Taste of Chicago’s food-safety failures began before the first plate

Those losses are the most tangible consequence of a newly published WBEZ/Chicago Sun-Times investigation into the 2026 festival. Its findings expose two distinct failures: widespread trouble keeping food at safe temperatures during service, and a screening process in which fewer than half the vendors supplied an inspection meeting the city’s application requirement.⁠2

This is an accounting of a completed event, not a warning about an exposure continuing today. Taste ran July 8–12 in Grant Park. The Chicago Department of Public Health did not indicate signs of foodborne illness resulting from this year’s festival. That distinction matters: the records establish unsafe practices and corrective action, not an outbreak.⁠13⁠2

Published November 2, the investigation by Ambar Colón and Cam Rodriguez drew on thousands of pages of city records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The findings below come from their analysis; the linked individual festival inspection files were not independently accessible for this report. Fifty-eight of 81 vendors—about 72%—received at least one violation. Ten accumulated five or more, including two with nine each.⁠2

Temperature control dominated the findings: 82 violations involved food held at incorrect temperatures, with another seven involving faulty coolers and facilities. Together, those categories accounted for more than half of the festival’s violations. Beyond the Harold’s Chicken truck, at least 40 other vendors were cited for improper hot or cold holding.⁠2

The disposal figure is a minimum, not a precise final tally. The investigation’s opening and a Sun-Times newsletter described more than 800 pounds discarded; its detailed accounting establishes at least 800 pounds. Nor does disposal establish that every affected item reached a customer. It documents food being taken out of service when inspectors identified problems.⁠1⁠2

At Taste, finding one or more violations meant a vendor failed that inspection. It did not automatically mean a shutdown. Inspectors returned, checked corrections and required food to be discarded. The records also included overflowing garbage, backed-up or slow-draining sinks, missing food-safety licenses and employees wearing tank tops. These findings were not equivalent in seriousness: a clothing violation should not be treated as the same evidence of danger as improperly stored chicken.⁠2

Some violations concerned festival-specific restrictions. Josephine’s Southern Cooking was cited for washing dishes and preparing food on site, both prohibited under the rules described in the investigation. On the final day, inspectors found shrimp dumplings being filled on a folding table behind its tent, beside the park’s hedges. The documented finding was preparation alongside hedges—not proof that food was placed directly in bushes.⁠2

The city’s application standard was straightforward: participating businesses had to submit certifications and a clean inspection of their permanent restaurant or food truck from the six months before they applied. Only 35 of 81 vendors supplied an inspection meeting that timing-and-pass criterion.⁠2

That does not mean the other 46 had never passed an inspection. Every food vendor ultimately had a pass on file before Taste, according to the investigation, but some passes were outdated and others conditional. A conditional pass means inspectors found violations they did not consider an immediate food-safety hazard. A later pass could improve a business’s inspection record without satisfying the application’s requirement for a pass before applying.⁠2

The distinction is important, but it does not explain away the screening failure. If the city sets a specific entry requirement, having some form of pass somewhere in a vendor’s file is not the same as enforcing it. The Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events, or DCASE, produces Taste; the Illinois Restaurant Association manages its food operations for the department.⁠13

Nine restaurants failed inspections at their permanent locations between applying and opening day. Ponce illustrates why that history needs to be read in sequence. It applied April 21, then failed a June 24 restaurant inspection that documented about 35 mouse droppings in rear storage and behind freezers and racks, plus improperly labeled opened food packages. But Ponce passed a July 2 reinspection, before Taste opened. That later report identified no pest or pest-control issues, though it did not explain how the droppings had been addressed.⁠2

At the festival, Ponce failed three of four opening-day inspections, with improper holding temperatures among the findings. Its later disposal of at least 95 pounds followed further temperature problems. Ponce did not respond to several requests for comment from the investigating outlets.⁠2

Yummy Halal’s truck failed a June 16 inspection, 22 days before Taste, after an inspector found approximately 40 or more rat droppings on its floor and wastewater flowing from an exterior tank onto a street. At Taste, it failed five inspections, including findings involving food temperatures and missing hair restraints. Inspectors later closed it for the day because no certified manager was on site. That was a temporary closure during July’s festival, not evidence the business is closed now. Yummy Halal did not respond to the outlets’ requests for comment.⁠2

A qualifying application inspection was no guarantee of safe festival operations. Oooh Wee Smothered, a spin-off of Chatham’s Oooh We! It Is!, had a clean inspection about a month and a half before applying. Yet it accumulated nine violations across two festival days. Its first failed inspection included improper temperatures, an absent certificate holder and cooked chicken stored in a container previously used for raw chicken. The certificate holder returned, and the food was discarded. Later findings included an overly warm mayonnaise-based sauce, a cooler that was too warm and prohibited on-site preparation.⁠2

Richard Little, manager of the Chatham Oooh We! It Is!, offered an explanation that points beyond vendor conduct. He told the reporters that DCASE-provided cold-storage trailers, shared by seven to 10 businesses, malfunctioned on the first day through no fault of the restaurant. He said he contacted DCASE about reimbursement but received no compensation.⁠2

Little also described inconsistent enforcement: one inspector allowed green tomatoes to be chopped at the tent, while another prohibited it hours later. His complaint was not that unsafe food should stay on sale. He supported discarding food when inspectors required it to protect customers, while arguing that refrigeration and inspections could have been handled more smoothly.⁠2

The mayor’s office offered a broader assurance: “Through CDPH, the City continues to prioritize strengthening food safety inspections, enforcement, and compliance efforts.” It pointed to interagency cooperation and preventive public messaging. But that response did not explain why so many application inspections fell outside the stated requirement, settle the refrigeration dispute or identify specific changes for a future Taste.⁠2

Chicago has a reason to take those unanswered questions seriously without overstating this year’s evidence. In 2007, salmonella associated with hummus from Taste vendor Pars Cove Persian Cuisine sickened more than 300 people. No comparable outbreak has been indicated for the 2026 event.⁠2

The inspectors’ interventions were real: repeated checks, corrections, substantial food disposal and a day-long shutdown. But catching problems during service cannot substitute for enforcing entry requirements or making sure shared equipment works. The city’s next obligation is not another general promise to prioritize safety. It is an explanation of what failed—and specific changes that make the same failures less likely next time.