Listing transparency
A more careful halal directory starts with owning our mistakes
When you search for halal food, you should be able to understand why a restaurant appears and what its listing actually tells you. You should not have to discover, after choosing somewhere to eat, that a broad label left out something important. Halal Food Pass has carried listings that did not meet the standard we want people to be able to rely on. We need to say that plainly, explain what we have changed, and be honest about the work still ahead.
Our recent reviews found restaurant listings whose recorded halal information conflicted with published menu material identifying pork. Those listings should not have been presented without resolving that conflict. The responsibility for an HFP listing belongs to us, even when the information came from another platform, an earlier research record or a restaurant’s own description.
What the records show
Our retained records show 67 listings archived on September 2-3, 2026: two on September 2 and 65 on September 3. Another 25 were archived on September 5. We checked for overlap across all three dates. These actions covered 92 distinct listings. Archiving removes a listing from the public directory while preserving its record and history for review.
That number needs context. It counts listings archived, and should not be presented as 92 independently verified cases of pork being served. The September 5 action records explicit pork findings for its 25 listings. The two September 2 archive records do not retain a reason. Five entries from September 3 have evidence summaries that mention generic meat terms without establishing pork. Those gaps need further review. A larger historical archive total also includes businesses recorded as permanently closed. We will not use that cleanup as a pork-removal statistic.
This is part of being accountable: applying a rule carefully matters just as much as having one. Removing an unsupported listing can protect a reader. Removing a restaurant on an assumption can unfairly harm a business. We have to take both responsibilities seriously.
Why we use a cautious listing rule
Our current publishing rule is straightforward. When researched menu material explicitly identifies pork as an ingredient, we archive the restaurant listing, even if other dishes are described as halal. From the sources available to us, we cannot verify how ingredients and equipment are kept separate in kitchens that handle pork. That uncertainty is why HFP takes a cautious no-pork listing approach. We retain the wording, its source and the date it was observed so the decision can be checked. This is an HFP directory policy. It does not claim that we inspected the kitchen, tested the food or established what happened during the preparation of any particular meal.
The words themselves matter. Bacon, ham, pepperoni, salami and sausage do not, on their own, prove that something contains pork. Products can be made with other meats, and a menu may explicitly describe them as halal. A statement such as “no pork” must also be read for its meaning. Treating every occurrence of a word as the same finding would create new mistakes while trying to correct old ones.
Where a restaurant or its menu explicitly states that the relevant food is halal, and the researched menu does not explicitly identify pork, our policy accepts that statement within its stated scope. We describe it as a restaurant or menu statement. Independent certification requires evidence of independent certification. A delivery platform’s category does not establish it, and evidence for one branch should not be silently applied to another.
Our latest review also resolved 59 older ambiguous pork flags using explicit halal statements. Those cases show why research notes need judgment and a correction process. An unresolved ingredient question should remain a question for internal review, rather than becoming a public accusation. Equally, finding no pork reference in the material we read is an absence of observation, not proof that a menu can never change.
Making room for corrections
The research is still incomplete. Some menus are available only in part, some sources are difficult to access, and the records reviewed so far do not cover every restaurant in the directory. We should show those limits through careful wording and useful source information. We should also make corrections when stronger evidence arrives, instead of treating an earlier decision as permanent simply because we made it.
If you notice something that does not match a listing, please use the report option on the restaurant page or contact HFP. The exact location, a menu link and the wording you are concerned about help us investigate the right record. Restaurant owners should have the same opportunity to provide current, location-specific information. We do not need to name and shame businesses to explain our own responsibilities.
Trust will come from doing this consistently: checking what a claim means, showing where it comes from, admitting uncertainty and correcting mistakes. We are continuing that work, and we owe readers and restaurants an accurate account of it.