Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Food and You 2: Wave 6

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 6 ‘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 6 was conducted between 12th October 2022 and 10th January 2023. 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 6, 4,918 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, 92% in Wales, and 91% Northern Ireland**^(footnote). 
• 55% of respondents had heard of the FHRS and knew a lot or a bit about it. Respondents in Wales (69%) and Northern Ireland (65%) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those in England (54%).
• of those who had heard of the FHRS, 83% had come across the FHRS through a food hygiene rating sticker displayed at a food business premises and 38% had come across the FHRS on a food business’s own website.
• when shown an image of the food hygiene rating sticker, 87% reported that they had seen the sticker before. Recognition of the sticker was slightly lower in England (87%) than in Wales (91%) and Northern Ireland (93%) **. Respondents were most likely to have seen the sticker in a restaurant (83%), café (75%) or takeaway (69%) in the last 12 months. 

Use of the FHRS

• around 4 in 10 (43%) 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 (59%) were more likely to have checked the food hygiene rating of a business than those in England (42%), and Northern Ireland (48%).

• of those who had checked the food hygiene rating of a food business, the most common types of businesses where respondents checked ratings were takeaways (73%) and restaurants (73%). Most respondents (82%) had checked the rating by looking at the food hygiene rating sticker displayed at the food business.
• around one in 10 (11%) respondents reported that they always checked the food hygiene rating of a restaurant or takeaway on arrival, 19% reported that they did this most of the time, 32% of respondents did this about half the time or occasionally and 34% 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) (93%) or 3 (generally satisfactory) (59%). 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) (93%) 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. 43% would consider a rating of 4 (good) as the lowest acceptable rating, and 41% 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. 
• 18% of those who had heard of the FHRS reported that they had decided against using a food business because it did not display its food hygiene rating sticker in the last 12 months.

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. Similarly, 94% 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^{FHRS ratings was introduced in November 2013 in Wales and October 2016 in Northern Ireland.</p> " href="#">(footnote)}. Ratings are also available on the FSA ratings website and via other third-party apps.

Food and You 2: Wave 6

This report presents key findings from the Food and You 2: Wave 6 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 6 was conducted between 12th October 2022 and 10th January 2023. 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 6, 4,918 adults across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland completed the online survey or postal version of the survey which included 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. 

Questions asked in other modules of the Food and You 2: Wave 6 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, 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 (**). 

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 (86%) reported that they had heard of the FHRS. Over half (55%) reported that they had heard of the FHRS and knew a lot or a bit about it, 31% had heard of the FHRS but didn’t know much or anything about it and 14% had never heard of the FHRS^{FHRS.<br /> &nbsp;</p> " href="#">(footnote)}.

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

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Country	Had heard of the FHRS (%)	Had never heard of the FHRS (%)
England	86	14
Wales	92	8
Northern Ireland	91	9

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 6

Most respondents in England (86%), Wales (92%), and Northern Ireland (91%) had heard of the FHRS (Figure 1)**. 

Awareness and knowledge of the FHRS varied by country. Respondents in Wales (69%) and Northern Ireland (65%) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those in England (54%). 

Awareness and knowledge of the FHRS also varied between regions in England. For example, 62% of respondents in Yorkshire and the Humber and 61% of those in the East Midlands reported having some knowledge of the FHRS compared to 44% in London.

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

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Age (Years)	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	45	37	18
25-34	58	31	11
35-44	60	30	10
45-54	60	31	9
55-64	65	23	12
65-79	51	32	17
80+	33	36	31

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 6

Respondents aged between 25 and 64 years were more likely to have at least a bit of knowledge of the FHRS than those aged 16 to 24 or aged 80 years or over. For example, 65% of those aged 55 to 64 years reported knowledge of the FHRS, compared to 33% of those aged 80 years or over (Figure 2).

Awareness and 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, 60% of those in managerial, administrative, and professional occupations) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than full-time students (42%) and those who were long term unemployed and/or never worked (31%).
  Household size: those in households of 3-persons or more (for example, 59% of respondents living in households with 5 or more people) were more likely to report having knowledge of the FHRS compared to those in 1 -person households (47%).
  Responsibility for cooking: respondents who were responsible for cooking (57%) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those who do not cook (33%). 
  Responsibility for shopping: respondents who were responsible for food shopping (57%) were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than those who never shop for food (34%). 
  Ethnic group: white (57%) respondents were more likely to report knowledge of the FHRS than Asian or Asian British (43%) respondents.

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

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Location	Percentage of respondents (%)
Somewhere else	6
On another website	3
On another app	5
In an advert or magazine article	7
On social media	9
In the local newspaper	9
On the FSA's website	14
Word of mouth	17
On a food ordering/delivery website or app	23
On a food business's own website	38
A sticker in a food business	83

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 6  

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 (83%). Almost 4 in 10 (38%) respondents had come across the FHRS on a food business’ website, 23% of respondents had come across the FHRS on a food ordering /a delivery website and/or app (for example, Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats), 17% of respondents had come across the FHRS by word of mouth, and 14% of respondents had come across the FHRS on the FSA’s website (Figure 3)^(footnote).

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

Location	England	Wales	Northern Ireland
On the FSA's website	14	19	15
Word of mouth	17	20	20
On a food ordering/delivery website or app	23	24	16
On a food business' own website	38	36	32
A sticker in a food business	82	87	88

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 6 

Most respondents in England (82%), Wales (87%) and Northern Ireland (88%) 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 (38%), Wales (36%) and Northern Ireland (32%) was on a food business’s own website.

Recognition of the FHRS

When shown an image of the food hygiene rating sticker, 87% of respondents reported that they had seen the food hygiene rating sticker before. Recognition of the food hygiene rating sticker was similar in England (87%), Wales (91%), and Northern Ireland (93%)**^(footnote).

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

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Age group	Have seen the sticker before (%)	Have not seen the sticker before (%)
16-24	90	4
25-34	94	1
35-44	94	3
45-54	93	3
55-64	87	9
65-79	79	15
80+	57	36

Download this chart

Image .csv

 Source: Food and You 2: Wave 6

Those under the age of 55 were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than those aged 80 or over. For example, 94% of respondents aged 25 to 34 years reported that they had seen the food hygiene rating sticker, compared to 57% of those aged 80 years and over (Figure 5).

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

• Household size: respondents in households with 2 or more people (for example, 94% of those in 4-person households) were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than those living in 1 person households (76%). 
• Children under 16 years in the household: respondents with children (under 16 years) in the household (95%) were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than those with no children in the household (84%).
• NS-SEC: respondents in some occupational groups (for example, 93% of those in lower supervisory and technical occupations), were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than those who were long term unemployed and/or never worked (75%).
• Annual household income: respondents with an income of more than £64,000 (for example, 94% of those with an income between £64,000 and £95,999) were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker than those with an income of less than £19,000 (84%).

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

Type of food business	Percentage of respondents (%)
On market stalls/ street food	9
In other food shops	13
In schools and other institutions	15
In supermarkets	18
In hotels/ B&Bs	29
In pubs	53
In coffee or sandwich shops	55
In takeaways	69
In cafes	75
In restaurants	83

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

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 (83%), in cafés (75%), or in takeaways (69%) (Figure 6)^{FHRS sticker.</p> " href="#">(footnote)}.

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

Type of business	England	Wales	Northern Ireland
On market stalls\street food	9	13	8
In other food shops	12	20	13
In schools and other institutions	14	24	21
In supermarkets	17	25	18
In hotels /B&Bs	27	42	40
In pubs	53	72	43
In coffee or sandwich shops	54	70	62
In takeaways	68	77	76
In caf�s	74	86	78
In restaurants	83	88	82

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

Most respondents had seen the food hygiene rating sticker in restaurants in England (83%), Wales (88%) and Northern Ireland (82%)**. Respondents in Wales were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker in cafés (86%) and coffee or sandwich shops (70%) compared to respondents in England (cafés 74%, coffee or sandwich shops 54%). Respondents in Wales (72%) were more likely to have seen the food hygiene rating sticker in pubs than those in Northern Ireland (43%) and England (53%) (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

Type of food business	Percentage of respondents (%)
Dont know	5
Other	2
Other food shops	39
Market stalls / street food	45
Supermarkets	48
Schools, hospitals and other institutions	55
Hotels / B&Bs	78
Pubs	84
Coffee or sandwich shops	86
Takeaways	89
Cafes	91
Restaurants	94

Download this chart

Image .csv

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).

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). 

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): 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%).

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

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Type of food business	Percentage of respondents (%)
Somewhere else	1
In other food shops	7
On market stalls / street food	6
In schools, hospitals and other institutions	9
In supermarkets	11
In hotels / B&Bs	17
In pubs	37
In coffee or sandwich shops	37
In cafes	53
In restaurants	73
In takeaways	73

Download this chart

Image .csv

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).

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

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Type of food business	Percentage of respondents (%)
In a local newspaper	3
On another website	4
On an app (e.g. Scores on the Doors Food Hygiene Rating)	6
On the FSA's website	16
Online food ordering website or app (e.g. Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats)	24
Food business' own website	25
FHRS sticker displayed at the food business (such as in a business' window or on the door)	82

Download this chart

Image .csv

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)^{FHRS sticker displayed at the food business (such as in a business&#39; window or on the door), I checked an online food ordering website or app (for example, Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats), I checked the food business&#39; own website, I checked on the Food Standards Agency&#39;s website, I checked on an app (for example, Scores on the Doors Food Hygiene Rating), I checked in a local newspaper, I checked on another website, Other, Don&rsquo;t know. Base = 2283, all online respondents and those answering the &lsquo;Eating Out&rsquo; postal questionnaire who have checked the food hygiene rating of a food business in the last 12 months.</p> " href="#">(footnote)}.

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). 

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^{FHRS ratings for food businesses, how often are they easy to find? Responses: Always, Most of the time, About half of the time, Occasionally, Never, Don&rsquo;t know. Base = 2283, all online respondents and all those who completed the Eating Out postal questionnaire, who have checked the Food Hygiene Rating of a food business in the last 12 months.</p> " href="#">(footnote)}. 

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).

Figure 11. Ten most common factors taken into consideration when ordering a takeaway.

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Factors considered	Percentage of respondents (%)
Whether information about calories is provided	2
Whether allergen information is provided	6
Whether healthier options are provided	8
Whether it is an independent business or part of a chain	10
Reviews, for example, on TripAdvisor, Google, social media, or in newspapers	26
Whether there is a delivery or collection option	27
Delivery or collection times	32
Whether food can be ordered online	32
Offers, deals, discounts available	32
Location of takeaway	33
Food hygiene rating	36
Type of food (e.g. cuisine or vegetarian/vegan options)	48
Recommendations from family or friends	48
Price (including cost of delivery)	53
Quality of food	72
Previous experience of the takeaway	78

Download this chart

Image .csv

 
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).

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 

Figure 12. Ten most common factors taken into consideration when eating out. 

Change to table and accessible view

Change to chart view

Factors considered	Percentage of respondents (%)
Whether information about calories is provided	5
Whether allergen information is provided	8
Whether the place is child-friendly	14
Whether healthier options are available	16
Whether it is an independent business or part of a chain	20
Reviews, for example, on TripAdvisor, Google, social media	32
Offers, deals or discount available	39
Food hygiene rating	45
Ambiance / atmosphere	48
Type of food (for example, cuisine or vegetarian / vegan options)	54
Quality of service	65
Cleanliness of the place	67
Recommendations from family or friends	67
Location	67
Price	71
Previous experience of the place	81
Quality of food	84

Download this chart

Image .csv

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).

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).

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%).

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
Still eat at the restaurant / takeaway	35	41	2	3
Not eat at the restaurant / takeaway	43	36	95	93
Don't know	21	23	4	4

Download this chart

Image .csv

 
Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

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 at each food hygiene 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) (93%) or 3 (generally satisfactory) (59%). 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) (93%) or 0 (urgent improvement necessary) (95%) (Figure 13)^{FHRS11_rebased table for base numbers, all online respondents and those answering the Eating Out postal questionnaire who have heard of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme.</p> " href="#">(footnote)}. 

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 3 (39%) or 4 (42%) was the lowest rating they would consider acceptable. A minority of respondents considered a rating of 0 (1%), 1 (1%) or 2 (4%) to be acceptable^(footnote). 

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

	1- major improvement necessary	2 - improvement necessary	3 - generally satisfactory	4 - good
Yes	33	52	21	21
No	67	44	69	68
Dont know	0	4	11	11

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

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 (67%) 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 23% could think of a situation (Figure 14)^{FHRS rating of &hellip; (rating) &hellip; acceptable when buying food from somewhere, excluding those who have not heard of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme, excluding &lsquo;not stated&rsquo;. Please note: The score presented was the response from the previous question, &lsquo;From a rating of 0 to 5, what is the lowest rating you would usually consider acceptable, if you were considering buying food from somewhere?&rsquo;</p> " href="#">(footnote)}. 

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

Situations	Percentage of respondents (%)
I was taking food away rather than eating in	8
Served a particular type of food	11
Assume it is safe if it is still open/running	12
It was part of a chain I knew	15
I was in an unfamiliar location	15
Someone else chose the food business	19
I enjoyed the taste of the food	20
The place had been recommended to me	27
Didn't have much money / cheap	27
I was out late at night	31
I knew the food was of high quality	34
I needed to pick something up quickly	37
There wasn't much choice of places to go	50
I had eaten food from there before	50

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

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 they had eaten food from there before (50%), if there wasn’t much choice of places to go (50%), if they needed to pick something up quickly (37%), or if they knew the food was of high quality (34%) (Figure 15)^(footnote).

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

	0- urgent improvement necessary	1- major improvement necessary	2 - improvement necessary	3 - generally satisfactory
Yes	32	56	44	65
No	62	17	46	21
Dont know	7	27	9	14

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

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 (61%) could think of a situation in which this would apply, and 25% 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)^{FHRS rating of .... (score), excluding those who have not heard of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme and &lsquo;not stated&rsquo;. Please note: The score presented was the response from the previous question, &lsquo;From a rating of 0 to 5, what is the lowest rating you would usually consider acceptable, if you were considering buying food from somewhere?&rsquo;</p> " href="#">(footnote)}. 

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	Percentage of respondents (%)
Other	6
When it was part of a chain	13
Want to go somewhere expensive	19
With young children	38
With older people	39
Special health issues	40
When in an unfamiliar location	41
With particular people/family members	45
A special occasion	53

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

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 (53%), when with particular people or family members (45%), 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) (40%) (Figure 17)^(footnote).

Impact of FHRS rating stickers on behaviours and perception

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, 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.

A higher proportion of respondents living in Wales (68%) 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%). Over 6 in 10 (64%) 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**^{FHRS sticker present at the entrance to what extent, if at all, will this affect your decision to eat there? Responses: It would make me much less likely to eat there, It would make me a little less likely to eat there, It would not make me any less likely to eat there, Don&rsquo;t know. Base = 4417, all online respondents and all those who completed the Eating Out postal questionnaire who have heard of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme excluding &lsquo;not stated&rsquo;.</p> " href="#">(footnote)}.

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. 18% 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. However, 19% 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 Scheme sticker^(footnote).

Concerns about food businesses not displaying an FHRS rating

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	Percentage of respondents (%)
I would not be concerned	4
I would not notice the missing sticker	27
Business doesn't meet legal requirements	39
Whether the business has been inspected by the relevant authorities	42
Safety of eating at the business	44
Higher risk of food poisoning/illness/infection	44
Business had a low/poor food hygiene rating and was trying to hide it	48
Business had poor hygiene standards	49

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

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 (49%) and that the food business had a poor or low food hygiene rating and was trying to hide it (48%). 

Respondents in Wales were more likely to be concerned that the food business had poor hygiene standards (60%), had a low/poor Food Hygiene Rating and was trying to hide it (58%), and that the food business doesn’t meet legal requirements (49%) than respondents in England (48% concerned about poor hygiene standards, 47% concerned about a low/poor Food Hygiene Rating, and 38% concerned that the business doesn’t meet legal requirements). Respondents in Wales were also more likely to be concerned as to whether the food business had been inspected by the relevant authority (54%) than respondents in England (41%) and Northern Ireland (42%). 

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). Respondents in England (28%) were more likely to report that they would not notice if the sticker was missing than respondents in Wales (16%). In Northern Ireland (23%)** reported that they would not notice if the sticker was missing than respondents in Wales.

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^{FHRS ratings at premises was introduced in November 2013 in Wales and October 2016 in Northern Ireland</p> " href="#">(footnote)}. 

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. 3% 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 (93%), 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).

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, 94% 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 (94%), Wales (95%), and Northern Ireland (94%)**^(footnote).

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	Percentage of respondents (%)
Food business's social media site	81
Supermarket's own website	84
Food ordering/delivery companies' apps/websites	91
Takeaway's own website	93
Restaurant's or cafe's own website	94
Hotel's or B&B's own website	94

Download this chart

Image .csv

Source: Food & You 2: Wave 6

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 (94%), on hotel or B&B websites (94%), takeaway websites (93%), and on the websites or apps of food ordering and delivery companies (91%). Around 8 in 10 respondents thought that food hygiene ratings should be displayed on supermarket websites (84%) and on food business’s social media sites (81%) (Figure 19)^(footnote).

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)

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 6 was conducted from 12th October 2022 and 10th January 2023. 

Response rates

For Wave 6 a total of 5,991 adults from 4,217 households across England (2,072 adults), Northern Ireland (1,088 adults), and Wales (1,015 adults), completed the survey. An overall response rate of 28.8% was achieved. 63.8% of respondents completed the survey online and 36.2% 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 6 ‘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 6 Key Findings report however are presented in greater detail in this report. 

A total of 4,918 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 6 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.