FirstAlerts
Food Safety Inspections

Beaumont's Chicago Fails Inspection

Chicago's inspection record lists Beaumont's Chicago at 2020 N Halsted St as failing its Aug. 19, 2026 inspection.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 22, 2026, 5:09 a.m. ET
, at in , on Aug. 19, 2026, according to the City of 's inspection record. The record lists the result as "" and categorizes the risk as "." The inspection recorded multiple violations, including: an employee's open beverage behind the bar not covered or sealed; several handwashing sinks throughout the bars, server stations, and 's line not accessible for use, with some used as dump sinks and one blocked by metal containers of spices; handwashing sinks without signage; shellstock tags not dated with the date the last shellstock was sold; two chemical dishwashing machines not properly sanitizing, one with an empty sanitizer container and another dispensing soap where sanitizer should be; an incomplete consumer advisory on printed and virtual menus for items like steak tartare and oysters; bulk food containers not properly labeled; dry foods and food-contact items stored directly under water lines in the basement; handwashing sinks lacking splash guards; clean utensils hanging above the dirty wash compartment of the dish room's three-compartment sink; ice scoops at the bar stored with handles inside the ice; a knife improperly stored between equipment; stored items not elevated from floors; milk crates used for elevation; a porous stone pestle and mortar on prep shelving; peeling plastic on metal shelving in the basement prep area; and a dirty floor drain under the dish room scraper sink.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 122 Aug 2026, 09:09current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.