Takeaways in poorer parts of England are twice as likely to need improvement in food hygiene as those in wealthier areas, with as many as one in five in some parts of the UK falling below required standards, according to Guardian analysis.
Almost one in 10 takeaways in England’s poorest neighbourhoods did not satisfactorily comply with food hygiene standards, compared with just one in 24 in the richest, according to an analysis of almost 600,000 inspection reports at the beginning of December, 64,000 of them takeaways.
Data from the Food Standards Agency shows that one in 16 takeaways across the UK fell below legally required standards at the beginning of December.
In England the worst records were in more deprived local authorities, including Halton in Cheshire, where one in five takeaways had a rating of two or less – meaning they did not satisfactorily meet food hygiene standards at the time of their last inspection, while it was close to that level in the north London boroughs of Enfield (18.4%) and Waltham Forest (17.7%).
One in five Aberdeen takeaways fell below equivalent Scottish standards, as did one in six in Edinburgh.
In total, almost 16,700 food providers across the UK require improvements, including almost 4,000 takeaways, 4,500 restaurants and 1,200 pubs.
The data also revealed 530 care settings that did not meet requirements, including 300 childcare providers, among them nurseries, playgroups, breakfast clubs, primary schools and other educational settings.
Establishments providing for older, vulnerable groups were also among those deemed unsafe by inspectors, including 180 care homes and at least 15 hospitals.
The Food Standards Agency rates all establishments where the public can buy or eat food with a score from zero to five. Zero means urgent upgrades are required, while a two or lower means some improvements are needed. A business with a score of three or higher complies satisfactorily with the law.
The food consultant James Miller said takeaways faced higher challenges when it came to meeting food hygiene standards.
“They deal with more demand than restaurants and tend to have less staff, who are also busier and less trained in hygiene documentation. That makes it more difficult for them to keep up with the dozens of daily records required,” he said.
Takeaways were also more likely to have a language barrier, said Miller, making it more difficult to understand the requirements. And they were also facing the wider challenges of the food industry.
“There is a backlog with the inspections due to Covid. Brexit has had an impact on recruiting workers from abroad, and now the cost of living crisis,” he said. “But businesses should not forget that a good hygiene rating would bring more customers to them.”
It would appear that the public agree: a survey of 2,000 adults carried out by the Food Standards Agency in 2020 found that 82% of the respondents would not consider buying food from a business with a score lower than three or four.
Public sentiment is also swaying food order and delivery companies, which are displaying takeaways’ food safety ratings with greater prominence and punishing those that do not comply with the standards.
Since 2019 the platform Just Eat has refused to host takeaways that attracted a zero rating in their last inspection and has reportedly invested £1m in support to restaurants with a score lower than three – the threshold for a pass under the food hygiene standards.
Its main rivals, Deliveroo and Uber Eats, appear to have followed suit: a spot check for zero-rated restaurants showed up no results on either site.
These kinds of innovations, as well as a requirement for restaurants to display their latest food standards rating on their premises, make a difference, experts say, as customers are increasingly savvy.
Responding to the finding that Enfield had the second-lowest compliance rate in England, the council leader, Nesil Caliskan, said the the local authority would take appropriate action and prosecute when necessary.
Scott Arthur, the Edinburgh city council environment convener, said ratings in the city had improved, with “the pass rate currently at 89%” in November for all types of establishments.
“A business with an ‘improvement required’ status is not necessarily a risk to public health,” he said. “Environmental health staff take appropriate enforcement action, including closure of food premises, where there is an imminent risk to public health.”
Jesse Williams, the Food Standards Agency’s head of food hygiene ratings, said: “All food businesses are able to achieve the top rating of ‘five – very good’ by doing what is required by food law.”
The rating criteria are the same for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but Scotland uses a different system, which classes food providers that do not meet the hygiene requirements with an “improvement required” grade.
A spokesperson for Food Standards Scotland said: “The ‘pass’ standard is set to represent a single level of compliance that is satisfactory in terms of consumer expectations and also an enforcement outcome.”
Each local authority is responsible for ranking food establishments and planning the inspections in their areas. The time between inspections can vary from six months for those businesses that pose higher risk to two years or more for low- or very low-risk businesses. In between inspections, local authorities may monitor businesses in different ways.
