Will scrapping "sell by" dates reduce food waste?

The UK government thinks it will. At present food is labelled with either a "sell by" date, or a "use by" date, or a "best before" date. Apparently "research" shows that these dates contribute to the great waste of perfectly good food. People throw it away because they apparently think food goes off like a bomb after those dates; when in fact it goes off like food: ie, slowly and gradually

I suppose I can accept this might help: presumably the "use by" date is later and if people have the idea that "sell by" does not envisage you might buy food and take it home and eat it a couple of days later then they will be reassured. I certainly do agree that folk have come to rely on these dates rather than their eyes and noses and that it leads to waste

But the problem is that the dates are not obviously sensible in any case. I spoke to a farmer who makes artisan cheese a while ago. Because the "date" on cheese is often well past before the cheese is ripe, I wondered how they decided on the dates. It is almost completely arbitrary, if what he said is correct. They are required by law to put a date on it: and they play safe and put on a date with will minimise any liablity they might have should the cheese be improperly stored at any stage from farm to kitchen. It is largely a guess. I cannot think that "use by" dates are any better.

Food scares are a fine tradition here: the gutter press can always fall back on them if the news is slow: and people do not know where food comes from or anything much about its characteristics or what to look for. The absurdity is particularly evidenct when you consider things like pickles. Right now I have in my cupboard some chutney: it is labelled "best before November 2012". It is not a catering pack: just a wee jar. So I will probably finish it before then. But let us imagine I bought it in November 2012. Is it likely to be fatal if I eat it in December of that year? I don't think so: The point of pickling is preservation: and if it is fine from whenever it was made (obviously before September 2011) till more than a year later then I figure it is probably fine for another year after that: and if it is not then I am fairly confident it would smell strange of the texture would be weird.

Seems to me that changing the labels is not what is required here. People need to make some effort to use their brains instead. I do think that food inspections are important, and I hope that those are not being cut beyond their ability to do their jobs (not confident about that): but beyond that I think the whole food labelling thing has become a substitute for sense rather than an adjunct to it

Do other countries also have these rules ?

Why milk products, particularly: I can see it with meat or fish....

It is less common on fresh fish and meat: though in supermarkets they tend to have a date on the wrapping. But cold cooked meat? smoked fish? stuff like that?

Well if by condiments you mean sauces and pickles and such they are mostly meant as preservatives: though not if you are making a pasta sauce from scratch, for example. Milk tells you when it is off: it smells odd. Cheese is "milk's bid for immortality". It is also a way of preserving something: in this case milk: that is what it is for. And again, it will tell you when it is off: the texture or the taste or the smell will be wrong.

Difficult. I like the sell by dates, they let me know what is fresh and what is not (supposedly) but anecdotal evidence has made me think that many young people (Oh dear. Words I never thought I'd utter. But here I am, at last. An Old Person.) throw out everything on that date. The idea of tasting and smelling something that might be off seems repulsive to them.

And I have now written "Cheese is milk's bid for immortalty" on a post-it note, destined for the fridge. Sheer poetry. As is cheese.

I feel like, not all, though I'm sure some, throw food away on that specific date. My family has always taught me to use dates as more of a guideline. (depending on the product) In the case of raw meats and fish, my mother keeps track of the dates she buys and tries to freeze things that are dated sooner if she thinks they'll go bad before she uses them. Sometimes she'd forget, so if it was past the expiration date she'd open it up and smell it and make sure to cook it well. And so far we haven't really had issue. But sometimes we've gotten meat. Specifically pork, and no joke, that day it expired and we opened it, you could smell it had gone bad.

And cheese definitely can go bad...<<; ya know when it's growing green stuff. Like cream cheese. Or lunchmeat deli cheese will get rather hard and crusty if you forget about it.

However, it can be noted I shop purely from a super market. I don't get farm-fresh anything. And <<; I want to be vegetarian after seeing this video called Food Inc. where I found out about the U.S food production system. =/ sadly until I live on my own again (college student with parents commuting to school atm) I probably wont' be able to do this just because I don't want to impact the shopping budget for my parents.

Here's what the Government of Canada does: INSPECTION/LABELLING.

Note:


Many of the guidelines have been introduced and supported through a partnership of government and private enterprise:

BE FOOD SAFE

The reason for this is that consumers are notoriously ill-informed about their food and its proper handling and preparation. As the old adage goes: "Don't kill your customers." It's entirely in the best interests of the food and beverage industry to keep their customers alive as long as possible. Food-borne illnesses are vanishingly rare these days compared to a mere half a century ago let alone longer. This is entirely due to the efforts of the food companies partnered with government health departments.

So what about waste?

Most of us were brought up to 'finish all the food on your plate' but this habit might lead to worse health problems (eg obesity) than eating what you need rather than chowing down everything in sight. Same goes for tossing food beyond its recommended "use by" date. What is worse? Wasting a bit or risking serious injury or death?

What about food labelling in general?

A "best by" date is no different than anything else on a packaged commercial food product. In the US, especially, there is a detailed history of modifications to what a manufacturer can or must do with the package itself or its contents. Here's a quick timeline from the FDA's site:

FDA MILESTONES

Isn't the "best by" date a part of overall food safety?

The CFIA does say what you quote, Stilicho: but it also says, twice, that the "best before" date is not an indication of food safety.


Indeed immediately before the part you quote it says:


So that has little or nothing to do with food safety except tangentially: indeed it is difficult to reconcile advice never to use your senses with the fact that all that happens after "best before" dates is that the food may "lose some of its freshness and flavour or its texture may have changed". That is exactly my point and it can only be determined by using your senses, so far as I can see.

It also notes that such dates need not be put on products with a shelf life of more than 90 days: which is the point I was making about my jar of pickles.


Since people seem to use the dates as an absolute cut off point, in many cases, that seems a sensible provision to me. But such dates are included on long life items here, and I think it is universal. Certainly have nothing in my cupboard without one today, anyway. But you state that a "best by" date is part of overall food safety and that is at odds with what the guidelines you linked explicitly say.

I agree that people are not well informed: that is part of the point I am making. But it is also true that none of the major food borne outbreaks have to do with these dates: that is to be expected, because such illness would presumably be confined to one person or family: major outbreaks are ALL related to the production end, and not the consumption habits of customers. Given large scale production, the important point is to have a good, well funded agency with enough resource to inspect and ensure food hygiene in farm and factory and restaurant. Per wiki 58% of outbreaks in the US come from commercial food outlets and not from the home, for example.

You suggest that "don't kill your customers" is a good idea for producers: and of course they would prefer not to. But the fact is that this "partnership" with government would not be necessary if that was the motivation: reputable manufacturers and producers would do this without the need for government intervention: and as you say, the evidence from history is that they do not. Partly due to ignorance on their part in the past, I am sure: but also partly due to a lack of interest or care, in many cases. Introducing additives to "bulk up" products for increased profit is an old tradition and it persists in unregulated industries such as drug trafficking: these leopards do not change their spots.

What is true is that "get your customers to throw a good deal of what they buy away" is in the best interests of producers: because it increases sales. Not suggesting that is the only motive but it is at least a part of the cooperation, I suspect. I think waste is a very serious problem and I do NOT think it is driven by food safety concerns. I think it is driven by commmercial interest: I know that you will not wholly agree because we have very different views about stuff like that: but would you argue that has no role to play at all?

Do you have evidence for your claim that food labelling and other measures have a direct impact on food related illness? I noticed that the US, which has a great many regulations re food labelling, also has a higher incidence of illness than does France: and an almost identical rate of death from food borne illness as that country. The higher rate of illness may be an artifact of culture: for all I know Americans may be far more anxious about minor illness, and so seek medical advice more readily thus inflating official figures: but the death rates should be more directly comparable I presume.They are pretty much identical. French labelling will be influenced by EU regulations, probably: but I do know that they are far less obsessed with things like pasteurisation than we are, and I think than the US is, also.

In any case, per wiki, there were 47.8 million cases of food borne illness in the USA a year between 2000 and 2007. That is not "vanishingly rare" to my mind. The rate per 100,000 is high in the USA compared to the UK: and high in the UK compared to France. You may not like that source, and might wish to dispute those figures with other data, of course. There are many others which appear to dispute your claim, but I will not link because I know that you do not generally accept information presented: but I will be interested to see your own sources

Food labelling in general is a distraction from the real issues with our relationship to food, IMO.

No. It says it does not "guarantee product safety", not that it is not an "indication of food safety". Two different things. The role of the various health and safety mechanisms we have in place are there to reduce risk to the consumer. Smoke alarms do not guarantee you will survive a house fire but they have been proven to reduce risk considerably.

Do you expect health and safety guidelines to guarantee results? How would you accomplish such a goal?


Nothing to do with food safety? Nothing at all? Are you absolutely certain? Are "best before" dates, in your opinion, simply an elaborate scheme by health departments and product manufacturers to deceive you somehow?

It's really easy to reconcile the two statements you think are contrary. You cannot trust your senses to detect food contamination. Period. If you have figured out a way to do this, please share it.


Come on, Fiona. How do you figure that these guidelines are now at odds with providing overall food safety? Now you're not only suggesting that "best before" dates are unconnected with food safety--a stretch at best--but now suggesting they're actually at odds with it. We're starting to wade very near to the Swamps Of Conspiracy, you know.


Half and half sounds about right. What's the point? The overall reduction in health risks associated with food consumption have radically diminished over the past 100 years and this is directly accomplished by the partnership of food corporations with government. How do you think this reduction has come about?


Do you eat your chili unspiced? If you don't then you're consuming food with additives. Do you flavour the buns you bake with cinnamon? More additives. I don't have the links here but there is archeological evidence that our remote prehistorical ancestors used additives. The libraries unearthed in Mesopotamia revealed additives used to preserve meat (often sea-water).


Knee-deep in conspiracy bull now, Fiona. First the safety mechanisms are in place to prevent evil profiteers from salting their product (although salting and curing of meats is older than history) and now it's to encourage consumers to throw away perfectly good food. Which is it?

You're concatenating two real issues--spoilage and waste--and pretending that neither producers nor health departments really care about either of them. If you could show me how to articulate a supply chain where the inventory spoils only after the accounts receivable is cleared but never in the warehouse, I'd like to see it. Otherwise you're blowing smoke about the inventory cycle and how it's managed. I suspect you've never been a retailer because what you're describing is frankly impossible.



Read the Canadian and US sites I linked to. I haven't gone through the whole FDA site but the Canadian site has several links for further reading. On the other hand, of course, I could simply assume that each of them are elaborate hoax sites intended only to deceive the public.

You also have it backwards. Food labelling and other measures were introduced because of food-related illnesses. That's documented on the FDA milestones at several points and notably in 1906. There are several individual scientists cited (dating back to the mid-nineteenth century)and I am sure you would find much more information by reading their own conclusions instead of mine.

You might better ask yourself how many food-related casualties you are willing to accept from the removal of all labelling.


Many of those "illnesses" are not what I was referring to. Those are generally digestive discomfort from things like undercooked beans or sneezing fits from inhaling peppers and not what I'd call "illnesses". How about "illnesses" leading to lengthy hospital stays and/or death instead?

Oh, and let's exclude allergies, too, since those shouldn't count at all. Many people get sick without getting a proper medical diagnosis or simply by ignoring their doctors.


This is your actual thesis and what you were driving at the whole time. Why not articulate your own proposal for feeding seven billion people three times daily with nutritious and delicious food that doesn't require labelling? (Hint: you may win a Nobel Prize.)

By the way, anyone who throws out pasta after it's "best before" date is just plain stupid and there's no hope for them anyhow. I don't think there's a way that corporations or governments can entirely eliminate stupidity.

What do you think is the force of the word "however", Stilicho? In my world it means "nevertheless", "in spite of" , "on the other hand". It is there to show that "although x does not do Y, it does something else useful" in the context we are talking about. Since it goes on specifically to tell you what it DOES do, that is the correct reading, I think. And that reading is reinforced because they also say that you can safely eat food after that date, though it might not taste so good or have the right texture. There is NO implication that it is related to food safety. Not in that document.


Nope. Never said any such thing



Well that is what your link said: little or nothing to do with food safety:see above. I see you are doing your usual trick of erecting straw men. I do not think they are an "elaborate scheme by health departments and product manufacturers" to do anything at all. I think they are a waste of time. The kind of food most likely to make you ill through spoilage is fresh shell fish and fresh fish and fresh meat: as it happens they don't have these dates on them if you buy from a fishmonger or a butcher. They have them if you buy in a supermarket. It just so happens that in the supermarkets I use they are merely cosmetic. As an example: if you buy fish in my nearest supermarket the price and date are generated by the machine which wraps it up. Interestingly the date is the same no matter what the product: fresh mussles therefore have the same date as finnan haddie. That is absurd, don't you think?


You can't trust the dates either: they have little or nothing to do with it. That is my point. It is certainly true that there is more to it than your senses: but that is largely because serious contamination such as typhoid or salmonella is not detectable that way: and it is not related to sell by dates either. That kind of contamination is usually generated at the production end and the dates cannot tell you anything about that at all



Another straw man. i did not say they were at odds with overall food safety: I said that your statement is at odds with your link. I stand by that, for reasons of english language, as outlined above.



It is not half and half nor anything like it, Stilicho. 58% is from restaurants. Another very large part is from factories and from farms. The proportion of food poisoning attributable to domestic food handling is small, and while it is difficult to get exact figures, most agencies attribute the bulk of that contribution to inadequate cooking rather than to spoilage. In this country the FSA has particularly targetted advice at barbeques, because they result in inadequate cooking quite often: I think that is because barbequeing is relatively new in this country and so we are not as familiar or experienced with that form of cooking: but that is speculation



I don't think it has come about. I have already asked you for evidence on this point: repeating it does not make it true. I do not know of any series of statistics which go back 100 years. I do know of series which track instances of food poisoning in this country since 1985 and they show a steady increase in the incidence from 1985 until about 2000 when the FSA was started. There was a noticeable reduction between 2000 and 2001 which might be related or might be coincidence: and it has been fairly steady since then with a small increase towards the end of the last decade. Stats available from the Health protection agency for infections and communcable diseases, if you are interested.



Not worth answering. I suggest you read your own links



Knee deep in rhetorical dishonesty now, Stilicho. Not worth answering either.


I realise you are an accountant and see things through that prism: but this has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said and serves only to distract from the issue. If you wish to change the subject that is fine: but sell by dates have got nothing at all to do with warehouses that I can see. Nor am I "describing" anything, so what I am "describing" can't be impossible. I have never said that food standards agencies do not care about spoilage: nor that producers do not care about waste. It is you who is conflating real issues. Obviously producers care about waste before sale . Not what we are discussing. They also care about waste after sale: it suits them very well if that is high. Do you disagree? As to your repeated suggestion that I am against FSA or comparable bodies: I wonder why you find it helpful to suggest that my approach to regulation is of that sort. I think I said quite clearly that a strong agency to regulate and enforce hygiene etc is very important. I am absolutely in favour of a well funded enforcement agency, as I made very clear. They should NOT be in partnership with the food producers: they should be policing them.


So that would be a "no"?


You may have noticed that governments are very apt to legislate in response to public panic: and they like to be seen to be doing something. Doesn't mean that what they do is a good idea. That tendency fits very well with some of the timelines in your links. However the FSA was set up precisely because there was a real problem with food poisoning and that was not based on particular outbreaks of food poisoning per se.


You presume your conclusion



Those figures are in the wiki article. they are broken down by illness but also by hospitalisation and by deaths. As I said: deaths in France and the USA are about equal: hospitalisations are not. It is a bit rich to ask me to read beyond your links when you won't even read the wiki article: but to help you out here is the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodborne_illness#Epidemiology

As you will see, there were 43 hospitalisations in the US per 100,000 population: 24 in France.


Of course it is. I thought that was abundantly clear.


Hmmm. The population of the developed world must be a lot higher than I thought. But I am totally intrigued to hear how labelling leads to that outcome. Please do elaborate. The connection is totally obscure to me.


I see you agree that these dates are useless: what are we arguing about?