California bans sell-by dates(foodandwine.com)
foodandwine.com
California bans sell-by dates
https://www.foodandwine.com/california-bans-sell-by-dates-8723111
287 comments
When my wife and I moved in together, we had a spat about what "sell by" dates actually meant. She had been throwing away loads of perfectly good food because she misunderstood the meaning of the sell-by date. I don't remember who taught me what they actually mean, but I was able to point her to a USDA site that showed the actual meaning.
I'm pretty sure that was the only time I have ever been right when she and I disagreed about something kitchen-related, by the way.
I think the ban makes sense when you consider that CA still has a provision for a "best by" date. Some more education is still necessary, though. Certain foods can go months or years past their "best by" date and still be perfectly safe - even if they might taste a little funky.
I'm pretty sure that was the only time I have ever been right when she and I disagreed about something kitchen-related, by the way.
I think the ban makes sense when you consider that CA still has a provision for a "best by" date. Some more education is still necessary, though. Certain foods can go months or years past their "best by" date and still be perfectly safe - even if they might taste a little funky.
My wife does the same thing, and I've been unable to convince her. Not talking perishable stuff, either - she'll throw out something like a bottle of hot sauce because it is a few months past the "best by" date. No matter how much I try to tell her that these things are shelf stable and will be good for even a year or more after the date, she doesn't believe me.
I think that the show Kim's Convenience said it perfectly, myself. "See this date? It say 'best by'. After date - not best, but still pretty good."
I think that the show Kim's Convenience said it perfectly, myself. "See this date? It say 'best by'. After date - not best, but still pretty good."
Hot Sauce is kind of annoying because it lasts so long after the best by dates. Like it could just be kicking around in then fridge for a couple years and not grow anything on it, but it is probably time to toss it out eventually?
When I was in college, at a house party we were all guessing for how long the oldest item in the fridge had been expired. It was a shared flat for four people, so we bet something like half a year or so. The hot sauce expired more than four years before. I am not sure anyone dared to eat some though.
Many hot sauces are so acidic they’re pretty much a preservative!
Vinegar based hot sauces, and/or hot sauces that are very high in sodium, usually yes, but not always.
Particularly if the sauce includes unstrained organic bits such as garlic or onions, or includes oils - botulism (odorless, tasteless) can be a non-zero risk.
At some point, that crusty $5 bottle of hot sauce you found in the back of the fridge should just get tossed out instead of taking the risk.
Particularly if the sauce includes unstrained organic bits such as garlic or onions, or includes oils - botulism (odorless, tasteless) can be a non-zero risk.
At some point, that crusty $5 bottle of hot sauce you found in the back of the fridge should just get tossed out instead of taking the risk.
I don’t even keep things like soy sauce or something like Tabasco in the fridge. Much less vinegars. I suspect a lot of people are inclined to.
Tabasco is fine in the pantry or on the counter.
Tabasco in particular isn't just vinegar-based, it's nearly entirely vinegar. Its ingredients list is vinegar, salt and crushed peppers that are then strained before bottling. It is a very inhospitable environment for botulism - or anything else.
Many other types of hot sauces contain oils and/or are not strained of organic matter and/or contain blended organic matter. Such as all of your thicker or chunkier sauces for the most part[1] (which happen to be my favorites). Those should be kept in the fridge and you should discard after some time just to be on the safe side.
[1] https://thepepperplant.com/shop.html
Tabasco in particular isn't just vinegar-based, it's nearly entirely vinegar. Its ingredients list is vinegar, salt and crushed peppers that are then strained before bottling. It is a very inhospitable environment for botulism - or anything else.
Many other types of hot sauces contain oils and/or are not strained of organic matter and/or contain blended organic matter. Such as all of your thicker or chunkier sauces for the most part[1] (which happen to be my favorites). Those should be kept in the fridge and you should discard after some time just to be on the safe side.
[1] https://thepepperplant.com/shop.html
I remember seeing a comment thread on here a few weeks ago where people were talking about making their own hot sauces, and botulism was a big concern, which was surprising to me. I figured hot sauce was so extreme that you didn't need to worry too much about the normal food-borne illnesses. Not so, I guess.
I proudly store ketchup in the pantry. No amount of recently added "For best results, refrigerate after opening." on the label will convince me otherwise. Cold ketchup is in no way "best".
My ex was like this two, but was fairly binary about it. The day before the "sell by date" = totally good, not in any way ruined. The day after = clearly dangerously unsafe food.
Ironically, stuff like hot sauce that never goes bad because it's so incompatible with microbial life as we know it is the stuff that needs "best by" type verbiage the most because while it never becomes hazardous to consume the chemical processes of degradation (oxidation and friends) still happen and the product becomes less good.
Ha! I like to joke that after the 'best by' date, it's no longer the best, just better :)
I'm not particularly judgemental, but I wouldn't be able to cohabitate with someone with that mentality. "Best by" is a matter of faith, and it shouldn't be treated as fact.
I might seem petty about this behavior, but such things are not isolated. This way of thinking colors one's reality.
I might seem petty about this behavior, but such things are not isolated. This way of thinking colors one's reality.
There is also much confusion about how food actually goes bad. There are some foods that absolutely should be avoided after a specific amount of time. But most will go bad somewhat randomly, mostly after but often before their sell/best by dates. Sometimes a jug of milk will be bad before it even arrives at a store. Sometimes mold will appear on fresh bread very suddenly. Food is more complicated than fixed dates.
I was buying eggs recently when I, as my mother taught me, opened the case and checked to see if any had cracked. The person beside me said "I hope you are buying those" as if me touching them somehow made them unsellable. People need to learn more about food.
I was buying eggs recently when I, as my mother taught me, opened the case and checked to see if any had cracked. The person beside me said "I hope you are buying those" as if me touching them somehow made them unsellable. People need to learn more about food.
Geez, that is aggravating. Do they really think that a completely unsealed cardboard box with holes in it is keeping out all the germs?
Sometimes I think we've really failed ourselves regarding basic biology and education requirements.
Sometimes I think we've really failed ourselves regarding basic biology and education requirements.
in Europe it's forbidden to sell washed eggs, so you're literally buying eggs covered in chicken shit, it's an interesting regulatory divergence.
If you’re buying eggs covered in excrement, that’s on you. That’s what the law is for: for the seller and producer not being able to hide the awful conditions in which the eggs were produced. If you want clean eggs, buy clean eggs, which will then necessarily have been produced in a clean environment, more healthy for the chickens, and also with less risk of contaminated eggs.
> That’s what the law is for: for the seller and producer not being able to hide the awful conditions in which the eggs were produced.
AFAIK, those laws are about eggs getting silently contaminated because their shells became porous during the wash.
But that one is a really nice side-effect.
AFAIK, those laws are about eggs getting silently contaminated because their shells became porous during the wash.
But that one is a really nice side-effect.
Exactly this. I have chickens and when I collect the eggs they are usually completely clean. Only if I start to slack on cleaning the coop or one of the chickens gets sick do the eggs get dirty.
I can imagine most eggs sold in the United States would be horrifying if not washed.
I can imagine most eggs sold in the United States would be horrifying if not washed.
The size of the nestbox can be a factor as well. If the nestbox is too large for the breed of chicken you keep, it encourages them to hang out inside it, and they walk on the eggs and get them dirty.
If a nestbox is the right size, it will only be used for laying eggs (and occasional brooding).
If a nestbox is the right size, it will only be used for laying eggs (and occasional brooding).
Hmm that is definitely possible. They do tend to track poop in from the main part of the coop to the boxes.
But if I keep the coop clean it’s not really a problem.
But if I keep the coop clean it’s not really a problem.
As it turns out, the eggs covered in chicken excrement are those that haven't been power washed, so the actual edible part of the egg is safer...
Per NPR, washing eggs was the historical norm until the 1960s or 1970s...(https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/11/336330502/wh...)
What changed is that the USDA discovered how to wash eggs properly and so mandated the method by which eggs must be washed, while Europe went the complete opposite direction and decided to outlaw washing eggs (prior to sale) but encouraged/mandated that chickens get vaccinated for salmonella (which is not required in the U.S.).
What changed is that the USDA discovered how to wash eggs properly and so mandated the method by which eggs must be washed, while Europe went the complete opposite direction and decided to outlaw washing eggs (prior to sale) but encouraged/mandated that chickens get vaccinated for salmonella (which is not required in the U.S.).
My understanding is that unwashed eggs preserve a protective layer that inhibits bacterial growth, which is why washed eggs in the US must be refrigerated instead. I think they are both valid methods.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/11/336330502/wh...
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/11/336330502/wh...
Yes it’s one of those weird American things. Like being extremely worried about chicken meat because the conditions chicken are raised in are so awful you can’t trust it’s not contaminated.
I find it endlessly amusing that Americans are both extremely worried about food safety and apparently completely unable to pass reasonable food safety law.
I find it endlessly amusing that Americans are both extremely worried about food safety and apparently completely unable to pass reasonable food safety law.
It's largely a generational thing. Most baby boomers are afraid to eat eat even slightly pink beef. Arguments that millions of Americans eat hamburgers with the middle of the paddy still oozing blood and virtually nobody is harmed by it fall on deaf ears. Old dogs, new tricks, etc.
Unwashed eggs can also be refrigerated, and they last an absurdly long time that way — much, much longer than either refrigerated washed eggs or unrefrigerated unwashed eggs.
Once you refrigerate unwashed eggs, though, they need to stay refrigerated thereafter.
Once you refrigerate unwashed eggs, though, they need to stay refrigerated thereafter.
Here in Norway, farmers have been lamenting the EU rules of requiring a rather short "best before" limit of 28 days while our eggs are safe a lot longer[1], typically 4 months but can last over a year[2].
So they changed it to "best before <date> but not bad after" and have been regularly running campaigns reminding people.
[1]: https://www.prior.no/artikkel/datomerking-av-egg
[2]: https://www.nrk.no/livsstil/eggene-varer-_nesten_-evig-1.759...
So they changed it to "best before <date> but not bad after" and have been regularly running campaigns reminding people.
[1]: https://www.prior.no/artikkel/datomerking-av-egg
[2]: https://www.nrk.no/livsstil/eggene-varer-_nesten_-evig-1.759...
I've lived in Bulgaria, Ireland, and Poland, and I've never seen dirty eggs in the stores. Are you sure about that?
I have never ever seen this in any European country.
I see this regularly in the Netherlands, sometimes even with a feather attached.
I’ve seen feathers but not poo except maybe on the rarest of instances.
Educate yourself on chicken anatomy and physiology https://www.getstronganimals.com/post/chicken-anatomy-101
To be fair, we’ve recently been through a period when infection by physical contact was at least initially widely viewed as a thing even if elbow pumps and obsessive hand washing turned out to probably not be much of a deal. But there was certainly a year so there when if you touched something in a supermarket and put it back you were inviting lots of stink eye.
I think as a general rule, biology loathes blunt instruments. That's not to say these things aren't more useful than just guessing, but as this legislation (or rather the underlying issue that led to its passing) shows is that a lot of this stuff is very poorly understood.
When I first started dating my ex, I was at her place and she asked if I was hungry. I said yes, so she made me a tuna melt with mayo. As she had it in the oven I looked in the fridge. The tub of mayo was enormous and mostly empty. It was Kirkland mayonnaise.
I said, "oh, you have a Costco membership?"
"No," she said, "my ex used to."
"The guy you broke up with 2 years ago?"
I looked at the date on the mayonnaise. Expired 5 years earlier. She didn't use it very often.
Not wanting to offend her, hesitantly, I ate the tuna melt. And nothing happened. It was fine.
I said, "oh, you have a Costco membership?"
"No," she said, "my ex used to."
"The guy you broke up with 2 years ago?"
I looked at the date on the mayonnaise. Expired 5 years earlier. She didn't use it very often.
Not wanting to offend her, hesitantly, I ate the tuna melt. And nothing happened. It was fine.
To me that just sounds like a good way to end up in a Chubby Emu video.
I had no idea that mayo expired. I had dragged a tub of mayo through several university housing locations and two apartment moves before my new bride noticed the long expired container's date as we combined refrigerators.
I'm not a mayo fan, so was a condiment for guests. Whoops.
I'm not a mayo fan, so was a condiment for guests. Whoops.
Anything with oil in it can get rancid. Including nuts.
> As she had it in the oven ...
Cooking food typically kills off any bacteria.
Cooking food typically kills off any bacteria.
This isn't an argument that you should turn into a 'throw away food after the best by date' person or anything, but it's important to understand one key point:
Suppose you have a piece of meat out on the counter for 12 hours. Then you put it in the oven and broil the heck out of it (say the whole thing gets to 190°F and zero of the bacteria in it survive). Is it hazardous?
Yes, it can be hazardous, because the compounds made by the bacteria while they were alive all day can themselves give you food poisoning even after you've sent the bacteria to a firy grave.
Disclaimer/note: I have zero idea about all the various specifics such as whether you're much safer depending if the left-out meat was cooked vs raw, what types of foods are risky or unlikely to harbor harmful bacteria, or how long it is probably safe at what temperature. I have only had food poisoning like 1-2 times, but it was awful so I just try not to do anything too careless.
Suppose you have a piece of meat out on the counter for 12 hours. Then you put it in the oven and broil the heck out of it (say the whole thing gets to 190°F and zero of the bacteria in it survive). Is it hazardous?
Yes, it can be hazardous, because the compounds made by the bacteria while they were alive all day can themselves give you food poisoning even after you've sent the bacteria to a firy grave.
Disclaimer/note: I have zero idea about all the various specifics such as whether you're much safer depending if the left-out meat was cooked vs raw, what types of foods are risky or unlikely to harbor harmful bacteria, or how long it is probably safe at what temperature. I have only had food poisoning like 1-2 times, but it was awful so I just try not to do anything too careless.
This is true. The toxins left behind by bacteria or fungi can be worse than ingesting a live culture. And they don't break down by cooking at normal temperatures. I think the only reason 5-year-old industrial mayo is ok is the preservatives. Fresh mayo can kill you after 24 hours unrefrigerated, whether you cook it later or not. Source: Worked in restaurants.
> Some more education is still necessary, though. Certain foods can go months or years past their "best by" date and still be perfectly safe - even if they might taste a little funky.
Aren’t safety restrictions the “use by” date?
> Switching to language that either says “Best if Used By” or “Use By” will also help minimize ambiguity. The former will establish consistent wording for advising when an item is less fresh (but still okay to eat), while the latter designates food that should no longer be consumed due to safety concerns.
Aren’t safety restrictions the “use by” date?
> Switching to language that either says “Best if Used By” or “Use By” will also help minimize ambiguity. The former will establish consistent wording for advising when an item is less fresh (but still okay to eat), while the latter designates food that should no longer be consumed due to safety concerns.
> Aren’t safety restrictions the “use by” date?
Exactly - people haven't been taught to actually look at the words before the date. They just look at the date, say "oh that was yesterday" and throw stuff away.
I guess I didn't make that perfectly clear in the parent comment - my wife didn't know that the difference in wording mattered, so she just ignored it.
Exactly - people haven't been taught to actually look at the words before the date. They just look at the date, say "oh that was yesterday" and throw stuff away.
I guess I didn't make that perfectly clear in the parent comment - my wife didn't know that the difference in wording mattered, so she just ignored it.
[deleted]
Montana uses Sell-By dates to artificially ban out-of-state milk.
They want to promote in-state business (dairy farmers).
Montana purposefully has short Sell-by diary dates, because it makes it prohibitive for an out-of-state dairy to transport their milk into Montana.
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/dana-gunders/how-montanas-sell-date...
They want to promote in-state business (dairy farmers).
Montana purposefully has short Sell-by diary dates, because it makes it prohibitive for an out-of-state dairy to transport their milk into Montana.
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/dana-gunders/how-montanas-sell-date...
I hate this kind of mendacity. Wanting to protect their dairy industry is understandable, but perpetuating a fraud upon consumers is not the way to do it.
If you can't beat the competition, change the rules.
It's not a fraud. It's a higher standard of quality, that is protectionist and arguably unnecessary and wasteful.
I think they mean fraud in the classical use of the word rather than a strict legal statute meaning.
m-w.com an act of deceiving or misrepresenting
m-w.com an act of deceiving or misrepresenting
Unnecessary and wasteful is a good way to describe shipping out of state milk into a state that has so many cows of their own. Do you think those trucks all run on pixie farts?
>> Sell-by diary dates
dairy
dairy
<must state “Best if Used By” to indicate peak quality, and “Use By” to designate food safety.>
This sounds perfectly sensible and uncontroversial?
This sounds perfectly sensible and uncontroversial?
That's how it has been here in Norway for years. And recently producers have started adding phrases like "ofte gode etter", "and often good after" together with See, Smell, Taste.
There will typically only be one date and it will have text specifying whether it is "Best Before End" for things that simply decline in quality such as milk and vegetables and "Use By" for things that go bad in ways that will be harmful such as meat.
There will typically only be one date and it will have text specifying whether it is "Best Before End" for things that simply decline in quality such as milk and vegetables and "Use By" for things that go bad in ways that will be harmful such as meat.
It seems to me like a quibe about verbage. I suppose "sell by" could be interpreted as a supplier telling a store what to do with their own goods. But on the other hand, the supplier has a brand on those goods and has a significant interest in protecting the brand.
I’d prefer just one date: “Use By”. If something is still safe to eat but doesn’t taste great anymore, then that’s past the Use By mark for me.
Some people don't have the liberty of throwing out food because the clock struck 00:00. Similarly, some people don't want to.
Do you go by how it tastes, or by the printed use-by date? They're unrelated...
From a consumer standpoint, yes.
From a company-who-abuses-best-by-dates-to-sell-more-product standpoint it's very controversial.
From a company-who-abuses-best-by-dates-to-sell-more-product standpoint it's very controversial.
They would already just put “best by” on the product, so it’s not making things any worse that I can see.
You know who hates food waste more than Gavin Newsom? Every greedy supermarket market executive that throws away 30% of their inventory. Especially when their profit margins are often in the low single digits.
The article says there is no mandates on any types of dates. So I imagine these dates serve some purpose, otherwise they wouldn't be there. Laws like this often sound like they're helping but since no one is forcing the hand of retailers, so I would be they end up increasing costs. Maybe not food waste per-se, but some costs that originally tipped the retailers to have these dates in the first place.
The article says there is no mandates on any types of dates. So I imagine these dates serve some purpose, otherwise they wouldn't be there. Laws like this often sound like they're helping but since no one is forcing the hand of retailers, so I would be they end up increasing costs. Maybe not food waste per-se, but some costs that originally tipped the retailers to have these dates in the first place.
Seems like the food producer would have a clear incentive to mark their products with sell by dates.
If I’m making a food product for sale at retail and I can mark it “sell by” some date, consumers get confused and think it’s no good after that date, the store that buys my food product will not want to keep it on the shelf because consumers won’t buy it.
The retailer has to discard the perfectly fine item and reorder from… me the food product producer and then I make more money.
I imagine the food retailers are happy about this and the food manufacturers are probably unhappy.
If I’m making a food product for sale at retail and I can mark it “sell by” some date, consumers get confused and think it’s no good after that date, the store that buys my food product will not want to keep it on the shelf because consumers won’t buy it.
The retailer has to discard the perfectly fine item and reorder from… me the food product producer and then I make more money.
I imagine the food retailers are happy about this and the food manufacturers are probably unhappy.
I think you can come up with a lot of scenarios in which any one person is happy or not happy. But in complicated systems, it's impossible to know exactly and you have to rely on market forces to work these things out. The problem is people coming in without any humility and trying to tinker with the system and getting shocked when there is unexpected consequences.
You’re right that the dates serve other purposes. The incentives aren’t as simple as avoiding wasted product.
Shelf space is valuable. Food that expires is inventory that’s not selling for some reason, or it wouldn’t be on the shelf long enough to expire. It’s taking up space that could instead be used for other inventory that does sell well. So even inventory that doesn’t expire at all will get put on the discount rack to get rid of it, or finally thrown out if doesn’t sell even at a cheap price.
The best way to avoid waste is to only buy food that actually sells, the quicker the better. Easier said than done, though.
Also, even greedy supermarket execs need to worry about their store’s reputation if they sell people food that doesn’t taste right too often.
Shelf space is valuable. Food that expires is inventory that’s not selling for some reason, or it wouldn’t be on the shelf long enough to expire. It’s taking up space that could instead be used for other inventory that does sell well. So even inventory that doesn’t expire at all will get put on the discount rack to get rid of it, or finally thrown out if doesn’t sell even at a cheap price.
The best way to avoid waste is to only buy food that actually sells, the quicker the better. Easier said than done, though.
Also, even greedy supermarket execs need to worry about their store’s reputation if they sell people food that doesn’t taste right too often.
The grocery industry is heavily monopolized. No where more so than on the west coast. They don't care about their reputation because there mostly is nowhere else for you to legitimately go to.
Nearby: Safeway, Lucky’s, Target, Trader Joe’s, Ranch 99, Costco, Walmart, Cardenas, Pak N’ Save, and I’m sure I missed some. Also, a lot of Asian food marts that aren’t chains. That seems like quite a lot of competition?
Safeway is owned by Albertsons. So is Lucky's. There are 58 total Ranch 99's in the USA. Costco requires membership up front. Cardenas is owned by KKR. Pak N Save is a subsidary of Safeway and also owned by Albertons. Walmart is not a grocery store.
So, no, not a lot of competition.
You really should look into grocery M&A's over the past few years. This is all easy to see if you care to _actually_ look.
So, no, not a lot of competition.
You really should look into grocery M&A's over the past few years. This is all easy to see if you care to _actually_ look.
Not sure whether it was the removal of best before dates or Brexit, but fresh food and veg in Britain is often already rotting in supermarkets. So now instead of the store throwing out loads of produce past its best, I have to do it when I get home and realise that yet again one in each pack of 3 onions is rotted.
The UK hasn't banned them, though some supermarkets did voluntarily remove them. Brexit's a relatively likely culprit for imported stuff; the extra paperwork really disincentivises JIT delivery (and in particular _really_ disincentivises mixed contents containers).
Though it'll get worse. The regime for imported fruit and veg is still in transition, with a lot of stuff that the UK was supposed to bring in in 2021 recently delayed til 2025.
Though it'll get worse. The regime for imported fruit and veg is still in transition, with a lot of stuff that the UK was supposed to bring in in 2021 recently delayed til 2025.
Been seeing that in the states too. A lot of old produce, but I blame high prices not moving it fast enough.
> I have to do it when I get home and realise that yet again one in each pack of 3 onions is rotted.
I have always been under the impression that the entire point of pre-packaging produce like avocados, apples, and garlic is to mix items that are bad which no one would buy in with some good items so you can still sell the bad ones.
This seems to have always been the case in California - where you can generally get good produce.
I have always been under the impression that the entire point of pre-packaging produce like avocados, apples, and garlic is to mix items that are bad which no one would buy in with some good items so you can still sell the bad ones.
This seems to have always been the case in California - where you can generally get good produce.
Fair, although previously I’d buy the same three packs without issue.
How were they labeling the produce before? Individually? Or by the box?
I haven't seen dated produce, but maybe it's hidden.
I haven't seen dated produce, but maybe it's hidden.
> Especially when their profit margins are often in the low single digits.
This is a little misleading, since a lot of their product on their shelve isn't paid for until 60/90/180/365 days after receiving it, and generally suppliers set aside money to help cover shrinkage. And they'll often agree to take back unsold goods.
There's a reason that so many of the largest companies in the USA are/were retailers. Borrowing something worth $100, then selling it for $103 may be low margin, but it scales incredibly well.
This is a little misleading, since a lot of their product on their shelve isn't paid for until 60/90/180/365 days after receiving it, and generally suppliers set aside money to help cover shrinkage. And they'll often agree to take back unsold goods.
There's a reason that so many of the largest companies in the USA are/were retailers. Borrowing something worth $100, then selling it for $103 may be low margin, but it scales incredibly well.
> The law prohibits the use of consumer-facing sell-by dates, and also requires standardized language for date labels.
It appears that it does not preclude tracking sell-by for internal inventory management purposes (such as with a handheld scanner already used in grocery stores for various purposes, or possibly some kind of opaque but human readable code), just to avoid customer confusion including it explicitly on the package.
It appears that it does not preclude tracking sell-by for internal inventory management purposes (such as with a handheld scanner already used in grocery stores for various purposes, or possibly some kind of opaque but human readable code), just to avoid customer confusion including it explicitly on the package.
Why do you assume the legislators didn’t talk to industry executives? I’m sure they did and all these issues were discussed
This all makes massive sense to me. The people in my life treat any date on food as an expiry date and throw out massive amounts of perfectly edible food. Also, people do not seem to have any concept about the rate at which different food products spoil. Some things can be used way past the dates I see. Others really are going off by then.
Meanwhile we have gotten rid of expiry dates here in the UK. And I have bought fruits and vegetables that all look fine on the outside but inside are rotten.
Not only frustrating this then wastes my time and my money. Items do need expiry dates, sugar does not, fresh produce and vegetables do.
However, educating that your food isn't instantly bad when it's gone pass would encourage people to waste less food.
Not only frustrating this then wastes my time and my money. Items do need expiry dates, sugar does not, fresh produce and vegetables do.
However, educating that your food isn't instantly bad when it's gone pass would encourage people to waste less food.
> Meanwhile we have gotten rid of expiry dates here in the UK. And I have bought fruits and vegetables that all look fine on the outside but inside are rotten.
It's great! Now the supermarkets can blame us for waste.
Fortunately, every supermarket does still have labels that show a coded date - so that their staff can remove products that are too old.
If you search for the particular store online, you should be able to find their system.
I shop in Sainsbury's usually. Their system is pretty simple. A letter shows the month (A = January, B = February etc.) and two digits show the day of the month.
It's great! Now the supermarkets can blame us for waste.
Fortunately, every supermarket does still have labels that show a coded date - so that their staff can remove products that are too old.
If you search for the particular store online, you should be able to find their system.
I shop in Sainsbury's usually. Their system is pretty simple. A letter shows the month (A = January, B = February etc.) and two digits show the day of the month.
Thanks for this. In general I'm in favour of products removing the dates so that people don't chuck out perfectly good food based on superstition/misguided obedience, but an annoying side-effect is that if we have two unopened packs of the same product it's hard to know which is older. By sheer bad luck, an old pack could hang around indefinitely and go off.
I was thinking a possible solution would be a simple numerical counter (e.g. days since 1 Jan 2000), which can't be easily decoded by eye, but allowed you to rank items easily by age.
I was thinking a possible solution would be a simple numerical counter (e.g. days since 1 Jan 2000), which can't be easily decoded by eye, but allowed you to rank items easily by age.
I'm glad someone else has noticed this. The quality and availability of fruit and veg at mainstream supermarkets has fallen off a cliff since COVID. It all feels far "older" and less fresh than it did, even when it's new out on the shelf. Traditional greengrocers are still fine, but tend to stock more local produce, so I'm wondering if it's Brexit or shipping causing the issue rather than expiry dates.
It feels like the solution to this is some sort of in app mechanism to be able to submit evidence back to the grocer that the produce or other perishable was not in condition to be sold, and for them to credit your account accordingly. This saves you a trip back to the store. If they’re selling perishables that have already gone bad, certainly, that sounds like a supply chain failure if they’re offering that for sale which should be going right into the compost waste stream.
> to submit evidence back to the grocer that the produce or other perishable was not in condition to be sold
this reminded me of the Seinfeld episode in which Kramer tries to return fruit: https://youtu.be/IgZkMRfnomI
this reminded me of the Seinfeld episode in which Kramer tries to return fruit: https://youtu.be/IgZkMRfnomI
As Jerry says, with fruit the consumer takes the risk.
I say, if you are buying bad fruit it is time to move on to a new grocer (and not a supermarket).
I say, if you are buying bad fruit it is time to move on to a new grocer (and not a supermarket).
Save's a trip sure, but I'm out of a meal for the day.
I make dinner on a day by day basis. What I mean is that I stop at the supermarket on the way home, buy what I need and then make dinner rather than stocking the ingredients. I find this method for me a good way to get out of the work mantra.
Knowing I can make dinner and then drink to it with a glass of wine. So to get home, find out that X vegetable has expired now means I have to find time to take it to the store or throw it out and waste my money nor have the ability to make what I planned.
If you order online, you can request a refund without much hassle but I don't do that.
I make dinner on a day by day basis. What I mean is that I stop at the supermarket on the way home, buy what I need and then make dinner rather than stocking the ingredients. I find this method for me a good way to get out of the work mantra.
Knowing I can make dinner and then drink to it with a glass of wine. So to get home, find out that X vegetable has expired now means I have to find time to take it to the store or throw it out and waste my money nor have the ability to make what I planned.
If you order online, you can request a refund without much hassle but I don't do that.
It's not a failure. They use treatments to make the fruit look fresh and shiny even when it is near gone.
Supermarkets also use ethylene to ripen many fruits (such as bananas) just before they put it out. It is so they can be picked green (unripe) to ship.
With bananas this is fine, they can ripen at home. It's the limes, pineapples, and other fruit which don't ripen after picking which are the problem.
I think a packaging or production date would help this without causing people to throw out unspoiled food. (once they realize it's not an expiry date)
I am not sure I buy it for fruit/vegetables though, since those are often sold unpackaged and unlabelled already.
I am not sure I buy it for fruit/vegetables though, since those are often sold unpackaged and unlabelled already.
tbf I've never seen expiration dates on fresh produce in the US. Maybe some packaged salads and things (and it's never accurate, of course), but nothing fresh.
>However, educating that your food isn't instantly bad when it's gone pass would encourage people to waste less food.
If there's a date then frankly I don't want to waste brain cycles thinking if something in the fridge or freezer has gone bad, unless it's so obvious I don't have to think much about it. If it's past, out it goes. I have enough crap to worry about already.
If it means I waste money, that means I'm buying too much and that can be easily resolved.
If there's a date then frankly I don't want to waste brain cycles thinking if something in the fridge or freezer has gone bad, unless it's so obvious I don't have to think much about it. If it's past, out it goes. I have enough crap to worry about already.
If it means I waste money, that means I'm buying too much and that can be easily resolved.
My understanding from the article is that expiry ("use by") dates will still be needed, and sell-by dates are being removed because mean something different from expiry, but consumers (myself included until now) generally misunderstand this.
"Use by" is not an expiration date, either.
> and sell-by dates are being removed
Not removed. Reworded.
Not removed. Reworded.
No, removed. "Sell by" is not the same as the now mandated "Best if used by"
Yes, you can safely eat food after “Best of used by” date but one has to keep in mind that there are chemical processes in place; one such example is rate of oxidation of food oils…one is literally eating highly oxidative food like chips but more so if it’s been sitting for a while. Though not obvious, but the damage it’s doing to your bodies cells can be pretty bad.
And varies by brand. For example stuff from Aldi (their house brands) don’t really last past the best but dates. Often will be spoiling before the date.
Just avoid those types of foods altogether.
While it's good to have an understanding of which things the date does and does not matter for, when it comes to judging these things, I prefer to lean towards caution. It isn't worth getting sick over a little food.
I will throw out old dried herbs in particular and store replacement stock in the freezer. Also will replace spices when they get old and you can’t smell them any longer. Most shelf stable food is still good for a decent time past its use by date. Though not forever.
But, yes, I have relatives who will consider use by a hard deadline.
But, yes, I have relatives who will consider use by a hard deadline.
Here’s the actual USDA article describing the difference between “sell by, “use by”, and “best by” terms: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-...
I don’t have time to find a source that supports this, but I understand that these dates also refer to the durability of the “food safe” container/packaging. Ever drink water from an unopened plastic bottle that has been stored for awhile? That taste is not from the water decaying or otherwise breaking down.
I don’t have time to find a source that supports this, but I understand that these dates also refer to the durability of the “food safe” container/packaging. Ever drink water from an unopened plastic bottle that has been stored for awhile? That taste is not from the water decaying or otherwise breaking down.
I wish regulators stopped trying to be poetic and just use clear English.
What's "best by?" You need to write "do not eat after." Nobody needs to be explained what that means.
What's "best by?" You need to write "do not eat after." Nobody needs to be explained what that means.
"best by" and "do not eat after" are not the same thing. Best by just means optimal freshness. Maybe you're thinking of "use by". "Sell by" is the thing giving people issues, as the food is still good but it's time for the -store- to rotate it out of inventory because it's not going to be as fresh after that date, and that leads to complainy customers.
"best buy" is pretty plain English. It means the manufacturer beleives the product will be at its best up to that date.
None of them means 'do not eat after'.
"Clear English" is using as few words as possible.
If they make sense yes, but clearly people don't understand this.
When safety is on the line, the goal can't only be "as few words as possible"
When safety is on the line, the goal can't only be "as few words as possible"
Here's something to blow your mind: Most Americans are not literate.
Yes, I'm serious and I say that as a fellow American. We are not literate.
So use as few words as possible and a date. Honestly we could probably do without the words, just the date.
Yes, I'm serious and I say that as a fellow American. We are not literate.
So use as few words as possible and a date. Honestly we could probably do without the words, just the date.
Is minified code easier to read? No. It’s the same with regular language; shorter sentences are not always more comprehensible.
I wonder if Best Buy use best by dates.
Those cheap plastic water bottles should be banned. They’re one of the greatest sources of micro plastics in our bodies. (Not to mention unstudied nano plastics)
I don’t personally normally buy bottled water but the alternative is probably to go back to glass which means higher consumer prices, increased fossil fuel consumption for transportation, etc.
Why not aluminum cans? There's still some plastic in there, but you can mostly recycle them, they must be fairly cheap, and they're quite light. As an added benefit they stack higher in transit with less extra packaging, at least if they're shipped like beer.
I literally just saw those for the first time. As I understand it they’re still plastic lined and the energy efficiency depends on how much recycling takes place. It depends if eliminating plastics is what you really care about or not.
>They’re one of the greatest sources of micro plastics in our bodies.
Source?
Source?
Have you ever drank from one of those bottles?? It literally tastes like plastic.
They can't be anywhere even close to synthetic textiles.
Presumably you're not chewing on or eating from synthetic textiles. Meanwhile an enormous amount of food is shipped in, and even cooked in, plastic directly.
Of course you're right in the sense that when it comes to our general environment textiles produce far more environmental microplastics than most other sources. Particularly in our water systems.
Of course you're right in the sense that when it comes to our general environment textiles produce far more environmental microplastics than most other sources. Particularly in our water systems.
I think synthetic fabrics shed very small particles into the air every time they are disturbed, eventually wearing out entirely. We breath a lot of that in. Clothes, furniture, sometimes even bed sheets; these all shed fibers into our living spaces.
…water systems that supply our drinking water.
Or car tires..
If I see a sell-by date, I only use it to compare between individual items. If there's a shelf with bread and two items have different sell-by dates, I choose the one with the later sell-by date.
I pick the older one to make sure the supply chain still works well.
User name checks out.
It's not incumbent on you to manage the supply chain. The people who are earning profits from servicing that chain have that responsibility. The entire system is best served if you operate with your _own_ best interests in mind.
I am smart enough to know that the food with expiration dates gets taken off the shelf and then some human being has to move it somewhere else if I don't take it. How does that not serve the system? I like being efficient and filling in gaps where it doesn't matter. Freshness differentials on shelves isn't worth it for me or the business.
> I like being efficient
Sure, but selecting the oldest groceries on the shelf is not a factor, as it's not your efficiency you're improving.
> filling in gaps where it doesn't matter.
If the store is arranging its stock orders incorrectly then they should fix that. They have a much better opportunity to have impacts here than your gap filling ever will.
Why don't they actually do this then? Because the 2% loss on waste can't be made up by the 5% additional cost of labor to "right size" the order perfectly every time.
Finally it's only waste because we don't manage these outputs correctly and have a single dumpster where all "garbage" goes. Food recycling and city compost programs could close the rest of the loop far more efficiently than any of this.
> Freshness differentials on shelves isn't worth it for me or the business.
No, it's just the entire rest of the supply chain.
Sure, but selecting the oldest groceries on the shelf is not a factor, as it's not your efficiency you're improving.
> filling in gaps where it doesn't matter.
If the store is arranging its stock orders incorrectly then they should fix that. They have a much better opportunity to have impacts here than your gap filling ever will.
Why don't they actually do this then? Because the 2% loss on waste can't be made up by the 5% additional cost of labor to "right size" the order perfectly every time.
Finally it's only waste because we don't manage these outputs correctly and have a single dumpster where all "garbage" goes. Food recycling and city compost programs could close the rest of the loop far more efficiently than any of this.
> Freshness differentials on shelves isn't worth it for me or the business.
No, it's just the entire rest of the supply chain.
Agree that one does not have an obligation (first sentence) but disagree that pure individual self interest is best for society.
In the case of buttermilk, it only starts to get a good flavor some time after the date on the carton. So I will often pick the oldest one (which is easy, be cause they put the older cartons toward the front).
Similar rule seems to apply to avocados. They sell them as "ripe and ready" and a week later they're still too hard to crush.
Yeah, I assume if it were to be sold by that date, then you still have time after that date that the product remains fresh. Is this not common sense to people?
Yes, but it's unknown how long the product will remain fresh past the sell by date.
Personally, I think everything should be labeled with both a sell by date, a best by date, and an expiration date, all right next to each other.
Personally, I think everything should be labeled with both a sell by date, a best by date, and an expiration date, all right next to each other.
Many foods are unregulated. It's strange that milk, for example, doesn't have any requirements for its expiration date. One brand widened their "best buy" date and I noticed their milk was souring 3 days before the "best buy" date. After contacting them several times, I told them that they gave me no option but to escalate this to authorities, they didn't seem concerned a bit, and after doing my research, I found out that they can put anything on the label without repercussions. The manufacturer even recommended the record stupid stuff like using the milk in smoothies and other odor and taste masking means to make it "best." So, even "best buy" for foods that can make you sick is meaningless!
> It's strange that milk, for example, doesn't have any requirements for its expiration date.
Why should it? It won't do you any harm. Just don't buy from suppliers who lie to you. But surely if it went sour before the Best before Date then the supplier has supplied goods that were not of merchantable quality and not in accordance with the implied contract and has failed to uphold their side of the contract.
But surely your complaint should be directed against the shop that sold it to you? I would expect the shop to either refund or replace the goods.
Why should it? It won't do you any harm. Just don't buy from suppliers who lie to you. But surely if it went sour before the Best before Date then the supplier has supplied goods that were not of merchantable quality and not in accordance with the implied contract and has failed to uphold their side of the contract.
But surely your complaint should be directed against the shop that sold it to you? I would expect the shop to either refund or replace the goods.
I agree. It's a dishonest practice, which was a misguided reaction to their having a lot of unsold milk. I didn't mention it, but this is raw milk. Honestly, I never had their milk go bad, unlike pasteurized milk, but it just gets extremely smelly and sour, so it's far from "best"!
All the grocery stores in my area will full refund the purchase if it goes bad before the best by date. By returning it to the store you purchased it from, it gets marked as a defective return. When that rate hits a certain percentage they will stop carrying the product.
I think that's why they made this gimmick, because they had a lot of unsold milk. People buy their milk by half gallon as smaller packaging is extremely expensive. They have a pretty stupid policy - instead of having honest and reciprocal pricing, they make only 1/2-gallon best-price per volume, which leads to lots of unsold milk as who would be such big quantity a couple of days before expiration when it's probably already soured and unsuitable as fluid milk. And I suggested all these ina very friendly manner, but they didn't change. So, I switched to a more honest product, plus, I'd rather not us have raw milk when the bird flu is gaining grounds pretty quickly.
In Brazil products are marked with two dates:
- Manufactured/Packaged by.
- Valid until.
The valid until is related to food safety and is regulated by the federal sanitary authority for each product by a federal standard. The "freshest by" is something that consumers have to infer by themselves probably as a midpoint between those two dates.
The valid until is related to food safety and is regulated by the federal sanitary authority for each product by a federal standard. The "freshest by" is something that consumers have to infer by themselves probably as a midpoint between those two dates.
Packaged/Manufactured date is the way to go; you can then even have "valid until" be implicit on most goods (that don't expire) and only physically labelled on things that go bad, like raw meat or vegetables.
> To adhere with the requisite language outlined, any food products with a date label — with the exception of infant formula, eggs, beer, and malt beverages — must state “Best if Used By” to indicate peak quality, and “Use By” to designate food safety.
Infant formula is required federally, so OK. Eggs are an oddly specific one, but I guess I can see it (although I'd wonder why some other products like milk, or meat might not be similarly required). But why beer??? Legit question--I don't drink so maybe it's obvious and I'm just a knucklehead.
Infant formula is required federally, so OK. Eggs are an oddly specific one, but I guess I can see it (although I'd wonder why some other products like milk, or meat might not be similarly required). But why beer??? Legit question--I don't drink so maybe it's obvious and I'm just a knucklehead.
The text of the law seems to be specific that the beer exemption (and other alcohol) is about a permission to put the vintage (year month, etc), since alcohol are expected to change over time even after bottling (some better some worse) so consumers would desire that information even though it does not conform to the normal "use by" or "best by" relevant to other products (any other placement or use of a date on a label being what is made illegal by the law)
Beer is pasteurized or else full of live yeast cultures. It doesn't go "bad" per se in the sense that it will hurt you, but some beers taste bad beyond a certain point. Hoppy beers lose flavor in ~90 days or so after bottling. Mass-market beers "skunk" if they are exposed to light and the UV causes certain compounds to break down. Strong unpasteurized malty beers like porters and stouts can age for literally years in a cool dark place, and it smooths the flavors out.
> Strong unpasteurized malty beers like porters and stouts can age for literally years in a cool dark place, and it smooths the flavors out.
Had a coworker who made this phenomenon into a yearly gathering. We would bring beers of our choice, bury them in his back yard, then drink and grill/smoke meats. Next year he would dig up the previous years burial and we would try to bring the same beers with us. Then we all gather around and have a tasting comparing the year long aged beer to the fresh beer. You also brought along new beers to bury. He names it Man Beer Meat because it was just guys drinking and grilling.
Had a coworker who made this phenomenon into a yearly gathering. We would bring beers of our choice, bury them in his back yard, then drink and grill/smoke meats. Next year he would dig up the previous years burial and we would try to bring the same beers with us. Then we all gather around and have a tasting comparing the year long aged beer to the fresh beer. You also brought along new beers to bury. He names it Man Beer Meat because it was just guys drinking and grilling.
That sounds like a wonderful time. And amusingly, if he moves, the new owner may do some digging in their backyard and find a bunch of perfectly fine bottles of beer.
Beer certainly is an odd one! Some (craft) craft beers will age gracefully -- improving, even -- for years. Industrial lagers... not so much.
I scored once with an imported (Belgian) craft beer at the local supermarket, heavily marked down price because the sell-by date was approaching. Some days later, marked down by half again because the date had passed. Needless to say, I bought all I could carry.
I scored once with an imported (Belgian) craft beer at the local supermarket, heavily marked down price because the sell-by date was approaching. Some days later, marked down by half again because the date had passed. Needless to say, I bought all I could carry.
This is a tricky one, because at some point you need to think about the integrity of the product's packaging, and how well it's been stored.
Craft beer *in a can* will not age gracefully. Even in a bottle, while it will probably be fine, how much light exposure are the bottle getting, have they been left out in the sun at any point etc.
Best before dates, hard expiry dates (if required), and ideally including a packaged on date would be a pretty ideal amount of information.
Craft beer *in a can* will not age gracefully. Even in a bottle, while it will probably be fine, how much light exposure are the bottle getting, have they been left out in the sun at any point etc.
Best before dates, hard expiry dates (if required), and ideally including a packaged on date would be a pretty ideal amount of information.
It depends on the beer type as well. Malty strong beers age well. Hoppy beers don't because the compounds are volatile. Malty beers benefit in flavor from continued breakdown of their chemical compounds, hoppy beers don't.
Sours (non-kettle) age extremely well. A decade out they can taste even better than when fresh. You'll possibly have to recarbonate them though.
I never thought of it that way but IPA's always taste off to me.
> Malty strong beers age well. Hoppy beers don't because the compounds are volatile.
> IPA's always taste off to me.
That sounds contradictory to what I've heard about IPAs: that they were created because the normal beers the British had at the time wouldn't survive the journey to India, so they added a lot more hops and called it India Pale Ale. Based on that, I'd expect them to age better, not worse, than other kinds, but I'm not a beer person and this is just secondhand knowledge that I've never bothered to verify.
> IPA's always taste off to me.
That sounds contradictory to what I've heard about IPAs: that they were created because the normal beers the British had at the time wouldn't survive the journey to India, so they added a lot more hops and called it India Pale Ale. Based on that, I'd expect them to age better, not worse, than other kinds, but I'm not a beer person and this is just secondhand knowledge that I've never bothered to verify.
The amount of hops in the beers from that story were about as bitter as a common blonde ale.
The modern IPA is nothing like that anymore. Also its the aroma compounds of hops that breaks down so fast, not the bittering aspects.This is why you can store a Russian imperial stout (high hop bitterness, low hop aroma, very high abv) but not normally a double/triple IPA (high hop bitterness, high hop aroma, high abv) and defiantly not age a normal IPA or session IPA (high hop aroma, low abv).
*Some overly malty double and triple IPAs will age into a nice barley wine if given enough time.
The modern IPA is nothing like that anymore. Also its the aroma compounds of hops that breaks down so fast, not the bittering aspects.This is why you can store a Russian imperial stout (high hop bitterness, low hop aroma, very high abv) but not normally a double/triple IPA (high hop bitterness, high hop aroma, high abv) and defiantly not age a normal IPA or session IPA (high hop aroma, low abv).
*Some overly malty double and triple IPAs will age into a nice barley wine if given enough time.
The hops are somewhat antibacterial, so they can help against contamination, but the hop flavors break down over time, and light and oxidation are what "skunk" a beer.
"Craft beer in a can will not age gracefully. Even in a bottle, while it will probably be fine, how much light exposure are the bottle getting, have they been left out in the sun at any point etc."
A modern beer can, on a newer canning line, is superior to a bottle in every single way. This debate about bottles being better than cans is from years ago. Cans and especially the canning machines have come a very long way in the last 15 years. That is one of the many reasons why almost every brewery is slowly switching to cans.
In regard to aging beers, there are a many important factors. The biggest enemy in aging a beer is oxygen. Oxygen gives beer a cardboard, paper flavor or a very raisin-y flavor, eventually it makes the entire beer taste like soy sauce.
As you mentioned zero light in a can so no skunking, although brown bottles stored in a dark cool place don't experience much of this. But clear, green and other bottles do. Bottle caps slowly leak oxygen in over a very long time and is why you might see a oxygen absorbing material in the under side of some bottle caps.
On the flip side one majorly common way a can will go bad in aging is from a seal alignment issue. This is especially common in smaller breweries as automated seam inspectors are quite expensive. The seal will visually look great. But if you tear it apart and measure the folds its quite common for them to be a little bit off, which can slowly leak out carbonation and in oxygen.
I'm a huge fan of packaged on dates for beer.
A modern beer can, on a newer canning line, is superior to a bottle in every single way. This debate about bottles being better than cans is from years ago. Cans and especially the canning machines have come a very long way in the last 15 years. That is one of the many reasons why almost every brewery is slowly switching to cans.
In regard to aging beers, there are a many important factors. The biggest enemy in aging a beer is oxygen. Oxygen gives beer a cardboard, paper flavor or a very raisin-y flavor, eventually it makes the entire beer taste like soy sauce.
As you mentioned zero light in a can so no skunking, although brown bottles stored in a dark cool place don't experience much of this. But clear, green and other bottles do. Bottle caps slowly leak oxygen in over a very long time and is why you might see a oxygen absorbing material in the under side of some bottle caps.
On the flip side one majorly common way a can will go bad in aging is from a seal alignment issue. This is especially common in smaller breweries as automated seam inspectors are quite expensive. The seal will visually look great. But if you tear it apart and measure the folds its quite common for them to be a little bit off, which can slowly leak out carbonation and in oxygen.
I'm a huge fan of packaged on dates for beer.
Come on it has nothing to do with the industrial scale at which the beer is created it has to do with which ingredients malt, hops, etc.
> But why beer??? Legit question--I don't drink so maybe it's obvious and I'm just a knucklehead.
Maybe a different regulatory regime applies? That's the case at the federal level. For instance: alcohol often doesn't have the typical food labels because it's regulated by the ATF [1] not the FDA, and food labels are an FDA thing:
https://www.ttb.gov/regulated-commodities/beverage-alcohol/w...:
> TTB regulations do not require nutrient content labeling for alcohol beverages.
https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-food-labeling-and-critica...:
> Food labeling is required for most prepared foods, such as breads, cereals, canned and frozen foods, snacks, desserts, drinks, etc. Nutrition labeling for raw produce (fruits and vegetables) and fish is voluntary.
[1] apparently now split into the ATF and TTB
Maybe a different regulatory regime applies? That's the case at the federal level. For instance: alcohol often doesn't have the typical food labels because it's regulated by the ATF [1] not the FDA, and food labels are an FDA thing:
https://www.ttb.gov/regulated-commodities/beverage-alcohol/w...:
> TTB regulations do not require nutrient content labeling for alcohol beverages.
https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-food-labeling-and-critica...:
> Food labeling is required for most prepared foods, such as breads, cereals, canned and frozen foods, snacks, desserts, drinks, etc. Nutrition labeling for raw produce (fruits and vegetables) and fish is voluntary.
[1] apparently now split into the ATF and TTB
Looking at TTB's mandatory items on labeling [1] there is nothing about any dates. Some states have different requirements, and I don't know California's, but many states do not require any kind of date coding.
[1] https://www.ttb.gov/regulated-commodities/beverage-alcohol/b...
[1] https://www.ttb.gov/regulated-commodities/beverage-alcohol/b...
> But why beer??? Legit question--I don't drink so maybe it's obvious and I'm just a knucklehead.
Very fair question. Anecdotally, when I was just graduating university I drank a few 4+ year past expiration macro-brewed beers that were sitting in the fridge that entire time. The results were not good compared to similar consumption of non-expired beer.
Very fair question. Anecdotally, when I was just graduating university I drank a few 4+ year past expiration macro-brewed beers that were sitting in the fridge that entire time. The results were not good compared to similar consumption of non-expired beer.
I'm actually super curious about that too, as far as I know pathogens cant live in beer, so I don't know how it can go bad.
I wonder though if local brewery's or more artigianale brewing processes are different and maybe could be a bit riskier ?
I wonder though if local brewery's or more artigianale brewing processes are different and maybe could be a bit riskier ?
Plenty of undesirable stuff can live in beer.
Brettanomyces will make your beer taste phenolic. Lactic Acid Bacteria will sour it (Lactobacillus and Pediococcus are two common contaminants).
Oxygenation will gradually make the beer taste like cardboard.
Hop aromatics degrade rapidly, heavily hopped beers are best within a month of brewing.
Very few beers get better over time (generally sours and stouts), most are beginning to degrade immediately and fall off a cliff within a year.
Brettanomyces will make your beer taste phenolic. Lactic Acid Bacteria will sour it (Lactobacillus and Pediococcus are two common contaminants).
Oxygenation will gradually make the beer taste like cardboard.
Hop aromatics degrade rapidly, heavily hopped beers are best within a month of brewing.
Very few beers get better over time (generally sours and stouts), most are beginning to degrade immediately and fall off a cliff within a year.
undesirable yes, but it wont be life threatening.
Also as you probably already know brett, lacto and pedio are desirable sometimes.
Also as you probably already know brett, lacto and pedio are desirable sometimes.
> pathogens cant live in beer
Depending on the beer there might be live yeasts in it.
Beers can still go bad. Not always from a "not safe to consume" but often at least a "not going to taste very good anymore" kind of thing. Beers will end up oxidizing, the stuff in the beer will degrade over time, etc. Not all beers age well, some need to be had within a certain period of freshness.
Generally I prefer a "born-on" date for beer.
Depending on the beer there might be live yeasts in it.
Beers can still go bad. Not always from a "not safe to consume" but often at least a "not going to taste very good anymore" kind of thing. Beers will end up oxidizing, the stuff in the beer will degrade over time, etc. Not all beers age well, some need to be had within a certain period of freshness.
Generally I prefer a "born-on" date for beer.
A born date is a nice idea actually, they do it for wines so it would transfer easily. When you say beeds end up oxidizing, could this kind of activity cause maybe a reaction to say an aluminium can for example ?
Most aluminum cans have a plastic lining inside of the can. Assuming the lining was undamaged and applied properly, it should prevent the beer from reacting with the can for a long while. Usually, the oxidization is with the oxygen which was already dissolved in the beer during brewing (important to have some for fermentation) but depending on ingredients oxidization can happen without the presence of molecular oxygen.
Craft brewers that aren't doing it as a hobby are using industrial process controls and working for a highly repeatable flavor.
The flavor going off is the main concern with beer.
The flavor going off is the main concern with beer.
American eggs are incredibly sensitive due to the chlorine washing they go through before making it to the store. Not oddly specific.
Here in Sweden (and I assume the rest of the EU) when I buy eggs they are not refrigerated and I keep them in the pantry at room temp for weeks or months without issues. The price I pay is that they sometimes come with a little bird poop on them from the store.
Here in Sweden (and I assume the rest of the EU) when I buy eggs they are not refrigerated and I keep them in the pantry at room temp for weeks or months without issues. The price I pay is that they sometimes come with a little bird poop on them from the store.
(Most of) Europe doesn't wash their eggs, allowing them to be stored at room temperature, but as you said, the standard for physical contamination is lower.
The US washes our eggs, requiring refrigeration but greatly extending shelf life and greatly reducing physical contamination.
Advantages to both (Europe wins hands down if you need to whip egg whites to stiff peaks) but very interesting how the two regions addressed the safety issues around this.
The US washes our eggs, requiring refrigeration but greatly extending shelf life and greatly reducing physical contamination.
Advantages to both (Europe wins hands down if you need to whip egg whites to stiff peaks) but very interesting how the two regions addressed the safety issues around this.
How does washing eggs extend shelf life?
Let's say I have unwashed eggs and washed eggs, and I put both in the refrigerator. Won't the unwashed ones last longer, because they haven't had the natural protective coating removed?
Let's say I have unwashed eggs and washed eggs, and I put both in the refrigerator. Won't the unwashed ones last longer, because they haven't had the natural protective coating removed?
The washed ones last because you washed off all the hen house bacteria, and then kept it refrigerated so new bacteria wouldn’t grow.
Chickens, especially commercial poultry farms, are disgusting.
Chickens, especially commercial poultry farms, are disgusting.
I get that washing off bacteria does something good. But it also makes the egg more vulnerable to any remaining bacteria.
If both types are refrigerated, I wonder which effect dominates?
If both types are refrigerated, I wonder which effect dominates?
If you put European eggs in the fridge, it actually DIMINISHES shelf life because it can cause condensation that begins to erode the cuticle (the thing that allows the egg to be stored at room temp w/o bacterial penetration).
Like I said, there's advantages and trade offs to BOTH, otherwise the move would just be to do one and not the other (similar to how there are advantages to the Imperial measuring system that keeps it in place, but we're not going down that trail).
Like I said, there's advantages and trade offs to BOTH, otherwise the move would just be to do one and not the other (similar to how there are advantages to the Imperial measuring system that keeps it in place, but we're not going down that trail).
Wow I had no idea about that first thing. Good to know!
I think my parents (in the UK) keep eggs in the fridge. They only buy a dozen at a time so it's probably not a big problem :)
I think my parents (in the UK) keep eggs in the fridge. They only buy a dozen at a time so it's probably not a big problem :)
>Not oddly specific.
When I said "oddly specific," I didn't mean that there might not be reason to label eggs with an expiration, I meant that it was oddly specific to require eggs to be labelled while not requiring some food categories that spoil quickly (mentioning milk and meat as examples). Perhaps it has to do with spoilage in eggs perhaps being harder to detect by examining them?
When I said "oddly specific," I didn't mean that there might not be reason to label eggs with an expiration, I meant that it was oddly specific to require eggs to be labelled while not requiring some food categories that spoil quickly (mentioning milk and meat as examples). Perhaps it has to do with spoilage in eggs perhaps being harder to detect by examining them?
I just assumed it was due to better lobbying by the egg and beer industries ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A requirement that the "best by" or "use by" date be clearly visible would also help.
I've spent way too much time spinning packages scanning for any date, sometimes having to give up, sometimes having to whip out my phone's camera to try to discern tiny black print on dark blue background, in small font, partly malformed, ...
I've spent way too much time spinning packages scanning for any date, sometimes having to give up, sometimes having to whip out my phone's camera to try to discern tiny black print on dark blue background, in small font, partly malformed, ...
The headline would be better served if it said something to the effect that sell-by dates will be replaced with another date suggestion. Instead they chose this misleading headline. The whole thing is also a great example of politics pretending to advocate for the consumer. It’s really a ploy to keep the product sellable for as long as possible. Who gets to decide what best-by date means? If you really want to serve the customer put a made-on date and let me decide if this one-year old can of tomatoes is really something I want to use by day 366. Now, we’re still at a race to the bottom by a combination of gaming the best-by date and putting preservatives to the maximum allowable extent possible. Packaged food industry.
This article claims that 12 million tons of food are wasted in California annually, and that this law will save 70,000 tons of food from going to waste. California's population is 39 million. Does that mean that every Californian is wasting a pound of food every day? That seems suspiciously high to me. I'm curious how they came up with those numbers.
I think this law is like plastic straw bans, or mandated bag fees, or prop 65 cancer warnings: a feel-good law that causes more problems than it solves. Anyone who makes food for sale in California will have to redo their labelling (or at least pay people to audit their product labelling). These costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of increased prices. Some manufacturers will choose to not sell in California, reducing consumer choice, reducing competition, and increasing prices. And for what? To reduce food waste by 0.6% in the best case.
It seems to me that the problem with food wastage isn't the extra food, it's the externalities created by food production, distribution, and disposal. It would be much more effective to tax these externalities than to make ineffective laws about product labelling.
I think this law is like plastic straw bans, or mandated bag fees, or prop 65 cancer warnings: a feel-good law that causes more problems than it solves. Anyone who makes food for sale in California will have to redo their labelling (or at least pay people to audit their product labelling). These costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of increased prices. Some manufacturers will choose to not sell in California, reducing consumer choice, reducing competition, and increasing prices. And for what? To reduce food waste by 0.6% in the best case.
It seems to me that the problem with food wastage isn't the extra food, it's the externalities created by food production, distribution, and disposal. It would be much more effective to tax these externalities than to make ineffective laws about product labelling.
> Does that mean that every Californian is wasting a pound of food every day? That seems suspiciously high to me.
That seems plausible. Figures vary a bit, but generally you're looking at 20-30% of food in supermarkets ultimately being wasted. An average person eats something like 1.5kg a day, so a pound seems about right. (Of course it's not as simple as that, because there's also wastage at home, and that's very hard to measure.)
That said, there's also a lot of wastage by restaurants and other catering operations, and this won't really help there, so the impact may not be as great as people hope.
That seems plausible. Figures vary a bit, but generally you're looking at 20-30% of food in supermarkets ultimately being wasted. An average person eats something like 1.5kg a day, so a pound seems about right. (Of course it's not as simple as that, because there's also wastage at home, and that's very hard to measure.)
That said, there's also a lot of wastage by restaurants and other catering operations, and this won't really help there, so the impact may not be as great as people hope.
My suspicion is that most of the waste is from the commercial sector and not from the residential. Even to the extent that it is just make food garbage separate from other garbage and then compost it directly. There's no reason to see discarded food as "wasted" other than for the fact our processes for managing the obvious consequence of home kitchens are either incomplete or totally missing.
The results of plastic bag & straw bans seem quite good to me.
I think it's wild how much misinformation and confusion there is about this minor change. I blame this on the legislature trying to hype up their nothing law into some major achievement, and news agencies shamelessly trying to make a story out of it.
The law is simply that you cant use various labels like "enjoy by" or "Best by" and instead, all non-safety dates must use the exact words "best if used by". It wont reduce food waste by 20% as claimed.
82001. (a) On and after January 1, 2025, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, shall use one of the following uniform terms on the date label:
(1) “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality date of the food item.
(2) “USE by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of the food item.
(3) “BB” to indicate the quality date of the food item if the food item is too small to include the uniform term described in paragraph (1).
(4) “UB” to indicate the safety date of the food item if the food item is too small to include the uniform term described in paragraph (2).
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB660/id/2837671
The law is simply that you cant use various labels like "enjoy by" or "Best by" and instead, all non-safety dates must use the exact words "best if used by". It wont reduce food waste by 20% as claimed.
82001. (a) On and after January 1, 2025, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, shall use one of the following uniform terms on the date label:
(1) “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality date of the food item.
(2) “USE by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of the food item.
(3) “BB” to indicate the quality date of the food item if the food item is too small to include the uniform term described in paragraph (1).
(4) “UB” to indicate the safety date of the food item if the food item is too small to include the uniform term described in paragraph (2).
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB660/id/2837671
I don't pay dates much mind. If it looks good, smells good, and tastes good I eat it. We are pretty adept at smelling and tasting spoiled food.
Over the last few years here in Germany many, many food products have gained a little note next to the "MHD" (Mindesthaltbarkeitsdatum, [1]) which says something like "oft länger gut" ("often viable for longer") or "ansehen, riechen, probieren" ("Look, smell, try").
And IIRC the EU is also debating the removal of MHD from staple foods that are shelf-stable for years, like dried pasta, uncooked rice etc. Normal sugar already doesn't have an MHD, although jam sugar is marked with the year of manufacture since they have other compounds in them as well beside the sugar itself.
Where i work all all the food that's simply past its MHD gets collected every morning by the Red Cross for food banks ("Die Tafel"). Obviously if a foods container is damaged or it's rotted fruits/veg or it would be unsafe to consume for another reason [2], that stuff gets thrown out (into bins collected for biomass processing).
[1]: pretty sure it's the same as "best (if used) by date" since products from abroad are sometimes marked "BBD <date>" instead of "MHD <date>" (at least on the transport packaging).
[2]: like lazy customers not putting frozen or cooled foods back but leaving them elsewhere in the warm store, something which REALLY aggravates me.
And IIRC the EU is also debating the removal of MHD from staple foods that are shelf-stable for years, like dried pasta, uncooked rice etc. Normal sugar already doesn't have an MHD, although jam sugar is marked with the year of manufacture since they have other compounds in them as well beside the sugar itself.
Where i work all all the food that's simply past its MHD gets collected every morning by the Red Cross for food banks ("Die Tafel"). Obviously if a foods container is damaged or it's rotted fruits/veg or it would be unsafe to consume for another reason [2], that stuff gets thrown out (into bins collected for biomass processing).
[1]: pretty sure it's the same as "best (if used) by date" since products from abroad are sometimes marked "BBD <date>" instead of "MHD <date>" (at least on the transport packaging).
[2]: like lazy customers not putting frozen or cooled foods back but leaving them elsewhere in the warm store, something which REALLY aggravates me.
Botulism can be present without any smell or taste
Botulism is a concern with canned food which have no real sell by date. Moreover, if botulism was in there during canning it's there on day one and day 1000.
Pretty low risk though. It requires a low-oxygen environment so mainly canned foods are the risk and overwhelmingly home-canned food that isn't heated properly/long enough.
But yeah, don't eat food from damaged cans.
But yeah, don't eat food from damaged cans.
> We are pretty adept at smelling and tasting spoiled food.
Ah.. so you have not experienced an injury or enough aging to compromise your ability to do this?
Ah.. so you have not experienced an injury or enough aging to compromise your ability to do this?
The real danger is leeching packaging materials, which is pretty minor.
Sensible change. But I wonder if it will encourage retailers to treat the secondary now more food safety related "use by" date as the real "best if used by" date.
If you're like me and slightly paranoid about food expiration dates and sometimes checks things in corner stores, you might notice they like to sell items that can be razor thin on the "sell by" date.
If you're like me and slightly paranoid about food expiration dates and sometimes checks things in corner stores, you might notice they like to sell items that can be razor thin on the "sell by" date.
That's exactly the problem attempting to be solved. There should be no problem with a retailer selling a product up to the sell by date, but you are still not keen to buy it because we don't know how much longer after that we have.
Instead you will be able to decide how close you want to cut it to either date.
Instead you will be able to decide how close you want to cut it to either date.
This was introduced a few years ago in the Swiss retailer chain Migros. The span between the sell-by date and the use-by date (typically around 1/10-1/5 of the entire lifespan of the product) would give the consumer the safety that the product was usable for a few days without checking the dates.
Without it, you need to check the date of every perishable product you buy if you want to consume it even the next day. If the store forgot to remove the product for a day (which happens regularly), you would buy a potentially harmful product if you don't always check the date.
On the positive side, the food can be sold regularly just until its expiry date, preventing food waste.
Without it, you need to check the date of every perishable product you buy if you want to consume it even the next day. If the store forgot to remove the product for a day (which happens regularly), you would buy a potentially harmful product if you don't always check the date.
On the positive side, the food can be sold regularly just until its expiry date, preventing food waste.
I wonder, do sell-by dates harm the bottom line of groceries due to more unsold perishable goods, or does that cost get passed back to the vendors? Either way this rule would seem to be advantageous to either the retailer or the wholesaler. Perhaps that helped to get it passed.
When I worked in a grocerie store.
The bread guy took back the unsold breads and we were only charged for the sold ones and credited the unsold.
This was in Montréal 20 years ago.
Not sure how it is today and I have no idea in California.
But since it passed I'm guessing it was thr same and now this would be an obvious advantage for the sellers since this would assuré they sell everything.
The bread guy took back the unsold breads and we were only charged for the sold ones and credited the unsold.
This was in Montréal 20 years ago.
Not sure how it is today and I have no idea in California.
But since it passed I'm guessing it was thr same and now this would be an obvious advantage for the sellers since this would assuré they sell everything.
I worked in a grocery coop and it depended on the vendor. For some, they controlled how much stock we carried and would take back anything that didn’t sell. For things that we ordered directly and chose how much to carry, we were responsible for expired food costs.
This is something I have idly wondered. Where does the expired food go? Both “literally rotting” and “canned good safe for a decade, but we toss it after 12 months”.
Landfill? Animal feed? Some amount of charity for the salvageable items? A typical grocery store could produce an incredible amount of daily waste.
Landfill? Animal feed? Some amount of charity for the salvageable items? A typical grocery store could produce an incredible amount of daily waste.
We were college students; we ate it ourselves. We also had access to a commercial kitchen, and anything getting close to going bad we’d make into prepared food, which always sold really fast. We couldn’t do that with our milk vendor though, because they would only give us credit for unsold AND unconsumed milk. We had to let the milk go bad, which was a huge waste.
I also used to dumpster dive, and yes, grocery stores throw out a LOT of food. Some places would have bins for pig farmers to collect, most just threw it in the trash. I’ve been held at gunpoint twice for dumpstering. We had an ongoing battle with a manager for a Trader Joe’s, who ended up pouring bleach all over the dumpster every night. It’s wild what people will do in order to keep people from getting something they don’t “deserve,” even when it’s literal trash.
I also used to dumpster dive, and yes, grocery stores throw out a LOT of food. Some places would have bins for pig farmers to collect, most just threw it in the trash. I’ve been held at gunpoint twice for dumpstering. We had an ongoing battle with a manager for a Trader Joe’s, who ended up pouring bleach all over the dumpster every night. It’s wild what people will do in order to keep people from getting something they don’t “deserve,” even when it’s literal trash.
kaikai says "It’s wild what people will do in order to keep people from getting something they don’t “deserve,” even when it’s literal trash."
But you haven't "stood in the other man's shoes" and seen it from his/her perspective.
Businesses are strictly regulated. They are required by law to dispose of certain old/damaged/discarded foodstuff and are not allowed to sell it for human consumption. Likely a second company (and possibly a third, since storage and hauling may be done separately) was hired to store the food in a container and to haul the food away as trash. The company signed a contract stating so.
Now you
1. entered his property (trespassed),
2. entered a dumpster (a second trespass possibly of a second business),
3. removed goods (theft), and then
4. passed/sold them to others (violating untold food laws)
and then are surprised someone tries to stop you!
Worst of all, consider if, while dumpster diving, you hurt yourself or even died? The food business would be sued and his insurance company would likely pay. You would have nothing to say about the decision to sue: your insurers and/or medical providers would pursue litigation against the food vendor even were you to oppose their actions.
As you can see, in this interpretation there is no particular question of what one or another person "deserves". Rather it is a question of law, property rights and civic responsibility.
But you haven't "stood in the other man's shoes" and seen it from his/her perspective.
Businesses are strictly regulated. They are required by law to dispose of certain old/damaged/discarded foodstuff and are not allowed to sell it for human consumption. Likely a second company (and possibly a third, since storage and hauling may be done separately) was hired to store the food in a container and to haul the food away as trash. The company signed a contract stating so.
Now you
1. entered his property (trespassed),
2. entered a dumpster (a second trespass possibly of a second business),
3. removed goods (theft), and then
4. passed/sold them to others (violating untold food laws)
and then are surprised someone tries to stop you!
Worst of all, consider if, while dumpster diving, you hurt yourself or even died? The food business would be sued and his insurance company would likely pay. You would have nothing to say about the decision to sue: your insurers and/or medical providers would pursue litigation against the food vendor even were you to oppose their actions.
As you can see, in this interpretation there is no particular question of what one or another person "deserves". Rather it is a question of law, property rights and civic responsibility.
I have seen it from their perspective, I’m not an idiot. I’m fully capable of seeing and understanding another persons perspective, and disagreeing with it. I reject the idea that allowing people to go hungry when there is a EXCESS of food available is a morally correct choice.
Laws are rules created by people and we have the ability to change them. At the very least, we have the ability and moral responsibility to ignore them when they are unethical.
Also, I have never sold dumpstered food or given it to anyone who didn’t know it was dumpstered. I HAVE gotten injured dumpstering, and didn’t sue anyone for it. I DID get sick once from dumpstered food, and didn’t sue anyone for it (I’ve also gotten sick from eating at restaurants, and didn’t sue them, either).
For me, basic human rights and care for each other will always trump laws and property rights. And yes, I’ve done jail time for it and would do it again. I know that we won’t agree, and don’t need to change your mind. I do hope that you can understand the difference between knowing and understanding the rules, and blindly following the rules.
Laws are rules created by people and we have the ability to change them. At the very least, we have the ability and moral responsibility to ignore them when they are unethical.
Also, I have never sold dumpstered food or given it to anyone who didn’t know it was dumpstered. I HAVE gotten injured dumpstering, and didn’t sue anyone for it. I DID get sick once from dumpstered food, and didn’t sue anyone for it (I’ve also gotten sick from eating at restaurants, and didn’t sue them, either).
For me, basic human rights and care for each other will always trump laws and property rights. And yes, I’ve done jail time for it and would do it again. I know that we won’t agree, and don’t need to change your mind. I do hope that you can understand the difference between knowing and understanding the rules, and blindly following the rules.
Well, at least you understand the rules and are willing to accept the consequences.
The reason they are enforced is because of game theory. There are plenty of things that are not a big deal if only one or two people do it. However, if large numbers of people do it then the system breaks down for everyone.
One hopes for some individual discretion at the margins, and the TJ's manager probably went overboard. However the morality is not so obvious when one has to consider higher order effects. (Though I also realize you would like the entire system to function differently anyway, which is a fair point as well).
The reason they are enforced is because of game theory. There are plenty of things that are not a big deal if only one or two people do it. However, if large numbers of people do it then the system breaks down for everyone.
One hopes for some individual discretion at the margins, and the TJ's manager probably went overboard. However the morality is not so obvious when one has to consider higher order effects. (Though I also realize you would like the entire system to function differently anyway, which is a fair point as well).
kaikai says>"I do hope that you can understand the difference between knowing and understanding the rules, and blindly following the rules."<
You could have done either: known and understood the rules or blindly followed the rules. Either was acceptable but you did neither: you instead broke the rules. Your post is a sociopathic justification of criminal action.
Why are there so many people unemployed and unemployable who seem to seek a repeat of the French Revolution in all of it's blood-dripping anarchy? The music of Les Miserables (the musical) was good, but not that good!
You could have done either: known and understood the rules or blindly followed the rules. Either was acceptable but you did neither: you instead broke the rules. Your post is a sociopathic justification of criminal action.
Why are there so many people unemployed and unemployable who seem to seek a repeat of the French Revolution in all of it's blood-dripping anarchy? The music of Les Miserables (the musical) was good, but not that good!
A lot of grocery stores donate it to soup kitchens thanks to the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act of 1996. My local SoCal Trader Joes donated over $700k worth of food last year.
It isnt uncommon for pig farmers to buy bulked spoiled or old food. I don't know how much that represents overall though.
When I volunteered at a soup kitchen in Newfoundland, we got in just/nearly expired food fairly regularly. Some got used, some (fresh stuff) got frozen, some got tossed.
Definitely a large amount of it went to perfectly fine meals. The cook was very skilled at making good meals with an odd selection of ingredients.
Definitely a large amount of it went to perfectly fine meals. The cook was very skilled at making good meals with an odd selection of ingredients.
I prefer "packed on" dates. With "best by" dates you have no idea what the actual age of the product is. Either for comparing freshness when buying it or for deciding whether to consume it later.
Food can sit around before being packed. I don't think packed on is any more useful in 99% of situations
The "best by" period is arbitrary, so a packed on date removes ambiguity that varies from producer to producer.
Why is the "best by" period arbitrary? That is based on an interval after the actual production time.
"Packed on" only helps if you have some understanding of how long that product will stay good for.
"Packed on" only helps if you have some understanding of how long that product will stay good for.
Europe has the MHD (Mindesthaltbarkeitsdatum)[0] but I think I never saw it exceeding 2 years which for some products is misleading since they would be good for very much longer like seeds or marmalade for example.
It will probably help to prolong certain products shelf life but it isn’t a perfect system.
0. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindesthaltbarkeitsdatum
It will probably help to prolong certain products shelf life but it isn’t a perfect system.
0. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindesthaltbarkeitsdatum
> which for some products is misleading since they would be good for very much longer
The Mindeshaltbarkeitsdatum is exactly what it says: a "best before" (MINDEST, minimum). It does not say anything about it not potentially remaining the same quality or taste after this date, and definitely not that it is dangerous to consume after. It may for example simply lose some of its taste over time, but up until that date it is "guaranteed" to taste the same ("the best").
Products that should not be consumed after a certain date (like meat) use "Zu verbrauchen bis" (use before); that is not a MHD.
The Mindeshaltbarkeitsdatum is exactly what it says: a "best before" (MINDEST, minimum). It does not say anything about it not potentially remaining the same quality or taste after this date, and definitely not that it is dangerous to consume after. It may for example simply lose some of its taste over time, but up until that date it is "guaranteed" to taste the same ("the best").
Products that should not be consumed after a certain date (like meat) use "Zu verbrauchen bis" (use before); that is not a MHD.
I realized food waste was a good thing during Covid. We had a 50% buffer on food supply during a global crisis. Had we been ultra efficient we would have been experiencing mass starvation due to the lack of automation in many parts of the local supply chains.
No date printed on a food item is ever going to be accurate to the day. Unless something is wildly out of date, just use your senses. If it looks, smells and feels fine, it is fine. You’d be surprised by how much longer everything in your friend (and outside) can last.
I wonder, if someone purchases and eats a spoiled food item that would have had a sell by date before the ban, will they have legal standing to sue the state? I assume this is different than expiration date?
If you seek an informed opinion, ask your lawyer.
I had a friend who always said "Best-before doesn't mean bad-after"
Won't the producers just leave the same date in, but change the wording before it?
That's the goal -- to make the wording clearer.
As the article says, many people misunderstand "sell by" to mean "only safe if used by".
As the article says, many people misunderstand "sell by" to mean "only safe if used by".
Let's hope this catches on elsewhere!
It likely will. Unfortunately, California laws tend to be de facto national laws for consumer goods, because manufacturers don't want to make one version for Cali and one for the rest of the US.
WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Meanwhile in Maine, you're questioning the sanity of Californians.
Meanwhile in Maine, you're questioning the sanity of Californians.
> To adhere with the requisite language outlined, any food products with a date label — with the exception of infant formula, eggs, beer, and malt beverages — must state “Best if Used By” to indicate peak quality, and “Use By” to designate food safety.
I mean, personally a big fan. I recently started seeing "Packed on <date>" and like wtf does that even mean. Was the corn also picked on that date?
Like these dates have been on products for as long as I can remember. Might was well have some rules around them finally.
I mean, personally a big fan. I recently started seeing "Packed on <date>" and like wtf does that even mean. Was the corn also picked on that date?
Like these dates have been on products for as long as I can remember. Might was well have some rules around them finally.
For me the one exception would be coffee. I'd much rather see a "roasted" date than some "best if used by" date.
Sorry for the juvenile joke, but I cannot help imagining an assembly worker picking up the bag, shouting "ur mom's FAT!" and stamping "roasted on Oct 7 2024" :D
I don't think this law forbids producers from adding supplemental dates? So a coffee container could conceivably have both dates
Same. I only buy the ones that have the roast date because most of the best if used by dates are around a year after the roast date. Cannot trust that.
There’s frankly a huge variation between the OMG it was roasted two weeks ago and the OK it’s only been a few months crowd.
> To adhere with the requisite language outlined, any food products with a date label — with the exception of infant formula, eggs, beer, and malt beverages — must state “Best if Used By” to indicate peak quality, and “Use By” to designate food safety.
"Use by" is dumb, it's too close to "Best if Used By." If there's a safety issue, the term should be "expires", "expires on", or something like that.
"Use by" is dumb, it's too close to "Best if Used By." If there's a safety issue, the term should be "expires", "expires on", or something like that.
I remember seeing a sell by date on salt. It was at that moment that I started questioning the process.
Have you ever bought an old cardboard tube of salt? The last time I did was in a tropical location. Somehow over the years it had acquired the scent of wet rot, and the relentless cycles of humidity had effectively recrystalized the contents into a rock.
Luckily the packaging had started to biodegrade, too, so it was easy enough to scrape off the fiber fuzz and hammer down the inner salt rocks into something useful. Better than nothing! But I wish I’d been able to buy it by its sell-by.
(Spoken as a skeptic of deadlines of all sorts, and one who routinely ignores food safety. I still think the dates are mostly silly, but that type of instance reminds me why it’s a hard problem: even if you’re not a dastardly wastemonger, choosing the “right” date depends heavily on handling and climate and factors beyond your control—unknowable at production time.)
Luckily the packaging had started to biodegrade, too, so it was easy enough to scrape off the fiber fuzz and hammer down the inner salt rocks into something useful. Better than nothing! But I wish I’d been able to buy it by its sell-by.
(Spoken as a skeptic of deadlines of all sorts, and one who routinely ignores food safety. I still think the dates are mostly silly, but that type of instance reminds me why it’s a hard problem: even if you’re not a dastardly wastemonger, choosing the “right” date depends heavily on handling and climate and factors beyond your control—unknowable at production time.)
How do you know this happened as a result of the sellby, as opposed to being improperly stored? The package could get wet at any point.
I suspect it was exactly a function of improper storage (and that it would last forever in a cool dry place).
My broader point, I guess, is that the appropriate date to sell something by depends so heavily on factors unknowable at production time that it’s hard to guess. But also that apparently-shelf-stable goods can in fact degrade.
And I guess that it’s kind of weird and unnatural the way modern industrial packaging/processing have trained us to expect that a given product should be interchangeable with any other until an arbitrary date.
My broader point, I guess, is that the appropriate date to sell something by depends so heavily on factors unknowable at production time that it’s hard to guess. But also that apparently-shelf-stable goods can in fact degrade.
And I guess that it’s kind of weird and unnatural the way modern industrial packaging/processing have trained us to expect that a given product should be interchangeable with any other until an arbitrary date.
As another poster mentioned, it likely refers to the packaging - either degredation of materials used or the effect that has on the contents (moisture ingress, oxidation, etc).
For salt, that seems somewhat silly, but not enough to make me fundamentally distrust the rationale
For salt, that seems somewhat silly, but not enough to make me fundamentally distrust the rationale
Sell by is entirely unrelated to quality though. It's just how often they think they can get away with. Like the recommendation on a box of baking soda... Put it in your fridge and change it every 30 days. No thanks.
Pretty sure that’s the recommendation to deodorize your fridge, not related to the baking soda’s shelf life. The other side of the box says “keep in a cool and dark place”.
It does seem to go “flat” after a few months regardless, even when the expiry date is 2 years in the future.
It does seem to go “flat” after a few months regardless, even when the expiry date is 2 years in the future.
There’s a whole controversy over this specific issue. For decades they recommended 90 days in the fridge to keep it fresh.
Then they switched to 30 days recommendation to goose sales.
Then they switched to 30 days recommendation to goose sales.
It's not how long they can get away with, it's how long they are willing to listen to complaints about it.
A sell by date makes perfect sense on salt. No packager wants to be responsible for material that sat on someone else's shelf for years and years.
A sell by date makes perfect sense on salt. No packager wants to be responsible for material that sat on someone else's shelf for years and years.
I think it all makes sense when you consider that the sell by date is the date at which they’ll stop accepting responsibility. And the “best before” dates are just guidelines.
I've seen it on vinegar too.
It's bad if you're a search engine. It's not as bad if you're a human who is capable of parsing natural language semantics.
> It's bad if you're a search engine. It's not as bad if you're a human who is capable of parsing natural language semantics.
I am a human capable of parsing natural language semantics, and "use by" is terrible. It's one of those completely unexplained commands you often find in instructions. Why should I use it by that date? If you're not a mindless drone who just unquestioningly follows instructions, the total lack of reason creates a lot of space to decide to do something else. For instance: without consulting California food labeling legislation (which, I admit, Californians all carry around the statute book those regulations several times a day), it's reasonable to interpret "use by" as "best if used by," for instance.
They should use clearer language because they can and have no excuse not to.
I am a human capable of parsing natural language semantics, and "use by" is terrible. It's one of those completely unexplained commands you often find in instructions. Why should I use it by that date? If you're not a mindless drone who just unquestioningly follows instructions, the total lack of reason creates a lot of space to decide to do something else. For instance: without consulting California food labeling legislation (which, I admit, Californians all carry around the statute book those regulations several times a day), it's reasonable to interpret "use by" as "best if used by," for instance.
They should use clearer language because they can and have no excuse not to.
I suppose that "use this before" and "this is best if used before" would be preferable.
The compromise here is to keep printing as short as possible. I think the greater issue is that these statements don't point to any trivially available authoritative definition.
The compromise here is to keep printing as short as possible. I think the greater issue is that these statements don't point to any trivially available authoritative definition.
"expires on", "not safe after", or "unsafe by" are not meaningfully longer. These aren't telegrams, they're not paying a penny a character. If they're willing to mandate the phrase "best if used by," they can mandate something clear than "use by" for safety issues.
They have no excuse.
They have no excuse.
"DO NOT CONSUME AFTER"
[deleted]
Yet another surprise. I wish CA lawmakers would stop operating in the dark.
Why ban such dates? I would want this data if I am a consumer. Sure the food may not be expired yet, but it may go bad sooner. I don’t understand why California feels the need to continuously pass hundreds of bills and impose so much control.
> Why ban such dates?
They're not being banned. The wording must change to "best if used by" if it's not about food safety.
They're not being banned. The wording must change to "best if used by" if it's not about food safety.
I find food in the US contains too much toxin that harms the body. They have a lot of synthetic chemicals and preservatives. Many of which have very bad long term damages to the body. Even with these labels, sometimes it doesn't really tell the whole story about the ingredients. Most of the food that sits on the shelf for weeks shouldn't be consumed.
> Most of the food that sits on the shelf for weeks shouldn't be consumed.
Salt? Flour? Oil? Oats? Rice? Garlic? Black pepper? Most ground spices? Nuts? Beans? Honey? Vinegar? Quinoa? All of these can reasonably sit on a shelf for weeks. I guess none of these are safe to be consumed, all just "toxins".
Salt? Flour? Oil? Oats? Rice? Garlic? Black pepper? Most ground spices? Nuts? Beans? Honey? Vinegar? Quinoa? All of these can reasonably sit on a shelf for weeks. I guess none of these are safe to be consumed, all just "toxins".
Or months plus. Flour probably gives better results for yeast breads in the weeks timeline but the average household isn’t buying a new bag of flour every couple weeks.
I do keep nuts in the freezer for the most part.
I do keep nuts in the freezer for the most part.
Depending on who you ask, flour isn't food.
I consider them crazies in the same vein as vegetarians who judge whether something is a vegetable based on how cute it looks.
I consider them crazies in the same vein as vegetarians who judge whether something is a vegetable based on how cute it looks.
That isn't most, and I mentioned synthetic chemicals & preservatives.
Pretty much all oils are processed foods. Vinegar is a preservative and is a processed food. Most salts are processed and are common preservatives. Flour is a processed food.
The reasons why Twinkies are so shelf stable are largely the same reasons why flour or rice or olive oil is shelf stable.
Better be careful of those chemicals like sodium chloride and dihydrogen monoxide.
The reasons why Twinkies are so shelf stable are largely the same reasons why flour or rice or olive oil is shelf stable.
Better be careful of those chemicals like sodium chloride and dihydrogen monoxide.
I think it’s the same as “chemical”. When something’s bad, it’s a chemical. When something’s good, it’s not.
I.e. nobody knows what “processed” means, they just know it’s bad somehow.
(Re-post of <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27397900>)
I.e. nobody knows what “processed” means, they just know it’s bad somehow.
(Re-post of <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27397900>)
> Salt? Flour? Oil? Oats? Rice? Garlic? Black pepper? Most ground spices? Nuts? Beans? Honey? Vinegar? Quinoa?
Sure, if you are assuming Americans are mostly eating these things daily.
Sure, if you are assuming Americans are mostly eating these things daily.
Twinkies are made up almost entirely (by mass) of the things listed above. The only major thing missing is sugar.
Should you check the ingredients again? that's your definition of most?
Twinkies ingredients, minus the less than 2% (was saying most by mass):
Sugar, Water, Enriched Flour, High Fructose Corn Syrup (sugar), Tallow (animal fat/oil), Dextrose (sugar, from the HFCS), Egg
Twinkies are >98% sugar, flower, oil, with a little bit of egg.
You could substitute the tallow with other similar kinds of oils if you wanted, like say coconut oil.
Sugar, Water, Enriched Flour, High Fructose Corn Syrup (sugar), Tallow (animal fat/oil), Dextrose (sugar, from the HFCS), Egg
Twinkies are >98% sugar, flower, oil, with a little bit of egg.
You could substitute the tallow with other similar kinds of oils if you wanted, like say coconut oil.
> All of these can reasonably sit on a shelf for weeks
Or for years, in a proper cupboard.
Or for years, in a proper cupboard.
> Salt? Flour? Oil? Oats? Rice? Garlic? Black pepper? Most ground spices? Nuts? Beans? Honey? Vinegar? Quinoa? All of these can reasonably sit on a shelf for weeks.
They're probably full of things that are bad for you too.
Your salt is full of microplastics (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/micro...). Your oats are full of chlormequat. Your spices are full of heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, and lead), and the same is true for vinegar, nuts, beans, and rice. Most honey sold in stores isn't real honey but comes from China and can be filled with chloramphenicol and other illegal animal antibiotics. Almost all of the extra virgin olive oil sold in US stores is fake and can also be contaminated with phthalates. Around half the garlic sold in the US comes from china and according to some this is Communist Sewage-Garlic, and a threat to national security (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67662779) which can also be covered in chemicals (the common claim is methyl bromide is used although I haven't seen anything to back that up)
The quinoa sitting on your shelf seems the least likely to be toxic or bad for you, but you might want to avoid it for other reasons (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/25/quinoa-g...)
They're probably full of things that are bad for you too.
Your salt is full of microplastics (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/micro...). Your oats are full of chlormequat. Your spices are full of heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, and lead), and the same is true for vinegar, nuts, beans, and rice. Most honey sold in stores isn't real honey but comes from China and can be filled with chloramphenicol and other illegal animal antibiotics. Almost all of the extra virgin olive oil sold in US stores is fake and can also be contaminated with phthalates. Around half the garlic sold in the US comes from china and according to some this is Communist Sewage-Garlic, and a threat to national security (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67662779) which can also be covered in chemicals (the common claim is methyl bromide is used although I haven't seen anything to back that up)
The quinoa sitting on your shelf seems the least likely to be toxic or bad for you, but you might want to avoid it for other reasons (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/25/quinoa-g...)
I'm glad I don't live in California. How are you supposed to know if you have milk that will quickly go bad etc.? While some of this can cause waste, many food items do start to go bad after they sit on the shelves too long. That said I'm sure the people behind this would prefer that you don't buy dairy and that you pick the mold off your bread and eat the rest. Thanks, but no thanks.
The beginning of the article should put your mind at ease:
> To adhere with the requisite language outlined, any food products with a date label — with the exception of infant formula, eggs, beer, and malt beverages — must state “Best if Used By” to indicate peak quality, and “Use By” to designate food safety.
> To adhere with the requisite language outlined, any food products with a date label — with the exception of infant formula, eggs, beer, and malt beverages — must state “Best if Used By” to indicate peak quality, and “Use By” to designate food safety.
> How are you supposed to know if you have milk that will quickly go bad etc.?
The milk will say "Best if Used By <date>".
This information can be found in the fifth sentence in the article.
The milk will say "Best if Used By <date>".
This information can be found in the fifth sentence in the article.
date of manufacture, or date of processing is far more practical to the consumer
From the first paragraph:
“must state “Best if Used By” to indicate peak quality, and “Use By” to designate food safety”
“must state “Best if Used By” to indicate peak quality, and “Use By” to designate food safety”
How are you supposed to know if you have milk that will quickly go bad etc.?
From the article:
any food products with a date label — with the exception of infant formula, eggs, beer, and malt beverages — must state “Best if Used By” to indicate peak quality, and “Use By” to designate food safety.
From the article:
any food products with a date label — with the exception of infant formula, eggs, beer, and malt beverages — must state “Best if Used By” to indicate peak quality, and “Use By” to designate food safety.
California first state to ban 'sell by' 'best before' label to reduce food waste - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41775298 - Oct 2024 (61 comments)