Food and You 2 FHRS Wave 6: Chapter 2 - Understanding and use of the FHRS

Understanding of the FHRS

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

Respondents were asked which types of food businesses, from a given list, they thought were covered by the FHRS. Most respondents thought that restaurants (94%), cafés (91%), takeaways (89%), coffee or sandwich shops (86%), pubs (84%) and hotels or B&Bs (78%) were covered by the FHRS. Fewer respondents thought that that schools and other institutions (55%), supermarkets (48%), and market or street food stalls (45%) were covered by the FHRS (Figure 8) ^{(footnote 1)}.

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 (43%) respondents had checked the food hygiene rating of a food business in the previous 12 months ^{(footnote 2)}. 

Respondents in Wales (59%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business than those in England (42%), and those in Northern Ireland (48%).

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, 59% of those aged 25-34 years had checked the food hygiene rating of a business compared to 22% of those aged 80 years and over.
• Children under 6 years in household: respondents with children (under 6 years) in the household (55%) were more likely to have checked a food hygiene rating of a business than those with no children under 6 years in the household (41%).
• Household size: those living in households of 3-persons or more (for example, 55% of those in a household with 5 or more people) were more likely to have checked the rating of a business than those living in a 1-person household (33%). 
• NS-SEC: respondents in some occupational groups (for example, 48% of those in lower supervisory and technical occupations, , managerial, administrative and professional occupations (47%) and full-time students (47%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business than respondents in all other occupational groups (for example, 36% of those in those in small employers and own account workers) and those who were long term unemployed and/or had never worked (29%). Those who were unemployed and/or who had never worked (12%) were more likely than most other occupational group (for example, 3%** of those in semi-routine and routine occupations) to report that they don’t know whether they had checked the rating of a food business in the last 12 months. 
• Region (England): respondents from the East Midlands (48%), North-West England (46%) and Yorkshire and the Humber (45%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business than respondents from South-West England (34%).
• Food security ^{(footnote 3)}: respondents with low (48%) or very low (56%) food security were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business compared to 39% of those with high food security. 
• Ethnic group: Asian or Asian British respondents (53%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business than white respondents (42%).

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

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 (73%) and restaurants (73%). Over half (53%) had checked the food hygiene rating of cafés, 37% had checked coffee or sandwich shops and 37% had checked the rating of pubs (Figure 9) ^{(footnote 4)}.

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

Respondents who had checked the food hygiene rating of a business were asked how they had checked the rating. Most (82%) respondents had looked at the food hygiene rating sticker displayed at the food business. A quarter (25%) had checked the food hygiene rating of a business on a food business’ own website, 24% had checked via an online food ordering website or app (for example, Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats), and 16% of respondents had checked on the FSA’s website (Figure 10) ^{(footnote 5)}.

Respondents in England (81%), Wales (90%), Northern Ireland (88%) were most likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via a food hygiene rating sticker displayed at the business**. However, respondents in England (26%) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via an online food ordering website or app than those in Northern Ireland (11%) or Wales (14%).

How the hygiene rating of a food business was checked varied between different groups of people:

• Age group: adults under 44 years (for example, 45% of those aged 25 to 34 years) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via an online food ordering website or app than adults aged 45 years or over (for example, 3% of those aged 65 to 79 years). 
• Urban vs rural: respondents who lived in an urban area (28%) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via an online food ordering website or app than those who lived in a rural area (11%).
• Region (England): respondents who lived in London (36%) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via an online food ordering website or app than those who lived in the South-East (20%) and South-West of England (19%). Those who lived in London (24%) were also more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a food business on the FSA’s website than those in South-West England (9%).
• Food security: respondents with very low food security (37%) and low food security (30%) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via an online food ordering website or app compared to 19% of those with high food security.

In some cases, how different groups check the hygiene rating of a food business may indicate where they eat out or how they order takeaways. For example, younger adults were more likely to have eaten food from an online food ordering website or app and to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via an online food ordering website or app (for example 62% of those aged 25 to 34 years had ordered food from an online food ordering website and 45% had checked the rating using on this website or app) compared to older adults (for example, 8% of those aged 65 to 79 years had eaten food from an online ordering website or app and 3% had used this to check the rating of a food business) ^{(footnote 6)}. 

Respondents who had checked the food hygiene rating of a business  (at the business’s premises, online or in leaflets or menus) 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, 67% reported that that the rating was easy to find most of the time and 17% 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)}.

 
Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

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 (78%) and the quality of food (72%).

Around 4 in 10 (36%) respondents considered the food hygiene rating when deciding where to order a takeaway from (43% Wales, 40% Northern Ireland, 35% England)** (Figure 11) ^{(footnote 9)}.

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

• Age group: respondents aged between 25 and 34 years (48%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to all other age groups (for example, 27% of those aged 80 years or over).
• Children under 6 years in the household: respondents living in households with children under the age of 6 years (44%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to those in households without children under the age of 6 present (34%).
• Region (England): respondents from the East Midlands (43%), North-West England (42%) and London (39%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to those in South-East England (28%).
• Responsibility for food shopping: respondents who are responsible for food shopping (37%) are more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to those who never do the food shopping (19%).  

Factors taken into consideration when eating out 

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

Of those who eat out, the factors most commonly taken into consideration when deciding where to eat were the quality of food (84%) and the respondents’ previous experience of the place (81%). Over 4 in 10 (45%) respondents considered the food hygiene rating when deciding where to eat (Figure 12) ^{(footnote 10)}.

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 one in 10 (11%) reported that they always checked the food hygiene rating of a business on arrival, 19% of respondents reported that they did most of the time and 32% did this about half the time or occasionally. Around a third (34%) of respondents reported that they never checked the food hygiene rating of a business upon arrival ^{(footnote 11)}.

Respondents in Wales (48%) and Northern Ireland (38%) were more likely to report that they always checked the rating on arrival or did this most of the time compared to those in England (28%). Respondents in England (36%) were more likely to report that they never checked the rating upon arrival compared to Northern Ireland (25%) and Wales (18%).