FirstAlerts
Food Safety Inspections

Tacos Y Tamales El Pollo in Chicago Failed August 13 Health Inspection

Tacos Y Tamales El Pollo on West 26th Street in Chicago failed its public health inspection on August 13, 2026.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 5:24 p.m. ET
Tacos Y Tamales El Pollo, located at in , , failed its public health inspection on August 13, 2026, according to the city's inspection record. The record shows no later inspection of this establishment, though it may have been re-inspected since without the record being updated. The establishment was recorded under . According to the inspection record, the inspector observed bulk containers not labeled in the prep area, a 1/4-inch gap at the bottom left side of the rear door, and bowls and cups used as dispensing utensils. The record also noted damaged door gaskets on coolers and freezers, food debris and spills on cooking equipment, coolers, freezers, prep tables, and shelving units, openings along walls, ceilings, and outlets, damaged wall tiles and floor tiles in the prep area, and excessive clutter and unused equipment stored in prep and basement areas. In addition, the inspection documented an uncorrected previous priority foundation violation from report #2639883 on July 20, 2026. The inspector observed over 30 rat droppings scattered on the floor along walls under the front counter, inside the bottom of chairs, and in basement areas, over 20 mice droppings under the front counter, and 7 live roaches crawling on the floor, wall, shelving units, wheel casters, and a container on prep tables and equipment shelving. A priority 7-42-090 citation was issued.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 21:24current

    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.