Istanbul Residents Do Not Trust Dining Out: How Can Restaurants Regain Trust?

According to the Istanbul Planning Agency's research, 51.4% of Istanbul residents do not find the food consumed at restaurants, cafes, or other venues safe. The percentage of those who say they trust food from outside is only 21.1%, while 27.5% of participants remain undecided.

This situation indicates a serious trust problem for the restaurant sector. However, the findings of the research must be interpreted correctly: the results do not mean that more than half of the businesses in Istanbul are unsafe. The research reflects consumers' perceptions of safety and their reported experiences; it does not provide laboratory analysis, official inspection results, or business-based hygiene assessments.

What Results Did the Research Reveal?

The "Access to Adequate and Quality Food" research in the June 2026 issue of the Istanbul Barometer was conducted with 761 individuals representing different socioeconomic groups.

26.4% of participants said they eat at restaurants, cafes, or food vendors more than once a week, while 40.9% said they eat out a few times a month. The percentage of those who stated they never eat out was 32.7. The current summary does not indicate whether the decision to never eat out is due to economic conditions, health concerns, or other reasons.

Among the types of venues, the highest trust rate was measured at 37.5% for small local eateries and family-run restaurants. Trust in chain restaurants or cafes was reported at 17.2%, trust in orders placed through food apps at 17%, and trust in street vendors at 7.4.

These rates do not prove that small businesses are actually safer than chains. The results suggest that consumers may associate trust with factors such as visibility, familiarity, contact with the business owner, observing the preparation of the product, and finding a point of contact when issues arise.

How Should the 20% Health Issue Data Be Interpreted?

In the research, 20% of participants reported experiencing health issues such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea after consuming food outside in the past year.

This data should not be reported as "20% of Istanbul residents experienced food poisoning." The symptoms are based on the participants' own assessments. The source of the discomfort, whether diagnosed by a doctor, or verified by a laboratory is not specified in the public research summary.

Among those who reported health issues, 53.3% said they expected the symptoms to pass without initiating a medical or legal process. The percentage of those who went to the hospital was 30.3, while 4.6% directly complained to the restaurant, and 2.6% reported to the relevant authority. The public summary does not clarify whether multiple responses could be given to this question.

The low reporting rate serves as an important warning for businesses. If a customer does not communicate the issue to the business, management may not be aware of the problem's existence. The absence of complaints does not necessarily indicate that there are no errors or dissatisfaction.

Official Inspections Do Not Solve the Perception Problem Alone

According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 1 million 350 thousand official inspections were carried out across Turkey in 2025 at production, sales, and mass consumption points. As a result of these inspections, 32,210 administrative fines were imposed, and criminal complaints were filed against 570 businesses.

These figures demonstrate the scale of the inspection system; however, they cannot be directly compared to the trust rate in the IPA research. The ministry's data covers production, sales, and mass consumption businesses across Turkey. The IPA research measures the perception of food consumed outside by residents of Istanbul.

The trust problem cannot be solved solely by increasing inspections. Consumers must see the inspections, the business must clearly explain its own control system, and it must be able to respond quickly when issues arise.

Mandatory QR Codes Can Be Used for Trust Communication

Since July 28, 2025, it has been mandatory for food businesses in mass consumption establishments such as restaurants, cafes, and canteens to have a QR code visible to consumers.

When consumers query the QR code with the Reliable Food application, they can see the business's name, address, registration or approval number, and the date of the last inspection. Among the publicly disclosed features of the official system, there are no detailed results of the inspection or hygiene scores given to the business.

Many businesses view this QR code merely as a document fulfilling a legal obligation. However, placing it in a visible and accessible location, ensuring that service staff know what the system is for, and being able to explain it correctly to customers can support trust communication.

Hiding the QR code among small print documents or having staff who are not knowledgeable about the document weakens the opportunity for transparency.

Trust Starts in the Kitchen and Completes Where the Customer Sees It

Food safety systems often focus on in-kitchen processes such as temperature recording, cleaning plans, preventing cross-contamination, supplier control, and product traceability. These are basic requirements. However, consumers cannot see most of these processes.

The business must transfer its safety practices to the customer experience. Open and well-maintained service areas, clean staff uniforms, proper hand hygiene, correct product storage, consistent responses to allergen questions, and non-defensive communication during complaints affect the perception of trust.

Especially the higher trust rate achieved by small local businesses and family-run establishments may indicate the importance of personal contact. The existence of standard procedures for chain businesses may not be sufficient on its own. The staff member who interacts with the customer must apply and explain this standard correctly.

The Trust Issue of the Invisible Kitchen in Delivery Services

The trust rate for orders placed through food apps remaining at 17% indicates a separate transparency problem in the delivery service channel.

A customer dining in a restaurant can partially observe the cleanliness of the venue, the behavior of the staff, and the conditions of product service. In a delivery order, however, the kitchen is invisible; trust is built on packaging, temperature, delivery time, product integrity, and the response to complaints.

Businesses must be responsible not only for the preparation of the product in delivery service processes but also for controlling the entire chain until delivery. Issues such as opened packaging, temperature loss, delays, or incorrect products turning into mutual responsibility transfer between the restaurant and the platform can further weaken the customer's trust.

Five Steps Restaurants Can Take

The first step is to ensure that food safety checks are not just files prepared before inspections. Temperature, cleanliness, product acceptance, and expiration date checks should be part of daily operations.

Secondly, the business QR code should be kept visible, and employees should be informed about the scope of the system. It should be accurately expressed what the QR code shows as well as what it does not show.

The third step is to record every health and hygiene complaint with time, product, order channel, shift, and supplier information. When seemingly individual complaints are repeated for the same product or shift, a systemic problem may arise.

The fourth step is employee training. Service staff should not belittle the customer's health complaint, nor should they use uncontrolled expressions that could imply direct admission of guilt. They should record the information, inform the manager, and implement the feedback process established by the business.

Finally, the information gap between the kitchen and the customer should be reduced. Supplier selection, product storage, allergen management, and cleaning standards can be shared understandably without exaggerated claims of "100% safety."

What Does This Mean for Employees?

The burden of the decline in consumer trust cannot be left solely to the head chef or quality manager. Service, packaging, delivery, cashier, and customer relations teams are also part of the trust chain.

If employees are expected to follow procedures without being provided the necessary time, equipment, and training, the safety system remains on paper. If handwashing, surface cleaning, temperature control, or complaint recording are skipped during busy hours, the issue should be sought in the operational design before individual carelessness.

Businesses must view employees not just as individuals who must comply with rules during inspections but as stakeholders who can detect risks early and report them to management.

Stafflink's Perspective

The main message of the IPA research for the restaurant sector is not that all businesses in Istanbul are unsafe; rather, it is that consumers do not see safety sufficiently and often do not expect to find an effective point of contact when they experience problems.

Trust is not a brand promise that can be created quickly with an advertising campaign. It is the sum of temperature controls applied in every shift, correct product acceptance, clean service areas, trained staff, and recorded complaints.

According to Stafflink, the biggest risk for businesses will be interpreting a low number of complaints as high satisfaction. The very small portion of those reporting health issues in the research who applied to the restaurant or relevant authority shows that a significant portion of problems may disappear without reaching management.

Businesses that will strengthen trust are not just those that claim to comply with regulations; they are those that make compliance visible, measurable, and actionable by their employees in their operations.