Food hygiene map

How the figures are calculated

  1. Food hygiene map
  2. How the figures are calculated

Every figure on this site comes from one file: the national food hygiene file published by the Food Standards Agency, with the records supplied by local authorities. We accept one dated copy, keep its bytes, and calculate from that copy only.

The share needing improvement is the count of results at 0, 1 or 2 on the 0 to 5 scale, plus Scottish results marked as needing improvement, divided by the count of known results that the scheme applies to. Premises waiting for a rating and exempt premises are outside both halves of that fraction. Shares carry a Wilson 95 percent interval and their own denominator. Counts carry no interval.

The gap is the observed share minus a base built from the same business types and the same scheme, weighted by how many of each type this area holds. The gap is a difference between two shares, so it has no Wilson interval of its own; the two shares keep theirs.

The age of a rating is the median number of days from the inspection date to the file date, among results with a known date. We also publish the share of dated results older than 730 days.

Fewer than 10 known results means no page at all. Between 10 and 29, we publish counts and say the base is too small for a share. From 30, shares appear with their interval.

Worked example, Leeds restaurants: 39 ratings needing improvement, divided by 1,679 ratings known ratings. The result is 2.3% (95% interval 1.7% to 3.2%), from 1,679 ratings. The same-type country gap is −1.4 pp.

Read the Leeds restaurants page and its aggregate downloads to reproduce this example.

Use a published page

Choose a council area from the home page or check a premises with the publisher.

Council area directoryFind a premises rating at the Food Standards Agency

Leeds restaurants — Food Standards Agency, file accepted 18 October 2026
MeasureResultLowHighRatings counted
Known ratings1,679 ratingsNo intervalNo intervalExact file count
Results needing improvement39 ratingsNo intervalNo intervalExact file count
Waiting or unknown results229 recordsNo intervalNo intervalExact file count
Exempt premises5 premisesNo intervalNo intervalExact file count
Needs improvement2.3%1.7%3.2%1,679 ratings
Rated five74.6%72.4%76.7%1,679 ratings
Further calculated measures
Leeds restaurants — Food Standards Agency, file accepted 18 October 2026
MeasureResultLowHighRatings counted
Gap against the same types−1.4 ppNo intervalNo interval1,679 ratings
Median age of a rating444 daysNo intervalNo interval1,679 ratings
Older than two years24.4%22.4%26.6%1,679 ratings
Low ratings with all three scores39 ratingsNo intervalNo intervalExact file count
Hygiene23.1%12.6%38.4%39 ratings
Structural51.3%36.1%66.2%39 ratings
Confidence in management35.9%22.7%51.6%39 ratings

What to do next

Open the home page, or read how the figures are calculated.

Limits of these figures

Source

Source
Food Standards Agency, national English-language open data file
File accepted
18 October 2026
Publisher file timestamp
2026-10-17T01:06:42Z
National file count
614,349
Source SHA-256
0eccd1ba6db3e1cb9ec1e50c296a825d4c4a0dceec3935b2fc2e0106936b5715
Calculation release
fsa-2026-10-18-0eccd1ba6db3-e2b1a3747bdf
Method
Same-type, same-scheme profiles; unknown and exempt results excluded from shares.
Substantive change
18 October 2026

Publisher comparison

The two counts describe different things, so no comparison is possible. Comparing them anyway would produce a difference that means nothing, so the status is printed instead of a number. This accepted file has no publisher count captured in the same intake. A live count from another delivery is not substituted. The source bytes and unique record keys were checked independently of that missing control.