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

Understanding the impacts of reductions in local government expenditure on food safety services, England 2009/10 - 2019/20 | medRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-P4HH5NV'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search Understanding the impacts of reductions in local government expenditure on food safety services, England 2009/10 - 2019/20 View ORCID Profile Lauren Murrell , Helen. E Clough , Roger Gibb , View ORCID Profile Xingna Zhang , Marie Chattaway , Mark. A Green , View ORCID Profile Iain Buchan , View ORCID Profile Benjamin Barr , View ORCID Profile Daniel Hungerford doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.04.25325088 Lauren Murrell 1 National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK 2 Department of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Lauren Murrell For correspondence: murrell{at}liverpool.ac.uk Helen. E Clough 1 National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK 3 Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Roger Gibb 8 Public contributor, PPI Advisor to: Health Protection Research Unit Gastrointestinal Infection, University of Liverpool Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Xingna Zhang 1 National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK 4 Department of Public Health, Policy & Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Xingna Zhang Marie Chattaway 1 National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK 5 Gastrointestinal Bacteria Refence Unit, United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA) , London, UK 7 NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Genomics and Enabling Data, University of Warwick , Warwick, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Mark. A Green 6 Department of Geography and Planning, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Iain Buchan 1 National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK 4 Department of Public Health, Policy & Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Iain Buchan Benjamin Barr 1 National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK 4 Department of Public Health, Policy & Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Benjamin Barr Daniel Hungerford 1 National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK 2 Department of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Daniel Hungerford Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Supplementary material Data/Code Preview PDF Abstract Background Environmental 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. Methods We 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. Results A £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. Conclusion Spending 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. Introduction Background There are approximately 17 million cases of gastrointestinal infections annually in the UK ( 1 ), making them a significant public health concern. These illnesses often result in diarrhoea and vomiting, and in some cases death ( 2 ). Gastrointestinal infections are usually spread through contaminated food, water, and surfaces ( 3 ). There are an estimated 2.4 million cases of foodborne illnesses ( 4 ), resulting in 16,400 hospitalisations ( 2 ), and 180 deaths annually ( 5 ). Additionally, the total societal cost associated with foodborne disease is approximately £9.1 billion a year, including lost earnings, disturbance to business, medical costs, and costs associated with missed school ( 4 ). In England, local authorities (LA) are responsible for enforcing food safety ( 6 ) and preventing foodborne illness and outbreak. Food safety is provided by environmental and regulatory (ER) services and is a statutory service, meaning it is a local authority’s duty to provide it. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is the central authority that oversees food safety controls enforced by local authorities ( 6 ). These controls are delivered by Environmental Health (EH) staff ( 7 ), also called environmental health officers (EHO’s) or practitioners (EHP’s). Food safety services include food hygiene inspections to ensure food is safe from bacterial contamination ( 7 ), testing food samples, food safety advice, and investigation of food poisoning outbreaks and foodborne illness ( 8 ). The functions provided by ER services under food safety are likely important for prevention of gastrointestinal infections. The financial crisis of 2008 saw austerity measures implemented by central government to control national debt. This resulted in funding cuts to local authority services across England with reductions in spending power of up to 50% ( 9 ). Although ER services are largely statutory, there have been substantial cuts to these services which disproportionately impacted poorer areas. Per capita spending on food safety and infection control services declined by 22.8% in the most deprived areas compared to 6.3% in the least deprived areas between 2009/10 and 2020/21 ( 10 ). There are signs that local funding cuts are negatively impacting local authority services. However, many services lack data on outputs or outcomes, making it difficult to measure the impact of expenditure reductions ( 11 ). Since 2010 local authority services have seen staff reductions, including in food safety services ( 7 , 12 ). There has also been reduction in waste collection, library service points, bus services ( 11 ), reports of food standards, health and safety focusing on high-risk businesses, and scaling back proactive work that may prevent serious risks ( 13 ). The extent to which local funding cuts have impacted food safety services is unreported. We aim to measure the impact of reductions in food safety expenditure on food hygiene staff, the number of interventions achieved and the proportion of broadly compliant establishments. Methods We carried out a longitudinal study at local authority level using data for the financial years of 2009/10 to 2019/20. The study focused on England and used data from 314 lower tier local authorities, that are responsible for environmental services in England. In total 26 LAs were removed from final analysis. Thirteen LAs were excluded from the study due to missing food safety expenditure data. Five were excluded due to food hygiene returns being reported with food standards and a further six were removed due to issues with consistency in LA reporting. Ilses of Scilly and City of London were excluded due to low population sizes and distinct funding structure. The local authority geographical boundaries used in this study are 2020 boundaries. In instances where local authority data were not at this level, data were aggregated and transformed to 2020 level to provide consistent data for this period. Local authority data Expenditure data Expenditure data were sourced from the Place-based Longitudinal Data Resource (PLDR) ( 14 ), which collates publicly available annual local authority outturn data for cultural, environmental and regulatory services reported to the UK central government’s department of housing and local government ( 15 ). We analyzed annual food safety expenditure, by financial year, defined as spending reported in budget outturns for environmental and regulatory services under the title of food safety. This was adjusted for inflation using gross domestic product deflator ( 16 ), then normalized by ONS mid-year population estimates to give food safety services expenditure per capita. Service Indicator data We defined three local authority food safety service indicators. Firstly, the annual number of interventions carried out per establishment. Interventions include inspections, sampling, audits, monitoring, surveillance and intelligence gathering, as well as advice and education ( 17 ). Local authorities use a risk-based approach to inform intervention frequency and type, described in table 1 . Data were obtained from the FSA’s local authority enforcement monitoring system (LAEMS) ( 18 ) through a freedom of information request. More information can be found in section 1 of the supplementary material. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 1: Further background information on data Secondly, we sourced food hygiene full-time-equivalent (FTE) position figures from LAEMS, as a measure of staff per capita, normalized using ONS population estimates. This was to indicate resource level. The term staff or staffing levels will be used when referring to FTE. See supplementary material section 1.3 for more detail. Thirdly, we defined the proportion of broadly compliant food establishments (cafes, restaurants, pubs, and food shops) ( 19 ) as the number of businesses that received a rating of three or greater, divided by the number of establishments rated that year. Food hygiene scores range from 0 to 5, reflecting the food hygiene standards found on the day of inspection ( 19 ). A score of 0 means urgent improvement is required, a score of 5 means the hygiene standards are very good ( 20 ) see section 1.4 of the supplementary material for more detail. We acquired this data from the Consumer Data Research Centre (CDRC) which sources and compiles data from the FSA ( 20 ). We aggregated data from business level to local authority level and transformed it to financial year for consistent reporting across all data. The FHRS data were analyzed for years 2012/13 to 2019/20 due to the implementation FHRS scheme in 2010 likely leading to reduced data for years 2010-2012. Missing data There was missing data for Food Safety expenditure, with 58 local authorities having at least one year with no expenditure data reported. This could be due to reporting under another spending line, or local authorities not disaggregating at the required level. This may have also contributed to missing data in outcome variables of interest such as staff and interventions. In some instances, local authorities reported food standards returns only, or food standards combined with food hygiene returns; such local authorities were removed. We attributed local authorities missing data for FHRS to the roll out of the scheme in late 2010, as there was no missing data after 2012. Local authorities with more than 50% data missing were removed and multiple imputation was used to estimate the values for remaining missing data, see supplementary material (section 2) for more information. Analysis Data were analysed descriptively by year, deprivation level, local authority type and rural or urban classification (see supplementary material section 3). We then used fixed effects panel regression models to estimate the change in number FTE per capita, number of interventions achieved per establishment, and the proportion of compliant establishments associated with each £1 decrease in food safety expenditure per capita. All models included a fixed effect for each local authority to remove all between local authority differences, so the models only estimate the association between exposure and outcomes within local authorities over time. All models also use robust clustered standard errors; this accounts for clustering within local authorities. All models included year as a continuous variable allowing us to control for temporal variation. First, we modelled the number of FTE as the outcome, with food safety per capita as the exposure. We used a log linear regression model with the log population estimate as an offset to model FTE per capita. The model was weighted by the local authority population size. Secondly, we analysed the number of interventions per establishment as the outcome with food safety expenditure as the exposure. We used a log linear regression model with the number of establishments as the offset, to model the number of interventions per establishment. In addition, the model was weighted by the number of establishments in each local authority. We then modelled the number of interventions per establishment as the outcome with food safety per capita and FTE per 10,000 as the exposures. We used a log linear regression model with the log of the number of establishments as the offset. This model was weighted by the number of establishments. We used binomial regression with logit link function to model the effect of food safety expenditure per capita on the proportion of broadly compliant establishments. This model was weighted by the total number of establishments rated. We repeated this model using the number of FTE per 10,000 as the main exposure, with the proportion of broadly compliant establishments as the outcome. Finally, we modelled FTE per 10,000 of the population and food safety expenditure per capita as the exposures on the proportion of compliant establishments. Results Table 2 shows summary statistics of our outcome measures. The mean food safety expenditure per capita decreased from £3.13 in 2009/10 to £2.27 per capita by 2019/20. Over the same period, the average number FTE per 10,000 of the population in England reduced from 0.31 to 0.24 per 10,000 of the population. The average number of interventions achieved decreased by 13,246 per 100,000 establishments, and the average percent of broadly compliant establishments increased from 88% to 94 %. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 2: Summary table of Food Safety expenditure Table 1 uses information adapted from Food Law Code of Practice, Annex 1 of Food Law Code of Practice, and the Food Standards Agency website ( 20 , 21 ) Figure 1 presents the percentage change in outcomes of interest relative to 2009/10. The number of FTE per 10,000 reduced by 23.5% in 2019/20. The number of interventions achieved per 100,000 establishments reduce by 18% by 2019. We see that from 2012 to 2018 the average number of broadly compliant establishments increased by 13 % before dropping to 12% in 2019/20 compared to 2009/10. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 1: Percentage change in outcomes of interest relative to baseline year 2009 for measures of FTE, interventions and the proportion of compliant establishments. Year represents financial year Table 3 presents the results from the regression analyses. The number of staff per capita decreased by 2.0% (p<0.01), with each £1 per capita reduction in food safety expenditure. The number of interventions per establishment saw a significant decrease of 1.7 % (p<0.05) with a £1 per capita decrease in food safety expenditure. For each FTE per 10,000 of the population decrease in staff, the number of interventions per establishment decreased by 49.2% (p<0.001). When accounting for number of FTE, a £1 reduction in expenditure was saw interventions decrease by 1.5% (p<0.05). When accounting for spend per capita, a reduction in staff was significantly associated with a decrease of 46.0% (p<0.001) in the number of interventions achieved per establishment. We identified no significant relationship between food safety expenditure or FTE and the odds of establishments achieving broadly compliant ratings. We carried out a sensitivity analysis on data with missing values present, the results of this can be found in supplementary material, section 4. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 3: Regression analysis results showing effect of food safety expenditure and staffing levels on primary outcomes Discussion Our study shows for the first time how the reduction in local funding cuts had a substantial impact on the capacity of local statutory food safety services. Cuts had a negative impact on staff and the number of interventions achieved, but no significant relationship was found in relation to hygiene compliance. Our findings are consistent with reports of staff cuts across public services in recent years due to austerity. Staff reduction is a key mechanism by which authorities try to make savings ( 12 ). This is reflected in a National Audit Office (NAO) report which reports food hygiene staff decreased by 13% between 2012/13 and 2017/18 ( 7 ), highlighting that even statutory services are vulnerable to cuts during austerity. This has been an approach taken by most authorities with 96% of single tier authorities and 86% of district councils reducing the number of staff between 2011 and 2013 ( 22 ). Some local authorities are reducing higher pay-grade staff, including managers ( 23 ). The loss of senior staff with more experience may create a workforce with less knowledge and expertise, a noted concern of some council workers ( 24 ). A survey by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health described 56% of LA’s reported vacancies in EH teams as remaining unfilled for at least six months, primarily due to lack of qualified or experienced EHPs ( 25 ). Staff cuts and reduced ability to hire experienced staff into EHP roles may create a workforce which lacks depth and overall capacity to handle the rising demand of services. Though important actions such as food hygiene inspections have been prioritized with spending cuts ( 26 ), our results show that a decrease in staff due to cuts are impacting the number of interventions achieved. The reduction in staff means the workforce is becoming more stretched with fewer staff having larger workloads ( 26 , 27 ) and with professionally qualified food hygiene staff carrying out more inspections and audits per person in 2019/20 compared to 2010/11 ( 9 ). In addition, local authorities failing to meet intervention targets noted staffing shortfalls as the reason and expressed concerns regarding the impact on food safety ( 7 ). They also noted changes in functions due to staff cuts, for example, cutting back on activities such as advice, guidance and sampling, prioritizing higher risk premises, and outsourcing to third party contractors to increase inspection capacity ( 7 ). This is in line with our results, and suggests a decrease in service capacity, which may increase the risk of foodborne disease outbreak. Evidence shows that the capacity of EH teams is key for public protection, with workforce experience, workforce levels, and regulation compliance having protective effects against foodborne illness ( 28 ). Literature shows interventions such as training food handlers in food safety and hygiene are effective in reducing microbial prevalence in food service premises ( 29 ). Reducing access to advice and education visits, or other interventions, may see a decline in practice of food handlers and increase occurrence of microbial contamination, placing the public at greater risk of gastrointestinal infection. Previous work highlights the importance of EHP inspection visits, with 87.8% (n=387) of survey respondents in one study saying that the action taken following the inspection had improved the hygiene of their establishment ( 30 ). As a substantial amount of foodborne illness outbreaks are associated with settings that rely on intervention and guidance from EHP’s, our results are troubling. This is particularly true when considering the increasing trend of hospitalizations due to pathogens linked to foodborne disease ( 31 , 32 ) While our results highlight challenges surrounding the capacity of food safety teams and service delivery, we saw no association between food safety expenditure or staffing levels and food hygiene compliance. Paradoxically, we see an increase in broadly compliant establishments during the study period, agreeing with other reports during this time ( 7 ). However, it is important to interpret these results with caution. While our results indicate that a reduction in resources does not impact hygiene compliance rates, there may be other factors involved. Such as the requirement of local authorities to achieve compliance as stated in the food law code of practice ( 21 ). Staff prioritize establishments of higher risk ( 26 ) meaning businesses achieving lower FHRS scores will likely be a resource priority to achieve compliance. The FHRS score offers a snapshot of the hygiene practice at time of inspection. While important, it provides limited detail concerning the hygiene practice of the establishments between inspections. There may be gaps in compliance by area or deprivation level, reflective of funding inequalities, exemplified in our analysis and previous research ( 10 ). Overall compliant food hygiene scores may show a level of resilience of food safety teams and FBO’s to resource cuts, however this does not eliminate the risk of outbreaks. The reduction in expenditure and consequent trends take place in a time where demands are increasing as the number of registered food establishments are increasing ( 26 ). The existing inequalities in funding cuts to these services may lead to widening health inequalities as a result ( 10 ), with recent research showing reduced capacity in the more deprived areas for gastrointestinal infection work in the community ( 33 ). Evidence supports that investment in food and sanitation services is associated with the reduction in incidence of disease caused by key food and water related pathogens ( 34 ). Cutting of these services may be placing the public at greater risk to these infections. Strengths and Limitations Unlike previous studies, we attempt to identify the extent to which reduced expenditure may impact services and their operation and capacity. We use data on key indicators of food safety in the context of food hygiene functions, to track trends. There are several limitations to our study. Firstly, we rely on ecological data, however this work allows us to explore important general trends of local funding cuts on these services across England. Secondly, this paper focuses primarily on food safety services. Whilst this is important, there are also other routes they GI infections can spread in which these services will not influence. Such as person-to-person transmission within communities, transmission from contact with animals, or exposure whilst travelling outside of England. Thirdly, there were limitations to data quality, such as missing data. To mitigate this issue, we used multiple imputation. Additionally, reduced expenditure and staffing could have impacted data collection and quality, such as with compliance, potentially introducing bias. The funding cuts may have altered data collection and may, in part reflect altered operational practices in time of fiscal constraint. Finally, directly relating expenditure decrease to FTE outcomes may oversimplify results, as overhead allocation and fixed departmental costs were not accounted for. Conclusion In this study we quantify the impact of food safety expenditure reductions on indicators of food hygiene functions, crucial for prevention of foodborne infectious disease. Whilst ER and food safety and infection control services have seen changes in service expenditure overtime, there is little to no knowledge of the association between local funding cuts and impact and service delivery. We show here that decreases in food safety expenditure significantly impacted staffing levels and service provision. Whilst this raises concern about the capacity of food safety teams to protect the public, we find no impact on hygiene compliance. Our work raises questions about the impact these trends on public risk to gastrointestinal infection, and any inequalities that may be present. Data Availability All data produced in this study are available upon request https://pldr.org/dataset/2omjn/cultural-environmental-regulatory-and-planning-services-individual-spending-lines-r05-fin0761 https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/ Funding This study is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, a partnership between the UK Health Security Agency, the University of Liverpool and the University of Warwick (Grant Reference Number PB-PG- NIHR-200910). BB was funded by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Northwest Coast (NWC ARC; Award ID: NIHR200182). HEC’s, XZ’s and DH’s participation in this research is funded by NIHR through HPRU-GI. MAC’s participation in this research is funded by NIHR though HPRU-GED. IB is funded by NIHR as Senior Investigator award NIHR205131 and HPRU EZI NIHR200907 The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript . Contributors LM, HEC, RG, XZ, MAG, MAC, IEB, BB and DH were involved in conceptualisation of the study. LM and DH were involved in investigation, and project administration. LM, DH, HEC, MAG, BB, IB and XZ contributed to methodology. LM carried out visualisation, writing–original draft preparation. LM, HEC, RG, XZ, MAG, MAC, IEB, BB and DH contributed to writing–reviewing and editing. HEC, XZ, MAG, MAC, IEB, BB and DH contributed to supervision. BB was responsible for funding acquisition. LM accepted full responsibility for the finished work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data and controlled the decision to publish. LM is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. DH is currently in receipt of research grant support from the Food Standards Agency. IB was AstraZeneca’s Chief Data Scientist Advisor 2019-2023. LM, RG, MAC, HEC, XZ, MAG, and BB declare no relevant competing interests. Ethics approval is not applicable, data used in this study is open access available to the public or available upon freedom of information request. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Alexandros Alexiou, David Hughes, Simon Melican, Samantha Walters, Jane Muizelaar, References 1. ↵ Tam CC , Rodrigues LC , Viviani L , Dodds JP , Evans MR , Hunter PR , et al. Longitudinal study of infectious intestinal disease in the UK (IID2 study): incidence in the community and presenting to general practice . Gut . 2012 Jan ; 61 ( 1 ): 69 – 77 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 2. ↵ Holland D , Mahmoudzadeh N. Foodborne Disease Estimates for the United Kingdom in 2018 [Internet] . Food Standards Agency ; 2020 Jan [cited 2024 Dec 18]. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/research/foodborne-diseases/foodborne-disease-estimates-for-the-united-kingdom-in-2018 3. ↵ Food Standards Agency [Internet] . [cited 2021 Dec 30]. The second study of infectious intestinal disease in the community (IID2 Study) . Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/research/research-projects/the-second-study-of-infectious-intestinal-disease-in-the-community-iid2-study 4. ↵ Daniel N , Casadevall N , Sun P , Sugden D , Aldin V. The Burden of Foodborne Disease in the UK 2018 . 2018 ; 5. ↵ Holland D , Thomson L , Mahmoudzadeh N , Khaled A. Estimating deaths from foodborne disease in the UK for 11 key pathogens . BMJ Open Gastroenterol . 2020 Jun 24; 7 ( 1 ): e000377 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 6. ↵ Local Authority Capacity and Capability : Executive Summary | Food Standards Agency [Internet] . [cited 2024 May 18]. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/research/local-authority-capacity-and-capability-executive-summary 7. ↵ National Audit Office [Internet] . [cited 2022 May 30]. Ensuring food safety and standards - National Audit Office (NAO) Report . Available from: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/ensuring-food-safety-and-standards/ 8. ↵ General fund revenue account outturn: specific guidance notes - GOV.UK [Internet] . [cited 2023 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/general-fund-revenue-account-outturn/general-fund-revenue-account-outturn-specific-guidance-notes#ro5-cultural-environmental-regulatory-and-planning-services 9. ↵ Haves E. Local government finances: Impact on communities . 2024 Mar 14 [cited 2024 Apr 8]; Available from: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/local-government-finances-impact-on-communities/ 10. ↵ Murrell L , Fahy K , Clough HE , Gibb R , Zhang X , Chattaway MA , et al. Inequalities in local government expenditure on environmental and regulatory services in England from 2009 to 2020: a longitudinal ecological study . BMJ Public Health [Internet] . 2024 Dec 4 [cited 2024 Dec 18]; 2 ( 2 ). Available from: https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/2/e001144 11. ↵ National Audit Office [Internet] . [cited 2021 Dec 28]. Financial sustainability of local authorities 2018 - National Audit Office (NAO) Report . Available from: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/financial-sustainability-of-local-authorities-2018/ 12. ↵ Hastings A , Bailey N , Besemer K , Bramley G , Gannon M , Watkins D. Coping with the cuts? Local government and poorer communities . 13. ↵ Institute for Fiscal Studies [Internet] . 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 17]. How have English councils’ funding and spending changed? 2010 to 2024 . Available from: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-have-english-councils-funding-and-spending-changed-2010-2024 14. ↵ Cultural, Environmental, Regulatory and Planning Services individual spending lines (R05) (FIN_07_61) | Place-based Longitudinal Data Resource [Internet] . [cited 2023 Feb 1]. Available from: https://pldr.org/dataset/2omjn/cultural-environmental-regulatory-and-planning-services-individual-spending-lines-r05-fin0761 15. ↵ GOV.UK [Internet] . [cited 2022 Mar 29]. Local authority revenue expenditure and financing in England: 2009 to 2010 final outturn (revised) . Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing-in-england-2009-to-2010-final-outturn-revised 16. ↵ GOV.UK [Internet] . [cited 2023 Nov 20]. GDP deflators at market prices, and money GDP December 2021 (Quarterly National Accounts) . Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/gdp-deflators-at-market-prices-and-money-gdp-december-2021-quarterly-national-accounts 17. ↵ LAEMS Annual report 2019-2020; Annual report on local authority food law enforcement [Internet] . Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/laems-annual-report-2019-2020-final_0.pdf 18. ↵ Food and Feed Codes of Practice | Food Standards Agency [Internet] . [cited 2024 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/about-us/food-and-feed-codes-of-practice 19. ↵ Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) Ratings | CDRC Data [Internet] . [cited 2023 Feb 3]. Available from: https://data.cdrc.ac.uk/dataset/food-hygiene-rating-scheme-fhrs-ratings 20. ↵ Food Hygiene Rating Scheme | Food Standards Agency [Internet] . [cited 2024 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/food-hygiene-rating-scheme 21. ↵ Food law code of practice (England). :101 . 22. ↵ Tough Times 2013: Councils’ Responses to Financial Challenges from 2010/11 to 2013/14 [Internet] . LGiU . 2014 [cited 2024 Nov 6]. Available from: https://lgiu.org/briefing/tough-times-2013-councils-responses-to-financial-challenges-from-2010-11-to-2013-14/ 23. ↵ work-progress-meeting-loc-a56.pdf [Internet] . [cited 2024 Nov 27]. Available from: https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/work-progress-meeting-loc-a56.pdf 24. ↵ Hastings A , Bailey N , Bramley G , Gannon M , Watkins D. THE COST OF THE CUTS: THE IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND POORER COMMUNITIES . 2015 ; 128 . 25. ↵ CIEH [Internet] . [cited 2024 Nov 27]. Workforce survey England . Available from: https://www.cieh.org/policy/campaigns/workforce-survey-england/ 26. ↵ Performance Tracker 2018 web.pdf [Internet] . [cited 2024 Dec 11]. Available from: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Performance%20Trac ker%202018%20web.pdf 27. ↵ Damage-environmental-health.pdf [Internet] . [cited 2021 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2019/04/Damage-environmental-health.pdf 28. ↵ Zablotsky Kufel JS , Resnick BA , Fox MA , McGready J , Yager JP , Burke TA . The Impact of Local Environmental Health Capacity on Foodborne Illness Morbidity in Maryland . Am J Public Health . 2011 Aug ; 101 ( 8 ): 1495 – 500 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 29. ↵ Levy N , Cravo Oliveira Hashiguchi T , Cecchini M. Food safety policies and their effectiveness to prevent foodborne diseases in catering establishments: A systematic review and meta-analysis . Food Res Int . 2022 Jun 1; 156 : 111076 . OpenUrl PubMed 30. ↵ Mari N , Saija K , Janne L. Significance of official food control in food safety: Food business operators’ perceptions . Food Control . 2013 May 1; 31 ( 1 ): 59 – 64 . OpenUrl 31. ↵ Marsh S , García CA . People in England facing food poisoning ‘Russian roulette’ as illnesses soar . The Guardian [Internet] . 2024 Mar 6 [cited 2025 Jan 16]; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/06/people-in-england-facing-food-poisoning-russian-roulette-as-illnesses-soar 32. ↵ GOV.UK [Internet] . [cited 2025 Jan 16]. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) data: 2021 . Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/escherichia-coli-e-coli-o157-annual-totals/shiga-toxin-producing-escherichia-coli-stec-data-2021 33. ↵ Suzanne R. Increasing community vulnerability to gastrointestinal infections in austerity’s shadow: A comparative study of two English local authorities . PREPRINT . 2025 . 34. ↵ Bekemeier B , Yip MPY , Dunbar MD , Whitman G , Kwan-Gett T. Local Health Department Food Safety and Sanitation Expenditures and Reductions in Enteric Disease, 2000–2010 . Am J Public Health . 2015 Apr ; 105 ( S2 ): S345 – 52 . OpenUrl PubMed View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted April 04, 2025. Download PDF Supplementary Material Data/Code Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Understanding the impacts of reductions in local government expenditure on food safety services, England 2009/10 - 2019/20 Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Understanding the impacts of reductions in local government expenditure on food safety services, England 2009/10 - 2019/20 Lauren Murrell , Helen. E Clough , Roger Gibb , Xingna Zhang , Marie Chattaway , Mark. A Green , Iain Buchan , Benjamin Barr , Daniel Hungerford medRxiv 2025.04.04.25325088; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.04.25325088 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Understanding the impacts of reductions in local government expenditure on food safety services, England 2009/10 - 2019/20 Lauren Murrell , Helen. E Clough , Roger Gibb , Xingna Zhang , Marie Chattaway , Mark. A Green , Iain Buchan , Benjamin Barr , Daniel Hungerford medRxiv 2025.04.04.25325088; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.04.25325088 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Epidemiology Subject Areas All Articles Addiction Medicine (568) Allergy and Immunology (863) Anesthesia (300) Cardiovascular Medicine (4435) Dentistry and Oral Medicine (444) Dermatology (382) Emergency Medicine (608) Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1509) Epidemiology (15227) Forensic Medicine (30) Gastroenterology (1124) Genetic and Genomic Medicine (6597) Geriatric Medicine (668) Health Economics (997) Health Informatics (4534) Health Policy (1368) Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1613) Hematology (540) HIV/AIDS (1264) Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (15916) Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (1103) Medical Education (623) Medical Ethics (146) Nephrology (667) Neurology (6599) Nursing (346) Nutrition (998) Obstetrics and Gynecology (1144) Occupational and Environmental Health (957) Oncology (3332) Ophthalmology (974) Orthopedics (369) Otolaryngology (420) Pain Medicine (436) Palliative Medicine (130) Pathology (663) Pediatrics (1693) Pharmacology and Therapeutics (691) Primary Care Research (711) Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (5447) Public and Global Health (9230) Radiology and Imaging (2198) Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1370) Respiratory Medicine (1196) Rheumatology (593) Sexual and Reproductive Health (712) Sports Medicine (530) Surgery (712) Toxicology (99) Transplantation (289) Urology (265) (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'a0025672a9e8f047',t:'MTc3OTUyMTI0Mg=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();