Back

Understanding the impacts of reductions in local government expenditure on food safety services, England 2009/10 - 2019/20

Murrell, L.; Clough, H.; Gibb, R.; Zhang, X.; Green, M. A.; Buchan, I. E.; Barr, B.; Hungerford, D.

2025-04-04 epidemiology
10.1101/2025.04.04.25325088 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundEnvironmental and Regulatory (ER) services, provided by local authorities, play a key role in public health protection. Food safety teams within ER services carry out regular food hygiene inspections, advice and education visits, and investigate foodborne disease outbreaks. Following the 2008 financial crisis, local authorities have faced substantial funding cuts. This study investigates the impact of local government expenditure reductions on food safety services. MethodsWe used fixed effects panel regression to analyse the effect of food safety expenditure reductions on food hygiene staffing levels, food hygiene interventions (e.g. inspection, sampling, advice and education), and the proportion of establishments rated food hygiene compliant. We also examined the effect of staff reductions on the number of interventions achieved and establishment compliance. ResultsA {pound}1 decrease in food safety expenditure per capita was associated with a 2% (95% CI 0.7% to 3.3%) decrease in staffing levels and a 1.7% (95% CI 0.2% to 3.3%) decrease in the number of interventions achieved per establishment. One-unit reduction in staff was associated with a 49.2% (95% CI 18.7%, 87.6%) decrease in the number interventions achieved. We found no evidence of an association between expenditure or staff levels and the proportion of compliant establishments. ConclusionSpending reductions negatively impact the capacity of food safety teams to provide key services. Reductions in food safety expenditure significantly impact food hygiene staff levels and service provision. This raises concerns about the capacity of food safety teams to operate and the potential for increased public risk of gastrointestinal infections.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.