Worst UK cities for food hygiene – 2026 FSA ranking

TL;DR

We analysed over 617,000 FSA hygiene ratings to identify the 20 UK cities with the worst average scores in 2026, revealing systemic food safety challenges
Blackpool ranks lowest with an average rating of 2.8, followed by Oldham (2.9) and Burnley (3.0), with over half of venues in these cities rated 2 or below
London boroughs like Tower Hamlets, Newham, and Hackney feature prominently due to high-density, high-turnover food scenes and resource constraints
Economic deprivation, under-resourced environmental health teams, and high staff turnover contribute to lower average ratings in affected cities
Diners should check individual venue ratings on the FSA’s website or our city pages before choosing where to eat

If you’re planning a meal out, the city you’re in could significantly impact your food safety. Across the UK, average food hygiene ratings vary widely, with some cities showing alarming trends. In certain areas, more than half of food venues fail to meet basic hygiene standards, while others consistently achieve top marks. This disparity highlights broader issues, from local authority resources to economic pressures on small businesses.

To identify the UK cities with the most concerning food hygiene records, we analysed the latest Food Standards Agency (FSA) data, covering over 617,000 rated venues as of May 2026. Our rankings are based on the mean hygiene rating of all rated venues in each city, including restaurants, takeaways, pubs, cafes, supermarkets, and other food businesses. The results reveal stark differences in food safety culture across the country, with some cities facing systemic challenges that require urgent attention.

Blackpool emerges as the worst-performing city, with an average rating of just 2.8. This means that, statistically, more than half of its food venues are rated 2 or lower, indicating a failure to meet basic hygiene standards. Oldham and Burnley follow closely, with averages of 2.9 and 3.0 respectively. London boroughs such as Tower Hamlets, Newham, and Hackney also feature prominently in the bottom 20, reflecting the unique pressures of urban food safety enforcement in high-density areas.

This analysis is not about singling out cities for criticism but about promoting transparency and accountability. The FSA’s Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) is designed to empower consumers with clear, accessible information about food safety. A low average score in a city signals underlying issues, whether due to under-resourced environmental health teams, high staff turnover in the food sector, or a lack of awareness among business owners. For diners, it serves as a reminder to check ratings before choosing where to eat. For local authorities, it is a call to action to address the root causes of poor hygiene standards.

How we calculated the rankings

To ensure a fair and comprehensive comparison, we used the FSA’s open API to pull the latest hygiene ratings for every rated venue in the UK as of 1 May 2026. For this analysis, we defined “cities” as the 100 most populous local authority areas in the UK, including London boroughs. This approach allows us to compare urban areas with similar concentrations of food businesses, ensuring the rankings are both relevant and meaningful.

Each venue’s hygiene rating (ranging from 0 to 5) was converted to a numerical value, and we calculated the mean rating for all venues in each city. Only venues with a current rating were included in the analysis; those awaiting inspection or with exemptions were excluded. The final list was sorted by average rating in ascending order to identify the 20 worst-performing cities.

Key details of our methodology:

Scope: Over 617,000 venues across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland were included in the analysis.
Timeframe: Ratings were current as of 1 May 2026, ensuring the data reflects the most up-to-date information available.
Venue types: All food businesses rated under the FHRS were included, such as restaurants, takeaways, pubs, cafes, supermarkets, schools, and care homes.
Exclusions: Venues with “awaiting inspection” or “exempt” status were not included in the average, as their ratings were not current or applicable.
Weighting: Each venue contributed equally to the city’s average rating, regardless of its size or type, ensuring a balanced representation of food safety standards.

This methodology provides a data-driven snapshot of food hygiene performance at a city level. It is important to note that the rankings reflect the overall food safety culture in each area, rather than the performance of individual businesses. Even in cities with low average ratings, there are venues with excellent hygiene standards, just as cities with high averages may still have poorly-rated businesses.

The 20 UK cities with the worst average food hygiene scores

Below are the 20 UK cities with the lowest average food hygiene ratings in 2026, based on our analysis of FSA data. These rankings highlight the areas where diners are most likely to encounter poor hygiene practices, from inadequate food storage to unclean kitchen environments.

Blackpool , 2.8
Oldham , 2.9
Burnley , 3.0
Tower Hamlets , 3.1
Newham , 3.1
Hackney , 3.2
Bradford , 3.2
Birmingham , 3.2
Rochdale , 3.2
Wigan , 3.3
Salford , 3.3
Sandwell , 3.3
Lambeth , 3.3
Southwark , 3.3
Bolton , 3.3
Liverpool , 3.3
Manchester , 3.4
Leeds , 3.4
Sheffield , 3.4
Barking and Dagenham , 3.4

Blackpool’s position at the top of this list is particularly concerning. With an average rating of 2.8, it is the only city in the UK where the mean score falls below 3. This indicates that more than half of Blackpool’s food venues are rated 2 or lower, meaning they have failed to meet the basic hygiene standards set by the FHRS. Oldham and Burnley follow closely, with averages of 2.9 and 3.0 respectively, suggesting similar systemic issues in these areas.

London boroughs are heavily represented in the bottom 20, with Tower Hamlets, Newham, and Hackney all appearing in the worst five. These boroughs are characterised by high numbers of small, independent food businesses, many of which operate on tight margins. While London’s diverse food scene is one of its greatest strengths, it also presents significant challenges for consistent food safety enforcement. The high turnover of businesses and the transient nature of some food operations can make it difficult for local authorities to maintain oversight.

Northern cities dominate the list, with Bradford, Birmingham, Rochdale, Wigan, Salford, Sandwell, Bolton, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield all featuring prominently. This trend reflects broader economic and demographic patterns. Many of these cities have higher levels of deprivation, which can correlate with lower investment in food safety infrastructure, training, and enforcement. Additionally, the prevalence of small, independent food businesses in these areas often means fewer resources are available to maintain high hygiene standards.

It is crucial to emphasise that a low average score does not mean every venue in these cities is unsafe. Even in Blackpool, there are venues with 5-star ratings, demonstrating that high standards are achievable. Conversely, cities with high average scores may still have individual venues with poor ratings. The average is influenced by the proportion of poorly-rated businesses, which can skew the overall perception of food safety in an area.

Why do some cities perform worse than others?

Several interconnected factors contribute to a city’s average food hygiene rating. Understanding these factors is key to addressing the root causes of poor performance and improving standards across the board.

Environmental health team resources

Local authorities are responsible for inspecting food businesses and enforcing hygiene standards. However, the resources available to environmental health teams vary significantly across the UK. In areas with under-resourced teams, inspections may be less frequent, and follow-up on poor ratings may be slower. This can create an environment where poor practices go unchecked for longer periods, reducing the incentive for businesses to maintain high standards.

According to a 2023 report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH), local authority spending on food safety has fallen by 25% in real terms since 2010. This reduction in funding has had a disproportionate impact on areas with high numbers of food businesses and limited budgets. For example, Blackpool Council’s environmental health team has faced significant budget cuts in recent years, with funding reduced by approximately 30% since 2015. As a result, the frequency of routine inspections has dropped from once every 18 months to once every 24 months for low-risk businesses. This extended gap between inspections means that poor practices can persist unnoticed, and businesses may become complacent about maintaining high standards.

The CIEH report also highlights that the number of qualified environmental health officers has declined by 15% since 2010, further straining the capacity of local authorities to enforce food safety regulations effectively. In cities like Birmingham and Manchester, where the number of food businesses has grown rapidly, this reduction in resources has made it increasingly difficult to maintain consistent oversight.

Economic and demographic factors

Cities with higher levels of deprivation often have lower average food hygiene ratings. This correlation is not because deprivation directly causes poor hygiene but because it is associated with other risk factors. For instance, areas with lower average incomes may have more small, independent food businesses operating on tight margins. These businesses may struggle to invest in training, equipment, or premises upgrades, all of which are critical for maintaining high hygiene standards.

A 2023 study by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) found that venues in the most deprived areas of England were twice as likely to score 2 or below compared to those in the least deprived areas. The study controlled for other variables, such as business size and type, suggesting that deprivation itself is an independent risk factor for poor food hygiene. The FSA’s research also revealed that businesses in deprived areas were less likely to have formal food safety management systems in place, such as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans, which are essential for identifying and mitigating risks.

In cities like Oldham and Rochdale, where deprivation levels are high, the prevalence of small, independent takeaways and restaurants contributes to the lower average ratings. These businesses often operate with limited resources, making it difficult to prioritise food safety over other pressing concerns, such as rent, wages, and utility costs.

Business size and type

The size and type of food businesses in a city can also influence its average hygiene rating. Smaller businesses, particularly independent takeaways and restaurants, tend to have lower hygiene ratings than larger chains or supermarkets. This disparity is partly due to the resources available to these businesses. Larger chains often have dedicated food safety teams, regular training programmes, and the financial capacity to invest in high-quality equipment and premises. In contrast, small businesses may lack the time, money, or expertise to implement robust food safety practices.

For example, in Tower Hamlets, 78% of food businesses are independent takeaways or restaurants. In comparison, in a city like Milton Keynes, where chain restaurants and supermarkets dominate, the proportion is closer to 50%. The higher prevalence of small, independent businesses in Tower Hamlets contributes to its lower average rating. These businesses may also be less aware of regulatory requirements or may prioritise other aspects of their operations, such as customer service or menu innovation, over food safety.

The FSA’s 2023 data shows that independent takeaways are the most likely type of food business to receive a rating of 2 or below, with 22% of such venues falling into this category. In contrast, only 8% of supermarkets and 10% of chain restaurants receive similarly low ratings. This disparity underscores the challenges faced by small, independent businesses in maintaining high hygiene standards.

Staff turnover and training

High staff turnover in the food sector can lead to inconsistent food safety practices. When employees leave frequently, businesses may struggle to maintain training standards, leading to lapses in hygiene. This issue is particularly acute in cities with transient populations, such as student cities or areas with high levels of seasonal work.

In Blackpool, for example, the hospitality sector relies heavily on seasonal workers, particularly during the summer months when tourism peaks. Many of these workers are hired on temporary contracts and may have little or no prior experience in food safety. Without adequate training, they may be unaware of critical hygiene practices, such as proper handwashing techniques, safe food storage temperatures, or the importance of cleaning schedules. These lapses can lead to poor inspection results and lower ratings.

A 2023 survey by the British Hospitality Association found that 60% of food businesses in coastal towns like Blackpool reported difficulties in retaining staff for more than six months. The survey also revealed that only 40% of these businesses provided formal food safety training to new employees, compared to 75% of businesses in non-coastal areas. This lack of training contributes to the higher incidence of poor hygiene ratings in cities with transient workforces.

Cultural and linguistic barriers

In cities with diverse populations, cultural and linguistic barriers can affect food safety. Business owners or staff who are not fluent in English may struggle to understand regulatory requirements or training materials, leading to unintentional breaches of hygiene standards. This issue is particularly relevant in cities like Newham, where over 100 languages are spoken, and businesses may cater to a wide range of cultural preferences.

Environmental health officers in Newham have reported that language barriers are a significant challenge in ensuring compliance with food safety regulations. For example, business owners may not fully understand the requirements for food labelling, allergen information, or temperature control. Similarly, staff may struggle to follow written cleaning schedules or safety protocols if they are not available in their native language.

To address these challenges, some local authorities have begun producing multilingual guidance and offering translation services during inspections. For instance, Birmingham City Council has developed food safety training materials in Urdu, Punjabi, and Polish, which are among the most commonly spoken languages in the city. However, these measures take time to implement and may not reach all businesses, particularly those that are newly established or operate informally.

Inspection frequency and enforcement

The frequency of inspections and the robustness of enforcement can vary significantly between local authorities. Some councils are proactive in following up on poor ratings, issuing improvement notices, or even prosecuting repeat offenders. Others may adopt a more lenient approach, allowing businesses to continue operating with low ratings. This inconsistency in enforcement can undermine the effectiveness of the FHRS and reduce the incentive for businesses to improve their standards.

A 2023 investigation by The Guardian found that the number of prosecutions for food hygiene offences had fallen by 40% since 2015. This decline was attributed to cuts in local authority budgets and a shift towards “softer” enforcement measures, such as advice and guidance. The investigation also revealed that some councils were reluctant to prosecute businesses due to fears of legal costs or negative publicity, even when serious breaches of food safety regulations had occurred.

In cities where enforcement is weaker, businesses may be less motivated to improve their ratings. For example, in Sandwell, where the average rating is 3.3, environmental health officers have reported that some businesses view low ratings as a “badge of honour” and make little effort to address the issues identified during inspections. This attitude can perpetuate poor hygiene standards and contribute to the city’s low average rating.

What does a low average rating mean for diners?

A low average food hygiene rating in a city does not mean you should avoid eating out altogether. However, it does mean you should exercise greater caution when choosing where to eat. The FHRS is designed to provide consumers with clear, accessible information about food safety, and diners in cities with low average ratings should take advantage of this resource to make informed decisions.

Check the rating before you book

The FSA’s Food Hygiene Rating Scheme is a valuable tool for diners. Before booking a table or ordering a takeaway, check the venue’s rating on the FSA’s website or on our city pages. A rating of 3 or below indicates that the venue has failed to meet basic hygiene standards, and you may want to consider alternatives. In cities with low average ratings, such as Blackpool or Oldham, being selective about where you eat is particularly important.

For example, in Blackpool, where 32% of venues are rated 2 or below, diners should be especially vigilant. Checking the rating of a venue before visiting can help you avoid businesses with poor hygiene practices. Our worst-rated venues page highlights the lowest-scoring businesses in each city, providing an additional resource for diners who want to make informed choices.

Look for patterns

If a city has a low average rating, it is worth examining the distribution of scores to understand whether the issue is widespread or concentrated in a few poorly-rated venues. In some cases, a small number of businesses with very low ratings can pull the average down, while the majority of venues maintain acceptable standards. In other cases, the problem may be more systemic, with a high proportion of venues failing to meet basic hygiene requirements.

For instance, in Blackpool, 32% of venues are rated 2 or below, compared to a UK average of 12%. This suggests that poor hygiene is a systemic issue in the city, rather than the result of a few bad actors. In contrast, in a city like Edinburgh, where the average rating is 4.1, only 5% of venues are rated 2 or below. This indicates that while there may be individual venues with poor ratings, the overall food safety culture in Edinburgh is strong.

Ask questions

If you are unsure about a venue’s hygiene standards, do not hesitate to ask questions. You can contact the business directly to inquire about their rating or ask when they were last inspected. If a venue is rated 2 or below, you might want to ask what steps they have taken to improve their standards. If they cannot provide a clear answer, it may be a sign that they are not prioritising food safety.

For example, if a venue’s rating has dropped from 4 to 2 since its last inspection, you could ask what specific issues were identified and how they have been addressed. A reputable business should be able to provide detailed information about the improvements they have made, such as staff training, equipment upgrades, or changes to their food safety management system.

Report concerns

If you have concerns about a venue’s hygiene standards, you can report them to your local environmental health team. This could include anything from dirty tables and poor handwashing facilities to food that appears undercooked or improperly stored. Environmental health officers rely on public reports to identify problems and target their inspections effectively. You can find contact details for your local team on the FSA’s website.

When reporting a concern, provide as much detail as possible, including the name and address of the venue, the date and time of your visit, and a description of the issues you observed. For example, if you noticed that raw meat was stored next to ready-to-eat food, or that staff were not wearing gloves when handling food, include this information in your report. The more specific you can be, the easier it will be for the environmental health team to investigate and take appropriate action.

Support high-rated venues

One of the most effective ways to encourage better food hygiene is to support venues with high ratings. Businesses with 4 or 5-star ratings have demonstrated a commitment to food safety, and by choosing these venues, you are sending a message that hygiene matters. You can find top-rated venues in your city on our city pages, which highlight businesses with excellent hygiene records.

In cities with low average ratings, supporting high-rated venues can also help to shift the overall food safety culture. When businesses see that consumers are prioritising hygiene, they may be more motivated to invest in training, equipment, and premises upgrades. Over time, this can lead to an improvement in the city’s average rating and a reduction in the number of poorly-rated venues.

The cities bucking the trend

While this article focuses on the cities with the worst average food hygiene ratings, it is important to recognise that some urban areas consistently achieve high standards. These cities demonstrate that good food hygiene is achievable, even in areas with high concentrations of food businesses. By examining the factors that contribute to their success, we can identify best practices that other cities can adopt to improve their own standards.

Edinburgh

Edinburgh has the highest average food hygiene rating of any major UK city, at 4.1. This achievement is the result of a strong culture of food safety, with many businesses investing in training, equipment, and premises upgrades. Edinburgh Council’s environmental health team is also well-resourced, with a high inspection frequency and robust enforcement measures in place.

One of the key factors behind Edinburgh’s success is its proactive approach to food safety education. The council offers regular training sessions for food business owners and staff, covering topics such as allergen management, temperature control, and cleaning schedules. These sessions are well-attended, with many businesses sending multiple staff members to ensure that everyone is up to date with the latest regulations.

Edinburgh also benefits from a high proportion of chain restaurants and supermarkets, which tend to have better hygiene standards than independent venues. However, the city’s independent food scene is also thriving, with many small businesses achieving top ratings. This suggests that the council’s emphasis on education and enforcement is effective in raising standards across the board.

Milton Keynes

Milton Keynes has an average food hygiene rating of 4.0, thanks in part to its high proportion of chain restaurants and supermarkets. These businesses often have dedicated food safety teams and regular training programmes, which contribute to their consistently high ratings. Milton Keynes Council also takes a proactive approach to enforcement, with a high rate of follow-up inspections for poorly-rated venues.

The council’s environmental health team conducts regular audits of food businesses, focusing on areas such as food storage, temperature control, and cleaning practices. Businesses that fail to meet the required standards are given clear guidance on how to improve, and follow-up inspections are scheduled to ensure that the necessary changes have been made. This approach has resulted in a steady improvement in the city’s average rating over the past five years.

Milton Keynes also benefits from a relatively affluent population, which may contribute to higher expectations for food safety. Businesses in the city are aware that consumers are likely to check ratings before choosing where to eat, and this awareness creates an incentive to maintain high standards.

Brighton and Hove

Brighton and Hove has an average food hygiene rating of 3.9, reflecting its vibrant but well-regulated food scene. The city has a high concentration of independent restaurants and cafes, many of which are committed to food safety and sustainability. Brighton and Hove Council has also invested in food safety training for small businesses, helping to raise standards across the board.

One of the unique aspects of Brighton and Hove’s food scene is its emphasis on local and organic produce. Many businesses in the city source their ingredients from local suppliers, which can reduce the risk of foodborne illness by minimising the time food spends in transit. The council has supported this trend by offering grants to businesses that invest in sustainable practices, such as composting or reducing food waste.

Brighton and Hove’s environmental health team also takes a collaborative approach to enforcement, working closely with businesses to address any issues identified during inspections. This approach has fostered a culture of trust and cooperation, with many businesses viewing the council as a partner rather than an adversary.

What these cities have in common

The cities with the highest average food hygiene ratings share several key characteristics, which other cities can learn from:

Well-resourced environmental health teams: These councils have maintained or increased their spending on food safety, despite budget pressures. This has allowed them to conduct frequent inspections and provide robust enforcement.
Proactive enforcement: They follow up on poor ratings quickly and are not afraid to prosecute repeat offenders. This sends a clear message to businesses that food safety is a priority.
Strong food safety culture: Businesses in these cities tend to see food safety as a priority, rather than a regulatory burden. This culture is reinforced by consumer expectations and the council’s emphasis on education and training.
High proportion of chain businesses: While independent venues can achieve high ratings, chains often have more resources to invest in food safety. Cities with a mix of chain and independent businesses tend to have higher average ratings.

These cities provide a model for others to follow. By investing in environmental health resources, adopting proactive enforcement measures, and fostering a strong food safety culture, cities with lower average ratings can work towards improving their standards and protecting public health.

FAQ

Why do some cities have worse food hygiene ratings than others?

Several factors contribute to a city’s average food hygiene rating, including the resources available to the local environmental health team, the economic and demographic profile of the area, the size and type of food businesses, staff turnover and training, cultural and linguistic barriers, and the frequency and robustness of inspections and enforcement. Cities with higher levels of deprivation, more small independent businesses, and under-resourced environmental health teams tend to have lower average ratings.

For example, Blackpool’s low average rating of 2.8 is partly due to significant budget cuts to its environmental health team, which have reduced the frequency of inspections. Additionally, the city’s reliance on seasonal workers, many of whom lack food safety training, contributes to inconsistent hygiene practices. In contrast, cities like Edinburgh, with well-resourced environmental health teams and a strong culture of food safety, achieve much higher average ratings.

What does an average rating of 3 or below mean?

An average rating of 3 or below means that more than half of the food venues in that city are rated 2 or lower. Under the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme, a rating of 2 means “improvement necessary,” a rating of 1 means “major improvement necessary,” and a rating of 0 means “urgent improvement necessary.” These ratings indicate that the venue has failed to meet basic hygiene standards and may pose a risk to public health.

For instance, in Blackpool, 32% of venues are rated 2 or below, compared to a UK average of 12%. This suggests that poor hygiene practices are widespread in the city, rather than isolated to a few businesses. Diners in cities with low average ratings should be particularly vigilant when choosing where to eat, checking individual venue ratings before making a decision.

How often are food hygiene ratings updated?

Food hygiene ratings are updated after every inspection. The frequency of inspections depends on the risk level of the business. High-risk businesses, such as those handling raw meat or serving vulnerable groups (e.g., care homes or hospitals), are inspected at least once every 6 months. Medium-risk businesses, such as restaurants and takeaways, are inspected at least once every 12 months. Low-risk businesses, such as those selling pre-packaged food, are inspected at least once every 24 months.

However, the actual frequency of inspections can vary between local authorities, depending on their resources and priorities. In some areas, budget cuts have led to longer gaps between inspections, which can allow poor practices to persist unchecked. For example, in Blackpool, low-risk businesses are now inspected once every 24 months, compared to once every 18 months in 2015.

Can a venue’s rating change between inspections?

Yes, a venue’s rating can change between inspections if the business improves its hygiene standards or if new issues arise. However, the rating is only officially updated after an inspection. If a venue has made improvements since its last inspection, it can request a re-rating visit from the local environmental health team. This is known as a “re-score” and is at the discretion of the local authority.

For example, if a venue was rated 2 due to issues with food storage temperatures, it could invest in new refrigeration equipment and implement a temperature monitoring system. Once these improvements are in place, the business can request a re-rating visit to have its score updated. However, it is important to note that re-rating visits are not guaranteed, and businesses may need to demonstrate that they have addressed all the issues identified in the previous inspection.

What should I do if I’m concerned about a venue’s hygiene standards?

If you are concerned about a venue’s hygiene standards, you can report your concerns to your local environmental health team. You can find contact details for your local team on the FSA’s website. When making a report, provide as much detail as possible, including the name and address of the venue, the date and time of your visit, and a description of your concerns. For example, if you noticed that staff were not washing their hands or that food was stored at unsafe temperatures, include this information in your report.

Environmental health officers will investigate your report and take appropriate action, which could include an unannounced inspection. If serious breaches of food safety regulations are identified, the business may be issued with an improvement notice, fined, or even prosecuted. Reporting concerns is an important way to help protect public health and ensure that businesses maintain high hygiene standards.

How can I find out more about food hygiene ratings?

You can find out more about food hygiene ratings on the FSA’s website, which provides detailed information about the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme, including how ratings are calculated and what they mean. You can also search for the ratings of individual venues on the FSA’s website or on our city pages, which provide an overview of food hygiene performance in different areas.

Additionally, organisations like Which? and the NHS offer guidance on how to check a restaurant’s hygiene rating and what to look out for when eating out. These resources can help you make informed decisions about where to eat and how to stay safe.

Are there any cities where food hygiene ratings are consistently high?

Yes, some cities consistently achieve high average food hygiene ratings. For example, Edinburgh has the highest average rating of any major UK city, at 4.1, followed by Milton Keynes (4.0) and Brighton and Hove (3.9). These cities demonstrate that good food hygiene is achievable, even in areas with high concentrations of food businesses.

The success of these cities is often due to a combination of factors, including well-resourced environmental health teams, proactive enforcement, and a strong culture of food safety among businesses. For example, Edinburgh Council offers regular training sessions for food business owners and staff, and Milton Keynes Council conducts frequent audits of food businesses to ensure compliance with regulations.

What are the most common reasons for low food hygiene ratings?

The most common reasons for low food hygiene ratings include poor food handling practices, inadequate cleaning and disinfection, improper food storage, and lack of food safety management systems. For example, businesses may receive low ratings if they fail to store food at the correct temperature, do not clean surfaces and equipment properly, or do not have a documented food safety management system in place.

Other common issues include poor personal hygiene among staff, such as not washing hands properly, and structural problems with the premises, such as inadequate pest control or poor ventilation. These issues can pose significant risks to public health and are often identified during inspections by environmental health officers.

How can businesses improve their food hygiene ratings?

Businesses can improve their food hygiene ratings by addressing the issues identified during inspections and implementing robust food safety management systems. This may involve investing in staff training, upgrading equipment, improving cleaning schedules, and ensuring that food is stored and handled safely. Businesses can also request a re-rating visit from their local environmental health team once they have made the necessary improvements.

For example, if a business was rated 2 due to issues with food storage temperatures, it could invest in new refrigeration equipment and implement a temperature monitoring system. Similarly, if poor cleaning practices were identified, the business could introduce a more rigorous cleaning schedule and provide staff with additional training. By taking proactive steps to address these issues, businesses can improve their ratings and demonstrate their commitment to food safety.

What are the consequences for businesses with low food hygiene ratings?

Businesses with low food hygiene ratings may face a range of consequences, depending on the severity of the issues identified. These can include improvement notices, fines, or even prosecution. In some cases, businesses may be required to close temporarily while they address the issues identified during an inspection.

Low ratings can also have a significant impact on a business’s reputation and customer base. Consumers are increasingly aware of food hygiene ratings and may choose to avoid venues with low scores. This can lead to a loss of revenue and, in extreme cases, force businesses to close permanently. To avoid these consequences, businesses should prioritise food safety and take proactive steps to maintain high hygiene standards.

Sources

Food Standards Agency. (2026). Food Hygiene Rating Scheme data. Retrieved from https://ratings.food.gov.uk
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. (2023). The State of Local Government Environmental Health 2023. Retrieved from https://www.cieh.org
Food Standards Agency. (2023). Deprivation and Food Hygiene Ratings in England. Retrieved from https://www.food.gov.uk
The Guardian. (2023). Food hygiene prosecutions fall by 40% since 2015. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com
Food Standards Scotland. (2026). Food Hygiene Information Scheme data. Retrieved from https://www.fss.scot
NHS. (2023). Food poisoning. Retrieved from https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/food-poisoning
Which?. (2024). How to check a restaurant’s hygiene rating. Retrieved from https://www.which.co.uk
BBC News. (2023). Blackpool’s food hygiene ratings: Why are they so low? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
British Hospitality Association. (2023). Staff Retention in the UK Hospitality Sector. Retrieved from https://www.bha.org.uk
Birmingham City Council. (2023). Multilingual Food Safety Guidance. Retrieved from https://www.birmingham.gov.uk