Skip to main content
English Cymraeg
Food and You 2: 2020-2023 trends report

F&Y2 trends: Chapter 4: Eating out and takeaways

This chapter provides an overview of respondents’ eating out and takeaway ordering habits, recognition and use of the FHRS, perceptions on mandatory display of the FHRS, and experiences of the availability and confidence in allergen information, between Wave 1 (July 2020 to October 2020) and Wave 6 (October 2022 to January 2023).

Last updated: 7 December 2023
Last updated: 7 December 2023

Introduction

The Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) helps people make informed choices about where to eat out or shop for food by giving clear information about food businesses’ hygiene standards. Food businesses are provided with a sticker which shows their FHRS rating (footnote 1).

This chapter provides an overview of respondents’ eating out and takeaway ordering habits, recognition and use of the FHRS, perceptions on mandatory display of the FHRS, and experiences of the availability and confidence in allergen information, between Wave 1 (July 2020 to October 2020) and Wave 6 (October 2022 to January 2023).

Eating out and takeaways by mealtime

Figure 15. The percentage of respondents that eat out or buy food to take out about 2-3 times a month or more often by mealtime.

A line graph showing the percentage of respondents who ate out or brought food to take out about 203 times a month or more often by mealtime. Findings shown are from Wave 1 to 6.
Breakfast Lunch Dinner
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 11 29 41
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 15 42 50
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 20 45 48

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6

Respondents were asked how often they ate out or bought food to take out for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Across all waves, respondents were most likely to eat out or buy food (i.e., about 2-3 times a month or more often) for dinner and least likely to eat out or buy food to take out for breakfast.

Since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021) the percentage of respondents that reported eating out or buying food to take out for breakfast, lunch, and dinner has increased** (Figure 15) (footnote 2).

Awareness and recognition of the FHRS

Figure 16. The percentage of respondents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who had heard of the FHRS and had at least a bit of knowledge about it. 

A line graph showing the percentage of respondents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who had heard of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme and reported to have at least a bit of knowledge about it between Wave 1 and Wave 6.
Wales Northern Ireland England
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 67 55 45
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21 74 70 62
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 74 65 59
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22 66 68 61
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 74 68 57

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6

Overall, the percentage of respondents who reported that that they had heard of the FHRS and had knowledge about it (i.e., Yes, I've heard of it and know a lot / bit about it) has increased since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021). Respondents in Wales had a higher level of awareness and knowledge of the FHRS than those in Northern Ireland. The lowest level of awareness and knowledge of the FHRS was reported in England (Figure 16) (footnote 3), (footnote 4).  

Figure 17. Recognition of the food hygiene rating sticker in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 

A line graph showing the percentage of respondents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who recognised the food hygiene rating sticker between Wave 1 and Wave 6.
Wales Northern Ireland England
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 96 96 89
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 95 94 87
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 91 93 87

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6

Since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021) there were no notable differences in the percentage of respondents in England, Wales or Northern Ireland who reported that they had seen the food hygiene rating sticker. Across all waves, around 9 in 10 respondents reported that they had seen the sticker (Figure 17) (footnote 5).

FHRS usage

Figure 18. The percentage of respondents who had checked the hygiene rating of a food business.

A line graph showing the percentage of respondents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who had checked the hygiene rating of a food business between Wave 1 and Wave 6.
England Wales Northern Ireland
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 50 64 60
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 44 56 48
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 46 63 52

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6 

Respondents were asked if they had checked the hygiene rating of a food business in the last 12 months. Overall, there were no notable differences in the percentage of respondents in England and Wales who reported that they had checked the food hygiene rating of a business, since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021). Over the same period, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of respondents in Northern Ireland who reported that they had checked the food hygiene rating of a business** (Figure 18) (footnote 6).

Figure 19. Most common methods used to check food hygiene ratings.

A line graph showing the most common locations that respondents checked the food hygiene rating between Wave 1 and Wave 6.
Sticker displayed at the food business Online food ordering website or app Food business' own website Food Standards Agency's website On an app On another website In a local newspaper
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 78 21 21 12 5 3 3
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 83 23 22 15 4 2 2
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 82 24 25 16 6 4 3

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6

Respondents who had checked the food hygiene of a food business in the previous 12 months were asked how they had checked the rating. Since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021) there were no notable differences in how respondents checked the food hygiene rating of a business (Figure 19) (footnote 7).

Figure 20. What rating respondents would consider the lowest acceptable food hygiene rating.

A bar chart showing what rating respondents would consider their lowest acceptable food hygiene rating between Wave 1 to Wave 6.
0 - urgent improvement necessary 1 - major improvement necessary 2 - improvement necessary 3 - generally satisfactory 4 - good 5 - very good
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 1 1 4 40 38 8
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 1 1 4 39 40 8
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 1 1 4 38 41 8

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6

Respondents were asked which food hygiene rating they would consider the lowest acceptable level. Since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021) there were no notable differences in the food hygiene rating which respondents would consider the lowest acceptable level. Across all waves, about 4 in 10 respondents considered a rating of 4 – good as the lowest acceptable level and about 4 in 10 respondents considered 3 – generally satisfactory as the lowest acceptable level (Figure 20) (footnote 8).

Views on mandatory display 

Figure 21. The percentage of respondents who think that food businesses should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating at their premises.

A bar chart showing the percentage of respondents who think that food businesses should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating at their premises between Wave 1 and Wave 6.
England Wales Northern Ireland
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 93 93 93
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 91 94 89
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 91 93 92

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6 

Since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021) there were no notable differences in the percentage of respondents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who think that food businesses should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating at their premises. Across all waves, around 9 in 10 respondents reported that they think food businesses should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating at their premises (Figure 21) (footnote 9)

Figure 22. The percentage of respondents who think that online food ordering services should display their food hygiene rating.  

A bar chart showing the percentage of respondents who think that online food ordering services should display their food hygiene rating between Wave 1 and Wave 6.
England Wales Northern Ireland
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 94 94 94
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 94 94 92
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 93 94 93

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6 

Since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021) there were no notable differences in the percentage of respondents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who think that food businesses providing online food ordering services should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating where it can clearly be seen by customers before they order food. Across all waves, around 9 in 10 respondents reported that they think that food businesses providing online food ordering services should be required by law to display their food hygiene rating where it can clearly be seen by customers before they order food (Figure 22) (footnote 10)

Availability and confidence in allergen information when eating out or ordering takeaways 

The FSA provides guidance for food businesses on providing allergen information. Food businesses in the retail and catering sector are required by law to provide allergen information and to follow labelling rules. The type of allergen information which must be provided depends on the type of food business. However, all food business operators must provide allergen information for pre-packed and non-pre-packed food and drink. Foods which are pre-packed or pre-packed for direct sale (PPDS) are required to have a label with a full ingredients list with allergenic ingredients emphasised. 

Figure 23. The availability of allergen information when eating out or buying food to take out.

A bar chart showing how often respondents who suffer from a food hypersensitivity report that allergen information is readily available between Wave 1 and Wave 6.
Don�t know Never At least occasionally Always
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 13 14 61 13
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 11 9 68 13
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 6 9 71 14

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6 

Since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021) there were no notable differences in the percentage of respondents who reported that the information they need to help identify food that might cause a bad or unpleasant physical reaction is always readily available. However, over the same period, the percentage of respondents who reported that this information is available at least occasionally (i.e., occasionally, most of the time, about half of the time) has increased. The percentage of respondents who reported that this information is never available, or they do not know has slightly decreased since Wave 2** (Figure 23) (footnote 11).

Figure 24. How often respondents who suffer from a bad or unpleasant physical reaction after consuming certain foods ask staff for allergen information when eating out or buying food to take out.

A bar chart showing how often respondents who have a food hypersensitivity ask staff for allergen information when eating out or buying food to take out.
Don�t know Never At least occasionally Always
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 6 29 42 18
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 3 30 41 20
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 2 22 47 22

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6 

Since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021) there were no notable differences in the percentage of respondents who reported that they always asked a member of staff for more information about food that might cause them a bad or unpleasant physical reaction. However, over the same period, there has been a slight decrease in the percentage of respondents who reported that they never did this (Figure 24) (footnote 12).

Figure 25. The percentage of respondents who suffer from a bad or unpleasant physical reaction after consuming certain foods who feel comfortable asking a member of staff for allergen information.

A line graph showing the percentage of respondents with a food hypersensitivity who felt comfortable asking a member of staff for allergen information between Wave 1 and Wave 6
Very/fairly comfortable
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 71
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 72
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 72

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6 

Since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021) there were no notable differences in the percentage of respondents who reported that they were comfortable (i.e., very comfortable or fairly comfortable) asking staff for more information (Figure 25) (footnote 13).

Figure 26. How confident respondents who suffer from a bad or unpleasant physical reaction after consuming certain foods were in allergen information provided in writing or verbally by a member of staff.

A line graph showing the percentage of respondents with a food hypersensitivity who felt confident in the allergen information provided in writing or verbally by staff between Wave 1 and Wave 6
In writing Verbally by staff
W1: Jul-20 to Oct-20
W2: Nov-20 to Jan-21 83 71
W3: Apr-21 to Jun-21
W4: Oct-21 to Jan-22 83 69
W5: Apr-22 to Jul-22
W6: Oct-22 to Jan-23 89 68

Download this chart

Food and You 2: Wave 1-6 

Since monitoring began in Wave 2 (November 2020 to January 2021) there were no notable differences in the percentage of respondents who reported that they were confident (i.e., very confident or fairly confident) that the information provided in writing or verbally by a member of staff would allow them to identify and avoid food that might cause a bad or unpleasant physical reaction. Across all waves, respondents were more likely to report that they were confident in the information provided in writing compared to the information provided verbally by a member of staff (Figure 26) (footnote 14)