The person in charge couldn't answer basic food safety questions. Here's what inspectors found.

KISSIMMEE, FL. Back in February 2026, a state inspector walked up to the person running Notch Coffee Mobile, a mobile vendor operating in Kissimmee, and asked basic questions about foodborne illness. The person in charge could not answer them.

That single fact drove both violations recorded during the February 19 inspection by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The vendor met overall sanitation requirements and was not shut down, but the two citations pointed to gaps in the foundational knowledge that food safety regulators expect every operator to carry.

What Inspectors Found

The inspector's notes on the first violation were direct: "Person in charge unable to answer questions in regards to food borne illness and employee health." That is the language the inspector wrote into the record. It is classified as a priority foundation violation, meaning it reflects a structural gap in how the operation is managed, not a one-time oversight.

The second violation reinforced that picture. According to the inspection record, the food establishment had no written procedures for the cleanup of vomit and diarrhea. That requirement exists specifically for mobile vendors and food establishments where a sudden illness event among customers or staff could contaminate a food-handling environment with no clear protocol for containing it.

Neither violation was corrected on site.

What These Violations Mean

The "person in charge" standard in Florida food safety law is not a formality. State rules require that whoever is running a food establishment at any given moment be able to demonstrate knowledge of how foodborne illness spreads, which symptoms require an employee to be excluded from work, and how to respond if a customer or worker becomes ill on premises. When that knowledge is absent, the person in charge cannot catch problems before they become hazards.

At a mobile coffee vendor, the person in charge is often the only person working. There is no manager in a back office and no supervisor on a separate shift. If that single operator does not know the answers to basic food safety questions, there is no backup layer of oversight.

The missing written cleanup procedures carry a specific risk. Norovirus, one of the most common causes of foodborne illness outbreaks, spreads rapidly through contact with vomit or diarrhea. A written cleanup protocol specifies what protective equipment to use, how to contain the area, which disinfectants are effective, and how to dispose of contaminated materials. Without that document, an employee facing an illness event has no standardized guide, and the risk of cross-contamination to food contact surfaces rises sharply.

Neither of these violations involved an immediate food hazard that inspectors observed in the moment. But both reflect the kind of knowledge and preparedness gaps that allow smaller problems to grow into larger ones.

The Longer Record

The February 19, 2026, inspection is the record available for Notch Coffee Mobile. The data does not include prior inspections, which means this vendor either had not been inspected before under this registration or the earlier records are not part of the current file.

That context matters. A mobile vendor with a long clean history and two knowledge-based citations tells a different story than a new operation still building its compliance baseline. Without prior inspections on record, it is not possible to say whether these gaps represent a pattern or a first-time finding.

What is clear from the record is that both violations remained unresolved when the inspector left. The vendor met overall sanitation requirements and was not ordered to close, but the two citations, classified as priority foundation level, were not addressed during the visit.

Where Things Stood After the Inspection

Notch Coffee Mobile passed its February 2026 inspection in the sense that it met the threshold to remain operating. The two violations did not trigger a closure order or a stop sale.

But neither was corrected on site. The person in charge still could not answer the foodborne illness questions by the time the inspector finished. The written cleanup procedures still did not exist when the inspector left.

For anyone who stopped at this mobile vendor in the weeks before or after that February visit, the record shows an operator who was serving food and beverages without being able to demonstrate the basic knowledge state regulators require, and without a written plan for one of the most contagious illness scenarios a food-handling environment can face.