Should ‘best by’ dates expire?


Carrefour is launching a social media campaign asking consumers to help choose new wording to replace “best before” on food packaging. France’s largest food retailer said the phrase is misleading and is responsible for 20 percent of households’ food wastage.
Among the replacement options (in English):
- To be eaten before the mm/yy, but not imperatively!
- To be eaten before the mm/yy, because it’s better before!
- To be eaten before the mm/yy for optimum enjoyment
Carrefour has already scrapped best-before dates on 100 of its own products (e.g., sugar, salt, vinegar) and extended the best-before or use-by dates on 400 fresh and grocery products.
In efforts to further reduce food, Tesco this year removed best-before dates from 186 fruits and vegetables. Commissioned research from Tesco revealed 69 percent of U.K. customers believe scrapping best-before dates is a good idea. Fifty-three percent felt removing best-before dates makes a difference, helping them keep perfectly good food for longer.
“Best before” — as well as “Best by” and “Best if used by” — have replaced “Use by” and “Sell By” in many categories to help reduce food waste, but many consumers remain confused that such phrases refer to spoilage rather than taste. Retailers generally use “Use by” or “Sell by” labeling on meats and fish but use a variety of expiration dates on eggs and dairy.
A study this year from the Université du Québec à Montréal based on interviews with grocery stockroom managers found shoppers often reach to the back of shelves to grab items with the most distant best-before date. Grocers were found to throw away perfectly edible items whose best-before dates had passed or were close to passing due to reputation concerns.
A 2016 survey from the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic found that 84 percent of respondents occasionally throw away food that is past its labeled date and a third of respondents “usually” or “always” do.
- Tackling food waste: Carrefour joins forces with Too Good to Go – Carrefour
- Tesco banishes more best before dates as shoppers say it helps reduce food waste – Tesco
- Tesco to remove ‘best before’ dates off selected fruit and vegetable lines to help cut down on food waste – Tesco
- Consumer attitudes to ‘best before’ dates contribute to food waste, UQAM study finds – CBC
- Overview of Responsible Consumption in Quebec – Louis Bonduelle Foundation
- The expiration dates on our food could be contributing to a huge environmental problem – The Washington Post
- Consumer Perceptions of Date Labels: National Survey – Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: What’s your solution to reducing consumer confusion over expiration dates? Is removing or re-wording best-by labeling feasible or are there better options?
Join the Discussion!
11 Comments on "Should ‘best by’ dates expire?"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Managing Director, GlobalData
Foods that spoil and go bad, like seafood, should have use by dates. Not only is this a matter of safety, but it also helps consumers to know how long a product they buy has been sitting around at a retailer and, therefore, how long they can keep it at home before eating. Other foods, like fruits, don’t really need dates as consumers can see and easily assess freshness for themselves.
That said, I find Carrefour’s alternative wording very confusing and I am not sure they represent a sensible step forwards.
Founder, CEO, Black Monk Consulting
President, Spieckerman Retail
Marketing Strategy Lead - Retail, Travel & Distribution, Verizon
It is unfortunately that we can’t rely on “good judgement” by consumers. For non-perishable foods, I think it is still prudent to have a date on the package that estimates when the product is best for eating, as most foods will deteriorate over time even in sealed packages.
I would avoid putting “sell by” on any package, as that is only for the retailer and it will confuse consumers. A sell by date could be printed in more discrete/coded format.
As for the best terminology for consumers, I think all of the suggested phrases are clear to me.
Chairman Emeritus, Relex Solutions
This is surely focusing on the wrong thing, the whole idea of the wording on the packaging is to ensure that customers get the best possible quality and enjoyment from their purchase. Retailers need to improve their own supply chain operations to reduce waste and not change or blame wording for their own shortcomings. If they go down this route it is a slippery slope to selling poor-quality and even potentially dangerous foods.
Good supply chain solutions can reduce waste dramatically, improving profitability for the retailer and quality for the consumer. Companies need to get it right within the business first and then see if a change in wording is needed. And don’t fudge the problem by removing these valuable labels.
Global Retail & CPG Sales Strategist, IBM
We have got to ensure food safety as food-borne illness is on the rise. Poor product rotation is still an issue in both food stores as well as restaurants. So I’m not certain there is a quick fix to the current challenges of sell-by dates without impacting food safety. I say store-level and restaurant kitchen product rotation training and execution is key for now.
Managing Director North America, Fluent Commerce
Transparency is the key here. I like the idea of talking about safety with these kinds of warnings, so the consumer knows exactly what potential issues they may facing. “Safe if used by” or “Use before XX/XX to ensure safe consumption” are two possibilities. This puts the onus on the manufacturer to ensure quality through that date and better guides the retailer on markdowns.
President, Circular Logic
It all comes down to education. Even without a change to the text on the package, educating customers about food safety relative to Best By dates can help. Perhaps we need to provide both a Best By and a Use By date, so the customer has a better sense of the condition of the product and when it should be discarded.
CFO, Weisner Steel
The problem here is largely that of slow-moving inventory (whether it’s on the store shelf or the consumers’) So the alternatives are better inventory management or more stale items being sold and/or consumed. So while I’m sure everyone would prefer the former, I think we all know removal would likely lead to the latter instead. I vote stay.
Vice President, Research at IDC
The solution is a standards body selecting a definition and staying consistent with it. In lieu of that, however, rewording won’t help much and the “best by,” “use by,” and “sell by” definitions that Ryan outlines should be fine. Ideally, all rotten or unsafe food would be removed but removing food based on food expiration dates are very much a manual process — putting pressure on grocers to find ways to simplify the process.
Interestingly those tomatoes labelled fresh might be sitting en route in a cargo container for over a month while potatoes can be stored for up to nine months. Not sure how much impact we would be able to see.
Editor-in-Chief, CPGmatters
All of the posts had good points and suggestions. I don’t know how to fix the problem or make these labels more understandable, but here’s the commonsense reality: Shoppers look for a date on a package. No matter what the wording and advisory is, they will not buy the product when that date is coming up soon. In fact, they will rummage through the packages to find the latest date. How do you fix THAT?