Food and You 2 FHRS Wave 8: Chapter 2 - Understanding and use of the FHRS

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%).