Among the self-serving criticisms some restaurants have offered to a county proposal that they post letter grades in their windows to reflect their compliance with health and safety laws, one has stood out as having merit.

That is, Napa County's existing system of rating restaurants is out of balance, penalizing restaurants nearly as much for inconsequential violations of food safety laws as for violations that might genuinely put diners at risk.

Could a restaurant get an unfairly low grade after an inspection even if it had no serious food-related violations? Some argued it could.

Since those complaints surfaced earlier this year, county health inspectors have revamped their program. Under proposed inspection criteria to go before the Napa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, inspections will focus heavily on key safety areas.

In the words of the board agenda, the inspection now lists as priorities "the violations related to the top five Centers for Disease Control food borne illness risk factors."

These include keeping food at inadequate and potentially dangerous temperatures, both hot and cold, preparing food too far ahead of service, inadequate reheating of food and the personal hygiene and health of food handlers.

These are the right priorities for inspectors and the public. They should also be the priorities for restaurants.

Given the changes, county leaders should follow the lead of inspectors who have nothing to gain except additional workload, put the interest of local diners and tourists first, and approve the inspection program and the posting of letter grades at restaurants.

The business community remains reluctant. The St. Helena Chamber of Commerce decided last week to flat-out oppose letter grades, worrying that consumers would be misled and that posting grades would hurt business.

But in our view, the upgrades the county has created diminish the possibility consumers will be misled. Offering no public information about health inspections -- which was the practice at an alarming number of restaurants, including those Upvalley, when the Register did a study earlier this year -- is much worse.

As for hurting business, anecdotal evidence from other counties suggests restaurants that perform well during inspections and post the results in a format easy for the public to understand see their business improve.

In the proposal to be aired Tuesday, the county has made concessions that give restaurants second chances, base grades on the last three inspections to minimize the harm of a bad day, and address concerns about training workers in the law.

The only remaining arguments against posting letter grades based on the inspections boil down to this: The grades will offer the public too much information, too readily, about restaurant compliance with health and safety laws. This is an empty argument.

The county has the power to improve the conditions in kitchens that feed the public. County inspectors are going about their duties with integrity and have made efforts to accommodate the legitimate concerns of restaurants.

The county should now finish the job, and put a system in place that best serves locals, visitors and those restaurants that take the law and their obligation to the public seriously.