Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Food and You 2: Wave 4

Overview of Food and You 2

Fieldwork for Food and You 2: Wave 4 was conducted between 8th October 2021 and 10th January 2022. A total of 5,796 adults from 4,026 households (an overall response rate of 28.5%) across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland completed the ‘push-to-web’ survey (see Annex A for more information about the methodology). 

This report presents findings from the F&Y2: Wave 4 ‘Eating out and takeaway’ module relating to the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS). A total of 4,755 adults across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland completed the ‘Eating out and takeaway’ module via the online or the ‘Eating out’ postal questionnaire. 

Food and You 2: Wave 4 data were collected during a time and context which has seen changes in UK and global economics and politics, the context in which the public make food decisions, and the effect of Omicron restrictions. It is expected that the current context had an impact on the level of food security and food-related behaviours reported ^{(footnote 1)}.

Key Findings

 Awareness and recognition of the FHRS 

• Most respondents (89%) reported that they had heard of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS). Most respondents in England (89%), Wales (95%), and Northern Ireland (92%) had heard of the FHRS ** . Respondents in Wales (74%) and Northern Ireland (65%) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those in England (57%)**2.
• Of those who had heard of the FHRS, the most common place respondents had come across the FHRS was a food hygiene rating sticker displayed at a food business premises (85%), while over a third (37%) of respondents had come across the FHRS on a food business’ website.
• When shown an image of the food hygiene rating sticker, 88% of respondents reported that they had seen the sticker before. Recognition of the food hygiene rating sticker was slightly lower in England (87%) than in Wales (95%) and Northern Ireland (94%)**. Respondents were most likely to have seen the sticker in a restaurant (81%), café (71%) or takeaway (66%) in the last 12 months. 

Understanding and use of the FHRS

• Around 4 in 10 (41%) 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 (54%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business than those in England (40%), and to a lesser extent those in Northern Ireland (46%)** ^{(footnote 2)}.
• Of those who have checked the food hygiene rating of a food business, the most common types of businesses where respondents checked ratings were takeaways (70%) and restaurants (69%), and most had checked the rating by looking at the food hygiene rating sticker displayed at the food business (83%).
• One in 10 (10%) respondents reported that they always checked the food hygiene rating of a restaurant or takeaway on arrival, 20% of respondents reported that they did this most of the time and 31% 

Use of the FHRS in decision making

• Of those who had heard of the FHRS, 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) (81%), 1 (major improvement necessary) (94%) or 0 (urgent improvement necessary) (95%).
• Less than 1 in 10 (8%) respondents would only consider a rating of 5 (very good) as the lowest acceptable rating. Over 4 in 10 respondents would consider a rating of 4 (good) (41%) as the lowest acceptable rating, and 40% of respondents would consider 3 (generally satisfactory). 
• Of those who had heard of the FHRS, around two-thirds (65%) of respondents could not think of a situation in which they might decide to buy food from a food business with a rating which is lower than their lowest acceptable rating. For those who could think of a situation where they might decide to buy food from a food business with a lower rating (22%) the most common situation was when there wasn’t much choice of places to go, or if the respondent had eaten food from there before. 
• Of those who had heard of the FHRS, most respondents (64%) could think of a situation in which they would only buy food from a food business with a rating which is higher than their lowest acceptable rating. This was most likely to occur when it was a special occasion such as a birthday, anniversary, or other celebration. 
• Of those who had heard of the FHRS, over half (57%) of respondents 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; and 15% said they had decided against eating somewhere in the last 12 months for this reason. 

Views on mandatory display

• Of the respondents who had heard of the FHRS, 93% thought that food businesses should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating at their premises and 95% 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 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 FHRS

The Food Hygiene Rating Scheme ^(footnote) (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). Ratings are also available on the FSA ratings website and via other third-party apps.

Food and You 2

Ipsos were commissioned by the FSA to develop and run a biannual survey, ‘Food and You 2’, carried out primarily online. Food and You 2 replaces the FSA’s face-to-face Food and You survey (2010-2018)^(footnote), Public Attitudes Tracker (2010-2019) and Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) - Consumer Attitudes Tracker (2014-2019). 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. More information about the history and methodology can be found in Annex A. 

Fieldwork for Food and You 2: Wave 4 was conducted between 18th October 2021 and 10th January 2022. A total of 5,796 adults from 4,026 households across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland completed the ‘push-to-web’ survey. The modules presented in Food and You 2: Wave 4 include ‘Food you can trust’, ‘Concerns about food’, ’Food security’, ‘Eating out and takeaway’, ‘Food allergies, intolerances, and other hypersensitivities’, ‘Eating at home’, ‘Food shopping: sustainability and environmental impact’ and ‘Sustainable diets, meat alternatives and genetic technologies’.

This report presents key findings from the Food and You 2: Wave 4 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. Not all questions asked in the Food and You 2: Wave 4 survey are included in the report. The full results are available in the accompanying data tables and underlying dataset. 

A Food and You 2: Wave 1-4 Trends report is expected to be published in 2023. However, FHRS trend data will not be reported until a minimum of three waves of FHRS data have been collected. The ‘Eating out and takeaway’ module which includes the questions relating to the FHRS is featured in alternate waves of the Food and You 2 survey, from wave 2 onwards. 

Interpreting the findings

To highlight the key differences between socio-demographic and other sub-groups, variation in response profiles are 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 (**). 

The report presents differences between some socio-demographic and sub-groups in the population. 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 = ).
• Please note: indicates important points to consider when interpreting the results.  

Awareness of the FHRS

Most respondents (89%) reported that they had heard of the FHRS. Around six in ten (59%) reported that they had heard of the FHRS and knew a lot or a bit about it. Almost a third (31%) of respondents reported that they had heard of the FHRS but didn’t know much or anything about it. Around 1 in 10 respondents (11%) reported that they had not heard of the FHRS ^{(footnote 1)} .

Figure 1. Respondents who had heard of the FHRS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Had heard of the FHRS	Had never heard of the FHRS
England	89	11
Wales	95	5
Northern Ireland	92	8

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food and You 2 Wave 4

Most respondents in England (89%), Wales (95%), and Northern Ireland (92%) had heard of the FHRS (Figure 1)**. Respondents in Wales (74%) and Northern Ireland (65%) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those in England (57%)**. 

Figure 2. Awareness and knowledge of the FHRS by age group

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Have heard of the FHRS and have a bit / quite a lot of knowledge about it	Have heard of the FHRS but don't know much / anything about it	Have never heard of the FHRS
16-24	61	29	9
25-34	59	33	8
35-44	67	24	8
45-54	68	26	6
55-64	58	36	7
65-74	49	34	17
75+	37	38	24

Download this chart

Image .csv

Respondents aged between 16 and 74 years were more likely to have at least a bit of knowledge of the FHRS than those aged 75 years or over. For example, 68% of those aged 45-54 years reported knowledge of the FHRS, compared to 37% of those aged 75 years or over (Figure 2).

Awareness and knowledge of the FHRS also varied between the following groups of people

• Annual household income: respondents with an income above £19,000 (for example, 62% of those with an income of £64,000-£95,999) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS compared to those with an income of less than £19,000 (53%)**.   
• National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC): respondents in all other groups (for example, 62% of those in managerial, administrative, and professional occupations) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those who were long term unemployed and/or never worked (45%).
• Responsibility for cooking: respondents who were responsible for cooking (60%) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those who do not cook (44%). 
• Responsibility for shopping: respondents who were responsible for food shopping (59%) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those who never shop for food (46%). 

Figure 3. Locations where respondents had come across the FHRS.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Series 1	Column1	Column2
Somewhere else	6
On another website	3
On another app (for example, Scores on the Doors Food Hygiene Rating)	3
In an advert or magazine article	6
In the local newspaper	7
On social media (for example, Twitter, Facebook Marketplace)	9
On the FSA's website	14
Word of mouth	16
On a food ordering / delivery website or app (such as Just Eat, Deliveroo, UberEats etc.)	22
On a food business' own website (such as a restaurant website)	37
A sticker in a food business	85

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food and You 2 Wave 4

Respondents were asked where they had come across the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme. The most common place respondents had come across the FHRS was a food hygiene rating sticker displayed at a food business premises (85%). Over a third (37%) of respondents had come across the FHRS on a food business’ website, 22% had come across the FHRS on a food ordering and/or delivery website and/or app (for example, Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats), and 14% of respondents had come across the FHRS on the FSA’s website (Figure 3)    ^{(footnote 2)}. 

Figure 4. Top 5 places where respondents had come across the FHRS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	England	Wales	Northern Ireland
On the FSA's website	14	19	13
Word of mouth	16	22	19
On a food ordering/delivery website/app	23	22	15
On a food business' own website	38	38	30
A sticker in a food business	84	91	90

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food and You 2 Wave 4

Most respondents in England (84%), Wales (91%) and Northern Ireland (90%) had come across the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme via a sticker in a food business (Figure 4)**. 

Recognition of the FHRS

When shown an image of the food hygiene rating sticker, almost 9 in 10 (88%) respondents reported that they had seen the food hygiene rating sticker before. Recognition of the food hygiene rating sticker was slightly lower in England (87%) than in Wales (95%) and Northern Ireland (94%)  ^{(footnote 3)} **.

Figure 5. Food hygiene rating sticker recognition by age group.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Have seen the sticker before	Have not seen the sticker before
16-24	96	2
25-34	93	2
35-44	94	3
45-54	94	2
55-64	87	6
65-74	78	15
75+	60	27

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food and You 2 Wave 4

Younger adults were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than older adults. For example, 96% of respondents aged 16-24 years reported that they had seen the food hygiene rating sticker, compared to 60% of those aged 75 years and over (Figure 5).

Recognition of the food hygiene rating sticker also varied between the following types of people: 

• Annual household income: respondents with a higher income were more likely have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than those who had a lower income. For example, 95% of those with an income of £96,000 or above had seen the food hygiene rating sticker compared to 81% of those with an income of less than £19,000.   
• NS-SEC: respondents in some occupational groups for example, managerial, administrative and professional occupations (89%) and full-time students (97%) were more likely have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than those who were long term unemployed and/or never worked (76%).
• Responsibility for shopping: respondents who were responsible for food shopping (88%) were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than those who never shop for food (76%). 

Figure 6. Food businesses where respondents had seen a food hygiene rating sticker in last 12 months.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Column1		Column1
On market stalls / street food	7
In other food shops	10
In schools and other institutions	13
In supermarkets	17
In hotels / B&Bs	28
In pubs	51
In coffee or sandwich shops	55
In takeaways	66
In cafes	71
In restaurants	81

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food and You 2 Wave 4

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 (81%), in cafés (71%), or in takeaways (66%) (Figure 6) ^{(footnote 4)}.

Figure 7. Food business where respondents had seen the food hygiene rating sticker in last 12 months in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	England	Wales	Northern Ireland
On market stalls\street food	7	13	6
In other food shops	10	17	13
In schools and other institutions	12	21	19
In supermarkets	16	25	21
In hotels /B&Bs	27	33	39
In pubs	51	61	40
In coffee or sandwich shops	54	63	61
In takeaways	65	74	72
In cafes	70	79	77
In restaurants	80	82	84

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food and You 2 Wave 4

Most respondents had seen the food hygiene rating sticker in restaurants in England (80%), Wales (82%) and Northern Ireland (84%)**. Around 8 in 10 respondents in Wales (79%) and Northern Ireland (77%) had seen the food hygiene rating sticker in cafés compared to 70% of respondents in England**. Respondents in Wales (61%) and England (51%) were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker in pubs than those in Northern Ireland (40%) (Figure 7). 

Understanding of the FHRS

Figure 8. Respondents’ knowledge of food businesses covered by the FHRS.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Column1		Column1
Don�t know	4
Other	2
Other food shops	38
Market stalls / street food	44
Supermarkets	46
Schools, hospitals and other institutions	54
Hotels / B&Bs	77
Pubs	84
Coffee or sandwich shops	85
Takeaways	87
Caf�s	90
Restaurants	92

Download this chart

Image .csv

Respondents were asked which types of food businesses, from a given list, they thought were covered by the FHRS. Most respondents thought that restaurants (92%), cafés (90%), takeaways (87%), coffee or sandwich shops (85%), pubs (84%) and hotels or B&Bs (77%) were covered by the FHRS. Just over half of respondents (54%) thought that schools and other institutions were covered by the FHRS. Less than half of respondents thought that supermarkets (46%), and market or street food stalls (44%) were covered by the FHRS (Figure 8) ^{(footnote 1)} .

Use of the FHRS 

Respondents 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 (41%) respondents had checked the food hygiene rating of a food business in the previous 12 months ^{(footnote 2)}. 

Respondents in Wales (54%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business than those in England (40%), and to a lesser extend those in Northern Ireland (46%).

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 16-24 years had checked the food hygiene rating of a business compared to 18% of those aged 75 years and over.
• Children (under 16 years) in household: respondents with children (under 16 years) in the household (49%) were more likely to have checked a food hygiene rating of a business than those with no children under 16 years in the household (37%).
• NS-SEC: full-time students (57%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business than respondents in all other occupational groups for example, those in managerial, administrative and professional occupations (42%) and those who were long term unemployed and/or had never worked (37%).
• Food security: respondents with low (52%) or very low (52%) food security were more likely to have checked a food hygiene rating of a business than those with high food security (38%). Around 4 in 10 (43%) of those with marginal food security had checked a food hygiene rating of a business.

Figure 9. Food businesses where respondents had checked the food hygiene rating in last 12 months.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Column1		Column1
In other food shops	5
On market stalls / street food	6
In schools, hospitals and other institutions	7
In supermarkets	12
In hotels / B&Bs	15
In pubs	32
In coffee or sandwich shops	33
In caf�s	46
In restaurants	69
In takeaways	70

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food and You 2 Wave 4

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 last 12 months. Most respondents had checked the food hygiene rating takeaways (70%) and restaurants (69%). Less than half of respondents (46%) had checked the food hygiene rating of cafés, 33% had checked coffee or sandwich shops and 32% had checked the rating of pubs (Figure 9) ^{(footnote 3)}.  

Figure 10. How respondents had checked the hygiene rating of food businesses.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Column1
In a local newspaper	2
On another website	2
On an app (e.g. Scores on the Doors Food Hygiene Rating)	4
On the FSA's website	15
Food business' own website	22
Online food ordering website or app (e.g. Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats)	23
FHRS sticker displayed at the food business (such as in a business' window or on the door)	83

Download this chart

Image .csv

Respondents who had checked the food hygiene rating of a business were asked how they had checked the rating. Most (83%) respondents had looked at the food hygiene rating sticker displayed at the food business. Almost a quarter (23%) of respondents had checked via an online food ordering website or app (for example, Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats), 22% had checked the food hygiene rating of a business on a food business’ own website, and 15% of respondents had checked on the Food Standards Agency’s food hygiene ratings website (Figure 10) ^{(footnote 4)} .

Most respondents in England (83%), Wales (89%), Northern Ireland (89%) 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 (24%) 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 (13%).

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

• Age group: adults under 34 years (for example, 42% of those aged 25-34 years) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via an online food ordering website or app (for example, Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats) than adults aged 35 or over (for example, 6% of those aged 75 years or over). 
• Urban vs rural: respondents who lived in an urban area (26%) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via an online food ordering website or app (for example, Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats) than those who lived in a rural area (9%).
• Food security ^{(footnote 5)} : respondents with very low food security (33%) were more likely to have checked the hygiene rating of a food business via a food businesses own website than those with high food security (20%).

In some cases, how different groups of people checked the hygiene rating of a food business may indicate the likelihood that the group would use a particular service when eating out or ordering takeaway, such as an online food ordering website or app (for example, Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats). 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 compared to older adults ^{(footnote 6)}. 

Respondents who had checked the food hygiene rating of a business in the last 12 months were asked how often the rating was easy to find. Around 1 in 5 respondents reported that that food hygiene rating was always (18%) easy to find, 62% reported that that the rating was easy to find most of the time and 18% reported it was easy to find about half of the time or less often ^{(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)}.  

Factors considered when ordering a takeaway 

Figure 11. Ten most common factors considered when ordering a takeaway.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Column1
Whether information about calories is provided	2
Whether allergen information is provided	5
Whether healthier options are provided	8
Whether it is an independent business or part of a chain	11
Reviews, for example, on TripAdvisor, Google, social media, or in newspapers	29
Delivery or collection option	32
Whether food can be ordered online, for example, through a website or app	36
Location of takeaway	37
Offers, deals, discounts available	38
Delivery or collection times	38
Food hygiene rating	38
Recommendations from family or friends	50
Type of food (e.g. cuisine or vegetarian/vegan options)	59
Price (including cost of delivery)	61
Quality of food	75
My previous experience of the takeaway	80

Download this chart

Image .csv

Of those who had ordered food from a takeaway, the factors most commonly considered when deciding where to place an order were the respondents’ previous experience of the takeaway (80%) and the quality of food (75%). Around 4 in 10 (38%) respondents considered the food hygiene rating when deciding where to order a takeaway from (Figure 11) ^{(footnote 9)} .

Around 4 in 10 respondents in England (38%) and Northern Ireland (40%) consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to 46% of those in Wales**.

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

• Age group: respondents aged 44 years or below (for example, 45% of those aged 25-34 years) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to adults aged 75 years or over (22%).
• Annual household income: respondents with an income of £19,000 or below (45%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to those with an income above £96,000 (28%).
• Urban vs rural: respondents who lived in an urban area (40%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to those who lived in a rural area (30%).
• Food security: respondents with very low food security (54%) were more likely to consider the food hygiene rating when ordering takeaways compared to those with high food security (35%).

Factors considered when eating out

Figure 12. Ten most common factors considered when eating out.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Factors considered	Percentage of respondents
Quality of food	82
My previous experience of the place	80
Location	68
Price	66
Cleanliness of the place	65
Recommendations from family or friends	64
Quality of service	63
Type of food (for example, cuisin or vegetarian/vegan options)	56
Ambiance/atmosphere	48
Food hygiene rating	41

Download this chart

Image .csv

Of those who eat out, the factors most commonly considered when deciding where to eat were the quality of food (82%) and the respondents’ previous experience of the place (80%). Around 4 in 10 (41%) 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. One in 10 (10%) reported that they always checked the food hygiene rating of a business on arrival, 20% of respondents reported that they did this most of the time and 31% of respondents did this less often (i.e. ‘about half the time’ or ‘occasionally’). Just over a third (35%) of respondents reported that they never checked the food hygiene rating of a business upon arrival ^{(footnote 11)}.
 

Acceptable food hygiene ratings

Figure 13. Willingness to eat at a restaurant or takeaway with food hygiene ratings below 5.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Awaiting inspection - England, Northern Ireland	Rating awaited - Wales	0 - urgent improvement necessary	1 - major improvement necessary	2 - improvement necessary	3 - generally satisfactory	4 - good
Still eat at the restaurant / takeaway	35	41	2	2	10	61	94
Not eat at the restaurant / takeaway	44	37	95	94	81	30	3
Don't know	21	22	3	3	9	9	3

Download this chart

Image .csv

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 with a rating 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) (81%), 1 (major improvement necessary) (94%) or 0 (urgent improvement necessary) (95%) (Figure 13) ^{(footnote 1)}. 

Respondents were asked what they would usually consider the lowest acceptable food hygiene rating when considering buying food from somewhere. Less than 1 in 10 (8%) respondents would only consider a rating of 5 (very good) as the lowest acceptable rating. Over 4 in 10 respondents (41%) would consider a rating of 4 (good) as the lowest acceptable rating, 40% of respondents would consider 3 (generally satisfactory), and 4% would consider 2 (improvement necessary) as the lowest acceptable rating. Approximately 1 in 100 (1%) respondents would consider a rating of 1 – major improvement necessary and 1% would consider a rating of 0 – urgent improvement necessary as the lowest acceptable rating ^{(footnote 2)} . 

Situations which impact acceptable food hygiene ratings

Figure 14. Willingness to buy food from a business with a food hygiene rating which is lower than their lowest acceptable rating.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Column1	2 - improvement necessary	3 - generally satisfactory	4 - good	5 - very good	All ratings: 1-5
Yes	35	19	23	30	22
No	50	69	66	54	65
Don�t know	15	12	12	16	12

Download this chart

Image .csv

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 (65%) of respondents could not think of a situation in which they might decide to buy food from a food business with a lower rating, 22% could think of a situation (Figure 14) ^{(footnote 3)} . 

Figure 15. Situations where respondents might buy food from a food business with a food hygiene rating lower than their usual lowest acceptable rating.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Series 1
I would assume it is safe if it is still open / running	10
It was part of a chain I knew	10
I enjoyed the taste of the food	12
I was in an unfamiliar location	13
Didn't have much money / cheap	17
Someone else chose the food business	20
The place had been recommended to me	25
I knew the food was of high quality	29
I was out late at night	30
I needed to pick something up quickly	32
I had eaten food from there before	45
There wasn't much choice of places to go	48

Download this chart

Image .csv

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 (48%), if they had eaten food from there before (45%), if they needed to pick something up quickly (32%), or if they were out late at night (30%) (Figure 15) ^{(footnote 4)}.

Figure 16. Willingness to buy food from a business with a food hygiene rating which is higher than their usual lowest acceptable rating.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Column1	2 - improvement necessary	3 - generally satisfactory	4 - good	All ratings: 0-4
Yes	66	66	64	64
No	20	21	24	24
Don�t know	14	13	12	12

Download this chart

Image .csv

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 (64%) could think of a situation in which this would apply, and 24% of respondents could not. Most respondents who considered a rating of 2 (improvement necessary) (66%), 3 (generally satisfactory) (66%), or 4 (good) (64%) 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 5)}. 

Figure 17. Occasions where respondents would only buy food from a business with a food hygiene rating which is higher than the rating usually considered acceptable.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Occasion
Other	7
When it was part of a chain	11
Want to go somewhere expensive	21
With older people	35
With young children	36
Special health issues	39
With particular people/family members	40
When in an unfamiliar location	40
A special occasion	55

Download this chart

Image .csv

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 (55%), when in an unfamiliar location (e.g., away with work or on holiday) (40%), when with particular people or family members (40%), or when the respondent or someone else had special health issues (e.g., illness or pregnancy) (39%) (Figure 17) ^{(footnote 6)} .

Impact of food hygiene rating sticker on perceptions and behaviour

Respondents were asked if a food business did not have the food hygiene rating sticker present at the entrance to what extent, if at all, it would affect their decision to eat there. Of those who had heard of the FHRS, over half of respondents (57%) 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, 28% of respondents reported that it would not make them any less likely to eat there.

A higher proportion of respondents living in Wales (66%) would be less likely (i.e., ‘much less likely’ or ‘a little 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 (56%). Around 6 in 10 (61%) respondents in Northern Ireland would be less likely to eat at a food business which did not have the food hygiene rating sticker present at the entrance ** ^{(footnote 7)}.

Respondents were 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. Of the respondents who had heard of the FHRS, 15% reported that they had decided against using a food business because it did not display its food hygiene rating sticker ^{(footnote 8)}.

Figure 18. Concerns respondents would have if a food business did not display their food hygiene rating sticker at the premises.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

	Concern
I would not be concerned	4
I would not notice the missing sticker	27
Business doesn't meet legal requirements	37
Whether the business has been inspected by the relevant authorities	39
Higher risk of food poisoning/illness/infection	40
Safety of eating at the business	41
Business had a low/poor food hygiene rating and was trying to hide it	45
Business had poor hygiene standards	48

Download this chart

Image .csv

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 (48%) and that the food business had a poor or low food hygiene rating and was trying to hide it (45%). Over a quarter (27%) 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 9)}. 

Food businesses are provided with a sticker which shows their food hygiene rating. In England businesses are encouraged to display their food hygiene rating sticker at their premises, however in Wales and Northern Ireland food businesses are legally required to display their FHRS rating ^{(footnote 1)}. 

Views on mandatory display

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, 93% thought that food businesses should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating on the premises, and 4% thought it should be up to the business to decide whether to display their food hygiene rating. This finding was similar across all three countries; most respondents in England (93%), Wales (95%) and Northern Ireland (91%) 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, 95% 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, and 1% did not. This finding was consistent in England (95%), Wales (94%), and Northern Ireland (93%)** ^{(footnote 3)} .

Views on where food hygiene ratings should be displayed

Figure 19. Locations where respondents think food hygiene ratings should be displayed.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Location	Food Hygiene rating
Takeaway's own website	94
Restaurants or caf�'s own website	94
Hotels or B and Bs own website	93
Food ordering/delivery companies' apps/websites	92
Supermarket's own website	83
Food Business's social media site	82

Download this chart

Image .csv

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 takeaway websites (94%), restaurant or café websites (94%), on hotel or B&B websites (93%) 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 (83%) and on food business’s social media sites (82%) (Figure 19) ^{(footnote 4)}. 

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 ACSS in April 2019. Food and You 2 was developed from the recommendations. 

The Food and You 2 survey replaced the biennial 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.

Previous publications in this series include:

• Food and You 2: Wave 1 Key Findings (March 2021)
• Food and You 2: Wave 2 Key Findings (July 2021) 
• Food and You 2: Wave 3 Key Findings (January 2022) 
• Food and You 2: Wave 4 Key Findings (August 2022)

Previous FHRS publications in this series include:

• Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Food and You 2: Wave 2 (December 2021)

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 4 was conducted from 18 October 2021 and 10 January 2022.

This report presents findings from the F&Y2: Wave 4 ‘Eating out and takeaway’ module relating to the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS). A total of 4,755 adults across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland completed the ‘Eating out and takeaway’ module via the online or the ‘Eating out’ postal questionnaire. 

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. This method is accepted for government surveys and national statistics, including the 2021 Census and 2019/2020 Community Life Survey. 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. Further details about the methodology are available in the Technical Report. Due to the difference in methodology between the Public Attitudes Tracker, FHRS Consumer Attitudes Tracker and Food and You survey (2010-2018) it is not possible to compare the data collected in Food and You 2 (2020 onward) with these earlier data. Comparisons can be made between the different waves of Food and You 2. 

A Food and You 2: Wave 1-4 Trends report is expected to be published in 2023. However, FHRS trend data will not be reported until a minimum of three waves of FHRS data have been collected. The ‘Eating out and takeaway’ module which includes the questions relating to the FHRS is featured in alternate waves of the Food and You 2 survey, from wave 2 onwards. 

The sample of main and reserve addresses ^{(footnote 1)} was stratified by region (with Wales and Northern Ireland being treated as separate regions), and within region (or country) by local authority (district in Northern Ireland) to ensure that the issued sample was spread proportionately across the local authorities. National deprivation scores were used as the final level of stratification within the local authorities - in England the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), in Wales the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) and in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure (NIMDM).

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. The postal version of the questionnaire needed to be shorter and less complex to encourage a high response rate. To make the postal version of the questionnaire shorter and less complex, two versions were produced. 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. Observed behaviour in kitchens has been reported in Kitchen Life, an ethnographic study which used a combination of observation, video observation and interviews to gain insight into domestic kitchen practices. This study will be updated through Kitchen Life 2, which is in progress now and due to report in 2023.

The minimum target sample size for the survey is 4,000 households (2,000 in England, 1,000 in Wales, 1,000 in Northern Ireland), with up to two adults in each household invited to take part as mentioned above. For Wave 4 a total of 5,796 adults from 4,026 households across England (2,940 adults), Northern Ireland (1,575 adults), and Wales (1,281 adults), completed the survey. An overall response rate of 28.5% was achieved (England 29.8%, Wales 29.1%, Northern Ireland 25.9%). Sixty-five per cent of respondents completed the survey online and 28.5% completed the postal version of the survey. The postal responses from 51 respondents were removed from the data set as the respondent had completed both the online and postal survey. Further details about the response rates are available in the Technical Report.

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 weighting approach used and the weights applied to the Food and You 2: Wave 4 data are available in the Technical Report.

The data have been checked and verified by six members of Ipsos and two members of the FSA Statistics branch. Descriptive analysis and statistical tests have been performed by Ipsos. Quantum (statistical software) was used by Ipsos to calculate the descriptive analysis and statistical tests (t-tests). 

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. 

References 

• Advisory Committee for Social Science (ACSS)
• Census 2011. Office of National Statistics 
• Duffy, B., Smith, K., Terhanian, G., & Bremer, J. (2005). Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 47(6), 615-639. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530504700602
• Food and You (2010-2019) 
• Food Standards Agency. Introducing Food and You 2. (March, 2020). https://www.food.gov.uk/news-alerts/news/introducing-food-and-you-2
• Gaskell, G. (2019). Review of FSA’s Food and You Survey. 2 April 2019 ACSS Meeting – Food and You Review Report (Paper 3.5). 
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Food security. 
• Wills, W., Meah, A., Dickinson, A., & Short, F. (2013). Domestic kitchen practices: Findings from the ‘Kitchen Life’ study. University of Hertfordshire Report for the Food Standards Agency 
• World Food Summit 1996, Rome Declaration on World Food Security.