FirstAlerts
Food Safety Inspections

Panera Bread #1152 in Chicago Failed Its Inspection

An official health inspection on August 5, 2026, resulted in a failed rating for the Chicago establishment.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 12:57 p.m. ET
, located at in , failed its health inspection on August 5, 2026, according to official inspection logs. The establishment is classified as . The official records show no later inspection of this location, though it may have been re-inspected since without the public logs being updated. This is a developing situation. Inspectors cited multiple violations during the inspection. A black slime substance was observed on the interior of the ice machine at the upper ice chute and on the plastic ice chute at the dining room soda dispensing system, resulting in a citation. Additionally, TCS foods in the upper portion of a prep cooler were found at improper cold holding temperatures: hard boiled whole eggs at 57.2F, beef at 54.5F, and cooked rice at 55.7F. All listed food items were discarded after a manager discovered the upper cooler had been turned off, and the cooler regained adequate temperature after being turned on. Other inspector observations included a leak at the utility service sink faucet and dirt and debris on floors behind the rear exit CO2 container, behind the ice machine and bag-in-box soda dispensing system, and under the dishwashing machine, along with dirty floor drains under the dishwashing machine.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 16:57current

    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.