ORLANDO, FL. Back in March 2026, a state inspector visited Tigers On Trade LLC, a mobile vendor operating in Orlando, and found that the person running the stand that day could not correctly answer questions about preventing foodborne illness.
That single finding set the tone for an inspection that turned up four violations, all of them centered on the same theme: the people operating this vendor did not have documented systems in place to protect customers from getting sick.
What Inspectors Found
The inspector's notes on the person in charge were direct: "The person in charge does not respond correctly to questions related to foodborne illness." State guidance was provided on site, but the violation was not corrected during the inspection.
The inspector also documented that "it could not be verified that employees have been informed of their reporting responsibilities related to foodborne illness." In plain terms, the vendor could not show that its workers knew they were required to report it if they became sick.
A third citation noted that "the establishment does not have a written procedure for the clean up of vomit and diarrhea." The fourth violation flagged the absence of a certified food protection manager on staff.
None of the four violations were corrected on site. Industry guidance was provided for each one.
What These Violations Mean
The two violations tagged as priority foundation, meaning they are considered foundational to preventing foodborne illness, both involve the same core failure: the people working at this vendor did not demonstrate that they understood how disease spreads through food, and could not confirm their employees did either.
When a person in charge cannot answer basic questions about foodborne illness prevention, that is not a paperwork problem. It means the individual responsible for food safety decisions during that shift, temperature calls, handwashing enforcement, sick employee decisions, was operating without the knowledge those decisions require.
The employee illness reporting violation compounds that concern. State food safety rules require that workers know they must tell their supervisors if they are experiencing symptoms like vomiting or diarrhea, or if they have been diagnosed with certain illnesses. If that chain of communication does not exist, a symptomatic employee can continue handling food and customers have no protection.
The missing vomit and diarrhea cleanup procedure matters for a specific reason. Norovirus, one of the most common causes of foodborne illness outbreaks, spreads rapidly through contaminated surfaces. A written cleanup protocol specifying the use of appropriate disinfectants and the isolation of affected areas is a direct line of defense. Tigers On Trade did not have one documented at the time of this inspection.
The Longer Record
The March 5 inspection does not stand alone. State records show Tigers On Trade accumulated eight additional inspections in the weeks surrounding that visit, spanning from late February through late March 2026.
Two of those inspections, on February 25 and February 27, resulted in zero violations. Two more on March 16 also came back clean, and a March 19 visit found no violations either. That pattern suggests the vendor was capable of meeting standards, but did not consistently do so.
The March 18 preoperational inspection found three violations, and the March 25 sanitation inspection, conducted three weeks after the inspection at the center of this story, also returned three violations. The inspection history does not show what specific violations were cited on those surrounding dates, but the recurring presence of citations across multiple visits is notable for a vendor that also logged several clean inspections during the same stretch.
The February 25 inspection included one repeat violation, meaning an inspector had flagged the same problem before and found it unresolved on a return visit. That repeat citation predates the March 5 inspection by eight days.
Still Unresolved
Tigers On Trade met sanitation inspection requirements on March 5, meaning the overall inspection did not result in a closure or a failed status. Florida's FDACS inspection system can return a passing outcome even when violations are present, provided those violations do not rise to a level that requires immediate action.
But none of the four violations documented that day were corrected while the inspector was on site. The vendor left that inspection without a certified food protection manager, without verified employee illness reporting training, without a written cleanup procedure for contamination events, and with a person in charge who could not correctly answer questions about preventing foodborne illness.
The inspection record does not indicate whether those gaps were addressed before the next visit on March 16.