FirstAlerts
Food Safety Inspections

Viet Fusion on West Bryn Mawr Avenue in Chicago failed its September 8, 2026 inspection, city record shows

The Chicago inspection record lists a Fail result and a Risk 1 (High) category for Viet Fusion at 3236 W Bryn Mawr Ave, with no later inspection recorded.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 10, 2026, 8:23 a.m. ET
, at in , on September 8, 2026, according to the City of 's inspection record. The record lists the result as and the risk category as . The inspection record lists violations, including under item 38, Insects, Rodents, & Animals Not Present: "OBSERVED EVIDENCE OF RODENT ACTIVITY ON THE PREMISES. OBSERVED APPROX. 100 MOUSE DROPPINGS ON THE FLOOR OF THE BASEMENT STORAGE AREA, ON THE WOODEN PALLETS AND STORAGE SHELVES IN THE BASEMENT STORAGE AREA AND IN THE CORNER OF THE UTILITY ROOM LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE DINING ROOM. MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTED TO CLEAN AND REMOVE ALL RODENT DROPPINGS THROUGHOUT. ADDITIONAL PEST CONTROL SERVICE IS NEEDED TO ELIMINATE THE PEST ACTIVITY. PRIORITY FOUNDATION VIOLATION 7-38-020(A). CITATION ISSUED." A second item 38 entry records: "OBSERVED A DEAD MOUSE ON THE BASEMENT FLOOR NEXT TO THE HOT WATER HEATER. MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTED TO REMOVE ALL DEAD RODENTS FROM THE PREMISES." The record also lists, under item 49, Non-Food/Food Contact Surfaces Clean: "CLEAN THE PREP TABLES IN THE FOOD PREP AREA AND THE TOP OF THE STOVES." Under item 55, Physical Facilities Installed, Maintained & Clean, it lists: "REGLUE THE LOOSE FLOOR TILE IN THE FOOD PREP AREA IN FRONT OF THE FREEZER" and "CLEAN THE GREASE ON THE FLOOR BENEATH THE COOKING EQUIPMENT." The source is the City of 's inspection record, dated September 8, 2026.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 110 Sept 2026, 12:23current

    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.