Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Food and You 2: Wave 8

PDF

View Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Food and You 2 Wave 8 as PDF(Open in a new window) (461.49 KB)

Overview of Food and You 2

Food and You 2 is a biannual ‘Official Statistic’ survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The survey measures self-reported consumers’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviours related to food safety and other food issues amongst adults in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

This report presents main findings from the Food and You 2: Wave 8 ‘Eating out and takeaway’ module relating to the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS). In this module respondents are asked about their awareness, use and attitudes towards the FHRS. This module is included within the Food and You 2 survey on an annual basis.

Fieldwork for Food and You 2: Wave 8 was conducted between 12th October 2023 and 8th January 2024. Around 6,000 adults (16 years or over) from around 4,000 households across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland completed the survey (see Annex A for more information about the methodology). In Wave 8, 4,966 adults across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland completed the online or postal version of the ‘Eating out and takeaway’ module which is presented in this report. Depending on their reported knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours, not every respondent will answer every question in the survey or module.  

Key Findings 

Awareness and recognition of the FHRS 

• 86% of respondents had heard of the FHRS; 86% in England, 93% in Wales, and 91% in Northern Ireland** ^{(footnote 1)}. 
• 57% of respondents had heard of the FHRS and knew a lot or a bit about it. Respondents in Wales (74%) and Northern Ireland (66%) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those in England (56%).
• Of those who had heard of the FHRS, 85% had come across the FHRS through a food hygiene rating sticker displayed at a food business premises, 36% had come across it on a food business’s own website, and 22% had come across it on a food ordering delivery website or app. 
• When shown an image of the food hygiene rating sticker, 89% reported that they had seen the sticker before. Recognition of the sticker was slightly lower in England (89%) than in Wales (95%) and Northern Ireland (94%)**. Respondents were most likely to have seen the sticker in a restaurant (84%), café (72%) or takeaway (65%) in the last 12 months. 

Use of the FHRS

• Around 4 in 10 (42%) respondents had checked the food hygiene rating of a food business in the previous 12 months (either at the business premises or online). Respondents in Wales (58%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business than those in England (41%), and Northern Ireland (49%).
• Of those who had checked the food hygiene rating of a food business, most respondents (86%) had done this by looking at a food hygiene rating sticker displayed at the business, and the most common types of businesses where respondents had checked ratings were takeaways (70%) and restaurants (70%). 
• Around one in 10 (9%) respondents reported that they always checked the food hygiene rating of a restaurant or takeaway on arrival, 21% reported that they did this most of the time, 31% of respondents did this about half the time or occasionally and 35% of respondents never did this.

Use of the FHRS in decision making

• Of those who had heard of the FHRS, most said that they would still eat at a restaurant or takeaway if they saw a food hygiene rating sticker with a rating of 4 (good) (94%) or 3 (generally satisfactory) (61%). However, most respondents reported that they would not eat at a restaurant or takeaway if they saw a food hygiene rating sticker with a rating of 2 (improvement necessary) (82%), 1 (major improvement necessary) (95%) or 0 (urgent improvement necessary) (95%).
• Less than 1 in 10 (8%) respondents said that a rating of 5 (very good) is the lowest rating they would consider acceptable when considering buying food. 44% would consider a rating of 4 (good) as the lowest acceptable rating, and 37% of respondents would consider 3 (generally satisfactory). 
• Of those who had heard of the FHRS, 58% would be less likely (i.e., ‘much less likely’ or ‘a little less likely’) to eat at a food business that did not have the food hygiene rating sticker present at the entrance. 
• Of those who had heard of the FHRS, 17% reported that in the last 12 months, they had decided against using a food business because it did not display its food hygiene rating sticker.
• The most common concerns that respondents said they would have if they visited a food business that did not display its food hygiene rating sticker were that the food business had poor hygiene standards (50%) and that it had a poor or low food hygiene rating and was trying to hide it (47%). Respondents in Wales (56%) and Northern Ireland (53%) were more likely to be concerned that the food business had a low/poor hygiene rating and was trying to hide it than respondents in England (46%)**. 

Views on mandatory display

• Of the respondents who had heard of the FHRS, 91% thought that food businesses should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating at their premises. Similarly, 93% thought that businesses providing an online food ordering service should display their food hygiene rating where it can clearly be seen by customers before they order food.

The Food Standards Agency: role, remit, and responsibilities 

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is a non-ministerial government department working to protect public health and consumers’ wider interests in relation to food in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The FSA’s overarching mission is ‘food you can trust’. The FSA’s vision as set out in the 2022-2027 strategy is a food system in which:

• Food is safe
• Food is what it says it is
• Food is healthier and more sustainable

Food and You 2 is designed to monitor the FSA’s progress against this vision and inform policy decisions by measuring self-reported consumers’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviours related to food safety and other food issues in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland on a regular basis.

Introduction to the FHRS

The Food Hygiene Rating Scheme ^{(footnote 1)} (FHRS), which operates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was launched in 2010 and helps people make informed choices about where to eat out or shop for food by giving clear information about the businesses’ hygiene standards found at the time of local authority food hygiene inspections. Ratings are given to places where food is supplied or sold directly to people, such as restaurants, pubs, cafés, takeaways, hotels, schools, hospitals, care homes, supermarkets, and other retailers. In Wales, the scheme also includes businesses that trade only with other businesses, for example, manufacturers.

The FSA runs the scheme in partnership with local authorities in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. A food safety officer from the local authority inspects a business to check that it follows food hygiene law so that the food is safe to eat. Businesses are given a rating from 0 to 5. A rating of 5 indicates that hygiene standards are very good and a rating of 0 indicates that urgent improvement is required. 

Food businesses are provided with a sticker which shows their rating. In England businesses are encouraged to display their rating, however in Wales and Northern Ireland food businesses are legally required to display their rating ^{(footnote 2)}. Ratings are also available on the FSA ratings website and via other third-party apps.

Food and You 2: Wave 8

This report presents key findings from the Food and You 2: Wave 8 survey relating to the FHRS, including respondents’ awareness, recognition, and use of the FHRS, understanding and impact of the FHRS on behaviour and attitudes toward the FHRS.

Fieldwork for Food and You 2: Wave 8 was conducted between 12th October 2023 and 8th January 202463T. Around 6,000 adults (16 years or over) from approximately 4,000 households across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland completed the survey (see Annex A for more information about the methodology). In wave 8, a total of 4,966 adults (aged 16 years or over) across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland completed the ‘Eating out and takeaway’ module via the online survey or the ‘Eating out’ postal questionnaire. Depending on their reported knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours not every respondent will answer every question in the survey or module. 

Questions asked in other modules of the Food and You 2: Wave 8 survey (e.g. ‘Eating at home’) are not included in this report. The full results are available in the accompanying data tables and underlying dataset.

Interpreting the findings 

The report presents differences between some socio-demographic and sub-groups (for example, by country) in the population. To highlight the key differences, any variation in response profiles is typically reported only where the absolute difference is 10 percentage points or larger and is statistically significant at the 5% level (p<0.05). However, some differences between socio-demographic and other sub-groups are included where the difference is fewer than 10 percentage points, when the finding is notable or judged to be of interest. These differences are indicated with a double asterisk (**). 

In some cases, it was not possible to include the data of all sub-groups, however these data are available in the full data set and tables. 

Key information is provided for each reported question in the footnotes, including:   

• Question wording (question) and response options (responses). 
• Number of respondents presented with each question and description of the respondents who answered the question (base = x).
• ‘Please note:’ indicates important points to consider when interpreting the results.  

Awareness of the FHRS

Most respondents (86%) reported that they had heard of the FHRS. Over half (57%) reported that they had heard of the FHRS and knew quite a lot or a bit about it, 29% had heard of the FHRS but didn’t know much or anything about it and 14% had never heard of the FHRS ^{(footnote 1)}.

Most respondents in England (86%), Wales (93%), and Northern Ireland (91%) had heard of the FHRS (Figure 1)**.

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Knowledge of the FHRS varied by country. Respondents in Wales (74%) and Northern Ireland (66%) were more likely to report that they had heard of the FHRS and had at least a bit of knowledge of it compared to those in England (56%).

Knowledge of the FHRS also varied between regions in England. For example, 62% of respondents in North-West England, 60% of those in the East Midlands, 59% in the East of England and 58% of those in South-East England reported having some knowledge of the FHRS, compared to 47% in London.

Respondents aged between 25 and 74 were more likely to have at least a bit of knowledge of the FHRS than those aged 75 or over. For example, 65% of those aged 45 to 64 reported knowledge of the FHRS, compared to 45% of those aged 75 or over (Figure 2).

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Knowledge of the FHRS also varied between the following groups of people:

• National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC): respondents in occupational groups (for example, 61% of those in intermediate occupations and lower supervisory and technical occupations) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those who were long term unemployed and/or never worked (40%).
• Responsibility for cooking: respondents who were responsible for cooking (59%) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those who do not cook (34%). 
• Responsibility for shopping: respondents who were responsible for food shopping (58%) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those who do not shop for food (41%). 
• Ethnic group: white (60%) respondents were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than Asian or Asian British (46%) respondents. 

Respondents who had heard of the FHRS were asked where they had come across the FHRS. The most common place was a food hygiene rating sticker displayed at a food business premises (85%). 36% of respondents had come across the FHRS on a food business’ website, 22% of respondents had come across the FHRS on a food ordering delivery website or app (for example, Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats), 16% of respondents had come across the FHRS by word of mouth, and 16% of respondents had come across the FHRS on the FSA’s website (Figure 3) ^{(footnote 2)}.

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Most respondents in England (85%), Wales (90%) and Northern Ireland (89%) had come across the FHRS via a sticker in a food business (Figure 4)**. The second most common location respondents had come across the FHRS in England (37%), Wales (38%) and Northern Ireland (29%) was on a food business’s own website**.

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

There were age group differences in where respondents had come across the FHRS: 

• Respondents under 65 were more likely to have come across the FHRS via a sticker in a food business than older adults. For example, 91% of those aged 45 to 64 had come across a sticker in a food business, compared to 78% of those aged 65 to 74. 
• Younger respondents were more likely to have come across the FHRS via a food ordering website or app than older adults. For example, 39% of people aged 25 to 34 had come across the FHRS via a food ordering website or app, compared to 6% of people aged 65-74 and 3% of people aged 75 and over. 
• Respondents aged 16 to 24 were more likely to have come across the FHRS via social media (24%) than people aged 25 and over. For example, 8% of respondents aged 45 to 64 had come across the FHRS via social media. 
• Respondents aged 75 and over were more likely to have come across the FHRS in a local newspaper (14%) or in an advert or magazine article (13%) than those aged 16-24 (1% for either location). 

Recognition of the FHRS

When shown an image of the food hygiene rating sticker, 89% of respondents reported that they had seen the food hygiene rating sticker before. Recognition of the food hygiene rating sticker was slightly higher in Wales (95%) and Northern Ireland (94%) than in England (89%) ^{(footnote 3)}**.

Younger respondents were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than older respondents. For example, 96% of those aged 16 to 24 reported that they had seen the sticker, compared to 69% of those aged 75 and over (Figure 5).

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Recognition of the food hygiene rating sticker also varied for the following groups:  

• Household size: respondents in households with 3 or more people (for example, 95% of those in 4-person households) were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than those living in 1 person households (80%). 
• Annual household income: respondents with an income of more than £96,000 were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker (97%) than those with an income of less than £19,000 (86%).
• Responsibility for cooking: respondents who were responsible for cooking (90%) were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than those who do not cook (80%). 

Respondents were asked where they had seen the food hygiene rating sticker in the last 12 months. Most respondents had seen the sticker in restaurants (84%), in cafés (72%), or in takeaways (65%) (Figure 6) ^{(footnote 4)}.

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Most respondents had seen the food hygiene rating sticker in restaurants in England (83%), Wales (85%) and Northern Ireland (85%)**. Respondents in Wales were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker in takeaways (76%) and coffee or sandwich shops (68%) compared to respondents in England (takeaways 64%, coffee or sandwich shops 56%). Respondents in Wales were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker in pubs (65%) than those in Northern Ireland (42%) and England (52%). Respondents in Wales (37%) and Northern Ireland (37%) were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker in hotels and B&Bs than respondents in England (23%) (Figure 7).

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Understanding of the FHRS

Respondents were asked which types of food businesses, from a given list, they thought were covered by the FHRS. Most respondents thought that restaurants (93%), cafés (91%), takeaways (89%), coffee or sandwich shops (87%), pubs (85%) and hotels or B&Bs (77%) were covered by the FHRS. Fewer respondents thought that that schools and other institutions (55%), supermarkets (45%), and market or street food stalls (45%) were covered by the FHRS (Figure 8) ^{(footnote 1)}. In Wales only, the FHRS also covers food establishments involved in business-to-business trade, for example food manufacturers, or packers with no retail outlet. Only 38% of respondents in Wales thought that the FHRS covers these types of businesses. 

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Use of the FHRS 

All respondents, regardless of their knowledge about the scheme, were asked if they had checked the food hygiene rating of a food business in the previous 12 months (either at the business’ premises or online) regardless of whether they decided to buy food there or not. Around 4 in 10 (42%) respondents had checked the food hygiene rating of a food business in the previous 12 months ^{(footnote 2)}.
Respondents in Wales (58%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business than those in England (41%), and those in Northern Ireland (49%)**.

Checking of food hygiene ratings varied between different groups of people:

• Age group: younger respondents were more likely to have checked a food hygiene rating of a business than older adults. For example, 53% of those aged 25-34 had checked the food hygiene rating of a business compared to 26% of those aged 75 and over.
• Household size: those living in households of 3 or 4 people (for example, 52% of those in a 4-person household) were more likely to have checked the rating of a business than those living in a 1-person household (33%). 
• Region (England): respondents from the West Midlands (48%) and North-West England (47%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business than respondents from South-West England (35%) or London (35%). 
• Food security ^{(footnote 3)}: respondents with low or very low food security (52%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business compared to 40% of those with marginal or high food security.
• Food hypersensitivity: respondents with a food allergy (57%) - but not those with other forms of food hypersensitivity, such as a food intolerance or Coeliac disease - were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business compared to 41% of those with no food allergy or intolerance. 
• Responsibility for cooking: respondents who were responsible for cooking (43%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business compared to 29% of those who do not cook. 

Respondents who had checked the food hygiene rating of a business were asked which types of food businesses they had checked the hygiene ratings for in the previous 12 months. Most respondents had checked the food hygiene rating of takeaways (70%) and restaurants (70%). Over half (51%) had checked the food hygiene rating of cafés, 35% had checked the rating of coffee or sandwich shops and 34% had checked the rating of pubs (Figure 9) ^{(footnote 4)}. 

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Checking of food hygiene ratings varied between different types of businesses for different groups of people:

• Age group: older respondents were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of some types of businesses compared to younger adults. For example, respondents aged 65-74 were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of cafes (59%), pubs (47%), coffee & sandwich shops (43%), and hotels/B&Bs (17%) than respondents aged 16-24 (42% cafes, 27% pubs, 32% coffee or sandwich shops, and 6% hotels/B&Bs). 
• Household size: those living in households of 2 or more people were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of takeaways than those living in a 1-person household (56%). For example, 79% of respondents living in households of 5 or more people had checked the food hygiene rating of takeaways. 
• Food security: respondents with low food security (82%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of takeaways than respondents with marginal (72%) or high (65%) food security. 
• Annual household income: those living in households with an annual income of less than £19,000 were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of supermarkets (17%) than higher income households. For example, 3% of households earning £64,000 to £95,999 and 5% of households earning £96,000 or more had checked the food hygiene rating of supermarkets. 
• Region (England): respondents living in London (77%), South-East England (76%) and Yorkshire and the Humber (75%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of restaurants than respondents in North-West England (56%).  Respondents in the West Midlands (80%) and North-West England (77%) were more likely to have checked the rating of takeaways than respondents in South-West England (62%) and London (57%). 

Respondents who had checked the food hygiene rating of a business were asked how they had checked the rating. Most (86%) respondents had looked at the food hygiene rating sticker displayed at the food business. Around 1 in 5 (21%) had checked the food hygiene rating of a business on a food business’ own website, or (20%) via an online food ordering website or app (for example, Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats), and 15% of respondents had checked on the FSA’s website (Figure 10) ^{(footnote 5)}.

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Respondents in England (85%), Wales (89%), Northern Ireland (91%) were most likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via a food hygiene rating sticker displayed at the business**. 

How respondents checked hygiene ratings varied between different groups of people:

• Age group: respondents under 55 years (for example, 20% of those aged 35 to 44) were more likely to have checked a hygiene rating on the FSA’s website than those aged 55 and over (for example, 3% of those aged 75 and over). 
• Region (England): respondents living in the East of England (92%) and South-West England (91%) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via an FHRS sticker displayed at the food business than respondents in North-West England (76%). 
• Annual household income: respondents with an annual household income of less than £96,000 (for example, 27% of respondents with an annual income of £19,000 to £31,999) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business on its own website than households with an income of £96,000 or more (9%). Respondents on higher incomes (for example, 28% of households with an income of £96,000 or more) were more likely to have checked a hygiene rating on the FSA’s website than those with a household income under £32,000 (for example, 8% of respondents with an income of £19,000 or less). 
• National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC): respondents in managerial, administrative and professional occupations (23%) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business on its own website than respondents in semi-routine and routine occupations (13%). 
• Food security: Respondents with low or very low food security (29%) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via its own website than those with high or marginal food security (18%). 

In some cases, how different groups checked the hygiene rating of a food business may indicate where they eat out or how they order takeaways:  

• Age group: younger adults were more likely to have eaten takeaway from an online food delivery company (for example 59% of respondents aged 16 to 24) and to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via an online food ordering website or app (27% of respondents aged 16 to 24) compared to older adults. For example, 7% of those aged 65 to 74 years had eaten takeaway from an online food delivery company and 5% had used this to check the hygiene rating of a food business ^{(footnote 6)}. 
• Children under 16: respondents with children under 16 in the household were also more likely to have eaten takeaway from an online food delivery company (43%) and to have used this to check the hygiene rating of a food business (29%) compared to households without children. 27% of respondents without children in the household had eaten takeaway from an online delivery company and 16% had used this to check the hygiene rating of a food business. 
• Children under 6: similarly, respondents with young children under 6 in the household were even more likely to have eaten takeaway from an online food delivery company (52%) and to have used this to check the hygiene rating of a food business (34%) than households without young children. 28% of respondents without children under 6 in the household had eaten takeaway from an online delivery company and 17% had used this to check the hygiene rating of a food business. 
• Food security: respondents with high food security were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via an FHRS sticker displayed at the food business (90%) than respondents with low food security (79%). Respondents with high food security (77%) were also more likely to have eaten out at a restaurant, bar or pub than respondents with low food security (67%). Those with low or marginal food security (both 30%) were more likely to have checked a hygiene rating via an online food ordering website or app compared to 14% of those with high food security. These respondents were also more likely to have ordered takeaway from a food delivery website or app (for example, 48% of respondents with low food security compared to 23% of respondents with high food security). 

Respondents who had checked the food hygiene rating of a business in the previous 12 months were asked how often the rating was easy to find. 14% of respondents reported that the food hygiene rating was always easy to find, 64% reported that that the rating was easy to find most of the time, and 19% reported it was easy to find about half of the time or occasionally ^{(footnote 7)}. 

FHRS usage when eating out or buying takeaway

Respondents were asked which factors, from a given list of responses, they generally considered when deciding where to eat out or order a takeaway from ^{(footnote 8)}.

Of those who had ordered food from a takeaway, the factors most commonly taken into consideration when deciding where to order from, were the respondents’ previous experience of the takeaway (79%) and the quality of food (70%). Around a third (34%) of respondents considered the food hygiene rating when deciding where to order a takeaway from. (Figure 11) ^{(footnote 9)}. 

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Respondents in Wales (45%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating than respondents in England (33%) or Northern Ireland (37%)**.
Consideration of the food hygiene rating when deciding where to order a takeaway varied between different groups of people:

• Age group: respondents aged 45 to 54 (39%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to respondents aged 65 and over (for example, 19% of those aged 75 and over).
• Annual household income: respondents with an annual household income of less than £19,000 (42%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to respondents whose annual household income was £32,000 or more (for example, 26% of those with an annual household income of £96,000 or more). 
• National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC): respondents in lower supervisory or technical occupations were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways (41%) than respondents in managerial, administrative and professional occupations (31%). 
• Region (England): respondents living in every English region except Yorkshire and the Humber (for example, 45% of those in the West Midlands) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to those in South-West England (19%).
• Food security: respondents with low or very low food security were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways (43%) than respondents with high or marginal food security (30%). 
• Responsibility for cooking: respondents who were responsible for cooking (35%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to those who do not cook (22%).

Of those who eat out, the factors most commonly taken into consideration when deciding where to eat were the quality of food (83%) and the respondents’ previous experience of the place (80%) (Figure 12) ^{(footnote 10)}.

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

The Food Hygiene Rating was not in the top ten factors taken into consideration when eating out. It was the 11th most common factor - around 4 in 10 (41%) respondents considered the food hygiene rating when deciding where to eat. Respondents in Wales (52%) and Northern Ireland (47%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when deciding where to eat than respondents in England (40%)**. 

Consideration of the food hygiene rating when deciding where to eat varied between different groups of people:

• Age group: Respondents aged 16 to 24 (53%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when deciding where to eat than most other age groups (for example, 37% of respondents aged 25 to 34 and 35% of respondents aged 65-74). 
• Household size: Respondents living in 4-person households (48%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when deciding where to eat than respondents in 1-person households (34%) or respondents in households of 5 or more people (34%). 
• Annual household income: respondents with a lower annual household income (for example, 47% of those with an income of less than £19,000) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when deciding where to eat than respondents with a higher annual household income (for example, 25% of those with an income of £96,000 or more). 
• Food security: respondents with low or very low food security (53%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when deciding where to eat than respondents with high or marginal food security (37%). 
• Region (England): respondents in the West Midlands (52%), North-East England (50%), North-West England (43%) and South-East England (40%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when deciding where to eat than respondents in South-West England (29%). 
• Responsibility for shopping: respondents who were responsible for shopping (42%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when deciding where to eat than respondents who never shop for food (28%). 

How often respondents checked a food business’ hygiene rating upon arrival

Respondents were asked how often they checked the food hygiene rating of a restaurant or takeaway upon arrival. Around 1 in 10 (9%) reported that they always checked the food hygiene rating of a business on arrival, 21% of respondents reported that they did most of the time and 32% did this about half the time or occasionally. Over a third (35%) of respondents reported that they never checked the food hygiene rating of a business upon arrival ^{(footnote 11)}.

Respondents in Wales (47%) and Northern Ireland (39%) were more likely to report that they always checked the food hygiene rating upon arrival or did this most of the time compared to those in England (28%). Respondents in England (36%) and Northern Ireland (28%) were more likely to report that they never checked the rating upon arrival compared to those in Wales (18%).

Acceptable food hygiene ratings

Respondents were asked to consider whether they would still eat or order food from a restaurant or takeaway, if on arrival they saw a food hygiene rating sticker where the business scored lower than the maximum rating of 5 (very good). Most respondents said they would still eat at a restaurant or takeaway if they saw a food hygiene rating sticker with a rating of 4 (good) (94%) or 3 (generally satisfactory) (61%). However, most respondents reported that they would not eat at a restaurant or takeaway if they saw a food hygiene rating sticker with a rating of 2 (improvement necessary) (82%), 1 (major improvement necessary) (95%) or 0 (urgent improvement necessary) (95%) (Figure 13) ^{(footnote 1)}.

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Respondents were asked what they would usually consider the lowest acceptable food hygiene rating when considering buying food from somewhere. 8% of respondents would only consider a rating of 5 acceptable while most respondents said that a rating of 4 (44%) or 3 (37%) was the lowest rating they would consider acceptable. A minority of respondents considered a rating of 2 (4%), 1 (1%) or 0 (1%) to be acceptable ^{(footnote 2)}. 

Situations which impact acceptable food hygiene ratings

Respondents were asked if they could think of a situation where they might decide to buy food from a business with a rating lower than their usual lowest acceptable rating. Across all ratings, around two-thirds (68%) of respondents could not think of a situation in which they might decide to buy food from a food business with a lower rating, while 24% could think of a situation (Figure 14) ^{(footnote 3)  (footnote 4)}.

 

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Respondents who could think of a situation where they might buy food from a food business with a rating lower than what they would usually consider acceptable were asked what, from a given list, that situation would be. The most common situations were if there wasn’t much choice of places to go (53%), if they had eaten food from there before (51%), if they needed to pick something up quickly (36%), or if they knew the food was of high quality (35%) (Figure 15) ^{(footnote 5)}.

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Respondents were asked if they could think of an occasion in which they would only buy food from a business with a rating which is higher than their usual lowest acceptable rating. Overall, most respondents (66%) could think of a situation in which this would apply, and 23% of respondents could not. Most respondents who considered a rating of 2 (improvement necessary) (50%), 3 (generally satisfactory) (66%), or 4 (good) (68%) as generally acceptable could think of a situation in which they would only buy food from a food business with a higher rating (Figure 16) ^{(footnote 6)  (footnote 7)}. 

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Respondents who could think of an occasion where they would only buy food from a business with a rating higher than what they would usually consider acceptable were asked what, from a given list, that occasion would be. The most common occasions were special occasions (54%), when with particular people or family members (46%), when in an unfamiliar location (e.g., away with work or on holiday) (41%), or when the respondent or someone else had special health issues (e.g., illness or pregnancy) (41%) (Figure 17) ^{(footnote 8)}.

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Impact of FHRS rating stickers on behaviours and perception

Respondents were asked to what extent, if at all, a food business not having the food hygiene rating sticker present at the entrance would affect their decision to eat there. Of those who had heard of the FHRS, 58% would be less likely (i.e., ‘much less likely’ or ‘a little less likely’) to eat at a food business that did not have the food hygiene rating sticker present at the entrance. However, 29% of respondents reported that it would not make them any less likely to eat there. 13% of respondents reported that they didn’t know what effect a business not displaying their rating would have on their decision to eat there ^{(footnote 9)}.

A higher proportion of respondents living in Wales (70%) reported being less likely to eat at a food business which did not have the food hygiene rating sticker present at the entrance compared to those in England (57%) and Northern Ireland (60%).

Respondents who had heard of the FHRS were also asked if, in the last 12 months, they had decided against using a food business because it did not display its food hygiene rating sticker. 17% reported that they had decided against using a food business because it did not display its food hygiene rating sticker, while 63% had not done this. 20% of respondents reported that they did not know or couldn’t remember if they had decided against using a food business because it did not display its food hygiene rating sticker ^{(footnote 10)}.

Concerns about food businesses not displaying an FHRS rating

Respondents were asked what concerns they would have if they visited a food business that did not display its food hygiene rating sticker on the premises. The most common concerns were that the food business had poor hygiene standards (50%) and that the food business had a poor or low food hygiene rating and was trying to hide it (47%). Respondents in Wales (56%) and Northern Ireland (53%) were more likely to be concerned that the food business had a low/poor hygiene rating and was trying to hide it than respondents in England (46%)**. 

Over a quarter (26%) of respondents would not notice the food hygiene rating sticker was missing and 4% would not be concerned about anything if the sticker was not displayed (Figure 18) ^{(footnote 11)}. Respondents in England (27%) were more likely to report that they would not notice if the sticker was missing than respondents in Wales (18%) or Northern Ireland (20%)**.

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Views on mandatory display ^{(footnote 1)} 

Respondents were asked whether they thought that food businesses should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating at their premises, or if it should be up to the business to decide whether to or not. Of the respondents who had heard of the FHRS, 91% thought that food businesses should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating on the premises, and 5% thought it should be up to the business to decide whether to display their food hygiene rating. 4% of respondents didn’t know whether this should be a legal requirement or up to the business to decide. This finding was similar across all three countries; most respondents in England (91%), Wales (94%) and Northern Ireland (94%) thought that food businesses should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating at their premises** ^{(footnote 2)}. 

Respondents were also asked whether they thought businesses providing an online food ordering service should display their food hygiene rating where it can clearly be seen by customers before they order food. Of the respondents who had heard of the FHRS, 93% thought that businesses providing an online food ordering service should display their food hygiene rating where it can clearly be seen by customers before they order food, 1% did not and 5% said they didn’t know. This finding was consistent in England (93%), Wales (95%), and Northern Ireland (95%)** ^{(footnote 3)}.

Views on where food hygiene ratings should be displayed

Respondents were asked where they thought hygiene ratings should be displayed, from a given list of locations. Most respondents thought that food hygiene ratings should be displayed on restaurant or café websites (93%), takeaway websites (93%), hotel or B&B websites (92%), and on the websites or apps of food ordering and delivery companies (92%). Around 8 in 10 respondents thought that food hygiene ratings should be displayed on supermarket websites (81%) and on food business’s social media sites (81%) (Figure 19) ^{(footnote 4)}.

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 8

Background

In 2018 the Advisory Committee for Social Science (ACSS) established a new Food and You Working Group to review the methodology, scope and focus of the Food and You survey. The Food and You Working Group provided a series of recommendations on the future direction of the Food and You survey to the FSA and the ACSS in April 2019. Food and You 2 was developed from the recommendations. 

The Food and You 2 survey replaced the biennial face-to-face Food and You survey (2010-2018), biannual Public Attitudes Tracker (2010-2019) and annual Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Consumer Attitudes Tracker (2014-2019). The Food and You survey has been an Official Statistic since 2014. Due to differences in the question content, presentation and mode of response, direct comparisons should not be made between these earlier surveys and Food and You 2.

Previous FHRS publications in this series include:

• Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Food and You 2: Wave 2 (December 2021)
• Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Food and You 2: Wave 4 (November 2022)
• Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Food and You 2: Wave 6 (November 2023) 

Methodology

The Food and You 2 survey is commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The fieldwork is conducted by Ipsos. Food and You 2 is a biannual survey. Fieldwork for Wave 8 was conducted from 63T12PthP October 2023 and 8PthP January 202463T. 

Response rates

For Wave 8 a total of 5,808 adults from 4,006 households across England (2,870 adults), Northern Ireland (1,550 adults), and Wales (1,388 adults), completed the survey. An overall response rate of 26.7% was achieved. 67.4% of respondents completed the survey online and 32.6% completed the postal version of the survey.

Food and You 2 uses a modular approach where some questions are asked in every wave of the survey (every 6 months), whereas others are asked less frequently for example every year or every 2 years. This report presents findings mostly from the F&Y2: Wave 8 ‘Eating out and takeaway’ module relating to the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS). These questions are asked on an annual basis. 

Some of these findings are included within the Food and You 2: Wave 8 Key Findings report however are presented in greater detail in this report. 

A total of 4,966 adults (aged 16 years or over) across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland completed the ‘Eating out and takeaway’ module via the online survey or the ‘Eating out’ postal questionnaire. Not every respondent will have answered every question depending on the respondents self-reported behaviours, knowledge and attitudes.

Survey design

Food and You 2 is a sequential mixed-mode ‘push-to-web’ survey. A random sample of addresses (selected from the Royal Mail’s Postcode Address File) received a letter inviting up to two adults (aged 16 or over) in the household to complete the online survey. A first reminder letter was sent to households that had not responded to the initial invitation. A postal version of the survey accompanied the second reminder letter for those who did not have access to the internet or preferred to complete a postal version of the survey. This helps to reduce the response bias that otherwise occurs with online-only surveys. A third and final reminder was sent to households if the online survey had not been completed. Respondents were given a gift voucher for completing the survey.

Due to the length and complexity of the online questionnaire it was not possible to include all questions in the postal version of the questionnaire. To make the postal version of the questionnaire shorter and less complex, two versions were produced. 

Weighting

Weighting was applied to ensure the data are as close as possible to being representative of the socio-demographic and sub-groups in the population, as is usual practice in government surveys. The weighting applied to the Food and You 2 data helps to compensate for variations in within-household individual selection, for response bias, and for the fact that some questions were only asked in one of the postal surveys. 
Further details about the methodology, response rates, weighting approach used and the weights applied to the Food and You 2: Wave 8 data are available in the Technical Report.

Interpreting the findings

All data collected by Food and You 2 are self-reported. The data are the respondents own reported attitudes, knowledge and behaviour relating to food safety and food issues. As a social research survey, Food and You 2 cannot report observed behaviours. 

The p-values that test for statistical significance are based on t-tests comparing the weighted proportions for a given response within that socio-demographic and sub-group breakdown. An adjustment has been made for the effective sample size after weighting, but no correction is made for multiple comparisons.

Reported differences between socio-demographic and sub-groups typically have a minimum difference of 10 percentage points between groups and are statistically significant at the 5% level (p<0.05). However, some differences between respondent groups are included where the difference is fewer than 10 percentage points when the finding is notable or of interest. Percentage calculations are based only on respondents who provided a response. Reported values and calculations are based on weighted totals. 

Technical terms and definitions

1. Statistical significance is indicated at the 5% level (p<0.05). This means that where a significant difference is reported, there is reasonable confidence that the reported difference is reflective of a real difference at the population level. 
2. Food security means that all people always have access to enough food for a healthy and active lifestyle (World Food Summit, 1996). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has created a series of questions which indicate a respondent’s level of food security. Food and You 2 incorporates the 10 item U.S. Adult Food Security Survey Module and uses a 12 month time reference period. Respondents are referred to as being food secure if they are classified as having high food security (no reported indications of food-access problems or limitations), or marginal food security (one or two reported indications—typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake). Respondents are referred to as being food insecure if they are classified as having low food security (reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake) or very low food security (reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake). 
3. NS-SEC (The National Statistics Socio-economic classification) is a classification system which provides an indication of socio-economic position based on occupation and employment status.
4. Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) / Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) / Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure (NIMDM) is the official measure of relative deprivation of a geographical area. IMD/WIMD/NIMDM classification is assigned by postcode or place name. IMD/WIMD/NIMDM is a multidimensional calculation which is intended to represent the living conditions in the area, including income, employment, health, education, access to services, housing, community safety and physical environment. Small areas are ranked by IMD/WIMD/NIMDM; this is done separately for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.