Official Statistics

United Kingdom Food Security Report 2024: Theme 5: Food Safety and Consumer Confidence

Published 11 December 2024

Part of the United Kingdom Food Security Report 2024

Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 19 of the Agriculture Act 2020

© Crown copyright 2024

ISBN 978-1-5286-5232-2

Introduction

Theme definition

In a secure food system, consumers should have access to sufficient quantities of safe and nutritious food. They should also have confidence that food safety is underpinned by an effective regulatory framework, and that the food they eat is accurately labelled. Safe food reduces risks to public health, the economic and social burden of foodborne disease, and contributes to economic growth.

This theme examines trends in consumer confidence (Sub-theme 1), food safety incident alerts, foodborne disease outbreaks, food crime (Sub-theme 2), and food business compliance with hygiene regulations (Sub-theme 3). This edition of the report includes 2 additional indicators to reflect other important dimensions of food safety and consumer confidence. These cover surveillance sampling (5.2.1), and safety of non-EU imports (5.3.2).

While the metrics in this theme are not direct measures of food security, they provide some insight into the safety of the UK food chain, consumer confidence and public trust in the UK food system. These insights help regulators, enforcement authorities and wider government to understand the agency of the consumer, and their ability to access and utilise food, which are important factors to consider in the UKFSR’s assessment of food security.

Overall findings

• The results of UK consumer surveys indicate that the levels of trust in the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland (FSS) have remained relatively high.

  Key statistic: Of the consumers surveyed by the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, a majority report that they trust them to do their job. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, reported levels of trust in the FSA ranged from 69% to 78% between July 2020 and July 2023. In Scotland, reported levels of trust ranged from 71% to 81% between December 2020 and December 2023.

• The number of people reporting concerns about food prices has risen since 2021.

  Key statistic: In 2023, food prices became the top food-related prompted concern among UK consumers. 93% of respondents surveyed in Scotland were concerned about the cost of food and 72% in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Due to differences in data collection, survey results from England, Wales and Northern Ireland cannot be compared with those from Scotland.

• Approximately a quarter of all incidents reported over the last 3 years involved the identification of microorganisms.

  Key statistic: Approximately 26% of all incidents reported over the last 3 years related to the identification of microorganisms that have the potential to cause illness (such as Shiga toxin-producing E.coli, Listeria and Salmonella); and required action to be taken by authorities and food businesses to protect consumers.

• There have generally remained relatively stable trends in laboratory-confirmed reports of pathogens that can cause foodborne gastrointestinal disease and the proportional trends in foodborne disease outbreak surveillance over the period 2019 to 2023, with the exception of the COVID-19 pandemic years.

  Key statistic: Campylobacter spp. continued to be the most frequently reported bacterial pathogen causing infectious gastrointestinal disease in the UK, followed by non-typhoidal Salmonella spp. The proportional trends in causative agents, hospitalisation rates and associated foods implicated in the investigations were generally consistent with trends observed in the last decade with the exception of Shiga toxin-producing E.coli (STEC) and other diarrhoeagenic E. coli (DEC) in 2023.

• Of the businesses inspected, analysis indicates an upward trend in food business hygiene compliance. However, there is still a backlog in the number of businesses awaiting inspection.

  Key statistic: Between 2020/21 and 2023/24, an average of 96.8% of food businesses inspected in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland achieved a satisfactory or better Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) rating. An average of 92.3% of inspected businesses in Scotland achieved a ‘Pass’ under the Food Hygiene Information Scheme (FHIS) between 2020/21 and 2023/24.

Cross-theme links

As outlined in Theme 3 Supply Chain Resilience, local authority food officer shortages are affecting the frequency of food business inspections and delivery of associated enforcement action. This could affect consumers’ access to safe food, and their trust in the effective regulation of the food system. Price inflation (covered in Theme 4 Food Security at Household Level) may also be linked to the prominence of food prices in consumers’ top self-reported concerns (prompted) in FSA and FSS consumer surveys.

Sub-theme 1: Consumer confidence

5.1.1 Consumer confidence in the food system and its regulation

Rationale

Food regulators play a critical role in ensuring businesses comply with the legal standards that protect the safety and authenticity of our food. Building trust in our system of food regulation maintains public confidence and safeguards demand; protecting our economy and enabling UK consumers to make informed choices about the food they eat.

In this section, we present an analysis of trends in consumer trust and confidence based on survey results from FSA and FSS. The FSA’s Food and You 2 survey, which covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, commenced its data collection in July 2020. Data is also presented for the period covering December 2020 to December 2023 from FSS’s Food in Scotland Consumer Tracker survey which monitors attitudes, knowledge and reported behaviours relating to food amongst a representative sample of Scotland’s population. FSS’s survey is undertaken bi-annually with a consistent research methodology across each wave to ensure comparability.

Due to methodological differences between the FSA’s Food and You 2 survey and the FSS Consumer Tracker survey, including the way people are selected to take part, how questions are worded, and when the surveys are carried out, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between the two.

Headline Evidence

Confidence in food safety and food labels

These consumer surveys represent recent evidence on levels of UK consumer confidence in food safety and food labels. They show that overall, levels of consumer confidence have remained relatively stable. Although some statistically significant fluctuations were identified in the Food and You 2 survey data during this period, these are small and cannot be attributed to any particular drivers.

Due to differences between the FSA’s Food and You 2 survey and the FSS Consumer Tracker survey, including the way people are selected to take part, how questions are worded, and when the surveys are carried out, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between the two.

England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Figure 5.1.1a: The FSA’s Food and You 2 survey respondents’ confidence that food is safe to eat, July 2020 to July 2023

Source: Food and You 2, FSA

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, respondents’ confidence in food being safe to eat (Figure 5.1.1a) remained stable between July 2020 and July 2023. Data from Wave 7 (April to July 2023) showed that most respondents (88%) were confident that the food they buy is safe to eat. This is broadly in line with previous waves dating back to July 2020. However, there have been some fluctuations over time, with a statistically significant decrease in Waves 3 (April 2021 to June 2021) and 7 (April to July 2023). It is not possible to comment on drivers in these fluctuations.

Figure 5.1.1b: FSA respondents’ confidence that information on food labels is accurate, July 2020 to July 2023

Source: Food and You 2, FSA

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, data from Wave 7 (April to July 2023, Figure 5.1.1b) showed that respondents (83%) were confident that the information on food labels (for example, ingredients, nutritional information, country of origin) is accurate. This is broadly in line with previous waves dating back to July 2020. However, there have been some fluctuations over time, with a statistically significant decrease in Waves 3 (2021) and 7 (April to July 2023). It is not possible to comment on drivers in these fluctuations.

Scotland

Figure 5.1.1c: FSS respondents’ trust in the information on food labels, December 2020, December 2021, December 2022

Source: Consumer Tracker survey, FSS, Waves 11, 13 and 15

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In Scotland, respondents’ trust in information on labels (Figure 5.1.1c) remained stable (68 to 70%) between 2020 and 2022 (this question was not asked in Waves 12 and 14 of the survey). However, a change in questions in Waves 16 and 17 means that no data is available for 2023.

Trust in the regulator

These consumer surveys also monitor levels of awareness and trust in FSA and FSS. These insights ensure that the FSA and FSS remain responsive to public needs.

England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Figure 5.1.1d: FSA respondents’ trust in the FSA, July 2020 to July 2023

Source: Food and You 2, FSA

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, data from Wave 7 (April to July 2023, Figure 5.1.1d) showed that, of those who had some knowledge of the FSA, 69% trusted the FSA to do its job. While this is a statistically significant decrease from the previous survey, this is due to an increase in the proportion of respondents reporting that they ‘neither trust nor distrust’ the FSA, with distrust remaining low at 2%.

Scotland

Figure 5.1.1e: FSS respondents’ trust in FSS, December 2020 to December 2023

Source: Consumer Tracker survey, FSS

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In Scotland, trust in FSS remained high and broadly stable between December 2020 and December 2023 (Figure 5.1.1e). The latest data (Wave 17, December 2023) shows that trust in FSS increased to 81% from 71% in the previous wave (Wave 16, July 2023). The proportion of respondents reporting that they ‘neither trust nor distrust’ FSS accounted for most of the difference with distrust remaining low at 2%.

Confidence in the food supply chain

England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Figure 5.1.1f: FSA respondents’ confidence in the food supply chain, July 2020 to July 2023

Source: Food and You 2, FSA

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, confidence in the overall food supply chain fluctuated slightly between July 2020 and July 2023.

Confidence in food supply chain actors

England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Data from Wave 7 (April to July 2023, Figure 5.1.1f) indicated 68% of respondents were confident in the food supply chain, a statistically significant decrease from 76% in Wave 6 (October 2022 to January 2023).

Figure 5.1.1g: Consumers’ confidence that actors in the food supply chain ensure that the food they buy is safe to eat (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)

Source: Food and You 2, FSA

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, confidence in farmers, slaughterhouses and dairies, food manufacturers and shops and supermarkets has remained broadly stable since July 2020, with a statistically significant decline across all subgroups in Wave 7 (April to July 2023). Confidence in restaurants, takeaways and delivery services is more variable but shows no consistent trend either up or down over the reporting period.

Respondents are more likely to report confidence in farmers, shops and supermarkets, and least likely to report confidence in takeaways and food delivery services. This pattern has been consistent since tracking began in 2020. A similar pattern was reported by Red Tractor in their 2022 UK Trust in Food Index.

The questions were not asked in Wave 5 of the survey, conducted between April and July 2022. 

Scotland

Figure 5.1.1h: FSS respondents’ confidence in UK food supply chain actors to ensure that food is safe to eat and is of high quality, Wave 17, December 2023

Source: Consumer Tracker survey, FSS Wave 17

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In Scotland, the latest data (Wave 17, December 2023) shows that 89% of consumers were confident that those involved in the food supply chain (farmers, manufacturers, shops and supermarkets) ensure that food is safe to eat (Figure 5.1.1h). Two-thirds (68%) of respondents reported confidence in food supply chain actors to ensure food is of a high quality.

Supporting Evidence

UK-wide

Some external studies indicate that food is among the most trusted sectors. The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer conducted across 28 countries reported that food was among the top 5 trusted sectors, with 72% of respondents trusting businesses in the food and beverage sector. Similarly, in the UK, Red Tractor reported that despite trust in food declining between 2021 and 2022, food remained among the top three most trusted institutions in their 2022 Trust in Food Index with 73% of respondents trusting UK food.

5.1.2 Consumer Concerns

Rationale

The FSA and FSS surveys also monitor consumer concerns in relation to food. This section offers a summary of the top food-related concerns raised by consumers through these surveys and examines how these concerns have evolved over time.

Due to differences between the FSA’s Food and You 2 survey and the FSS’s Consumer Tracker survey, including the way people are selected to take part, how questions are worded, and when the surveys are carried out, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between the two.

Data from Food and You 2, which covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is presented from its first wave in July 2020. Data from FSS’s Consumer Tracker survey has been presented from Wave 11, which covers the period starting from December 2020.

Headline evidence

Consumers’ top 10 most reported concerns

England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Figure 5.1.2a: FSA respondents’ top 10 most common prompted concerns, Food and You 2, Wave 7, April to July 2023

Source: Food and You 2, FSA, Wave 7

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

Consumers’ reported concerns have varied over time. Although most consumers (72%) have no concerns about the food they eat, the proportion reporting a concern (unprompted) significantly increased in the Wave 7 survey from 18% in late 2022 to 28% in mid-2023. Those who reported having a concern were asked to briefly explain what their concerns were about the food they eat. The most common unprompted concerns in the Wave 7 (2023) survey related to food production methods (33%) and nutrition and health (30%).

When presented with a list of food-related concerns, 72% of consumers reported concerns about food prices in 2023, a significant increase from 42% in Wave 3 (April to June 2021) in the year the last UK Food Security Report (UKFSR) was published.

Concerns about the affordability of food also increased significantly with the proportion of consumers reporting that they were highly concerned about food affordability rising from 26% at the end of 2020 to 55% in 2023. Consumers report making adjustments to manage increased costs, including using cheaper cooking methods, selecting cheaper alternatives to branded goods or buying reduced or discounted foods.

When asked the extent to which they were concerned about a number of specific food issues, 28% reported being highly concerned about food being produced sustainably in the Wave 7 survey (2023), a statistically significant decrease from 33% in 2021.

Concerns about food availability

England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Figure 5.1.2b: FSA respondents’ concern about food availability, Wave 7, April to July 2023

Source: Food and You 2, FSA, Wave 7, April – July 2023

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

Respondents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were asked how concerned they were about the availability of a wide variety of food. Wave 7 findings (April to July 2023, Figure 5.1.2b) indicate that 15% were highly concerned about this, broadly in line with previous waves of the survey.

Scotland

Figure 5.1.2c: FSS respondents’ most common prompted concerns, Wave 17, December 2023

Source: Consumer Tracker survey, FSS, Wave 17

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

The latest data for Scotland (Wave 17, December 2023, Figure 5.1.2c) indicates that 93% of consumers reported concern about the cost of food, an increase from 69% reported in 2021.

In Scotland, after food prices (93%), 81% of respondents reported concerns about food poverty and food inequality. Concerns around the healthiness of food and the way it was produced also featured prominently, with 80% of respondents concerned about ultra-processed or over-processing of food and 74% about the “healthiness” of people’s diets more generally.

68% of respondents reported concerns about ingredients and additives and 61% about genetically modified foods. In addition, 72% of respondents were worried about the sustainability of food and food production, with the same percentage identifying the safety of food imported from abroad as a concern.

Supporting Evidence

UK-wide

In 2022 FSA and FSS conducted a study to explore consumers’ interests, needs and concerns around food. This study also highlighted that food prices were highly concerning for consumers, with 20% of survey respondents spontaneously mentioning food prices as an area of future concern, well ahead of any other spontaneous mentions.

When thinking about the future of food in the UK over the next 3 years, consumers were most concerned about the price of food (76% were quite or extremely concerned) and more than two thirds (68%) said they were worried about the cost of healthy food in particular. More than half (53%) said they felt “priced out” of buying healthy food. Respondents also found it difficult to juggle competing drivers of food choices (for example price, convenience, health), with price often prioritised, leading people to feel they were compromising on health, environment and wider ethical values.

Consumers viewed the top priorities for government, in order of priority, as: supporting British farmers and producers, accessing healthy food at affordable prices, high standards of food safety and hygiene, access to low-priced food that is not over-processed and meets good quality standards, and reducing food waste in the food chain.

Monitoring consumers’ food safety behaviour

In addition to monitoring consumer concerns and confidence, the FSA uses the Food and You 2 survey to monitor consumers’ knowledge of, and self-reported behaviours on, food storage, preparation, and cooking. This information, which is linked to the utilisation dimension of food security, helps to inform FSA policy decisions (through feeding into risk or impact assessments) and consumer engagement activities (such as communication campaigns throughout the year).

Indicator 5.2.4 Foodborne disease outbreak surveillance looks in more detail at the prevalence of foodborne pathogens and the cost to UK society. As most, but not all, cases of illness associated with these pathogens are food-related, consumers’ in-home behaviours and the impact of food safety behaviours should be considered.

Findings from Wave 6 of Food and You 2 (conducted between October 2022 and January 2023) indicate that the majority of respondents follow recommendations to wash hands before preparing or cooking food (72% reported always doing this) or immediately after handling raw meat, poultry or fish (91% reported always doing this). 89% of respondents also reported that they never eat chicken or turkey when it is pink or has pink juices, as recommended by the FSA.

However, some findings indicate that consumers may be undertaking more risky food safety behaviours. For example, 40% reported washing raw chicken at least occasionally, against the FSA’s recommendation. Although 65% recognised the use-by date as the information which shows that food is no longer safe to eat, respondents reported eating food past the use-by date.  Bagged salad (72%) and cheese (72%) were the foods respondents were most likely to report eating at any point after the use-by date.

The Kitchen Life 2 study, published by the FSA in 2023, explored food safety behaviours in real life domestic and business kitchens. Using a range of data collection methods (including motion sensitive cameras, surveys, interviews, food diaries and fridge/freezer thermometers), the study provided much greater insight into the potential food safety risks consumers are taking in their homes and in business kitchens than self-reported behaviours alone would. It found high-risk food safety practices (such as not washing hands with soap after touching meat, fish and poultry and reusing a tea towel or cloth for multiple purposes) were regularly observed in household and business kitchens. In many cases, participants knew the correct practice, but other influences on their behaviour were stronger (such as ease, or beliefs about personal risk of illness).

Sub-theme 2: Food Safety and Authenticity

5.2.1 Surveillance Sampling

Rationale

National food surveillance programmes help to verify the effectiveness of our controls for food safety and standards by monitoring for the presence of recognised or emerging risks across a range of different products. Safety and authenticity are vital to food security as unsafe food could lead to foodborne illness, with onward impacts on individual or community health. Labelling non-compliance can also adversely affect consumers with food hypersensitivities and damage consumer confidence.

Headline Evidence

While FSA and FSS have their own sampling programmes, local authorities also carry out sampling as part of the inspections they conduct in businesses to verify food safety and standards. Theme 3 Indicator 3.1.3 Labour and Skillssets out trends in local authority sampling activities between 2013/14 and 2023/24. These trends show the number of food samples taken by local authorities has declined over the past 10 years, in part due to reduction seen in local authority resourcing as well as overall financial constraints.

For an update on work to build the UK’s international surveillance capacity, see the Food Authenticity Network (FAN) case study below.

Supporting Evidence

Residues Control Programme

Legislation requires the analyses of samples from food producing animals for residues of authorised veterinary medicines, prohibited substances and various contaminants. This requires an annual surveillance plan which is operated by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), an executive agency of Defra. VMD is the Competent Authority responsible for implementation and coordination of the Residues Control Programme (RCP) in Great Britain.

The GB RCP facilitates the collection of circa 33,000 samples a year, with the final number directly related to level of production for each commodity group. These results of testing these samples of red meat, poultry, eggs, fish, milk and honey (including samples of offal, urine, feed and serum) are published online. While the programme is not designed and implemented to draw statistical conclusions from its findings, the general level of residues non-compliance each year has been demonstrated to be very low, at well under 1% year on year (and is, in fact, closer to 0.3%).

Pesticide Residues Monitoring Programme

National monitoring programmes analyse levels of pesticides in UK food supply. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are responsible for delivering these programmes on behalf of Defra, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government. The programmes are risk-based and provide assurance that food in the UK complies with Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) set by law, affording a high level of protection for consumers. They are not designed nor implemented to draw statistical conclusions, but the level of non-compliance is consistently low at around 2%. See UK’s competent authority annual reports for 2020, 2021 and 2022. Each year advice is sought from the UK Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF) on the planning and operational delivery of these national monitoring programmes. Information on the PRiF is available here. 

Case study 1: The Food Authenticity Network

The UK also supports surveillance activity on an international level. FAN is a global community of over 5,100 members, bringing together analysts, industry experts, enforcement authorities, academics and other stakeholders to communicate and facilitate knowledge exchange about food authenticity and food fraud prevention.

FAN ensures that the UK has access to a resilient network of laboratories providing fit for purpose testing to address food authenticity and food fraud issues. FAN worked with many of the 16 Centres of Expertise (CoEs) listed on its website to develop an Emergency Preparedness Framework which sets out how a collective technical response can be formulated during an emergency food fraud incident. In 2024, FAN invited the CoEs to partake in a simulated food fraud incident exercise to test the Framework. Following this exercise, the Framework was modified to further increase its robustness.

In 2023, over 43,400 users from 166 countries accessed FAN’s open access website, which disseminates curated information on guidance, tools, training and laboratory expertise on addressing food authenticity and food fraud challenges. Recent additions include the collation of the major global initiatives to mitigate food fraud and a food security resource base to signpost stakeholders to information related to potential or actual disruption to the food and drink supply chain resulting from the war in Ukraine. In 2023 FAN collaborated with 3 leading food horizon-scanning services to analyse data on official food fraud incident reports, concluding that global food fraud incidents remained fairly consistent across the year and did not increase during 2023.

5.2.2 Food safety incidents, alerts, and recalls

Rationale

A food incident occurs when concerns around the safety or quality of food may require action to protect consumers. Notifications of food incidents can come from many sources, including local authorities, port health authorities, government organisations, the food industry, other countries, and consumers themselves. While it is unlikely that a food safety incident would cause an overall shortage to food supply, it could disrupt the supply of products within the food chain and undermine consumer confidence in food safety.

Incident numbers do not indicate the severity of each incident and are influenced by several factors. The number of recorded food and feed incidents is not in itself an indicator of any changes in risks to the UK’s food security; however, category breakdowns can give an insight into areas of concern and risks that may affect different parts of the food chain. The FSA, FSS and their partner organisations regularly review the data to help detect emerging issues that need to be addressed through strategies aimed at preventing future incidents and interventions for protecting public health.

Data on food and feed incidents provide evidence where there may be specific problems in the food supply chain. The number of incidents does not necessarily reflect the nature, severity nor where impacts are felt. For example, FSS records incidents where the business involved was Scottish even though affected consumers may be anywhere in the UK. This is in addition to FSA incidents where the product has been distributed to Scotland or there is an impact to Scottish consumers in some way. Changes in incidents do not necessarily indicate changes in food safety and standards as the way incidents are recorded by the FSA and FSS have changed over time and both organisations apply different approaches to the way incidents are recorded and managed. As a result, there may be a degree of double-counting if one were to add up FSA and FSS incidents.

Once a food incident has been identified, the matter is investigated to remove any harmful food from the market, with businesses withdrawing or recalling the food. These actions are led by both industry and local authorities, with the latter the main enforcement authority for UK food businesses, liaising closely with FSA and FSS. This partnership approach is central to the successful management of an incident. Local authorities, FSA and FSS will then often issue alerts to let consumers and food businesses know about the issue and trigger certain actions they need to take.

Data has been presented from 2017/18 due to FSS moving to a modified data reporting format in 2017.

• An Allergy Alert is published when the product has been, or is being, recalled from consumers because allergen information on food labels is either undeclared (including not in English) or incorrect.

• A Product Recall Information Notice (PRIN) is published when the product has been, or is being, recalled from consumers because there are concerns about the safety of a product, most often due to the contamination, mis-packing or mislabelling of products.

• A Food Alert For Action (FAFA) is issued to local authorities and published for consumers when the distribution of products is unclear or when a food business is not taking the required steps to remove products from sale that might be unsafe and remedial action from local authorities or consumers is required.

Headline Evidence

Total number of incident notifications

Figure 5.2.2a: Total number of incident notifications received by the FSA and FSS between 2017/18 and 2023/24

Source: FSA and FSS incident databases

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, an average of 2,133 food safety incidents were recorded annually between 2019/20 and 2023/24, with the range varying from 2,478 in 2019/20 to 1,837 in 2023/24. In Scotland, an average of 115 incidents were recorded annually between 2019/20 and 2023/24, with the range varying from 94 in 2020/21 to 139 in 2022/23.

Since publication of the last UKFSR, approximately 26% of all incidents reported (between 2021/22 and 2023/24) related to the identification of microorganisms with the potential to cause illness (such as E. coli, Listeria and Salmonella); and required action to be taken by authorities and food businesses to protect consumers.

In 2017/18, FSS moved to a new data reporting format. For this reason, there may be some duplications in the incident figures if the same incident is investigated by both the FSA and FSS. The numbers are provided separately for both the FSA and FSS.

Total number of food alerts

Figure 5.2.2b: Total number of food alerts issued by the UK, from 2015/16 to 2023/24

Source: FSA and FSS incident databases

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

FSA and FSS issued 136 food alerts in 2023/24 compared with 154 alerts in 2022/23 (Figure 5.2.2b). This reduction was primarily driven by the fall in Allergy Alerts. FSA and FSS published a total of 66 Allergy Alerts in 2023/24 compared with 87 Allergy Alerts in 2022/23, a 24% decrease.

FSA and FSS published a total of 69 PRINs during 2023/24, a level consistent with that seen in the previous 5 years. Very few FAFAs have been issued, just 4 since 2019/20, suggesting that most food business operators comply with safety requirements laid out in law. The number of FAFAs issued in the UK remained low between 2015/16 and 2023/24 despite one anomalous data point in 2016/17.

Supporting evidence

In 2023/24, there was a 10% decrease in incident reporting across the 4 nations compared to 2022/23 (Figure 5.2.2a).

Microbiological incident reports mainly included the detection of Salmonella; however, incidents caused by Shiga toxin-producing E.coli (STEC) (both O157 and non-O157) were also reported during this period and included 7 FSA-led outbreaks and one FSS-led outbreak. Microbiological incidents include incidents involving pathogenic microorganisms, such as bacteria (e.g., Salmonella, E. coli) and viruses (e.g., Norovirus).

Across the UK, the most common type of hazard involved in food incidents was pathogenic microorganisms, accounting for 26% of all incidents since 2021/22. The presence of pathogens in food has the potential to cause foodborne illnesses, which can result in symptoms ranging from mild gastrointestinal discomfort to life-threatening conditions

Total incident notifications

England, Wales and Northern Ireland

The number of FSA incidents shows fluctuations between 2017/18 and 2023/24 (Figure 5.2.2a), with a peak of 2,478 incidents in 2019/20. The number of incidents fell in subsequent years, particularly in 2020/2021 and 2023/2024. The drop in 2020/21 is likely the result of the COVID-19 pandemic affecting normal operations, leading to fewer reported incidents due to lockdowns and changes in food industry practices.

The FSA was notified of 2,336 food and feed safety incidents in total during 2021/22, which represented a return to volumes similar to pre-pandemic levels. It was notified of 2,038 food and feed safety incidents during 2022/23, a 13% decrease from 2021/22. Fluctuation in incident numbers year-on-year is common. The volume fluctuates for reasons including, but not limited to, new regulations coming into force, changing trends in consumer behaviours, and/or a persistent large-scale issue (for example, ethylene oxide in 2020/2021).

Scotland

In Scotland, the total number of incidents increased by 28% between 2020/21 and 2021/22, with a further 16% increase observed in 2022/23 (Figure 5.2.2a). However, this increase could be at least partially attributed to a return to pre-pandemic levels of reporting during this period. Increases in incident reporting were identified across several categories including allergens, animal feed, chemical, microbiological and regulatory breaches. As noted above, fluctuations in reporting are to be expected due to changes in regulations, surveillance activities, environmental factors and consumer behaviours, and therefore do not necessarily point to a decline in standards.

Case study 2: Listeria monocytogenes outbreak linked to smoked fish

Introduction

Listeriosis is a rare disease in the UK caused by Listeria monocytogenes. It can cause severe symptoms, particularly for clinically vulnerable groups such as the elderly, rendering it a public health concern.

Identification of Listeria monocytogenes from a patient sample is notifiable in the UK. Public health investigation and follow-up is attempted for all reported cases of listeriosis as an integral part of the enhanced surveillance system for listeriosis. This includes completion of a questionnaire by individuals diagnosed with listeriosis on what foods they have eaten prior to the onset of illness.

Description and Analysis

An outbreak of listeriosis, involving 20 cases and 3 deaths, was identified and investigated between January 2021 and July 2023. An incident management team (IMT) comprising FSS, the FSA, Public Health Scotland (PHS), the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and local authorities, was established to investigate the outbreak.

Food histories were taken from individuals diagnosed with listeriosis. Smoked fish consumption linked 17 of the 19 cases (89%), 8 of whom had purchased it from one major UK retailer. The link was subsequently confirmed by microbiological evidence, with the outbreak strain of Listeria monocytogenes detected in smoked fish sampled during the investigations, although it was never found in products at non-compliant levels.

Several approaches were taken to ensure consumers were protected, including:

• investigations to identify the source of the contamination and trace affected products;

• a precautionary voluntary recall of all products shown to be contaminated by the outbreak strain, even though levels were below legal limits;

• publication of an updated FSA/FSS smoked fish risk assessment in July 2023; and

• communications to increase consumer awareness of the risks to vulnerable groups from cold-smoked fish products including updated advice to consumers during the outbreak, FSA and FSS social media communication activity, and on-pack labelling by the retailer.

Conclusion

The outbreak investigation provided lessons in how to reach vulnerable consumers with risk messaging, the value of Whole Genome Sequencing data in assessing the risk, and the importance of working with businesses to protect consumers. The case study illustrates how food safety and public health authorities collaborate during the investigation of high profile, complex food safety incidents to ensure appropriate action is taken to prevent further harm to vulnerable consumers.

Case study 3: Determining increased risk of Vibrio in seafood linked to climate change

Introduction

Previous themes set out various links between disease and climate. As referenced in Theme 2 UK Food Supply Sources Indicator 2.1.5 , UK waters have progressively become warmer over the past 100 years, with average winter temperatures in particular increasing over the past 20 years.  Infectious diseases such as vibriosis are sensitive to climate change, and warmer temperatures can alter the geographical distribution of these diseases.

Vibrio spp., for example, were traditionally observed in tropical and sub-tropical locations. However, due to changes in climate, their distribution is now changing. Warmer sea surface temperatures (SST) can allow pathogens such as Vibrio spp. to get a foothold in British water, with the potential to increase the risk of vibriosis in the human population.

Discussion

Vibrio spp. can result in foodborne illness when contaminated shellfish are consumed raw or lightly cooked. Vibrio vulnificus is the most common cause of vibriosis and is linked to the consumption of raw oysters; usually resulting in diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting. However, infections involving some species (e.g. Vibrio cholerae) can be dangerous for individuals with a weak immune system. A recent assessment of the public health aspects of Vibrio spp. by the European Food Safety Authority showed an increase in the risk of antimicrobial resistance.

Shellfish are not currently routinely screened for Vibrio spp. by the food industry. Monitoring is therefore important to assess the potential impacts of rising SSTs on their ability to enter the UK food chain. FSA and FSS monitor ‘signals’ as defined below, covering many different food safety risks which may impact the UK. This work is focused on prevention through building an understanding of what is happening in the UK compared with the rest of the world. Signal numbers for Vibrio have increased steadily over a period of monitoring since 2020, with a clear spike from 13 signals in 2021 to 63 in 2023. The top 5 countries of origin for signals were Ecuador, the United States, Vietnam, Venezuela and India. While overall figures for 2024 are pending, there were 13 signals between January and July 2024.

FSA and FSS have investigated 5 UK incidents involving Vibrio in shellfish products reported during 2022 and 2023; while 4 of the 5 related to imported products, one was the first reported incident in UK waters since records began. There have been no *Vibrio-related foodborne illnesses reported during this time.

FSA and FSS have also linked to UKHSA’s and other public health bodies’ syndromic monitoring of human cases in the UK, to determine any move from cases linked to travel to cases linked to food consumption, which so far has not been apparent.

When presenting Vibrio signal data to the food industry for feedback, they highlighted that the methods used by commercial laboratories give no results on levels of contamination. In response, FSA and FSS provided industry with details of laboratories that can provide this service. This will allow industry to better track levels of contamination.

Next Steps

FSA and FSS will continue to monitor the levels of signals, incidents and cases, and review any need for tighter management of the risks in this area.

5.2.3 Foodborne pathogen surveillance

Rationale

Published estimates suggest that around one in four people in the UK suffers an episode of infectious gastrointestinal disease each year and foodborne disease is estimated to cost the UK society £10.4 billion annually. Non-typhoidal Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., Listeria monocytogenes and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157 (STEC O157), are considered priority pathogens for national surveillance due to the associated burden of disease and the substantial implications for public health and food safety in the UK.

The UK Health Security Agency, Public Health Wales, Public Health Scotland and Public Health Agency Northern Ireland are the agencies responsible for the surveillance of infectious diseases, including gastrointestinal pathogens that cause foodborne disease. Surveillance is defined as the systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of data essential to the planning, implementation and evaluation of public health practice, and the timely dissemination of this information for public health action. Laboratory testing data and epidemiological information on each reported case is recorded in national surveillance databases and case management systems.

While not all gastrointestinal infections caused by organisms such as bacteria, viruses or protozoa are foodborne and not all foodborne diseases cause gastrointestinal disease symptoms, food is an important vehicle of transmission for many gastrointestinal pathogens that cause a substantial public health burden (WHO, 2015). Transmission of these pathogens can also occur through non-foodborne routes including, for example, through close contact with infected people, contact with an infected animal or its environment or recreational exposure to contaminated water during activities such as swimming in lakes or rivers. Foodborne infections acquired while travelling outside the UK also contribute to the overall totals.

It is also important to note when assessing trends in gastrointestinal pathogen reporting generally that no disease surveillance system is expected to be fully complete and consequently both surveillance biases and under-ascertainment of infectious gastrointestinal disease are anticipated. Laboratory confirmed cases as presented in this section 5.2.3 represent only a fraction of overall foodborne gastrointestinal illness.

Headline evidence

Figure 5.2.3a: Number of laboratory-confirmed reported infections in the United Kingdom, 2019 to 2023

Source: UK Health Security Agency, Public Health Wales, Public Health Scotland and Public Health Agency Northern Ireland reporting systems (Second Generation Surveillance system, SGSS, Electronic Communication of Surveillance in Scotland, ECOSS). This data is derived from live reporting systems and is subject to change

Year	Campylobacter spp.	Non-typhoidal Salmonella spp.	STEC O157	Listeria monocytogenes
2019	67,750	9,725	722	156
2020	54,441	5,428	572	144
2021	67,546	5,719	569	184
2022	66,327	9,393	1,201	200
2023	71,710	10,257	762	203

Note:

1. These four pathogens are considered priority pathogens for national surveillance of foodborne infections due to the associated burden of disease and the substantial implications for public health and food safety in the UK.

2. Data include serum positive cases and cases that were polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test positive but bacterial culture test negative (pcr+/culture neg). Data for 2023 are provisional.

Figure 5.2.3b: Reported Campylobacter spp., non-typhoidal Salmonella spp., STEC O157 and Listeria monocytogenes infections per 100,000 population per year in the United Kingdom, 2019 to 2023

Source: UK Health Security Agency, Public Health Wales, Public Health Scotland and Public Health Agency Northern Ireland reporting systems (Second Generation Surveillance system, SGSS, Electronic Communication of Surveillance in Scotland, ECOSS)

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

Note: This data is derived from live reporting systems and is subject to change. The rates per 100,000 population stated (y axis) are calculated using ONS mid-year population estimates (2022 estimates were used for 2023 as 2023 estimates not yet available).

The bacterial pathogen with the highest number of reported cases annually across all years from 2019 to 2023 was Campylobacter spp, with the highest reporting rate in 2023 in this reporting period. Non-typhoidal Salmonella spp. was the second most commonly reported pathogen each year from 2019 to 2023.

The number of laboratory confirmed reports and the observed reporting rate per 100,000 population for STEC O157 in 2022 was higher than for any year in the last decade. The increase in 2022 was mostly attributable to two large national outbreaks (one foodborne and one driven by person-to-person transmission). For L. monocytogenes, more cases were reported in 2022 and 2023 compared to previous years, but the reporting rate was generally consistent between 2021 to 2023. The small numbers of L. monocytogenes cases reported annually limits meaningful trend analysis and interannual variation should be interpreted with caution.

Supporting evidence

Reports of other STEC serogroups (called non-O157 STEC), in particular STEC O26 and O145, have been increasing over the last decade (data not shown). Changes in testing with frontline laboratories implementing enhanced testing methods for non-O157 STEC may account for some of this increase, however, it is likely that there has also been a genuine increase in non-O157 STEC case incidence compared to previous years. UK public health agencies are working to assess this trend and understand the drivers in more detail.

The COVID-19 pandemic had variable impacts on the reporting of case numbers of these four bacterial pathogens between 2020 to 2022, although the magnitude and duration of this impact varied by pathogen. For all four pathogens the number of reported cases and the reporting rate dropped during 2020. Reported cases of Campylobacter spp. returned to levels consistent with the pre-pandemic period in 2021. Reports of L. monocytogenes also returned to levels consistent with the pre-pandemic period in 2021. Salmonella spp. reports took longer to return to pre-pandemic levels, only doing so by 2023, with the reporting rate observed in 2023 being the highest since 2018.

Caution is advised when interpreting long term trends that span the COVID-19 pandemic years. The drivers of the drop in gastrointestinal pathogen reporting observed during the pandemic are considered to be multifactorial, vary by pathogen and linked to many different societal and behavioural changes that occurred during that time. This includes the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions implemented to control COVID-19, with all these changes collectively impacting the transmission of gastrointestinal pathogens and the ascertainment of laboratory confirmed cases by national surveillance systems. 

5.2.4 Foodborne disease outbreak surveillance

Rationale

An ‘outbreak’ is defined as two or more human cases of the same disease, linked to the same source. Specifically for foodborne outbreaks, the definition usually applied is ‘an incidence, observed under given circumstances, of two or more human cases of the same disease and/or infection, or a situation in which the observed number of human cases exceeds the expected number and where the cases are linked, or are probably linked, to the same food source (including potable water)’ (Directive 2003/99/EC).

The collation of national level foodborne outbreak surveillance data started in the UK in 1992 and this data provides an important source of information for foodborne and infectious gastrointestinal disease trend analysis. The data is used, alongside other surveillance indicators for foodborne gastrointestinal pathogens, to inform risk assessment and policy development for the protection of UK consumers against risks posed by foodborne disease.

Not all outbreaks of gastrointestinal disease with a suspected food source are microbiologically linked to an implicated food vehicle, as specific food vehicles are not always identified or available for microbiological testing. Around a third of all outbreaks investigated do not result in the identification of a suspected or implicated food vehicle and this has been generally consistent with the long-term trends observed in the UK. It should also be noted that there are limitations in national foodborne outbreak surveillance data. National surveillance systems rely on reporting of outbreaks detected and investigated each year at the local, regional and national level. This reporting will not always be fully complete or comprehensive and ascertainment at the individual case and outbreak level is therefore incomplete with the potential for bias.

The UK Health Security (UKHSA), Public Health Wales (PHW), Public Health Scotland (PHS), and the Public Health Agency Northen Ireland (PHA) are the lead organisations responsible for the detection, investigation and management of outbreaks of foodborne disease in the UK, working in partnership with food safety, animal health and local authority professionals to implement public health protection and food safety controls.

Headline evidence

Figure 5.2.4a: Number of foodborne outbreaks by causative agent investigated and reported to national public health surveillance in the UK 2019 to 2023

Source: UK Health Security Agency, Public Health Wales, Public Health Scotland and Public Health Agency Northern Ireland reporting systems (Electronic Foodborne and non-foodborne outbreak surveillance system, eFOSS, in England and Wales, and the outbreak surveillance datasets in Northern Ireland and Scotland)

Causative Agent	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	Grand Total
Salmonella spp.	15	7	9	11	8	50
Enteric viruses	16	2	4	6	16	44
STEC & Other DEC	6	7	3	6	14	36
Listeria monocytogenes	3	3	6	6	8	26
Clostridium perfringens	7	4	4	8	3	26
Campylobacter spp.	3	4	7	1	4	19
Unknown*	6	2	N/A	N/A	4	12
Shigella spp.	N/A	N/A	1	2	2	5
Cryptosporidium spp.	N/A	N/A	1	N/A	1	2
Other**	1	1	N/A	N/A	N/A	2
Grand Total	57	30	35	40	60	222

Note:

* ‘Unknown’ are outbreaks where a causative agent was not identified as the cause of the disease in the outbreak associated human disease cases

** ’Other’ includes marine biotoxins such as scombrotoxin and okadaic acid as well as other entero-toxin producing bacteria such as Staphylococcus or Bacillus spp.

N/A = none reported and / or not known

Figure 5.2.4b: Total number of associated human cases and percentage hospitalised (X%)* associated with foodborne outbreaks reported to national public health surveillance by causative agent in UK, 2019 to 2023

Source: UK Health Security Agency, Public Health Wales, Public Health Scotland and Public Health Agency Northern Ireland reporting systems (Electronic Foodborne and non-foodborne outbreak surveillance system, eFOSS, in England and Wales, and the outbreak surveillance datasets in Northern Ireland and Scotland)

Causative Agent	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	Total
Salmonella spp.	549 (7%)	732 (7%)	986 (5%)	591 (14%)	522 (4%)	3380 (7%)
Enteric viruses**	476 (1%)	180 (0%)	407 (0%)	261 (1%)	522 (0%)	1846 (2%)
Campylobacter spp.	39 (0%)	28 (4%)	80 (11%)	13 (0%)	16 (0%)	176 (6%)
Clostridium perfringens	141 (0%)	90 (8%)	109 (0%)	210 (0%)	43 (2%)	593 (1%)
STEC & Other DEC	65 (40%)	93 (32%)	52 (35%)	348 (27%)	265 (41%)	823 (33%)
Listeria monocytogenes	17 (100%)	9 (100%)	16 (100%)	19 (100%)	23 (91%)	84 (98%)
Shigella spp.	N/A	N/A	19 (11%)	26 (19%)	57 (16%)	102 (16%)
Cryptosporidium spp.	N/A	N/A	3 (0%)	N/A	14 (0%)	17 (0%)
Other***	13 (0%)	3 (0%)	N/A	N/A	N/A	16 (0%)
Unknown**	140 0%)	13 (0%)	N/A	N/A	38 (13%)	191 (3%)
Total	1,440 (6%)	1,148 (9%)	1,672 (6%)	1,468 (14%)	1,500 (11%)	7,228 (9%)

Note:

*Hospitalisation data not known for all cases; ascertainment of both cases and hospitalisation varies according to the pathogen, clinical severity and differences in laboratory testing.

**Includes foodborne norovirus outbreaks or norovirus outbreaks related to infected food handlers.

***’Other’ includes marine biotoxins such as scombrotoxin and okadaic acid as well as other entero-toxin producing bacteria such as Staphylococcus or Bacillus spp.

****‘Unknown’ are outbreaks where a causative agent was not identified as the cause of the disease in the outbreak associated human disease cases.

N/A = none reported and / or not known

In total, the UK public health agencies, together with partner organisations, investigated and reported 222 foodborne disease outbreaks during 2019 to 2023. A causative agent was identified in 210 (95%) of these outbreak investigations. Non-typhoidal Salmonella spp. was the most frequently reported causative agent (50 out of 222 outbreaks in total, 22%), with enteric viruses (predominantly norovirus) second (44 outbreaks, 20%), followed by STEC & other diarrhoeagenic E. coli (DEC) (36 outbreaks, 16%). The highest number of Listeria monocytogenes outbreaks investigated annually in this 5-year period was in 2023 with 8 outbreaks reported.

There were 7228 cases of foodborne illness associated with the total 222 outbreaks investigated and reported during 2019 to 2023. The majority of cases were associated with non-typhoidal Salmonella spp. outbreaks (3380 cases, 47%) and enteric viruses (1846 cases, 26%).

The high number of outbreak associated cases of STEC in 2022 was mostly attributable to one large national foodborne outbreak of STEC O157. The total number of STEC/other DEC outbreaks and associated cases was notably higher in 2023 compared to previous years. The reasons for this increase are likely multifactorial, including improved ascertainment due to the wider adoption of tests at frontline diagnostic laboratories able to detect STEC serogroups other than O157 alongside a likely genuine increase in non-O157 case incidence.

While just under 10% of the total associated outbreak cases between 2019 and 2023 reported hospitalisation, this varied substantially by pathogen and for some pathogens, by strain.

Overall the 2019 to 2023 foodborne outbreak surveillance data demonstrates proportional trends in causative agents, hospitalisation rates and associated foods implicated in the investigations that are relatively consistent with trends observed in the last decade, with the exception of STEC/other DEC in 2022 and 2023.

Supporting evidence

Despite Campylobacter spp. being the most commonly reported bacterial pathogen in the UK based on laboratory confirmed case reports, the number of reported outbreaks investigated between 2019 to 2023 was less than half the number of Salmonella spp. associated outbreaks. Campylobacter spp. outbreaks are more difficult to detect than other bacterial pathogens due to the lack of a routinely implemented national typing scheme at present (i.e. routine whole genome sequencing).

In 2021, 2022 and 2023, several long duration Listeria monocytogenes outbreaks were investigated either over multiple years or were investigated as re-emergence of outbreak strains spanning multiple years which impacted on the overall number of outbreaks reported.

The total number of reported outbreaks in 2023 (60 outbreaks) was notably higher than the number reported during the COVID-19 pandemic (30 outbreaks and 35 outbreaks in 2020 and 2021 respectively), but similar to the number reported in 2019. However, the number of cases associated with the reported outbreaks in each year, ranging from 1,440 associated cases (2019) to 1,672 (2021) remained relatively consistent over the 5-year period of 2019 to 2023.

Hospitalisation

Severity of disease varies considerably by pathogen. Despite a lower number of associated outbreak cases overall compared to Salmonella spp. and enteric virus outbreaks, the greatest number of hospitalised cases over the 5-year period were associated with STEC/other DEC outbreaks (275 cases, 33% of all reported hospitalisations). The percentage of outbreak associated cases reporting hospitalisation was higher in 2023 than any other year in the last decade.

Reported hospitalisations among cases associated with Listeria monocytogenes outbreaks varied between 91% and 100% across the 5 years of 2019 to 2023. It should be noted that enhanced surveillance of STEC/other DEC and Listeria monocytogenes is likely to result in better ascertainment of hospitalisation rates compared to the other pathogens for which there is no national enhanced surveillance system in place.

Foodborne outbreaks by food vehicle

Figure 5.2.4c: Foodborne outbreaks by food vehicle investigated and reported to national public health surveillance per year, 2019 to 2023 in the UK

Source: UK Health Security Agency, Public Health Wales, Public Health Scotland and Public Health Agency Northern Ireland reporting systems (Electronic Foodborne and non-foodborne outbreak surveillance system, eFOSS, in England and Wales, and the outbreak surveillance datasets in Northern Ireland and Scotland)

Food vehicle	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	Total
Poultry meat and poultry meat products	4	4	4	5	5	22
Composite or mixed foods	11	0	4	5	5	25
Other mixed meat/poultry/products	2	1	0	2	1	6
Eggs and egg products	6	1	1	0	1	9
Beef/bovine meat and products	2	2	4	5	6	19
Crustaceans/shellfish/molluscs	3	3	2	1	8	17
Fruits and vegetables	0	3	4	2	4	13
Dairy	1	4	2	5	4	16
Pork meat and products	2	0	2	1	2	7
Lamb meat and products	2	0	1	1	1	5
Finfish and products	0	1	1	1	1	4
Herbs/spices/cereal products/nuts and seeds	1	1	0	1	1	4
Unknown*	23	10	10	11	21	75
Total	57	30	35	40	60	222

Note: Not all outbreaks are microbiologically linked to the implicated food vehicle.

* Epidemiological investigations may not always be able to identify the food causing the outbreak, and food sampling may not always be undertaken. For those outbreaks where a food vehicle could not be identified, these outbreaks are reported as ‘unknown food vehicle’.

Figure 5.2.4d: Foodborne outbreaks by food vehicle investigated and causative agent reported to national public health surveillance, 2019 to 2023 in the UK*

Source: UK Health Security Agency, Public Health Wales, Public Health Scotland and Public Health Agency Northern Ireland reporting systems (Electronic Foodborne and non-foodborne outbreak surveillance system, eFOSS, in England and Wales, and the outbreak surveillance datasets in Northern Ireland and Scotland)

Food Vehicle Category	Clostridium perfringens	Listeria monocytogenes	Campylobacter spp.	Cryptosporidium spp.	Enteric viruses	Salmonella spp.	STEC & Other DEC	Shigella spp.	Other	Unknown	Total
Beef/bovine meat and products	5	8			1	1	4				19
Composite & mixed foods	7		3		9	2	2	1		1	25
Dairy products	1	2	3	2		2	6				16
Fruits & vegetables			1			3	8	1			13
Poultry meat and poultry meat products	2	4	6			10					22
Pork meat & products	3				1	2				1	7
Crustaceans/shellfish/molluscs	1	1			12				1	2	17
Herbs/spices/cereal products/nuts & seeds						4					4
Other mixed meat/poultry products	3					2				1	6
Eggs and egg products					1	8					9
Lamb meat & products	2		1			2					5
Finfish/fish products		4									4
Unknown	2	7	5		20	14	16	3	1	7	75
Total	26	26	19	2	44	50	36	5	2	12	222

There were 147 outbreaks investigated between 2019 and 2023 with a food vehicle reported as implicated or suspected to be implicated. Of these investigated outbreaks composite/mixed foods (25 outbreaks, 17%) were most commonly reported as vehicles of infection, followed by poultry meat and poultry meat products (22 outbreaks, 15 %) and beef/bovine meat and products (19 outbreaks, 13%).

Non-typhoidal Salmonella spp. was the most commonly reported causative agent in outbreaks associated with poultry and poultry meat products (10/22 outbreaks, 45%), egg and egg products (8/9 outbreaks, 89%) and herbs/spices/cereals/nuts & seeds associated outbreaks (4/4 outbreaks, 100%). There were several large Salmonella spp. outbreaks investigated in the UK, with over 1000 human cases of salmonellosis linked to imported poultry meat products. While only a small number of pork and pork product associated outbreaks were reported, the largest outbreak by number of human cases was an outbreak of Salmonella spp. linked to a pork snack product disseminated widely across the UK.

Campylobacter spp. was also commonly reported in outbreaks associated with poultry and poultry meat products (6/22 outbreaks, 27%). For outbreaks associated with crustaceans/shellfish/molluscs, norovirus was the most commonly reported or suspected causative agent (14/17 outbreaks, 80%). STEC/other DEC was the most commonly reported causative agent in outbreaks associated with fruit and/or vegetable vehicles (8/13 outbreaks, 62%). STEC/other DEC was also most commonly reported as the causative agent in outbreaks linked to dairy products (6/16, 38%). Only two foodborne outbreaks of Cryptosporidium spp. were reported in this time period, both associated with dairy products (milk sold directly from farm settings).

Setting

Figure 5.2.4e: Percentage of foodborne outbreaks reported by setting, 2019 to 2023

Source: UK Health Security Agency, Public Health Wales, Public Health Scotland and Public Health Agency Northern Ireland reporting systems (Electronic Foodborne and non-foodborne outbreak surveillance system, eFOSS, in England and Wales, the outbreak surveillance datasets in Northern Ireland and Scotland)

Setting	Total outbreaks
Restaurant/café/pub/bar/hotel/catering service	97
Multiple places of exposure	92
Institutional/Residential	14
Farm	9
Other Foodborne Setting	7
Take-away/fast food outlet	2
Retailer	1
Total	222

Note: ‘Multiple places of exposure’ refers to national outbreaks where nationally distributed food vehicle has been consumed in more than one setting. ‘Other foodborne settings’ include settings with less than three outbreaks reported, including hospital or medical settings, workplace canteens, or other undisclosed settings.

Of all reported outbreaks, 45% were associated with catering settings (restaurants/food service establishments, takeaways or fast-food outlets), contributing 35% of the total associated human disease cases. In the largest reported outbreaks (41% of the total number of reported outbreaks but constituting 58% of the overall number of reported outbreak associated cases), the setting was designated as multiple places of exposure, i.e. when a contaminated food product that caused the outbreak is consumed in the home or at multiple locations, including in institutions and multiple different food service establishments. Outbreaks associated with farm settings were exclusively outbreaks associated with milk sold directly from farms.

There was a notable reduction in the proportion of outbreaks associated with the food service sector during the COVID-19 pandemic years. The reasons for this are likely multi-factorial. But specifically regarding variation in outbreak settings, this is likely due to factors such as the restrictions on social mixing and diversion of public health resource to management of the pandemic, leading to reduced outbreak investigation capability for small, geographically restricted outbreaks associated with specific catering establishments.

5.2.5 Food crime

Rationale

The National Food Crime Unit (NFCU) and Scottish Food Crime and Incidents Unit (SFCIU) define food crime as serious fraud and related criminality in food supply chains. This definition also includes activity impacting on drink and animal feed. Fraudulent and criminal activity in the food chain can be damaging to food security as it reduces the agency of consumers and potentially access to safe food. It can also cause serious harm to consumers, food businesses and the wider food industry.

Loss of public trust resulting from food crime can have major economic consequences. For example, the 2012 horsemeat incident is estimated to have cost the UK industry approximately £850 million. Furthermore, FSA-commissioned research suggested that the total cost of food crime in the UK could be as much as £1.96 billion per year.

An effective food crime response increases food security in the UK by ensuring that food is safe and authentic. The response normally consists of multiple strands of intervention, across several lines of defence, to prevent, disrupt and deter criminal activity within the food supply chain. It is the responsibility of food businesses to ensure their food is safe and what it says it is. The second is the network of local authorities across the four nations that enforce food safety and standards.

The SFCIU and the NFCU act as the third line of defence through their investigation and prevention of serious food crime in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The crime units also support local authorities and industry in responding to the food crime threat. Case study 4 outlines the new initiatives, developed by FSS and the FSA, to strengthen these lines of defence across the UK’s food chain.

The headline evidence looks at areas of focus for disruptions carried out by food crime units. While disruption figures can be used as a measure of impact against food crime, they cannot be used to draw cause-effect relationships regarding the levels of food crime. Additionally, it is hard to draw conclusive comparisons for different years, as many variables can affect disruption recording.

Headline evidence

Figure 5.2.5a: The key areas of focus for disruptions carried out by food crime units in 2021/22 to 2023/24

		Financial Year
	2020/21	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24
Number of disruptions	190 [46]	74	109	92

Key Area of Focus	2021/22*	2022/23	2023/24
Meat and meat products	12	26	42
Dangerous non-foods sold as food	39	53	31
Diversion of animal by-products	4	12	1
Alcohol	1	1	1
Fish and seafood	1	2	1
Other	17	15	16
Total	74	109	92

Note:

*does not include FSS data

[ ] shows the updated number of disruptions which would have met the revised stricter criteria. The remaining 144 would have been classified as ‘NFCU Outcomes’

The above table (Figure 5.2.5a) demonstrates the number of activities that achieved evidenced impact against the food crime threat. A combined total of 92 disruptions were achieved in 2023/24, with a large proportion involving actions against criminal activity in the meat sector and relating to dangerous non-food sold as food. Meat and meat products were prominent themes in disruption recording in 2023/24. Disruption of the illegal ‘smokie’ trade was the key driver of disruption levels in this theme (detailed in Case Study 5).

Figure 5.2.5a also shows a drop in dangerous non-food disruptions, compared to the previous year. The crime units’ tentative assessment is that this was as a consequence of continued web scanning for 2,4-Dinitrophenol (DNP), a highly toxic substance often marketed as a fat burner, and positive operational activity leading to fewer DNP sellers advertising on the open web, resulting in fewer listings to disrupt.

Supporting evidence

Since publication of the 2021 UKFSR, the NFCU and SFCIU have published the UK Food Crime Strategic Assessment 2024 (FCSA). The FCSA assesses the threat facing the UK from criminals who seek to profit from serious fraud within the food chain. It also highlights food crime trends, how the units’ understanding of food crime threats have changed and at possible future threats to the food landscape.

The FCSA found that the majority of food is safe and authentic, but factors such as recent geopolitical events have caused disruptions in the food chain. These in turn have contributed to a change in the threat from food crime.  As the UK’s food supply has experienced disruption, new opportunities for criminal diversification have emerged.

The NFCU and SFCIU have also taken steps to refine their measurements of food crime interventions which reduce or remove the opportunity for offending. The NFCU increased the stringency of their disruption recording criteria, contributing to wider understanding of serious organised crime threats among law enforcement partners. This meant that disruptions were required to demonstrate a higher level of recorded impact than had been applied in 2020/21. SFCIU have recorded disruptions from 2022 in-line with definitions set out in the national framework.

Case Study 4: Strengthening the lines of defence against food crime

SFCIU Food Crime Risk Profiling Tool

As part of SFCIU’s long-term strategy focus on food crime prevention, and with awareness of ongoing food industry challenges, the FSS online Food Crime Risk Profiling Tool was launched in August 2023. The profiling tool supports all Food Business Operators (FBO) in understanding their risk from food crime and the measures they can take to reduce this risk. The profile went through phased development stages from its initial concept in 2022, with involvement from industry experts and businesses peers reviewing the aims, approach and guidance.

Through promotion, supported by partners, the tool has attracted businesses both in Scotland and globally. SFCIU will continue to develop the tool’s functionality and guidance based on continued feedback from industry and food experts. The tool also enhances SFCIU understanding of risk in the supply chain and where to direct resources to support food businesses in preventing food crime in the long-term.

FSA Food Fraud Industry Working Group

Widespread media coverage around an NFCU investigation into suspected meat fraud in spring 2023 resulted in increased interest in how regulators and industry tackle food crime. In response, the FSA created a working group with industry partners to explore improved data sharing with Third Party Assurance schemes, the provision and visibility of reporting routes for people such as whistleblowers and to explore improvements for intelligence-based alerts from NFCU. 

The working group activity resulted in: 

• A new freephone number for the NFCU’s Food Crime confidential hotline. 

• Positive developments around intelligence exchange with Third Party Assurance schemes. 

• Improvements to NFCU processes for issuing alerts. 

The group output made it easier for consumers and those involved in the food industry to report food crime. Enhancing intelligence flows ensures authorities can act earlier and more confidently against food crime threats. 

NFCU Business Guidance

In November 2023, the NFCU Unit refreshed its guidance for businesses, which aims to enhance businesses’ ability to spot, report and prevent food crime. This refresh – one of several strands to support businesses – included new content for small businesses.

Case Study 5: Disrupting the smokie trade

Recent activity by food crime units targeting the smokie trade, alongside local authorities, the charitable sector and the police, exemplifies effective disruption.

A smokie is a product that involves blow-torching sheep or goat carcasses with the skin left on. This practice carries substantial risk to public health and is illegal in the UK. Disrupting this illicit trade supports the UK’s ability to ensure food is safe and protect public health. In Scotland, a joint operation involving the SFICU, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) and Police Scotland resulted in a conviction for animal cruelty in relation to the production of smokies.

In England, the NFCU supported a local authority with a case that resulted in fines totalling £36,642 for three defendants operating an illegal smokie business. Four suspects also have been charged with conspiring with others to supply unsafe meat (smokies), money laundering and animal welfare offences. One suspect pleaded guilty and was sentenced in October 2024. Three further suspects await trial in 2026. The NFCU also co-ordinated activity with local authorities which resulted in 16 disruptions, including the removal of illegal smokie meat from the food chain.

Sub-theme 3: Food safety/hygiene and regulation

5.3.1 Food business compliance with food hygiene regulation

Rationale

All food businesses have a legal requirement to ensure the food they place on the market is safe. Compliance with regulatory standards ensures that hazards have been controlled and that good hygiene practice has been followed at all stages in the production process. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing compliance with food law for the vast majority of food businesses. The FSA and FSS have statutory duties to monitor and report on their performance in doing so.  

This indicator tracks compliance data from Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland under which food businesses are issued hygiene ratings between 0 and 5. It is a legal requirement for food businesses in Wales and Northern Ireland to display their food hygiene rating sticker in a prominent place. Additionally this indicator looks at the percentage of businesses achieving a ‘Pass’ in the  Food Hygiene Information Scheme (FHIS), which covers food businesses in Scotland, is based on a pass or fail rating. 

Although compliance with food hygiene regulation does not eliminate the risk of outbreaks or unsatisfactory samples results, analysis indicates that premises with higher FHRS ratings are less likely to have unsatisfactory results or encounter outbreaks.  Poor hygiene can have an adverse impact on public health, with the FSA’s Cost of Illness model estimating the total burden of foodborne illness for the UK to be approximately £10.4 billion annually.   

Both the FHRS and FHIS draw on the most recent inspections carried out by local authorities and are given to businesses involved in serving and preparing food, including restaurants, pubs, cafés, takeaway outlets and canteens, as well as other places where food is supplied, sold, or consumed, such as hospitals, schools and care homes. In Wales, the scheme also covers business-to-business operations such as manufacturers that fall under the remit of local authorities. It should be noted that FHIS is not directly comparable with the rest of the UK due to the different approach in ratings as outlined earlier.

Despite FHRS being introduced in 2010, the scheme had a phased introduction between 2014 and 2019. Given this phased introduction, FHRS data from 2019 has been used a proxy for the number or level of establishments subject to a food hygiene intervention.

In Scotland, FSS monitors the performance of food businesses under FHIS alongside the results of local authority inspections undertaken through the Food Law Rating System (FLRS). FLRS was introduced in Scotland in 2019 to amalgamate the risk rating systems for food hygiene and food standards into a single Food Law Intervention. It provides a framework for local authorities to target their enforcement activities based on risk; enabling them to assess businesses on their overall legal compliance with both the food hygiene and food standards aspects of food law.  FLRS data can now be used alongside FHIS ratings (which only cover food hygiene) to provide a more comprehensive picture of food business compliance in Scotland. As FLRS was implemented in a phased approach, 2022 was the first year that a sufficiently representative number of inspections had been undertaken to enable monitoring.

Food business hygiene compliance data in this indicator does not include all food businesses and shows only ratings from the most recent inspections (as at March 2024).  Since hygiene ratings can only ever reflect data taken from the last time each establishment was inspected, having an accurate picture depends upon enough inspections being carried out to reveal any major changes, with more analysis on inspection volumes included below.

Some food businesses fall outside the scope of the schemes, and some new businesses may have not yet been rated. Inspection frequency is determined by the risk a food business poses to the public. Those with lower risk may only be inspected every three years.     

Headline evidence

England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Figure 5.3.1a: Percentage distribution of FHRS ratings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 2019/20 to 2023/24

Source: FSA - FHRS data

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

Note: For example, in Q4 2023/24 91% of the most recent FHRS scores for FBOs were a 4 (good) or higher.

In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (Figure 5.3.1a), there has been a slight increase in the percentage of food businesses that achieved a rating of ‘3 - generally satisfactory’ or better under the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS). This figure has remained stable at approximately 96.9% from Q4 2020/21 onwards.  There is not a legally mandated minimum rating that businesses must achieve to operate, but a rating of 3 or above is generally considered acceptable.  

Analysis of the overall distribution of ratings indicates an upward trend in food business hygiene compliance in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between April 2019 and March 2024 (Figure 5.3.1a). 

The percentage of food businesses achieving the highest ‘5 - very good’ FHRS rating rose from 70.8% in Q1 2019/20 to 76.3% in Q4 2023/24 (Figure 5.3.1a). There was a corresponding decrease in the proportion of businesses with ratings of ‘4 - good’, ‘3 - generally satisfactory’, ‘2 - improvement Necessary’, and ‘1 - major improvement necessary’. The percentage of food businesses with a ‘0 - urgent improvement necessary’ rating has remained relatively stable at approximately 0.2% (Figure 5.3.1a).

Scotland

Figure 5.3.1b: Percentage of food businesses in Scotland compliant with food law risk rating schemes 2022 to 2023

Source: FSS – Scottish National Database (SND)

Percentage of food businesses in Scotland compliant with food law risk rating schemes 2022-23	2022	2023
	97.0%	98.4%

In Scotland, the percentage of businesses achieving a ‘Pass’ rating in the Food Hygiene Information Scheme (FHIS) has remained at over 90% since 2019/20. In the first two years of the combined food hygiene and food standards inspection regime FLRS being introduced, there was a modest increase of 2.4 percentage points in the proportion of food businesses compliant with food law, rising to 98.4% from 97% in 2022 (Figure 5.3.1b).

Number of ratings issued

As previously mentioned, compliance ratings are based solely on the most recent inspections. The COVID-19 pandemic affected local authority officers’ ability to visit food businesses to conduct inspections and issue ratings. Businesses which conduct higher risk activities were prioritised for inspections at the time. Many local authority food officers were also diverted to critical COVID-19 response roles. This disruption resulted in a substantial decrease in the number of ratings issued in 2020/21.

Despite the relative return to pre-pandemic levels in 2023/24, there is still a backlog of food businesses overdue an inspection. Since the pandemic, local authorities have been working to address the backlog at lower-risk businesses. Although local authorities are back to operating with similar staffing numbers to those immediately before the pandemic, this has not been enough to catch up on the number of overdue inspections.

Theme 3 highlighted the capacity issues that local authorities are experiencing. As the FSA and FSS report Our Food 2023 outlined, maintaining hygiene standards requires local authorities to have enough experienced and trained staff to carry out these inspections.

England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Figure 5.3.1c: Number of food businesses issued a food hygiene rating by quarter for England, Wales and Northern Ireland from 2019/20 to 2023/24

Source: FSA – FHRS data

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Figure 5.3.1c), analysis shows the monthly average of FHRS ratings issued declined from 16,788 in 2019/20 to 4,753 in 2020/21, a decrease of 71.7%. In 2023/24, the monthly average returned to pre-pandemic levels, with an average of 16,931 ratings issued per month in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Scotland

Figure 5.3.1d: Number of food businesses issued a FHIS rating by quarter for Scotland between 2019/20 and 2023/24

Source: FSS – FHIS data

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In Scotland, the monthly average ratings issued declined from 1,557 in 2019/20 to 83 in 2020/21 (Figure 5.3.1d), a decrease of 94.6%. In 2023/24, the monthly average increased nearly to pre-pandemic figures, with an average of 1,228 ratings issued per month.

Supporting evidence

As the theme introduction outlined, adherence to food safety and standards requirements and a strong regulatory framework helps to maintain consumer confidence in the food system.

The UK Public’s Interests, Needs and Concerns Around Food report, commissioned by the FSA and FSS, found the UK public clearly cared about the safety, hygiene and standards of their food. Food safety, hygiene and standards were viewed as foundational food issues that affect everyone in the UK. Many participants worried about the maintenance of food standards in the future, particularly regarding the long-term safety of substances added to food, such as hormones, pesticides, and additives. Additionally, many people were concerned about allergen management and the availability of related information.

Hygiene in approved meat establishments 

As referenced in Theme 3 Indicator 3.1.3 Labour and Skills, the functioning of meat establishments across the UK, approved by FSA and FSS, is crucial for the smooth operation of the UK’s food supply chain. These establishments, which include slaughterhouses, game handling establishments, cutting plants, and wholesale meat markets, are subject to risk-based audits to ensure they adhere to hygiene, animal health, and welfare standards. Meat establishment hygiene compliance data provides only a snapshot of compliance levels based on the latest available audits for meat businesses across the UK at the end of each calendar year.

In 2021, Scotland moved to a new audit system, therefore 2022 became the first full year for which comparable (year on year) data is available. Data for England and Wales, and Northern Ireland is presented from 2022 to provide a similar time series. However, as the frequency and nature of these audits vary across the UK, direct comparisons between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland cannot be made.   

Figure 5.3.1e: Breakdown of hygiene compliance ratings for approved meat establishments (FSA and FSS)

Source: FSA and FSS meat establishment inspection data

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 14.9 KB)

In England and Wales (Figure 5.3.1g), the percentage of meat establishments rated as ‘good’ or ‘generally satisfactory’ for hygiene remained stable between 2022 and 2023, with a slight decrease of 0.3 percentage points from 99.3% in 2022 to 99.0% in 2023. This suggests that a very low number of meat establishments (only 1 in 100) were not compliant with hygiene standards. In Northern Ireland, the percentage of meat establishments rated as ‘good’ or ‘generally satisfactory’ for hygiene was 100% in both 2022 and 2023 (Figure 5.3.1e). 

The analysis of score distributions shows that the number of meat establishments in England and Wales receiving an ‘urgent improvement necessary’ rating rose from 0.2% in 2022 to 0.6% in 2023, a marginal increase of 0.4 percentage points. In such instances, suitable guidance and/or enforcement action is implemented to ensure the business returns to compliance. The specific timeframe for becoming compliant again varies depending on the severity of the non-compliance and the nature of identified issues.

The percentage of meat establishments rated as ‘good’ or ‘generally satisfactory’ for hygiene in Scotland remained stable, with a slight decrease of 0.9 percentage points from 98.4% in calendar year 2022 to 97.5% in calendar year 2023 (Figure 5.3.1e). This suggests that only a small number (1 in 40 establishments) were not compliant with hygiene standards. 

The percentage of meat establishments in Scotland rated ‘improvement necessary’ remained broadly stable during the same period, with a slight increase of 0.9 percentage points from 1.6% in 2022 to 2.5% in 2023.

5.3.2 Safety of non-EU imports

Rationale

UK food security requires consumers to have access to sufficient quantities of safe food. Food imported to the UK must comply with certain requirements to protect consumers. Effective border controls should allow safety risks from imported food to be detected so that action, where required, can be taken at an early stage. This is an important step for public health protection. In the UK, the types of checks carried out depend on the type of product and the level of risk it may pose to public, animal and plant health.

Between 2021 and 2023, EU consignments arriving in Great Britain were not subject to border controls. Theme 3 Indicator 3.2.3 Import Flows sets out the new system for food safety and biosecurity controls that applies from 2024 onwards. In this theme, border compliance data for non-EU food imported to GB between 2021 and 2023 is reviewed alongside volumes of imports, which are broken down into three main categories:

• Products of animal origin (POAO), which include meat, eggs, fish and dairy

• Food not of animal origin (FNAO), which includes beverages, cereals, fruit and vegetables

• Animal feed, which includes oilcake and pet food

Border compliance data is only available for non-EU food and feed given the lack of controls for EU imports between 2021 and 2023. Non-EU food and feed also represents only a proportion of overall food and feed imported to GB (approximately 37% - see Figure 5.3.2b). Of the checks carried out in 2023, the majority of non-EU food and feed imports subject to controls were compliant. There was an increase the number of POAO consignments failing documentary and sampling checks.

The risk-based nature of checks, as outlined below, means accurate year-on-year comparisons cannot be drawn across all categories as the checks are not a representative view of all imports.

Headline evidence

Figure 5.3.2a: Percentage of import check failures for non-EU food and feed consignments to Great Britain subject to controls between 2021 and 2023

Source: IPAFFS

Check type	Consignment type	2021	2022	2023
Documentary	Meat and other animal products (POAO)	0.91%	0.91%	1.21%
	Other high-risk foods (HRFNAO)	0.54%	0.31%	0.46%
	All consignments	0.84%	0.78%	1.08%

Check type	Consignment type	2021	2022	2023
Identity	Meat and other animal products (POAO)	0.84%	0.63%	0.83%
	Other high-risk foods (HRFNAO)	1.94%	1.16%	1.27%
	All consignments	0.87%	0.65%	0.85%

Check type	Consignment type	2021	2022	2023
Physical	Meat and other animal products (POAO)	Not available*	Not available	Not available
	Other high-risk foods (HRFNAO)	4.31%	2.60%	3.11%
	All consignments	N/A	N/A	N/A

Check type	Consignment type	2021	2022	2023
Sampling (as part of a physical check)	Meat and other animal products (POAO)	0.99%	0.93%	1.33%**
	Other high-risk foods (HRFNAO)	4.78%	4.13%	3.95%
	All consignments	2.76%	2.44%	2.40%

Note:

*Since leaving the EU and moving to the import of products, animals, food and feed system (IPAFFS), the functionality of the system records only the outcome of sampling checks undertaken and not physical checks.

**33 results pending of over 400

From 2021 to 2023, almost all food and feed products of animal origin (POAO) from the EU to Great Britain were subject to both documentary checks (which confirm that appropriate documentation is provided) and identity checks (which confirm that the product matches the documentation). A smaller proportion of these products then underwent additional physical checks. Sampling may be carried out as part of a physical check. See the Supporting Evidence for total volume of imports split by main categories of POAO, FNAO (foods not of animal origin) and feed.

Most foods not of animal origin (FNAO), such as fruits and vegetables, are considered lower risk than POAO and were therefore not subject to the same checks during this period. However, where a risk was identified in a specific product from a specific country, they were added to the list of high-risk FNAO (HRFNAO) and went through additional documentary, identity and physical checks at the border.

Of the checks carried out in 2023, the majority of non-EU food and feed imports subject to controls were compliant. There was an increase the number of POAO consignments failing documentary and sampling checks.

Supporting evidence

Around 40 million tonnes of food are imported into the UK each year, of which approximately 60% comes from the EU. There has been little recent change to the top 10 countries from which the UK imports.

Figure 5.3.2b: Total volume of imports split by main categories of POAO, FNAO and animal feed

Source: HMRC Trade Database and Trade Data Visualisation Application

Import category	Total in 2023 (tonnes)	Volume change 2019-2023	Volume change 2022-2023	EU proportion 2023 (2019)
Documentary	Meat and other animal products (POAO)	0.91%	0.91%	1.21%
	Other high-risk foods (HRFNAO)	0.54%	0.31%	0.46%
	All consignments	0.84%	0.78%	1.08%

About the UK Food Security Report

The UK Food Security Report (UKFSR) sets out an analysis of statistical data relating to food security in the UK. It fulfils a duty under Part 2, Chapter 1 (Section 19) of the Agriculture Act 2020 to prepare and lay before Parliament at least once every three years “a report containing an analysis on statistical data relating to food security in the United Kingdom”.

The UKFSR examines past, current, and future trends relevant to food security to present a full and impartial analysis of UK food security. It draws on a broad range of published data from official, administrative, academic, intergovernmental and wider sources.

The UKFSR is intended as an independent evidence base to inform users rather than a policy or strategy. In practice this means that it provides government, Parliament, food chain stakeholders and the wider public with the data and analysis needed to monitor UK food security and develop effective responses to issues.

Contact and feedback

Enquiries to: [email protected]

You can also contact us via Twitter/X: @DefraStats

We want to understand the uses that readers make of this report. To help us ensure that future versions are better for you, please answer our short questionnaire to send us feedback.

What we will do with this data

Production team: Michael Archer, Lewis Bird, Jess Booth, Jane Brown, Rebecca Clutterbuck, Grant Davies, Simon Dixon, Nikita Driver, Tom George, Gayle Griffiths, Evangeline Hopper, Helen Jamieson, Ronald Kasoka, Matt Keating, Sarath Kizhakkoott, Gurjeevan Landa, Rachel Latham, David Lee, James LePage, Ian Lonsdale, Claire Manley (FSA), Eszter Palotai, Maria Prokopiou, Erica Pufall (FSA), Alexis Rampa, Lewis Ratcliffe, Leigh Riley, Karen Robertson (FSS), Danny Roff, William Ryle-Hodges, Daniel Scott, Chris Silwood, Swati Singh (FSA), Carine Valarche, Maisie Wilson, Isabella Worth

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful to the following for their expert contributions and guidance throughout the synthesis of this Report, helping to ensure it delivers a thorough analysis of a robust evidence base:

• Professor Angelina Sanderson Bellamy, University of the West of England Bristol

• Professor Tim Benton, Chatham House

• Dr Tom D. Breeze, University of Reading

• Dr Jonathan Brooks, Honorary Senior Research Fellow, University of Exeter Business School

• Professor Katrina Campbell, Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast

• Professor Bob Doherty (Dean and Principal Investigator of FixOurFood), School for Business and Society, University of York

• Selvarani Elahi MBE, UK Deputy Government Chemist, LGC

• Dr Pete Falloon, Met Office/University of Bristol

• Professor Lynn Frewer, Centre for Rural Economy, Newcastle University

• Dr Kenisha Garnett, Cranfield University

• Professor Emeritus Peter J. Gregory, School of Agriculture, Policy & Development, University of Reading

• Dr Saher Hasnain, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford

• Alan Hayes, Strategic Advisor, Future Strategy

• Dr John Ingram, Food Systems Transformation Programme, University of Oxford

• Professor Peter Jackson, Institute for Sustainable Food, University of Sheffield

• Professor Alexandra Johnstone, The Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen

• Dr Hannah Lambie-Mumford, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Sheffield

• Dr Marta Lonnie, The Rowett Institute, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences & Nutrition, University of Aberdeen

• Dr Rachel Loopstra, Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool

• Dr Katie McDermott, University of Leeds

• Dr Ian Noble, Chair of UK Food Sector Advisory Group – Innovate UK

• Dr Kelly Parsons, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge

• Dr Maddy Power (Assistant Professor), Wellcome Trust Research Fellow, Department of Health Sciences, University of York

• Dr Michelle Thomas, University of Reading

• Professor Carol Wagstaff, University of Reading

Return to Theme 4: Food Security at Household Level

Annexes

Glossary and Acronyms

Return to Contents Page

Return to the United Kingdom Food Security 2024 home page to download the data for charts