Restaurant hygiene inspection in France: how does it work?
If you own a restaurant, see how an inspection works, what the inspector looks at and what happens after you receive the rating. If you are a customer, check a restaurant in 5 minutes and see what the hygiene rating and the reviews are worth.
The inspector arrives unannounced, during opening hours: the inspector looks at the premises, pests and food storage, then reads the documents. The rating is published for a year on Alim'Confiance (the French government's public food-safety inspection results). If you are a customer, about 6 in 7 restaurants have no rating online (Scalon, October 2026); search their Google reviews for "sale" (dirty) or "cafard" (cockroach).
Get the list of restaurants 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
- Restaurant owners: how does a hygiene inspection work?
- Restaurant owner with a "To be improved" rating: what changes
- How do you check a restaurant in 5 minutes?
- What does a restaurant's rating mean?
- What do more than 74,000 customer reviews say?
- Going further: other businesses, regions, food trucks, other sources
- Frequently asked questions
1. See a doctor quickly. In the most serious cases, call the SAMU (France's emergency medical service) or a poison control center.
2. Report it on SignalConso, under "Intoxication alimentaire" (food poisoning). Your report is passed on to the restaurant and to the State's inspection services. You can also write to the departmental directorate for the protection of populations (DDPP), the office that carries out inspections. Give the name and address of the restaurant, and the date of the meal.
3. Several people sick after the same meal? This is a "toxi-infection alimentaire collective" (a food poisoning outbreak). The doctor must report it to the regional health agency (ARS), and you can also report it to the agency. The DDPP then inspects the restaurant to look for the cause.
4. A report can trigger an inspection. Among the ratings still online, 22 in 100 are bad after a food poisoning outbreak, against 7 in 100 after a routine inspection.
Restaurant owners: how does a hygiene inspection work?#
The inspector arrives unannounced, during your opening hours. The inspector walks through the kitchen and the storerooms, then reads your documents. You then receive a letter with your rating, published for a year on Alim'Confiance. Most often, the rating is "Satisfactory" (satisfaisant), with a written warning.
What does the inspector look at?#
The inspector starts with what is visible: the cleanliness of the premises and equipment, signs of pests, and staff practices. The inspector also looks at the allergen display and at how products are stored. Then the inspector reads your documents. The official pages we reviewed do not specify how long the visit should last.
We found no official ranking of the most frequent violations. The ministry lists what it requires businesses to address before reopening: cleaning and maintaining the premises and equipment, eliminating pests and signs of infestation, following good hygiene practices, and providing missing equipment, such as thermometers. In reviews, customers mostly describe dirty premises: take care of the dining room and the restrooms.
1. The health control plan (plan de maîtrise sanitaire). This is your file of hygiene rules: how you avoid problems and how you check that your rules are applied. It also includes records that let you trace products to their sources and suppliers.
2. Temperature logs: storerooms, refrigerators, cooking and cooling.
3. Product receiving sheets and your suppliers' contact details.
4. Cleaning, rodent control and disinfection records, dated and signed.
5. The hygiene training certificate. A single trained person is enough, with training of at least 14 hours. Anyone with at least 3 years of experience as a manager or operator in the food industry is exempt.
6. Records of problems found and corrective actions taken: what, when, how.
To start, gather these documents in one folder; for each problem corrected, note what happened, the date and the correction made. The official rules are on Entreprendre.Service-Public.fr and the mandatory training on the Ministry of Agriculture's site.
You received "To be improved": what changes#
This is a "mise en demeure" (formal notice): a written order to correct specific points, within a deadline set by the administration. You are not alone: 6 restaurant ratings in 100 displayed on September 25, 2026 are "To be improved" (à améliorer).
- Before it goes online, you can submit your comments: deadline in Appealing below.
- Online, the rating stays one year at most: it is replaced as soon as a new inspection is published.
- The inspector comes back to check your corrections. The ratings from these visits still online are almost all good, but that does not guarantee the result of yours: the site keeps only the latest result, and a bad rating replaced by a better one disappears.
- In your window, you are not required to display the rating.
What are the penalties?#
From the lightest to the heaviest: warning, formal notice, closure, and a fine if a "procès-verbal" (an official violation report) is drawn up. How often each follow-up occurs is in the ratings table, further down. Three more points:
- A closure lasts until the corrections requested are made and the place no longer poses a health risk. Who orders it, and what the official website shows: see administrative closure of a restaurant for hygiene violations.
- Premises that are hard to clean or poorly maintained equipment can lead to a procès-verbal and a fine of up to €1,500, or €7,500 for a company.
- Refusing or obstructing the inspection is punished by up to six months in prison and a fine of €15,000 for an individual, €75,000 for a company.
Appealing, and when does the inspector come back?#
- Before it goes online: you have 15 days after the letter to submit your comments.
- Against a formal notice or a closure: you can write to the authority that made the decision (the prefect, the national government's local representative, for a closure) to ask for a review: this is a "recours gracieux" (an informal appeal to the authority itself), within 2 months (3 in overseas territories). You can also go to the administrative court, within 2 months. In an emergency, you can ask the judge to put the decision on hold: this procedure is called a "référé-suspension".
- After a formal notice, the inspector comes back at the end of the deadline set in the letter. We found no published average deadline; ask the DDPP if the letter does not state it.
- After a closure, a reopening inspection goes through the whole place again, then a prefect's order ("arrêté") authorizes the reopening. In the example followed by the ministry, this inspection took place 3 weeks after the closure; this example does not let you predict the timing for your restaurant.
Who comes, when and why?#
An inspector from the departmental directorate for the protection of populations (DDPP), or from a private body appointed by the State. Since 2024, the French government has planned to assign these private bodies three quarters of the inspections scheduled each year at businesses that sell directly to customers. This is a target, not a measured result.
There is no published standard inspection frequency: the authorities select businesses based on risk.
Most inspections are scheduled by the administration. Others follow a complaint or a food poisoning outbreak. Still others target a specific restaurant, chosen by the State's services. The ratings still online after those inspections are much more often bad.
In one year, about 1 restaurant in 7 had an inspection published on Alim'Confiance. We count the ratings visible today. If a follow-up visit gives a better rating, it replaces the bad one. These figures therefore do not let you predict your result at a first inspection. Among the ratings from routine inspections still online, 7 in 100 are bad.
When a customer reports you on SignalConso, you are notified and can fix the problem before a possible inspection.
How do you check a restaurant in 5 minutes?#
Most restaurants have no hygiene rating online: about 6 in 7. We compared the restaurants rated on Alim'Confiance, the official site, with the number of restaurants counted by INSEE (France's national statistics office), fast-food places included. A rating stays online only a year and a restaurant is not inspected every year: no rating therefore says nothing, good or bad. When it exists, the rating covers what the customer does not see, such as the kitchen and product tracking; otherwise, customer reviews take over, without replacing the inspection. We studied the reviews of restaurants that had been inspected. Our figures concern those that had recent Google reviews. For a restaurant with no rating, you can search for the same words, but it is only a clue: we did not measure what its reviews say.
Your case:
- The restaurant has a rating: read the date and the level (step 1, and the ratings table further down); "To be corrected urgently" (à corriger de manière urgente) is rare and means a closure or the halt of an activity.
- No rating, but recent reviews: follow steps 2 to 5.
- No rating and no reviews: you have no clue, look on site (step 6); a lack of reviews is not a guarantee.
- Problem seen or got sick: step 7, or the box at the top of the page.
1. If the restaurant has a rating, read it. On alimconfiance.agriculture.gouv.fr, open "Trouver un établissement" (find a business) and search for the restaurant. Look at the date before the level, and prefer "Very satisfactory" (très satisfaisant). A recent bad rating means corrections were required and a follow-up visit will come. The rating from the follow-up visit will replace the old one.
2. Find the reviews. Type the restaurant's name and its town into Google. On the listing that appears, tap the number of reviews, under the name.
3. Search a few words. If there is a magnifying glass above the reviews, type one word at a time: "sale" (dirty), "cheveu" (hair), "mouche" (fly), "souris" (mouse), "rat", "toilettes" (restrooms), "cafard" (cockroach), "plastique" (plastic). These are the words that come up most in the hygiene problems we found. Among customers who say they got sick, the words that come up most are "intoxication" (food poisoning), "malade" (sick), "ventre" (stomach).
4. Take the number of reviews into account. The more reviews a restaurant has, the more likely it is to have one that describes a hygiene problem, even if it is well rated at inspection. Look at what that review says and its date; do not stop at its mere presence.
5. Look for several reviews that say the same thing. Read the one- and two-star reviews first. A single review can come from a bad day; several recent reviews describing the same problem count for more.
6. On site, look at the dining room, the dishes and the restrooms. This is the problem customers describe most (see the analysis of reviews below).
7. Did you see a real problem? Report it on SignalConso or to the DDPP of your département (French county-level area), with the name and address of the restaurant, the day and what you saw. Sick after the meal: follow the box at the top of the page.
Only one restaurant in your village? The same steps apply. A missing rating is not a flaw; reviews that repeat, and what you see yourself, are real clues.
Selling to restaurants in France? Get the list for your area and your target, ready to call.
Get the full listWhat does a restaurant's rating mean?#
When it exists, about 6 restaurant ratings in 100 are bad: "To be improved" or "To be corrected urgently". We went back over, one by one, the 33,167 ratings still online on Alim'Confiance on September 25, 2026, for inspections carried out from September 26, 2025 to September 24, 2026. Over a year, the share is higher: about 21 inspected restaurants in 100 were rated badly at least once, because the good rating from a follow-up visit replaces the bad one (see our study of poorly rated businesses).
| Published rating | What it means, according to the administration | In restaurant ratings |
|---|---|---|
| Very satisfactory (très satisfaisant) | in compliance, or minor deviations | 18 ratings in 100 |
| Satisfactory (satisfaisant) | points to correct: a written warning, no penalty | 76 ratings in 100 |
| To be improved (à améliorer) | order to comply within a deadline, then a new inspection | 6 ratings in 100; every time, this written order (mise en demeure) |
| To be corrected urgently (à corriger de manière urgente) | possible danger to the customer's health | fewer than 1 rating in 100; every time, a closure or the halt of an activity |
"Satisfactory" does not mean a perfect score. The administration gave a written warning, a letter that reminds the operator of the rules and lists what must change. For "Satisfactory" ratings, the published file shows a warning in 9 cases in 10; for almost all the others, the information is missing. Only "Very satisfactory" means the inspector found almost nothing to criticize.
"To be improved" does not mean "avoid." The administration required corrections within a deadline, and it comes back to check. "To be corrected urgently" is of a different nature, and rare: 156 ratings still online over a year. This is a minimum: when the restaurant reopens, the new rating replaces the old one. Each of these ratings was followed by a closure, in whole or in part, or by the halt of an activity. For comparison: in 2024, the administration (DGAL, the French food safety directorate) ordered 1,750 closures. This figure covers all food businesses: restaurants, cafeterias, stores, slaughterhouses and warehouses.
Fast food or traditional restaurant: no clear difference. Out of 100 fast-food ratings, 6 are bad. Out of 100 traditional restaurant ratings, 7: the difference is too small to draw a conclusion.
What do more than 74,000 customer reviews say?#
A review that describes a hygiene problem is common, even among restaurants well rated at inspection. Among inspected restaurants that have recent Google reviews, about 1 in 3 has at least one in which a customer describes a hygiene problem seen on site.
Reviews therefore do not replace the inspection. These reviews are a little more frequent among restaurants rated badly at inspection: 40 in 100, against 31 in 100 among those rated well. This holds even among restaurants with about the same number of reviews. Most poorly rated restaurants have no review mentioning a hygiene problem: a review is a clue, not proof.
We read more than 74,000 reviews, left in the 15 months before the last inspection of 1,371 randomly drawn restaurants. We counted only what the customer says they saw or found: a dirty dining room or restroom, an insect, a hair on the plate. A cold dish, the wait or the price do not count. This chart covers only the restaurants where a customer describes a hygiene problem, among those whose reviews we read. A restaurant can have reviews that mention several problems: in this chart, we keep only one per restaurant.
Dirty premises top the list: tables, dishes, restrooms, and sticky floors. Next come insects and pests (flies, cockroaches, mice), then hairs and pieces of plastic in a dish.
Of these problems, dirty premises are the only one reported slightly more often at restaurants with poor hygiene inspection ratings. Among the badly rated, 14 in 100 have a review that describes a dirty dining room, dishes or restrooms. Among the well rated, it is 10 in 100. For insects, hairs or expired products, the difference is too small to draw a conclusion.
Customers also say they got sick. Among inspected restaurants that have recent reviews, about 1 in 6 has one in which a customer says they got sick after the meal. These reviews are a little more frequent among the badly rated, but the difference is small. Such a review does not prove the meal is to blame; it deserves to be read in full.
Need the list of restaurants in France? We send it with the contact details available, for the scope you choose.
Get the full listGoing further: other businesses, regions, food trucks, other sources#
See the other businesses, the regions, the food trucks and the other sources
Are restaurants rated badly more often than other businesses?#
A little less than food shops, a little more than supermarkets.
| Business | Ratings | Bad ratings in 100 |
|---|---|---|
| Bakeries and pastry shops | 8,337 | 9.1 |
| Butcher shops and delis | 2,967 | 8.6 |
| Restaurants | 33,167 | 6.5 |
| Institutional catering (cafeterias) | 7,025 | 6.0 |
| Supermarkets and grocery stores | 6,588 | 3.6 |
| All inspected businesses | 72,102 | 6.2 |
These differences alone do not tell us which type of business is cleanest: inspection frequency and methods vary. Bakeries, counted as in our study of bakeries, are a little more often rated badly; in their reviews, about 1 in 3 also has a customer who describes a hygiene problem.
And in my region?#
Bad ratings in 100, by region (at least 300 ratings still online). Bad ratings are much more numerous in some months than in others; the comparison figure says how many the region would have if, in each of the months when its restaurants were inspected, it had the average share of the whole country. A region above this figure has more bad ratings than expected.
| Region | Ratings | Bad ratings in 100 | Comparison figure (same inspection months as France) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normandy | 1,086 | 13 | 7 |
| Bourgogne-Franche-Comté | 842 | 9 | 7 |
| Hauts-de-France | 1,715 | 9 | 7 |
| Île-de-France | 6,574 | 7 | 6 |
| Corsica | 483 | 7 | 6 |
| Centre-Val de Loire | 815 | 7 | 6 |
| Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur | 4,375 | 6 | 7 |
| Pays de la Loire | 1,291 | 6 | 7 |
| Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes | 4,343 | 6 | 7 |
| Brittany | 1,139 | 5 | 6 |
| Grand Est | 2,330 | 5 | 6 |
| Occitanie | 4,202 | 5 | 7 |
| Nouvelle-Aquitaine | 2,805 | 5 | 7 |
For Corsica, Centre-Val de Loire, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Pays de la Loire and Brittany, the gap from the comparison figure is too small to draw a conclusion.
A figure above the comparison figure does not mean restaurants there are less clean: inspection frequency and methods can vary by département, and our study does not establish the reason for the difference. 1,167 ratings are outside this table (regions with fewer than 300 ratings, or region not given). This table does not let you choose a restaurant.
Food trucks, markets, seasonal restaurants#
Out of 100 food truck ratings, 4 are bad. Out of 100 ratings for restaurants operating at permanent locations, 7 are bad. Even taking into account the months when they were inspected, food trucks have a few fewer bad ratings. Our measurement does not say why.
Food trucks are inspected too: hygiene training is mandatory for them, and their declaration to the DDPP is used by the DDPP to schedule inspections.
Is a review praising cleanliness reassuring?#
Not really. Out of 100 restaurants rated badly at inspection, 41 have a review that praises cleanliness. Out of 100 rated well at inspection, 37. The difference is too small to draw a conclusion.
What the other sources say#
| Source | What it publishes | What our study changes |
|---|---|---|
| Cour des comptes, rapport public 2019 (2017 data) | 9% of restaurants inspected in the year by the Ministry of Agriculture, 4% by the consumer fraud agency; one inspection every fifteen years on average | situation before the 2024 reform; does not say what inspections find |
| CGAAER, rapport n° 24030 (12/13/2024) | 75,000 of the 100,000 inspections scheduled each year entrusted to appointed private bodies | a target, all businesses that sell directly to customers; no result by activity |
| INSEE, Base permanente des équipements 2025 | 231,989 restaurants in France on January 1, 2025, fast food and cafeterias included | our basis for saying how many restaurants have no rating: about 6 in 7 |
| Alim'Confiance, tableau de bord national (accessed 10/08/2026) | 71,549 inspections, 93.71% in compliance, all businesses | consistent: we count 72,102 ratings, of which 93.8% in compliance; the dashboard does not detail restaurants |
Frequently asked questions#
I got sick after a meal at a restaurant: what should I do?#
See a doctor, then report it on SignalConso or to the DDPP of your département, with the date of the meal. If several people got sick, the doctor must report it to the regional health agency. The details are in the box at the top of the page.
How often is a restaurant inspected?#
There is no fixed inspection frequency: the authorities select businesses based on risk. In one year, about 1 restaurant in 7 had an inspection published on Alim'Confiance. In 2017, it was on average every fifteen years according to the Cour des comptes (France's national audit court). From 2024, the ministry planned 100,000 inspections a year in businesses that sell directly to customers, against 55,000 before: a target, not a measured result. To set these inspections against the size of the market, see our study on the number of restaurants in France.
Is a hygiene inspection announced in advance?#
No. It is carried out without notice, during opening hours. Most are scheduled by the administration, but the date is not announced to the restaurant.
Must a restaurant display its hygiene rating?#
No. Display is optional: a window with no sticker says nothing. The rating can be looked up on the Alim'Confiance site.
Can you read the inspector's report?#
Not on Alim'Confiance: only the name, the address, the date of the last inspection and the level are published there.
Method#
The ratings come from the official Alim'Confiance file, published by the Direction générale de l'alimentation (Ministry of Agriculture) and extracted on September 25, 2026; the restaurant count comes from INSEE. We read more than 74,000 Google reviews of randomly selected inspected restaurants, and a second AI model rechecked some of the reviews. The details are in the section below.
Method details
- Ratings counted: we counted the 33,167 ratings classified "Restaurants", for inspections carried out from September 26, 2025 to September 24, 2026, with the follow-up given to each one and the reason for the inspection. The number of restaurants in France comes from INSEE (Base permanente des équipements 2025).
- What each rating represents: Alim'Confiance publishes the latest result of each business, for one year. A follow-up visit (re-inspection) replaces the previous rating. The 33,167 ratings cover 32,916 restaurants (each identified by a SIRET number, France's business location identifier): 174 restaurants have multiple rows for different activities or dates. The share of bad ratings is the same per rating and per restaurant (6.5%).
- Why "in the same months": since the site keeps only the latest rating, an old bad rating has often been replaced by the one from the follow-up visit. Among inspections other than follow-ups, the share of bad ratings goes from 2.8% for January 2026 to 20% for August 2026. This does not indicate a seasonal pattern. The comparisons (reason for the inspection, type, place) therefore relate each group to the bad-rating rate of the month of its inspection (expected rate, indirect standardization), follow-up visits excluded for the reasons for the inspection.
- Reasons for the inspection: routine inspections 1,705 bad ratings out of 24,333 (7%, 7.9% expected); complaint or report 132 out of 723 (18.3%, 6.5% expected, that is 47.4 cases); targeted inspections 168 out of 815 (20.6%); food poisoning outbreak 56 out of 255 (22%); follow-up visits 90 out of 7,041 (1.3%). After a complaint, only the latest rating is visible: a bad rating already replaced is not counted, which can cause the share to be underestimated, never inflated. Likewise, a follow-up visit rated badly and then redone is no longer visible: the share of good ratings after follow-up (99 in 100) may be slightly overestimated.
- Actions taken after inspections: out of 25,104 "Satisfactory", 22,971 warnings recorded (91.5%), 2,132 empty follow-up fields and 62 procès-verbaux (most often with the warning); out of 1,995 "To be improved", 1,995 formal notices; out of 156 "To be corrected urgently", 146 closures and 10 halts of activity; 5,911 "Very satisfactory" out of 5,912 with no follow-up. The definition of the levels is that of Service-public.fr (sheet F34201).
- Type and place: the file's "Destination" (restaurant type) and "Lieu" (location type) fields. Fast food 825 out of 13,090 (6.3%); traditional 1,028 out of 15,444 (6.7%); a difference of −0.4 percentage points (from −0.9 to 0.2), which the analysis cannot distinguish from zero. Food trucks 37 out of 853 (4.3%, 7.1% expected in the same months); permanent locations 2,023 out of 30,494 (6.6%); gap −2.3 points (from −3.5 to −0.7). Areas with at least 300 ratings.
- Share of restaurants with no rating: 32,916 rated restaurants (one SIRET number each), compared with the 231,989 "Restaurant- restauration rapide" businesses (type A504) in INSEE's Base permanente des équipements (mainland France and overseas territories, on January 1, 2025): 14.2% have a rating, about 6 in 7 do not. Both sources count traditional and fast-food restaurants, overseas territories included. Depending on the scope chosen (mainland France only, excluding hotel-restaurants or restaurants without a permanent location, with the restaurant count estimated for mid-2026), the share with a rating ranges from 12.6 to 14.7%: about 6 in 7 have no rating in every case.
- Google reviews: whose reviews we read: 1,017 restaurants drawn at random from the 2,052 rated badly at inspection other than follow-up visits, 1,017 from the 23,839 rated well other than follow-up visits, 400 from the 7,025 whose last rating comes from a follow-up visit (seed 20261020; inspection month and restaurant type within 3.1 points at most of the population in each group). 1,420 have a Google listing found by our matching; 1,371 (56.3% of those drawn) have at least one written review in the 457 days before their last rating. The other 1,063 are not measured: our figures on reviews hold for inspected restaurants that have recent reviews.
- Google reviews: how they were read: 143,112 reviews collected, from newest to oldest, truncated at 20,000 characters per restaurant (340 restaurants affected), that is 74,044 reviews read. Claude Haiku 5.5 picked out for each restaurant a hygiene problem described, a customer who got sick and cleanliness praised, with the exact sentence from the review; an answer is kept only if that sentence is found in the reviews read. We rechecked every sentence after bringing apostrophes and spaces to the same form: 56 correct answers, first discarded because an apostrophe was copied differently, were recovered (32 hygiene problems, 16 customers who got sick, 8 reviews praising cleanliness). Cost: $1.42 for 1,401 readings.
- Google reviews: calculation: the share "all inspected restaurants that have reviews" gives each group the weight of its population (33.9%, from 30.9 to 37.1%; 892 restaurants in effective sample size). Badly rated against well rated: 228 out of 575 against 179 out of 581; at a comparable number of reviews (bands of 1 to 9, 10 to 29, 30 to 79, 80 reviews and more), gap of 9 points (from 3.8 to 14.3). Customer got sick: 17.4%; 21 in 100 badly rated against 17 in 100 well rated, gap barely clear. Cleanliness praised: 38.6%. The problem types keep only one type per restaurant, unweighted (the badly rated at inspection are more numerous there than in reality, which slightly increases the share attributed to dirty premises, a problem more common in that group); their rounded figures add up to 99. Since only one type is kept per restaurant, a restaurant can have other problems than the one counted.
- Google reviews: recheck and limits: a second AI model conducted a blind reread of all reviews from 40 randomly selected restaurants (half with, half without an answer from Haiku): same decision for 39 out of 40 hygiene problems, 40 out of 40 customers who got sick, 37 out of 40 on whether cleanliness was praised, with no problem invented. A stricter recheck, on 40 problems picked out and 20 restaurants without an answer whose reviews contain a hygiene word, rules out 6 borderline cases (a cherry pit, a dirty hotel) and finds 5 omissions: corrected, the share would be 30.2%, still about 1 in 3, and the gap stays in the same direction (36 in 100 badly rated against 28). The remaining errors can therefore move the share by a few points, in both directions. The cut keeps the recent reviews of heavily reviewed restaurants, which may cause their share to be slightly underestimated; a review can be false or concern another day, and a Google match can point to another business (29 listings marked closed on Google). No restaurant name or review author is published.
- Other businesses: activity label from the file; bakeries counted as in our study of bakeries (any activity that contains "Boulangerie-Pâtisserie", 8,337 ratings). The figures shared with this study are checked by the calculation script.
- Not published: no restaurant name or ranking; totals only.
Cite this study#
Text to copy to cite the study
Scalon Observatory, "Restaurant hygiene inspection in France: how does it work?," October 14, 2026: about 6 in 7 restaurants in France have no hygiene rating online (Alim'Confiance; INSEE, BPE 2025); of the 33,167 restaurant ratings still online on Alim'Confiance on September 25, 2026 (Direction générale de l'alimentation), about 6 in 100 are "To be improved" or "To be corrected urgently"; a warning is recorded for 9 in 10 "Satisfactory"; among inspected restaurants that have recent Google reviews, about 1 in 3 has a customer who describes a hygiene problem (74,000 reviews read); among the ratings still online, 18 in 100 are bad after a complaint, against 7 in 100 after a routine inspection. https://scalon.fr/en/blog/restaurant-hygiene-inspection-france
Sources#
The official texts, reports and data used.
See the sources
- Direction générale de l'alimentation (DGAL, ministère de l'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), reread 10/08/2026: https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F34201
- Code rural, article setting what Alim'Confiance publishes (D231-3-9): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006071367/LEGISCTA000033627225/
- Code rural, article on closure in an emergency (L233-1): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000030679762
- Alim'Confiance, FAQ: https://alimconfiance.agriculture.gouv.fr/faq
- Alim'Confiance, tableau de bord, accessed 10/08/2026: https://alimconfiance.agriculture.gouv.fr/dashboard
- Ministère de l'Agriculture, police sanitaire unique, 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
- DGAL, 2024 review of food safety (1,750 closures, all sectors), relayed by Process Alimentaire on 05/23/2025: https://www.processalimentaire.com/qualite/la-dgal-dresse-le-bilan-d-une-annee-2024-marquee-par-l-action
- CGAAER, rapport n° 24030 sur la police sanitaire unique dans la remise directe, 12/13/2024: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/mise-en-oeuvre-de-la-police-sanitaire-unique-de-lalimentation-dans-le-secteur-de-la-remise-directe
- Cour des comptes, rapport public annuel 2019, tome 2 (contrôle de la sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation), 02/06/2019: https://www.ccomptes.fr/system/files/2019-02/RPA2019-Tome-2-integral.pdf
- Ministère de l'Agriculture, "La réglementation sur l'hygiène des aliments", 04/16/2026: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/la-reglementation-sur-lhygiene-des-aliments
- Instruction technique DGAL/SDSSA/2024-528 (plan de maîtrise sanitaire), 09/27/2024: https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/boagri/instruction-2024-528/telechargement
- Ministère de l'Agriculture, hygiene training requirement in restaurants: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/restauration-quelles-obligations-en-matiere-de-formation-a-lhygiene-des-aliments
- INSEE, Base permanente des équipements, "Évolution du nombre d'équipements et de services en 2015, 2020 et 2025" (type A504, restaurants and fast food), published 07/09/2026: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/8217532
- Entreprendre.Service-Public.fr, "Règles d'hygiène dans la restauration et les commerces alimentaires" (F32189), read 10/09/2026: https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/vosdroits/F32189
- Ministère de l'Agriculture, "Que contrôle-t-on dans un restaurant ?" (DGAL infographic, February 2026): https://agriculture.gouv.fr/la-securite-sanitaire-de-lalimentation-que-controle-t-dans-un-restaurant
- Ministère de l'Agriculture, "Réouverture de restaurant : dans les coulisses d'un contrôle décisif", 04/01/2026: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/reouverture-de-restaurant-dans-les-coulisses-dun-controle-decisif
- Ministère de l'Agriculture, "Alim'confiance : les résultats des contrôles sanitaires accessibles à tous", 04/03/2017: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/alimconfiance-les-resultats-des-controles-sanitaires-accessibles-tous
- Ministère de l'Agriculture, "Sécurité sanitaire des aliments : le dispositif de surveillance et de contrôle": https://agriculture.gouv.fr/securite-sanitaire-des-aliments-le-dispositif-de-surveillance-et-de-controle
- Code rural, article on obstructing inspections (L205-11): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000039329150
- Code rural, article on non-compliant premises and equipment (R237-2): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006590424/
- Code pénal, amount of contraventions (131-13): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006417259
- Code pénal, fine for legal entities (131-41): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006417342
- Code pénal, fine for legal entities, délits (131-38): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006417334
- Service-public.fr, "Recours gracieux, recours hiérarchique…" (F2474), verified 05/11/2026: https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2474
- Tribunal administratif de Paris, "Déposer un recours contre une décision de l'administration": https://paris.tribunal-administratif.fr/vos-demarches/je-suis-un-particulier/deposer-un-recours-contre-une-decision-de-l-administration
- Entreprendre.Service-Public.fr, "Ouvrir un food-truck, restauration ambulante" (F36831), read 10/09/2026: https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/vosdroits/F36831
- Ministère de l'Agriculture, "RappelConso et SignalConso : un duo au service de la sécurité", 02/20/2026: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/rappelconso-et-signalconso-un-duo-au-service-de-la-securite
- SignalConso, "Intoxication alimentaire : vous avez mangé dans un restaurant et vous êtes tombé malade ?": https://signal.conso.gouv.fr/fr/intoxication-alimentaire
- Santé publique France, "Toxi-infections alimentaires collectives", 03/20/2026: https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/toxi-infections-alimentaires-collectives
- Préfecture du Gard, "Démarches à suivre pour un signalement en cas d'intoxication alimentaire collective": https://www.gard.gouv.fr/Actions-de-l-Etat/Alimentation-consommation-et-animaux/Securite-alimentaire/Intoxication-alimentaire2/Demarches-a-suivre-pour-un-signalement-en-cas-d-intoxication-alimentaire-collective
- Public Google reviews of the restaurants drawn, read on October 9, 2026 in the Scalon database; read by Claude Haiku 5.5 (Anthropic).
- Scalon calculations.
Do you sell to restaurants?
Cleaning, refrigeration, hygiene training, traceability software: Scalon links each rated restaurant to its company and its public contact details.