The first is regarding DineSafe.org: I don't understand how the model works. I see that people can "report incidents", and I see that businesses can subscribe to get analytics on reports. What I don't see is the link: what incentive do people have to report incidents? What makes the particular types of people who report perceived foodborne illness to your website a trustworthy cohort to sample from?
Regarding "Iwaspoisoned.com" (which: I think get a better name?): it looks like what you're doing is scraping public food inspection reports (Everyblock used to do that too), and then allow people to submit their own reports that run alongside them. If that's what you're doing, it's deeply misleading: food inspections are (1) an authoritative source of information and (2) not usually reports of actual foodborne illness! The net effect is to blur the lines in both directions: to create the belief that restaurants in your area are routinely shut down due to foodborne illness problems, and to present the alimentary concerns of randos as equivalently authoritative.
For what it's worth: my concern wouldn't be that reports would be "malicious" or "inauthentic" (I'm sure there are reports like that, but I also agree that you'd probably be able to keep up with them). Rather: my assumption is that you'll have an even worse version of the Yelp problem, where people write simultaneously authentic and bad, poorly informed reports. Short of "our party of 4 ate at this restaurant and all 4 of us came down with severe GI symptoms" --- which is rare --- I don't understand how you could take any report at face value. Meanwhile: your "iwaspoisoned.com" site runs firsthand reports where people simply take photographs of their food and say in effect "this looks poisonous".