Food and You 2 FHRS Wave 6: Chapter 3 - Use of the FHRS in decision making

Acceptable food hygiene ratings

 
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

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)}. 

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).

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)}. 

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

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.