Bakery hygiene inspection in France: is yours clean?
If a bakery has no hygiene rating online, two clues remain: what its customers write and what you see in the store. Here are the words to look for, the signs to check, and what nearly 130,000 Google reviews read by the Observatory tell us.
Your bakery probably has no hygiene rating online: about 5 in 6 don't (Scalon Observatory, October 2026). Search its Google reviews for "sale" (dirty), "moisi" (moldy) or "mouche" (fly), then look at the floor, the counter and the display case. A review is a clue, not proof.
Get the list of bakeries in France, with the contact details available.
Get the full listPublished on October 14, 2026 by the Scalon Observatory, created by a company that provides data on local businesses · Ratings from September 25, 2026, reviews read on October 9, 2026
In this article
- Does your bakery have a hygiene rating, and how do you read it?
- How can you spot questionable hygiene at a bakery yourself?
- What do nearly 130,000 customer reviews say?
- Are Google reviews enough to judge hygiene?
- How do you report a problem, and what do inspections show after a report?
- Going further: number of reviews, regions, chains
- Frequently asked questions
Does your bakery have a hygiene rating, and how do you read it?#
Probably not: about 5 bakeries in 6 have no rating online. We counted the bakeries rated on Alim'Confiance (the French government's public food-safety inspection results), the official site. Then we compared that count with Insee's bakery count (Insee is France's national statistics office).
It has a rating online: read its date, then its level (below).
It has no rating: follow the guide to read its reviews and look at the store.
You got sick after a purchase: see a doctor, keep the receipt and what is left of the product, then report it to the DDPP (the local state food-safety and consumer protection office).
Why so few? A rating stays online for only one year: a bakery that was not inspected within the year does not appear. That is neither a good nor a bad sign. It only means that no recent inspection is published.
To look up yours, go to alimconfiance.agriculture.gouv.fr or its app, and type the bakery's name or its town. The page gives the inspection date and one of four levels, defined by the administration. Read the date before the level:
| Published level | What the level means |
|---|---|
| Très satisfaisant (very satisfactory) | compliant, or minor deviations |
| Satisfaisant (satisfactory) | points to fix, no penalty |
| À améliorer (needs improvement) | written order to fix issues within a set deadline, then a new visit to check that the fixes were made (the verification visit) |
| À corriger de manière urgente (to be corrected urgently) | possible danger to the customer's health |
Among the bakeries whose rating was displayed on September 25, 2026, about 9 in 100 are rated poorly at the hygiene inspection: "needs improvement" or "to be corrected urgently." Over a year, the share is higher: about 30 inspected bakeries in 100 were rated poorly at least once, because the good rating from a verification visit replaces the poor one (see our study on poorly rated businesses). "Needs improvement" does not mean you should run: the administration asked for fixes. In the ratings published over the year, no bakery rated "needs improvement" was shut down by administrative decision. "To be corrected urgently" is of a different nature: the store is almost always closed by decision of the administration.
After a verification visit, the rating that stays online is good 98 times in 100.
With no rating, what is left is customers' reviews and what you see in the store: follow the guide below.
How can you spot questionable hygiene at a bakery yourself?#
You can check your bakery's reviews using part of the approach we used (details in the next section). All you need is a phone or a computer.
1. Find the reviews. Type the bakery's name and your town into Google. On the listing that appears, tap the stars or the number of reviews, under the bakery's name.
2. Search the reviews for a word. At the top of the list of reviews there is often a magnifying glass or a search field. Type one word at a time: "hygiène" (hygiene), "moisi" (moldy), "gants" (gloves), "cheveu" (hair), "mouche" (fly), "sale" (dirty), "malade" (sick). No magnifying glass? Scroll through the reviews and spot these words as you read. The first six are among the words that come up most in the hygiene problems we found; "malade" comes up with customers who say they got sick. "Hygiène" also brings up compliments: read the sentence.
3. Read the one- and two-star reviews first. If a sort option is offered, choose the lowest ratings. That way you read the unhappy customers, and what they really complain about.
4. Take the number of reviews into account. The more reviews a bakery has, the more likely it is to have one that describes a hygiene problem, even if it is rated well at inspection. The figures are in the "Going further" section, expandable section, under "Does the number of reviews change the comparison?".
5. Look for several reviews that say the same thing. A single review may come from a bad day. Several recent reviews that describe a dirty store, or a customer who got sick, count for more.
6. In the store, look at the floor, the counter and the display case: in the reviews we read, a dirty store is the only problem seen on the spot that comes up clearly more often at bakeries rated poorly at inspection (figures in the next section). Also watch how the bread is served after the clerk has touched the money: with tongs or clean gloves? If a food-handling practice concerns you, describe it to the DDPP (see the reporting section below), with the date, time and address.
7. Did you get sick after a purchase? See a doctor. Keep the receipt and what is left of the product, then read the section on reporting to alert the DDPP.
Only one or two bakeries near you? The same steps work. If several recent reviews describe the same problem, and you see it in the store too, you can report it to the DDPP. Keep in mind that a review is a clue, not proof: the section on what reviews are worth, further down, says how far they go.
No Google listing, or almost no reviews? Then look at the store: the floor, the counter, the display case. If you see a problem yourself, report it to the DDPP (see the section on reporting, further down).
What do nearly 130,000 customer reviews say?#
We read the reviews of 5,281 inspected bakeries, chosen because their official rating lets us check whether the reviews match what the inspector saw. What customers describe can still serve as a guide when assessing any bakery.
Among the bakeries whose reviews we read, nearly 1 in 3 has at least one customer who describes a hygiene problem seen on the spot. We only counted what the customer says they saw: an insect, a hair, a dirty hand. Stale bread, prices and unfriendly service do not count.
Insects come first: wasps on pastries in summer, flies in the display case, and sometimes mealworms in a breakfast pastry. Next come unsafe food-handling practices: a clerk serving cakes with bare hands right after handing back change. Then hair and bits of plastic in a product, and moldy products.
Only one of these problems is twice as frequent among bakeries rated poorly at the hygiene inspection, even if it remains rare: the dirty store. Of 100 bakeries rated poorly at inspection, 6 have a review describing a dirty floor, counter or display case as the recorded problem. Of 100 rated well at inspection, 3. We keep a single problem per bakery: these figures are minimums. For insects, food-handling practices, hair or moldy products, the difference is not reliable enough to draw a conclusion.
Selling to bakeries in France? Get the list for your area and your target, ready to call.
Get the full listAre Google reviews enough to judge hygiene?#
Not on their own: reviews flag problems seen by customers, they do not replace an inspection. Of 100 bakeries rated poorly at the hygiene inspection whose reviews we read, 66 had no review describing a hygiene problem in the 15 months before the inspection.
Conversely, a review that describes a problem does not mean the official rating is poor. Take 100 bakeries in our study that have a review describing a problem: 87 are nevertheless rated well at inspection. A review describes one visit on a particular day, in the customer-facing area of the bakery. The more reviews a bakery has, the more likely it is to have one that describes a hygiene problem, even if it is rated well at inspection. The inspection also covers what the customer does not see, such as the area where the bread is made and the refrigerators.
The rule to remember: a single review proves nothing, and neither does the absence of reviews. Several reviews that describe the same thing, and what you see yourself in the store, are real clues: that is what the guide is for. When an official rating is available, it remains the main reference point.
How do you report a problem, and what do inspections show after a report?#
Contact the departmental directorate for the protection of populations (DDPP) of your département (French county-level area): search "DDPP" and the name of the département to find how to reach it. Describe what you saw, with the date, the time and the store's address. If you got sick, see a doctor, keep the receipt and what is left of the product, and give the date of purchase.
Some customers also say they got sick after a purchase; these reviews are a little more frequent when the official rating is poor (figures in "Going further"). Such a review does not prove that a product is to blame, but it deserves to be read in full.
Here, a report is a complaint made to state services, for example by a customer; it is not a Google review. Of 116 ratings still online that follow a complaint, 29 are poor: nearly 3 times the average rate for inspections conducted in the same months. If the follow-up inspection finds a health risk, the authorities can close the shop: see where to find the list of closure orders.
Need the list of bakeries in France? We send it with the contact details available, for the scope you choose.
Get the full listGoing further: number of reviews, regions, chains#
These results mainly interest professionals and journalists. The gaps in them are smaller, or concern few bakeries. They are grouped here to keep the main article easy to read. Bakeries are a little more often rated poorly at inspection than restaurants: about 9 in 100 against about 6 in 100 over the same period (see our study on restaurant hygiene inspections). Our other studies are on the Observatory page.
See the number of reviews, the regions and the chains
Does the number of reviews change the comparison?#
Yes. Of 100 bakeries rated poorly at inspection, 34 have a review that describes a hygiene problem. Of 100 rated well at inspection, 29. But those rated poorly at inspection have fewer reviews: half have at most 13, against 16 for those rated well at inspection. Yet the more reviews a bakery has, the more likely it is to have one that describes a hygiene problem. When comparing bakeries that have the same number of reviews, the gap widens: out of 100 rated poorly at inspection, about 8 more than out of 100 rated well have such a review.
Before the inspection, 71 bakeries in 100 rated well had no review that describes a hygiene problem, against 66 in 100 for those rated poorly: without taking the number of reviews into account, the gap is not reliable enough to conclude. The number of reviews matters: of 100 bakeries rated well at inspection that received 1 to 9 reviews in 15 months, 10 have at least one review that describes a hygiene problem; of 100 that received 30 or more, 52.
The other way around: of 100 bakeries with at least one review that describes a hygiene problem, 13 are rated poorly at inspection; of 100 without such a review, 11. These figures exclude verification visits, which almost always receive good ratings: that is why they are slightly above the 9 in 100 for all rated bakeries.
Do customers say they got sick after a purchase?#
Among the bakeries whose reviews we read, of 100 rated poorly at inspection, 8 have a review where a customer says they got sick. Of 100 rated well at inspection, 5.
The figures behind the chart#
Of the 5,281 bakeries whose reviews we read, about 1,700 have at least one customer who describes a hygiene problem.
| What the customer describes | Per 100 bakeries where a customer describes a hygiene problem (rounded) |
|---|---|
| Insect or pest (wasp, fly, cockroach…) | 28 |
| Unsafe food handling (bare hands, same gloves for money and bread) | 27 |
| Hair or foreign object in a product | 17 |
| Moldy or expired product | 13 |
| Dirty store (floor, counter, display case, restrooms) | 10 |
| Poor hygiene reported without details | 6 |
For reviews that praise cleanliness, the difference is not reliable enough to conclude either: of 100 rated poorly at inspection, 19 have one; of 100 rated well at inspection, 22.
Are all regions rated the same way?#
Among the regions with at least 200 rated bakeries, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté has the highest share rated poorly at inspection: 17 in 100. Summer inspections, recent at the time of our data pull, keep more poor ratings online, because an older poor rating has often already been replaced by the verification visit (see the Method, "What a rating counts"). Yet 37 inspections in 100 in the region took place from June to August, against 29 in France. Taking the months of its inspections into account, we would expect about 10 rated poorly in 100; it has 17. In Occitanie, we expected about 9 in 100: we find only 6.
| Region | Rated poorly per 100 | Expected per 100, given the months of the inspections |
|---|---|---|
| Bourgogne-Franche-Comté | 17 | 10 |
| Normandie | 14 | 9 |
| Hauts-de-France | 13 | 9 |
| Centre-Val de Loire | 12 | 9 |
| Bretagne | 11 | 10 |
| Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur | 10 | 9 |
| Île-de-France | 8 | 9 |
| Grand Est | 7 | 8 |
| Pays de la Loire | 7 | 9 |
| Nouvelle-Aquitaine | 7 | 9 |
| Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes | 7 | 9 |
| Occitanie | 6 | 9 |
These gaps do not say that the bakeries of one region are dirtier. Inspections are done by state services and by private bodies: since 2024, the ministry has planned to hand three quarters of inspections to private bodies (75,000 out of 100,000 a year, according to the Direction générale de l'alimentation). Their way of working can vary. We do not know whether the gap comes from the bakeries or from the way of inspecting.
Are the big chains rated better?#
Among the chains we searched for (Marie Blachère, Ange, Louise, Paul), three have at least 30 inspected bakeries: Marie Blachère, Ange and Louise.
| Chain | Inspected bakeries | Rated poorly |
|---|---|---|
| Marie Blachère | 157 | 5 |
| Ange | 63 | 1 |
| Louise | 37 | 1 |
| The three chains | 257 | 7 |
Of 100 bakeries of these chains, 3 are rated poorly at inspection. Of 100 other bakeries, 9. The difference is clear, but it is based on 7 poor ratings. Paul has fewer than 30 bakeries in the file: we do not rank it.
What the other sources say#
| Source | What it publishes | What changes with our study |
|---|---|---|
| The consumer association CLCV, picked up by Les Nouvelles de la Boulangerie (03/05/2020) | 18.3% "needs improvement" and 0.4% "urgent" for 1,141 bakery-pastry shops inspected from December 2018 to December 2019 | our figures keep only the latest rating of each bakery, often the one from the verification visit; without those visits, 12 in 100 are rated poorly |
| Alim'Confiance, national dashboard (accessed 10/08/2026) | 71,549 inspections, 93.71% compliant, all food businesses | our figures match those of the official site: 72,102 ratings, of which 93.8% compliant |
| An American university study (2013) on Seattle restaurants | software that reads reviews tells the worst restaurants from those with no violations more than 8 times in 10; with the star rating alone, barely better than a coin flip (nearly 6 times in 10) | American restaurants, and software that tries to guess the rating; we simply count what customers of French bakeries say |
The articles we found at the top of searches on this subject (survey of October 8, 2026) describe the regulations and how to prepare for the inspection. They are aimed at bakers. None of the four we read gives the share of bakeries rated poorly at inspection.
Frequently asked questions#
Does a bakery have to display its rating in the window?#
No. Display is optional: the absence of a sign says nothing. The rating can be looked up on the Alim'Confiance site or app.
Who inspects bakeries?#
Since 2024, the Ministry of Agriculture has been solely responsible. Visits are done by the departmental directorates for the protection of populations or by private bodies appointed by the state, as for restaurants.
How often is a bakery inspected?#
We did not find an official frequency specific to bakeries. For a rough sense of scale, about 1 bakery in 6 has a rating online, and a rating remains online for one year. Since 2024, the French government has planned 100,000 inspections a year at businesses that sell food directly to customers, including restaurants. To set these inspections against the number of bakeries in business, see our study on the number of bakeries in France.
Can you read the inspector's report?#
No. The site publishes the bakery's name, its address, the date of the last inspection and the hygiene level. The inspector's detailed findings are not published, and the bakery has 15 days to respond before the rating goes online.
Method#
The ratings come from the official Alim'Confiance file (Direction générale de l'alimentation, Ministry of Agriculture), extracted on September 25, 2026. The number of bakeries in France comes from Insee (Base permanente des équipements 2025, the permanent facilities database). The Google reviews were read on October 9, 2026, and some were checked a second time; the details are in the section below.
Details of the method and of the re-reads
- Data: 8,337 ratings of bakery-pastry shops, for inspections done from September 26, 2025 to September 24, 2026; Google reviews of 5,281 rated bakeries, left in the 15 months before their latest inspection, with the exact sentence of each customer who describes a hygiene problem.
- Tools: the reviews were read by an AI model, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Anthropic), which copies the exact sentence for verification against the text; a second AI model, Claude Opus 5.5, reread some reviews without access to the official rating, and a third reading resolved disagreements.
- Share of bakeries that have a rating: 8,324 bakeries (one SIRET number, the French ID of a business location, each) have a rating in the file, compared with the 50,122 "boulangeries-pâtisseries" (bakery-pastry shops) of Insee's Base permanente des équipements (BPE 2025, all of France, as of January 1, 2025), that is 16.6%: about 1 in 6. The BPE counts outlets that sell bakery products, whether artisanal or not, with or without pastries; the Alim'Confiance file classifies businesses by its own "Boulangerie-Pâtisserie" activity. The two sources may not cover exactly the same businesses, so this share is a rough estimate. With another count, that of the Gira firm (41,569 bakeries in 2024, excluding bake-off outlets (stores that only bake premade dough), cited by the Observatoire de la franchise), the share with no rating would be about 4 in 5; we keep Insee, the official source. A rating stays online for one year: the share approaches that of bakeries inspected within the year.
- Words in the guide: among the 1,669 bakeries where our first reading finds a hygiene problem, number of bakeries for which the extracted sentence contains each word: "mains" (hands) 245; "hygiène" (hygiene) 242; "moisi" (moldy) 154; "gants" (gloves) 154; "cheveu" (hair) 147; "mouche" (fly) 120; "sale" (dirty) 110; "pince" (tongs) 85; "guêpe" (wasp) 74; "cafard" (cockroach) 60. "Malade" (sick) appears in 142 of the 351 sentences where a customer says they got sick. The guide keeps six, plus "malade"; "mains" is left aside, too vague for a search.
- What a rating counts: Alim'Confiance publishes the latest result of each business, for one year. A verification visit (re-inspection) replaces the previous result: this is the case for 2,469 of the 8,324 bakeries (one SIRET number each), of which 40 rated poorly. The site keeps only the latest rating: a poor rating is often replaced by that of the verification visit, hence more poor ratings among recent inspections (5 in 100 for winter, 30 for July and August), which the "same months" comparisons correct. These compare each set of bakeries with the rate of poor ratings of the month of its inspection (expected rate, indirect standardization). The 8,337 ratings concern an activity that contains "Boulangerie-Pâtisserie"; the figures shared with the restaurant study are checked by the calculation script.
- Reviews: 5,490 bakeries matched to a Google listing; 5,291 have at least one review in the 457 days before their latest inspection (153,640 reviews collected, of which 152,351 for the 5,281 bakeries measured). Reviews were read from newest to oldest, with the text truncated at 20,000 characters per bakery: only recent reviews were read for 237 bakeries with large numbers of reviews (129,968 reviews read, of which 129,225 for the 5,281 bakeries measured; 23,672 not sent). One reading refused by the Haiku model and 9 listings that are not bakeries (hotel, bar, restaurant) are set aside: 5,281 bakeries measured.
- Comparison: rated poorly (426) and rated well (3,280), verification visits excluded on both sides; this is also the basis of the figures "66 in 100," "71 in 100" (complement of the corrected counts) and "87 in 100" (143 rated poorly out of 1,086 bakeries with a review that describes a hygiene problem). The complaints comparison also leaves out verification visits (re-inspections); the chart of problems described covers all bakeries measured (1,669 where our first reading finds a problem, each counted once, under the type of problem found). A bakery's group depends on its official rating, never on its reviews. Review-count bands: 1 to 9, 10 to 29, 30 to 79, 80 and more; the last two are merged (fewer than 30 rated poorly in the last). Corrected counts by band: 1 to 9 reviews: 27 of 151 rated poorly, 95 of 985 rated well; 10 to 29 reviews: 65 of 190 rated poorly, 358 of 1,353 rated well; 30 reviews and more: 51 of 85 rated poorly, 490 of 942 rated well. The shares of those rated poorly by band are not published (too few bakeries per band); the guide cites only those of the bakeries rated well. The difference after adjusting for review count is the average of the differences across bands, weighted by the number of bakeries.
- Blind re-reads: 60 findings drawn at random among those rated poorly and 60 among those rated well, the 29 bakeries rated poorly with no finding whose review contains a hygiene keyword (all of them) and 30 of the 331 rated well in this case (seed 20261013): 179 mixed cases, without the official rating, without an identifier and without the answer of the first reading. First reviewer in agreement with Haiku in 158 cases (88.3%). The 21 changed cases were re-read by a second reviewer, also blind (seed 20261014): 19 confirmed (90.5%), the others decided by two opinions out of three. Final result: false positives 5 of 60 among those rated poorly and 2 of 60 among those rated well; false negatives found 8 of 29 and 4 of 30 (that is 44.1 of 331 once scaled to all); false-negative rates 5.6% and 4.7%. In our re-reads, those rated poorly have more errors in both directions (5 against 2 false positives out of 60; 8 missed out of 29 against 4 out of 30), a gap the re-read does not suffice to establish. Corrected counts (estimate): 144 of 426 (143 when adding up the bands, rounded) and 943 of 3,280; 1,680 of 5,281 in all (31.8%), applying to verification visits the error rates of those rated well (assumption). Bakeries with no finding and no keyword (249 and 2,019) are not re-read.
- Gaps: with the uncertainty of the re-reads (seed 20261015), gap at an equal number of reviews 7.9 points (from 1.9 to 13.7); raw gap 5.1 points (from −1.0 to 10.6), which the measurement cannot tell from zero. Figures of the first reading alone: 148 of 426 (34.7%) and 930 of 3,280 (28.4%); 1,669 of 5,281; raw gap 6.4 points (1.7 to 11.3); at an equal number of reviews 9.5 points (4.8 to 14.2); at an equal number of reviews and inspection month 8.8 points (3.8 to 13.8, 44 strata).
- Types, sickness, cleanliness: figures of the first reading alone. Dirty premises, at an equal number of reviews: 4.0 points (1.4 to 6.6); insects: 3.1 (0.0 to 6.3), not distinguished. Sickness: 4.3 points (1.2 to 7.3); cleanliness praised: −0.7 (−4.8 to 3.5), not distinguished. A single type per bakery, that of the problem kept; a bakery may have other reviews of another type. Twelve sickness reviews and twelve cleanliness praises drawn at random, re-read without knowing the rating: all correct.
- Verification visits: among the 1,575 bakeries measured (out of 5,281) whose latest rating comes from a verification visit, our first reading identifies a hygiene problem in 37.5% of cases, 10.0 points more than those rated well at an equal number of reviews (7.3 to 12.7): figure not re-read, not used in the text.
- Complaints: the reference is the rate of poor ratings of inspections in the same month, verification visits excluded (10.4 expected out of 116). Targeted inspections: 27 of 115; routine inspections: 659 of 5,618.
- Chains and regions: brand or name of the business, chains of at least 30 bakeries. Regions of at least 200 bakeries (237 bakeries outside the table); dispersion around the expected rate: chi-square 62.1 for 11 degrees of freedom. Counts: Bourgogne-Franche-Comté 58 of 337; Normandie 44 of 317; Hauts-de-France 77 of 574; Centre-Val de Loire 37 of 313; Bretagne 45 of 400; Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 84 of 856; Île-de-France 100 of 1,245; Grand Est 47 of 679; Pays de la Loire 32 of 452; Nouvelle-Aquitaine 53 of 752; Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 84 of 1,254; Occitanie 55 of 908.
- Limits: A hygiene problem counted here is what a customer writes: it was not checked on the spot. 3,043 bakeries are not measured: 3,033 have no Google listing or no reviews in the period, and 10 were set aside (listing that is not a bakery, or reading impossible). After a complaint, we only see the bakery's latest rating: a poor rating already replaced by a good one is not counted.
- Not published: no name of an independent bakery or of a review author; the example reviews are reworded. The content of inspection reports is not public.
Cite this study#
See the citation
Scalon Observatory, "Bakery hygiene inspection in France: is yours clean?" October 14, 2026: about 1 bakery in 6 has a hygiene rating online (Alim'Confiance, Direction générale de l'alimentation; Insee, BPE 2025); in nearly 130,000 Google reviews read for 5,281 bakeries, nearly 1 in 3 has a customer who describes a hygiene problem seen on the spot; a dirty store is the problem found for 6 bakeries rated poorly at inspection in 100, against 3 in 100 rated well. https://scalon.fr/en/blog/bakery-hygiene-inspection-france
Sources#
The official texts, studies and data used.
See the sources
- Direction générale de l'alimentation (DGAL, Ministry of Agriculture), Alim'Confiance data, extracted 09/25/2026: https://www.data.gouv.fr/datasets/resultats-des-controles-officiels-sanitaires-dispositif-dinformation-alimconfiance-1
- Service-public.fr, sheet "Hygiène des établissements : niveaux affichés" (F34201), re-read 10/08/2026: https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F34201
- Code rural (French rural code), article that sets what Alim'Confiance publishes (D231-3-9): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006071367/LEGISCTA000033627225/
- Alim'Confiance, FAQ: https://alimconfiance.agriculture.gouv.fr/faq
- Ministère de l'Agriculture, police sanitaire unique (unified food safety inspection system), 06/04/2025: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/reforme-de-la-securite-sanitaire-des-aliments-la-police-sanitaire-unique-de-lalimentation
- DGAL, "La Direction générale de l'alimentation en action", 05/13/2024: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/telecharger/143277
- Alim'Confiance, dashboard, accessed 10/08/2026: https://alimconfiance.agriculture.gouv.fr/dashboard
- Les Nouvelles de la Boulangerie, citing the CLCV, 03/05/2020: https://lesnouvellesdelaboulangerie.fr/actualites/hygiene-resultats-des-controles-sanitaires-alimconfiance-la-vigilance-reste-de-mise/
- American university study on online reviews and restaurant hygiene inspections (Kang et al., EMNLP computer science conference, October 2013): https://aclanthology.org/D13-1150.pdf
- CGAAER, report no. 24030 on unified food safety inspections of businesses selling directly to consumers, posted 12/13/2024: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/telecharger/146346
- Insee, Base permanente des équipements 2025, number of stores in 2025 (bakery-pastry shops, all of France), posted 07/16/2026: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/9022155?geo=FE-1
- Bernard Boutboul (Gira), cited by the Observatoire de la franchise, 2024, read 10/09/2026: https://www.observatoiredelafranchise.fr/dossier-franchise/les-meilleures-franchises-de-boulangerie-et-patisserie-qui-recrutent-en-2020-1911.htm
- Google reviews read 10/09/2026; Scalon calculations.
Do you sell to bakeries?
Cleaning, refrigeration, traceability, training: Scalon links each rated bakery to its company, its reviews and its public contact details.