FirstAlerts
Food Safety Inspections

BIAN in Chicago Failed Its Inspection

BIAN failed a health inspection on August 6, 2026, according to official inspection records.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 1:55 p.m. ET
The situation remains developing after , located at in , , Illinois, on August 6, 2026. Official inspection records classify the establishment under . Official health inspection records show no later inspection of this establishment. The business may have been re-inspected since without the record being updated. According to the inspector's notes in the official record, a priority violation was issued after observing no kit on site for responding to vomit and diarrhea events. The inspector also noted a lack of handwashing signage in toilet rooms throughout the facility. A low-temperature dish machine at the bar was found maintaining 0ppm of chlorine chemical sanitizer, resulting in the machine being tagged and held for inspection. The inspector recorded improper cold holding temperatures inside a 2-door cooler in the sushi prep area, where fish was recorded at 55.5F and 54.5F, and the cooler held an ambient temperature of 49.5F. Management discarded approximately 6lbs of product valued at approximately $220, and the cooler was tagged and held. Additional citations noted no thermometer inside a prep cooler in the first floor rear kitchen, missing DDBSA test strips for the 3 compartment sinks, and an uncorrected previous violation requiring allergen training certificates on site.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 17:55current

    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.