Should restaurants display hygiene scores on their doors?
It’s happened to many of us. You sit down for a meal in a restaurant and look around, only to realise that the place isn’t as clean as you’d like. You can’t help thinking, if front-of-house is dirty, what will the kitchen be like?

You can see unclean cutlery, unswept floors, perhaps even the odd rodent or two. But other than demanding to inspect a restaurant’s kitchen, and to look out for anything with more than two legs before you pick up your fork, how on earth can you know whether the restaurant’s hygiene is up to scratch?
Well, the Welsh government is planning to make it mandatory for all eating establishments in Wales to have their latest food hygiene scores, awarded by the local authority’s environmental health department, shown clearly on the door.
At the moment displaying ‘Scores on the Doors’ is voluntary in the UK, which generally means that only restaurants with good scores tend to let their customers know about it.
Hurray for hygiene scores
This is an issue we’ve been covering in our magazine for many years. We’ve always thought you should be able to find out how restaurants fared when they were last inspected quickly and easily. Denmark and some US cities have been publishing hygiene scores on restaurant doors for a while and they found it tends toraise standards and leads to fewer people becoming ill.
Many argue that hygiene scores aren’t fair – after all, restaurant managers may become complacent about hygiene once it’s achieved a high-scoring inspection.
But now there’s a national system in place whereby inspections are carried out based on the overall risk of each restaurant and confidence in its management. Scores are allocated on a five point scale, so you can see who’s broadly compliant with hygiene rules and who is excellent or poor. It’s also possible in many cases for a restaurant to request a re-inspection if it thinks its score no longer reflects its standards.
However, there is a danger that paying for frequent hygiene inspections won’t exactly top the list when local councils decide how to allocate their budgets. On the other hand, inspections are required by law and are audited by the Food Standards Agency.
Knowledge is power
Surely more information is a good thing? It’s already helpful that so many councils provide hygiene ratings on their websites. And if you don’t know which council the place you’re eating in is located, the Food Standards Agency has a national site to help you find the score.
So, if the Welsh bill passes, anyone eating out in Wales will be able to easily avoid restaurants with low scores by simply looking at a sticker on the front door. Meanwhile in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, customers will have to rely on a restaurant’s honesty or make a point of going to the website.
At Which?, we’re fully supportive of the Welsh Government’s plans and want to see the system put in place across the UK. Have you ever been to a restaurant with less-than-impressive hygiene, and do you think having scores on the doors would’ve made any difference?
Post a Comment
Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked

wavechange
If I don’t see the score displayed prominently I assume that it is not a very good score, or that the rats have eaten the notice.
I do look out for these notices and hope that they are updated if there is a change of ownership.
John Ward
Do I smell a rat? Our excellent butcher has, unintentionally, made me a little bit suspicious, about the hygiene ratings. The shop [not a restaurant but the same scheme applies] gets an excellent, and well-deserved, rating from the envionmental health service but the butcher has placed in the window a photocopy of the letter they received from the EHO enclosing their scoresheet. This letter sets out in gushing prose how wonderful they are and how cooperative they have been and what a pleasure it has been to undertake the inspection – and so on and so forth. No doubt this is done with the best of intentions pour encourager les autres, but could it be that the relationship between the inspector and the butcher has become a little too cosy? I have to admit that it does leave a funny taste in my mouth and that I would prefer something a bit more arms-length.
Malcolm
I see very few restaurant scores, but I do see (occasional) frightening reports on poor restaurant hygeine. Should restaurants not be licensed to serve food? If they fail an inspection should they have their license put at risk unless they take convincing remedial actions? Local Authorities I believe are resposible for inspections, but seem to have inadequate resources. Charging the retaurants a fee for a routine inspection and any follow up inspections would resolve that and be in the consumers interests
FSAFHRShollycow
Everyone agrees that ‘safe food’ only should be served. The FSA FHRS system is a good concept. However, the system as it is, is not fair or just. It is subjective, open to personal subjective prejudice and is not consistent. A simple investigation of the available data easily highlights this shortfall. There is no third party review and the FSA ‘s audit is limited in its scope. Its control of FSA agents, that is local authority’s EHO is limited by financial and manpower resources. The four safeguards that are supposed to ensure a fair and just treatment of businesses, do not exist in reality. The right of reply is edited by the assessor, the right of appeal is done by a member of the same local government team. This could be a team of two or three. The right of a re-visit can be within six months but could be longer, dependent of the resource within the local authority. This delay is not fair or just, also detrimental to the businesses. The right of judicial review would be so expensive that even the heavy weights of the catering industry would not risk mounting a challenge. So, this safeguard might as well not exist. Because the system is herald as the ‘Sacred Cow’, no one is allowed to question the accountability of the FHRS system. Where there is no third party review, there is no accountability. Therefore the system is not secure, safe, fair or just.
Businesses do not survive by killing off their clients or customers. The FSA has responsibility for food safety and it is correct that food safety should be ensured. However, using a system that claims to be consistent nationwide when it is not; claims to have safeguards, when the safeguards do not exist in reality, is not fair or just.
Check out the New York rating system, the Los Angeles rating system, and the Auckland system. None of them claims to have comparability throughout their nation. Also, the Los Angeles rating system has an independent third party review. This third party review will cost no more than what is being implemented presently. No review equals no accountability. No accountability equals the system being not safe. ‘Safe food’ do not comes from an ‘Unsafe system’.