that there was an imminent (public) health hazard in 22 of those establishments after the local health department already ordered a cease and desist order.”

He told the committee that those 22 date back to Nov. 25, 2020, when the first cease and desist orders were issued.

“Those 22 establishments,” Slawinski said, “do account for over a thousand consumer complaints,” adding, “in order to be transparent, we did post all those actions on our website so you can see the orders on our website related to those firms.”

In the course of the process, he said, the department began by issuing a cease and desist order to address the concerns, as outlined in Sec. 2113 of the Food Law.

Sec. 2113 (289.2113 (1) states the director may order immediate cessation of operation of a food establishment upon a determination that continued operation would create an imminent or substantial hazard to the public health.

The Food Law goes on to state: in that section:

(2) A food establishment ordered to cease food operations under subsection (1) shall not resume operations until the director determines, upon reevaluation, that the conditions responsible for the order to cease operations no longer exist. The director shall offer an opportunity for reevaluation upon request of the license holder of the establishment. (3) If the director orders an immediate cessation of operation of a food establishment under subsection (1), the license holder may request an administrative hearing.

If MDARD staff found that after the cease and desist order had been ignored, and an imminent threat remained, Slawinski told the committee, the department next ordered a summary suspension for some of the (22) firms still in violation of the Food Law, which he said, is detailed in Sec. 4125.

Sec. 4125 states that after an opportunity for a hearing pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, the director may revoke or suspend a food establishment license issued under the act for failure to comply with requirements of the act or a rule.

That person, the act states, shall discontinue the sale and offering for sale of food, until he or she complies with the act and the director issues a new registration or removes the suspension.

“Based up facts submitted by a person familiar without those facts, or upon information and belief alleging that an imminent threat to the public health, safety, or welfare exists, the director may summarily suspend a license under the act.

Paragraph 2 states: “The director shall investigate complaints and initiate and conduct other investigations as he or she considers advisable to determine violations of this act.”

On Feb. 5, MDARD’s website was updated, and lists seven establishments across Michigan that have received summary suspensions after those businesses failed to abide by previously issued cease and desist orders. Cafe Rosetta, in Calumet, is currently the only Upper Peninsula business named on the list.

McDowell and Slawinski then went into detail in describing the differences between the revocation and the suspension of a food service license, which will be covered in the next installment of this series.

(Information on MDARD and the Food Law can be found at https://www.michigan.gov/mdard/).