Skip to main content
English Cymraeg
Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Food and You 2: Wave 4

Chapter 3: Use of the FHRS in decision making

This chapter provides an overview of how people use the FHRS in deciding where to eat out or buy food.

Acceptable food hygiene ratings

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

A bar chart showing the percentage of respondents who would be willing to eat at a restaurant or takeaway with food hygiene ratings below 5 (very good).
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

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) 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. 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)

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.

A bar chart showing the percentage of respondents who would be willing to buy food from a food business with a food hygiene rating which is lower that their lowest acceptable rating.
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

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)FHRS rating of ... (rating) &hellip; acceptable when buying food from somewhere, excluding those who have not heard of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme. 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.

A bar chart showing the situations where respondents might buy food from a food business with a food hygiene rating which is lower that their usual lowest acceptable rating.
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

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).

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

A bar chart showing the percentage of respondents who would buy food from a food business with a food hygiene rating which is higher that their usual lowest acceptable rating.
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

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) FHRS rating of .... (score), excluding those who have not heard of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme. 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.

A bar chart showing the situations where respondents might buy food from a food business with a food hygiene rating which is higher that their usual lowest acceptable rating.
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

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) .

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 ** 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 = 4350, all online respondents and all those who completed the Eating Out postal questionnaire who have heard of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme.</p> " href="#">(footnote).

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).

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

A bar chart showing the concerns which respondent would have if a food business did not display their food hygiene rating sticker on the premises.
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

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)