No one wants to be stricken by a nasty gastrointestinal virus on a cruise. So to keep the traveling public informed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention inspects ships and publishes the results. A score of 85 or lower is consider a “fail.”
Some of the ships on this list are obscure charter operators, but others are familiar to anyone who cruises.
So, without further ado, here are the winners … I mean, losers. (I’ve included an excerpt from the report for your reading enjoyment.)
1. TSS Oceanic (also known as the Peace Boat)
Date of inspection: June 26, 2009
Score: 73
There were trays of sliced cold cuts and cheese that were tested at 46-48.6°F in portable refrigeration unit P30. The thermometer in this unit registered 48°F … Side shields were not provided where crew members line up within one meter of food on display … The sneeze shields were too high because of the depth of the tray slides.
2. Pride of Aloha
Date of inspection: Dec. 21, 2007
Score: 78
The backflow prevention device on the soap dispenser was leaking … The large hotel pan of mixed butter had an internal temperature of 45 °F and another large pan of escargot butter had an internal temperature of 45 °F … Hotel pans of raw tuna and raw cod fish were stored on the same shelf and immediately beside a cold-smoked salmon and cream cheese terrine in the walk-in refrigerator of the Garde Manger.
3. MV Clipper Pacific
Date of inspection: July 14, 2008
Score: 84
A sample was collected for an e. coli test for the water bunkered in New York on 07/13/2008 but this sample still had not been tested on 07/14/2008 and the engineer had the sample in his pocket … There were numerous potable water connections throughout the vessel that were not fitted with backflow prevention devices … There were numerous potable water connections throughout the vessel that were not fitted with backflow prevention devices.
4. Amadea
Date of inspection: April 4, 2008
Score: 84
Although medical staff stated that handwashing tips and hygiene information was provided to passengers and crew diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis, this information was handwritten by the medical staff for each case, and no copies were on the vessel for review … Sponges were used throughout the ship in sanitizing solution buckets for wiping following cleaning of food and non-food contact surfaces … The deck at the starboard bar side, beneath the coffee counter was heavily soiled with black tile glue, dirt debris, and there were electrical cords stuck to the deck in the debris which made cleaning difficult.
5. Celebrity Infinity
Date of inspection: Dec. 3, 2008
Score: 85
A travel mug with milk residue, an individual portion size box of cereal and a spoon were stored on the shelf in this room … A food employee was observed tasting food with his finger … A side sneeze shield was not provided on the buffet.
✓ Get the latest travel news, tips and commentary from Elliott’s E-Mail, the subversive newsletter from industry gadfly Christopher Elliott. You’ll travel like a pro. Sign up here. It’s free.
Sign up for my 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
These inspections don’t exactly sound like they uncovered a pit of festering filth do they? You hear a lot worse when they go into local restaurants, what with the flies, mould and rats.
These are just snippets, far from the full report. If you actually click over to the report you’ll see that several of them DO have insect and mold problems. Remember too, that the report is focusing on the food service areas (storage, preparation, and serving). This isn’t an inspection of the entire ship!
I don’t know what the CDC protocol is for inspecting cruise ships, but I *hope* that those with failing grades are re-inspected within a ‘reasonable’ amount of time for corrections. I wonder what action is taken if they fail again?
When reviewing complete reports, I found myself wondering how you selected which violations to report. Some of ones not included in your report seem much more serious to me and the number of incidents cited seem more representative of the score then the ones in your report. Are these inspections scheduled or unscheduled? If scheduled, the violations are more serious – indicating poor preparation for an inspection (ie not taking inspections seriously). If unscheduled, it’s much harder to ensure compliance with all requirements given the number of employees (thousands) involved. Not meaning to make excuses just being more objective than your headline indicates
I’m not too impressed with the age of most of these reports. Only one was more recent than 6 months ago. Three of the five are a year or more old. More than enough time to make corrections. Show me recent inspections with these problems and I’ll be more concerned.
You included Pride of Aloha but it is no longer Pride of Aloha. It was reflagged last year as Norwegian Sky and retested with a much higher score.
And you fail to mention that if they do fail the inspection, they must correct the deficiences and be reinspected.