Food Violations for Chains in Jamaica Plain and Boston

Flies, rodents and more - is your favorite place on this list?

You will be hardpressed to find a restaurant that has never had a minor food inspection violation. It's the bigger violations that matter — the ones that require additional inspections.

Fast-food chains are often... interesting. When it comes to health inspection reports, you never know what you're going to find, and that's not the kind of thing you want in a place to get your breakfast, lunch, latte or ice cream.

All establishments that serve food are required to have food inspections by Boston's Inspectional Services Department Division of Health. All reports are available at the Mayor's Food Court website.

Below are some highlights (or lowlights) at chain restaurants across the city's neighborhoods.

Jamaica Plain

  1. at 315 Centre St., received a violation during a Feb. 6, 2012 inspection because the "spoon to stir latte's is being stored directly on a visible soiled counter top." Gross!
  2. at 659 Centre St., had "some fruit flies in the back" during a July 13, 2011 inspection. During an April 11, 2011 inspection, the business was told to "remove dead rodent on trap and provide extermination... rodent proof all doors and possible entry ways..." 

Back Bay

  1. , was required be re-inspected after a Jan. 25, 2012 inspection revealed improper cold holding of chicken salad, as well as strawberries. The business corrected the problems and passed a follow-up inspection on Feb. 1, 2012. 
  2. , was required to be re-inspected after a March 2, 2012 inspection revealed that the "bottom of donut display area with dust and crumb build up." The business passed its required followup inspection seven days later.
  3. at 800 Boylston St., was required to have a re-inspection after its Nov. 8, 2011 inspection, which found the front cafe had "40+ fruit flies noted on walls behind and throughout the coffee bar." The business was instructed to contact pest control immediately and educated staff on proper cleaning of spills. The business passed its Nov. 22, 2011 followup inspection.

Beacon Hill

  1. , has been required to be re-inspected four times since November, 2010. From a Nov. 9, 2010 inspection, the business was told to "remove evidence of fly infestation. Flies observed throughout service area." The business was required to provide exterminator reports with details with fly issues for the followup inspection, which it passed. From a Feb. 15 report from this year, an inspector noted the "person in charge cannot explain illness policy" and there was "no proof of full time certified food protection manager & allergen certification." Both of those are regarded as a "critical foodborne illness" violation, which requires re-inspection that the bagel shop passed.


  1. The Donut-N-Donuts business at 1 Sullivan St., has had seven re-inspections required since Sept. 9, 2010. Thrice the businesss was told to "properly remove all evidence of live fruit flies in establishment"—after an August 30, 2011 report, on Dec. 1, 2011, and again the following week on Dec. 8, 2011.
  2. Emack & Bolio's at 1 Chelsea St., needed a re-inspection after an April 9, 2012 report, had inspectors find "evidence of rodent droppings in front cabinets. Provide exterminator receipt." Another critical violation from that day included the ice cream shop needing to provide a 2012 Food Allergey Awareness Certificate and a Health Permit.
  3. , needed two re-inspections in Nov. 2010, after failing to provide proper cold holding temperatures at the deli area, specifically the tuna, both times. Maybe it's best to not get tuna there?


  1. Subway at 340 Longwood Ave., were told about rodent problems on a Jan. 14, 2011 inspection, "upper storage cage/remove evidence of rodent droppings." And two different times the business was written up for not providing proper temperatures for tuna and meatballs.
  2. On the flip side is Au Bon Pain at 1 Joslin Place, which received it's first inspection report on May 18, 2012, passed with flying colors without a single violation - not even a minor one!

South End

  1. Dunkin' Donuts at 818 Harrison Ave., needed to "remove evidence of fruit flies" after a June 11, 2012 inspection. Also, while not critical, they needed to "replaced stained missing tile above toaster"—doesn't that just sound gross?
  2. Chequers Express at 100 Newton St., had "no certified person on site" for a Nov. 30, 2010 inspection, and needed to "provide documentation of at least one full time employee who has been enrolled in a Safe Serv class for re-inspection." 

West Roxbury

  1. at 667 VFW Parkway, had to be re-inspected after a Jan. 26, 2012 inspection found expired milks in the front refrigerator.
  2. at 155 Spring St., had "small flies in the establishment" and the business needed to show the pest reports treating the flies in a followup inspection.
  3. at 5318 Washington St., had several food-related violations for improper storage temperatures during a Nov. 1, 2011 inspection, as well as "paper wrappers for the biscuits that are stored in the cardboard containers originally holding raw chicken. Do not use cardboard containers for raw chicken and keep paper products stored safely."

[Editor's note: An item was removed from this list because the restaurant is not a chain.]

Michael Christopher July 07, 2012 at 06:27 PM
Real Deal Deli was incredibly satisfying when it first opened a few years back. Then they went so far downhill, it gives a bad name to places that try to serve above the bar fast food. Bummer.
Bob from JP July 07, 2012 at 06:42 PM
Yeah, very underwhelming. Staff is usually far from friendly as well. We've taken our business elsewhere.
Derryl July 08, 2012 at 07:31 PM
Chris, may I ask the relevance of a report over a year old as in the J.P. Licks case above? The problem could have been corrected a year ago.. This belated report doesn't seem fair unless another problem occured since then.
patty July 09, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Below is some highlights...should be "below are some highlights". Not only is this report irrelevent due to the months that have passed since the violations but apparently proofreading is not mandatory prior to publication. Why are the readers being told of ancient violations? It must be a very slow publishing day at the Patch.
Anita Anger July 09, 2012 at 01:37 PM
Yes. Proofreading is not optional, but I agree that much of the "news" on the Patch seems dated. Not sure why this happens. I read it every day. It's often hard to find the five things one needs to know for the day. Also various alerts come on the day the alert is needed or after. For example, if there is going to be a road race, etc., that is going to close down the JWay or wherever, let us know as soon as possible. Mostly I use the bus, but if I want to drive, I'd like to know well ahead of time. I know I can get t-alerts, etc. Some days there are multiple large-crowd events that envelope a big part of Boston. When I look at the maps, I realize I can't get to where I want to go that day.
Chris Helms (Editor) July 09, 2012 at 01:41 PM
Hi, this is Chris Helms, editor of JP Patch. Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I've fixed the subject-verb problem. As for the year-old health inspection report, that's a decision made by the author, West Roxbury Patch Editor David Ertischek.
Matt July 09, 2012 at 04:47 PM
Its still better than any other Pizza/Sub place in JP. At least they use fresh food unlike the other places on Center Street that fry up frozen treats. The owner of Same Old Place smokes in the kitchen for ______sakes
Guy Pondside July 09, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Chris - as editor of the JP Patch shouldn't you have had some editorial say in whether or not to publish this article - or run it in an edited form? It seems unfair to report on violations which occurred almost a year ago especially when it appears these violations were cleared on subsequent visits by the ISD..
Anita Anger July 09, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Guy has a point. The better story, if there is to be a story on these health inspection reports at all, is that the problems have been corrected. Then find out when the next inspections will be. For sure the eateries KNOW they are going to be inspected. Are the inspections scheduled or unscheduled? I'm curious about the protocol between and among the various Patches. Why accept as true something from another Patch? Better to have no story than an out-of-date one.
Chris Helms (Editor) July 09, 2012 at 06:08 PM
Hi Guy, Thanks for your comment. Yes, of course I do have say over what appears on the site. In this case, my fellow Patch editor, David Ertischek, wrote the piece. He's the one who looked through the reports and I trusted his judgement about what to highlight.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something