This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
FEATURE


POOR FOOD HYGIENE RIFE, SAYS CHECKIT


More than 5,000 London food businesses risk consumer boycott due to poor food hygiene ratings, a recent study from Checkit has revealed.


5,168 London businesses selling food face losing over half their customers due to poor food hygiene, according to research from Checkit.


61% of consumers say they won’t eat at a restaurant, takeaway, coffee shop or pub that has a low Food Standards Agency (FSA) Food Hygiene Rating while three quarters say they wouldn’t risk dining at a restaurant that had been implicated in a food hygiene incident, even if recommended by someone that they trust.


According to the latest Food Standards Agency figures Newham is the worst borough for food hygiene, with 31% of restaurants, cafes, canteens, mobile caterers, pubs, takeaways, sandwich shops and hotels having a Food Hygiene Rating of two or below.


This means they are classed as ‘urgent improvement necessary’, ‘major improvement necessary’ or simply ‘improvement necessary.’ This included over half of takeaways and sandwich shops. Given that 64% of consumers say they’d avoid takeaways with low food hygiene ratings, this is set to have a major impact on the sector’s revenues and individual business survival.


Kensington, Chelsea and Bexley had the lowest number of poorly rated premises, each with 5% receiving a rating of two or below. Overall, takeaways and sandwich shops were the worst for poor ratings, with 22% classed as requiring some sort of improvement, a concern for the large number of busy Londoners who regularly grab a meal at this type of business.


Checkit’s consumer research also found that diners would rather put up with poor service from rude and unhelpful staff than eat at dirty restaurants. 66%


14


of respondents rated unclean or dirty premises as the first or second reason for not returning to a restaurant. Just 16% cited slow or poor service with 32% saying rude or unhelpful staff would stop them coming back again.


Dee Roche, Marketing Director, Checkit.net said: “Food hygiene is now the number one priority for consumers when eating out, meaning our research should act as a wake-up call for those restaurants in London with poor food hygiene ratings. As well as the health of their customers they are risking the survival of their business – few of them could cope with 61% of diners boycotting their restaurant. These findings show why food safety is priority – customers rate hygiene as the number one reason, above service or rude staff when it comes to choosing whether to return to a restaurant.”


The impact of being implicated in a food hygiene incident is catastrophic for the survival of any restaurant business. Of the 75% of consumers that wouldn’t risk a visit, 43% said they’d never dine there, no matter what, while 32% would only return if it had closed down and reopened under new ownership. A further 22% said they’d only return if the food hygiene rating improved dramatically – meaning that owners would need deep pockets and the ability to invest heavily over a long period of time to meet hygiene standards, rebuild trust and attract diners back.


The Checkit study is based on research carried out online with 1,000 consumers by Toluna in Q1 2016, combined with analysis of the Food Standards Agency’s Food Hygiene Rating Scheme website.


A full management report on the research is available here.


www.checkit.net www.tomorrowshs.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62