By Ralph Blackburn

Hundreds of written warnings were handed out to businesses for food hygiene issues.

Over the last year, due to problems such as cleanliness and separation of foods, inspectors issued 202 written warnings in Gravesham and 284 in Dartford.

Data from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) shows the results of food hygiene intervention inspections in the local authority, over the 12 months to April.

The businesses inspected are mostly restaurants, but include any establishment which handles unpacked food including farms, manufacturers and catering companies.

Inspectors assessed 757 businesses in Gravesend and 932 in Dartford.

Any breach of food hygiene regulations can lead to a written warning.

These can include problems with cleanliness, training of staff, record keeping, washing facilities and separation of cooked and raw foods.

Officials consider the seriousness of the case, as well as the co-operation of the business, before deciding on what action to take.

Despite the written warnings no enforcement action was taken in Gravesend.

No businesses in the town were categorised as high risk, which would mean they would need to be inspected again within six months.

As well as the written warnings, in Dartford, there was one food seizure and one detention notice.

High risk scores were given to six businesses.

This means they need to be inspected again within six months.

This rating is different from the 0 to 5 score that restaurants and takeaways display in their windows, as it is an indicator of when officials need to assess the business again.

A business which gets a high risk rating is “highly likely” to have breached food hygiene regulations, according to the FSA.

However, it could also be because of its trade, such as large scale manufacturers with lots of customers or businesses that carry out specialist procedures.

Nina Purcell is the the director of regulatory delivery at the FSA.

She said: “It’s encouraging that local authorities have made improvements in the percentage of interventions achieved and are continuing to target their activities at food businesses where food safety risks are the highest or where food fraud is more likely.”