Here in Norway yoghurt pots have Tine's new slogan:
Best før, men ikke dårlig etter.
In English:
Best before, but not bad after.
Shops are also required to reduce the amount of food that they throw out which results in every supermarket having a chiller with almost out of date food marked down by 40 or 50 percent. I buy a lot of this.
Labelling here, Norway, distinguishes between a 'best before' (best før), and a 'last edible date' (siste forbruksdato).
The second typically appears only on fresh produce, such as a sliced ham, that becomes dangerous as it gets older, in contrast to products like milk, yoghurt, vegetables, etc., which typically simply decline in quality but are not dangerous even weeks or even months past the best before date.
A vendor could be sued for that in the US, but not a manufacturer. Expiration dates have no legal meaning for manufacturers.
(A manufacturer actually was sued when, after encountering production issues, they recovered by simply relabeling the expiration dates on existing product. But the manufacturer won that suit decisively.)
I've never paid attention to use by or best-before dates. I think generally trusting you nose, eyes and instincts does you fine.
The one that most surprises me is the loaves of brown seeded bread I buy. The use by date is normally only a week from purchase, where as the bread is normally fresh for 2 weeks, and edible but starting to harden up to 3 weeks.
If I followed the use by date, I'd be throwing away half a loaf of bread every week.
Just a single gone-off meal can kill you, so you can't try all that many times and hope to find the limit of survivability. Damp gain and rice based things are particularly hazardous in that regard - sure it's unlikely to be bad, but when it is bad, it can be very bad.
A single crossing of the road can kill you. A single car drive can kill you, hell you could go to sleep one night and never wake up for many many reasons.
You can't avoid things just because they could kill you.
You've listed the one exception to being able to rely on your senses, and it doesn't really correlate with best before dates, cooked reheated rice is the main risk.
> You've listed the one exception to being able to rely on your senses,
There's not "one" exception. You can't smell the toxin caused by bacillus cerius; you can't smell campylobacter; you can't smell listeria; you can't smell samonella; you can't smell e coli; you can't smell C. perfringens etc etc etc.
It's about the statistics, same reason we have seatbelts and helmet laws. If a less aggressive sell-by date means one in a million loaves of bread gets moldy, that might kill a handful of people a year. If nothing else, allowing people to die from preventable sales of expired food is bad politics.
Best before and sell by is a guarantee. Its the company saying this product will last until X date. Just like your car doesn't become unusable when the warranty runs out, neither does bread, especially when you make some attempt to store it properly, because best before dates are based on the opposite.
Each year about 3000 people in the US die from food poisoning. About 100,000 people are hospitalised, and some of them will have been caused permanent harm.
To add: even if we throw out a few hundred million dollars worth of food, that's more than a fair trade for a few thousand lives and 40x that in hospitalizations.
> Best before and sell by is a guarantee. Its the company saying this product will last until X date.
As I mention elsewhere in the thread, these dates do not have any legal meaning at all for the manufacturer. They do have meaning for the vendor (the grocery store), but that's not what people generally imagine is going on.
Even the phrasing "best before" explicitly doesn't guarantee anything; a manufacturer would be crazy to make such a guarantee.
A guarantee, as in we will stand behind this product until X date. You wouldn't necessarily expect to have no problems with a car in the warranty period, you would expect any problems that arise within the warranty period to be sorted.
I would expect bread consumed before the best before date not to be stale, if it was I would expect to be able to get my money back, I wouldn't expect the same after the best before.
> I would expect bread consumed before the best before date not to be stale, if it was I would expect to be able to get my money back, I wouldn't expect the same after the best before.
One problem with food is that there are too many variables about how it's stored after it leaves the store. For example, bread can go stale if it's not stored in an airtight container.
And that's why I use my own judgement when deciding if its ok to eat.
The best before probably takes into account the worst case and is set low accordingly. I go to the effort to store bread appropriately so that lower bound is no longer particularly relevant to me.
> The best before probably takes into account the worst case and is set low accordingly.
Absolutely not, if you think bread going stale is relevant to the expiration date. (Which it isn't.)
If you leave bread exposed to the air, it will go stale almost immediately, long before a one-week expiration period has elapsed. The expiration date is obsolete as soon as you open the product.
When you cross the road you look around, evaluate the risk, then cross. You don't close your eyes and hope, neither do you just never cross the road.
The same should apply to food, there have been multiple food poisoning cases in the US stemming from salad, so following best before labels isn't going to avoid all risk. The best option therefore is to evaluate risks for yourself. I don't blindly drink milk based on the date. If it stinks and is lumpy, I don't drink it, regardless of whether it's in date or not.
The Use By date is one method people canuse to evaluate the risk.
Your salad example doesn't support your point, it counters it. We can't smell food poisoning, so suggesting that people just sniff the food to see if it's safe to eat is, by your own example something that isn't going to work.
You keep saying "use common sense" and "using my senses", but you cannot use your senses because you cannot smell most food poisoning bacteria.
When you sniff food and it smells bad you know that food can't be eaten, so you throw it out. When you sniff food and it doesn't smell bad can that food be eaten? You don't know.
That's why they have the dates: the dates take into account the most common food poisoning bacteria, and best practice storage in the home, and make a balancing act.
What you do with your own body is obviously up to you, but please don't use "I can smell if it's bad" if you're feeding children or old people because they are at risk of death or permanent harm.
Sometimes the food itself its perfectly fine but the container is the issue. Plastic and aluminium can leak into the food after time passes. Especially true for sauces and liquids.
method 1: take the food out, stare at it for a few minutes. if it doesn't move, it's still good.
method 2: open the fridge and yell "BOOO!!!". anything that doesn't run away in fear is still good.
more seriously: keeping food edible requires proper storage conditions. as long as the bread is kept dry, it is good. if it starts to harden that is a good indicator that it was dry enough. even hard bread is still edible if soaked in liquid.
but beware of humidity. mold is treacherous and initially invisible. once i see any bit of mold on a bread, then the whole loaf is lost.
on the other hand, on jam or cheese i'll just cut the mold away generously and eat the rest. with cheese especially i expect that most of the mold is edible anyways. i still cut it away though, just to be safe.
also, to help food keep fresh longer i don't buy sliced bread or cheese for example. the slices have more attack-surface and go bad faster. it's less of a difference for bread because mold can get through anyways, and slices will only dry up faster. with cheese and meat however, the smaller surface really helps to protect the inside.
Why don't stores offer work the expiration of goods into the price? E.g. a 5% discount on things 25% into their expiry, 10% for 75% etc.
It's a common technique to pay staff to stock shelves in such a way that the goods about to expire are at the front, savvy customers will dig at the back to get the new stock. Right now there's no price incentive not to do that.
In the UK, some supermarkets do this. At my nearest supermarket, they can have very large discounts (maybe 75% or more) when an item's expiry date is today, and occasionally they do increase the discount over time like you suggested.
Each time they change the price, they put a sticker with the new price and barcode over the old one, on every discounted item. The employee time required to do this is non-trivial. I imagine that in some places, stores would decide that it's not worth the effort, since a discount might not increase sales enough to match the reduced profit per item (especially in affluent areas where customers can easily afford the full-price item, and maybe turn their noses up at items near their expiration date).
I use eatbydate for all my perishables, which usually buys me another week or two on the refrigerated food. I also keep a labeler by the fridge, so I can relabel opened containers with the reduced date instead of trying to remember when that jar of alfredo was last used
One of the perks I remember from working in a grocery store many years ago was free pickings of stuff that was going to be thrown out that was past the expiry. Got a lot of free food. Never got sick or had any ill effects once.
But is a small chance of dying from eating toxic bacteria worth it?
Best before dates act like a 'hard cutoff', but the reality is the risk of eating food is typically an exponential increasing from the time it was made. It just starts from a very low value.
Just a single gone-off meal can kill you, so you can't try all that many times and hope to find the limit of survivability.
"Best before" is mostly meaningless (in Europe). It's an exceedingly pessimistic manufacturer estimate of when the product might look, taste or feel different, not when it may become risky. Chocolate may have developed a little white bloom from the oils separating a little but still be perfectly edible and delicious etc.
Many things will keep for months or years after the best before date. One of the most ridiculous ones are eggs which will normally last months - yet have a mandated best before of 28 days.
"Use by" are the ones to take note of. Those are the perishables like milk or meat where the bacteria count matters. These are the ones that have been arrived at by food safety testing.
Even those are designed to be pessimistic enough to cope with the fact that a huge proportion of fridges are running several degrees higher than recommended, and people will leave things on the side for a few hours etc
Genuine question: are there any foods that go bad in such a way that you can't see, taste or smell it, but it can kill you anyway? (Emphasis on "go bad": things like listeria were there from the start.)
If you have a condition that means you'll react very badly to something that would most other people nothing more than an upset stomach, yes. For example, if your immune system is already compromised (from HIV, cancer, etc) something as simple as mild botulism can kill you.
About 3000 people die from food poisoning every year in the US.
> But is a small chance of dying from eating toxic bacteria worth it?
The parent is probably talking about food that's not more than a few days past expiry, since they worked in a grocery store. The risk from not following a mostly-arbitrary date is not much higher if properly stored than say, eating improperly-stored food.
Things that have gone bad taste bad on their own, but if you put something bad in a meal that disguises that flavour you're unlikely to notice.
It's one of the reasons why hot countries often have spicy, highly flavored foods. Before refrigeration people could use poor quality meat for longer by covering up the taste, and it didn't kill them because lots of spices have anti-bacterial qualities.
It's a bit worrying to see people repeat the incorrect "you can smell it if it's risky" advice.
You will be able to smell if food is rotting. USE BY dates aren't just about rotting though, they take into account commonly found bacteria in different food, and correct storage.
You won't be able to smell most types of food poisoning bacteria, and the risk of poisoning goes up after the use by date.
Also, the uses of preservatives, refrigeration and antibacterial agents means that the way food goes bad today is very different than the way food went bad when our noses evolved.
For example, flies circling round meat would make most people instinctively think twice before eating it. In most environments, they will appear within a few hours of the creature dying. In your fridge, the flies won't hatch, taking away a vital signal marking the age of the food.
Side note: I personally follow best-before dates. Not because I have a rational fear -- I might have some irrational fear -- but also it just makes my life simpler.
Not having decide if something has gone bad reduces decisions I have to make :)
If you bought some milk in date that was lumpy and stank, would you drink it? Conversely if it were one day out of date but smelt and looked fine, would you throw it away?
Personally I use use by dates (I don't really check best before dates) as a shopping tool, so I buy thing that will last the time required, then rely on my senses.
Canned goods have best before dates on for heavens sake, I'd happily eat a 10 year old can of X, assuming it's none bulging.
Cooked rice is the only thing I'm aware of that can kill you after cooking, whilst still appearing ok.
I didn't confuse. Although I did change from what my parent mentioned.
Although it would be nice to have the time to check best befores and use bys of everything I put in my trolley, in practice its basically meat and milk, purely to check that they will last until I want to use them.
I can't edit the parent any more but...I was mostly referring to dry goods and stuff. Occasionally some yogurt a day or two past. I wasn't unreasonable, I'm aware of the risks of foodborne illness, I was even then. There were only certain things we were allowed to take. It wasn't a free for all. I probably should have made this more clear. We threw a lot more away than we took. Things regularly expired on the shelves.
On youtube there are plenty of videos of people eating old military rations. The oldest is from the Boer War. But here is "1942 WW2 US Army Field Ration C B Unit MRE Taste Test Vintage Meal Ready to Eat Oldest Food Review" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm8f5Kj_CrY
I just bought some fancy chocolate for almost nothing the other day. Best before was end of january but it tasted very good! If I didn't know old chocolate goes white I might have throw it away.
I usually keep stuff like bread for a little longer and I usually don't waste most of it. If I'm not sure I'll eat it in time I'll freeze it even though it won't be as soft.
No, the problem is that people can sue (and win!) if they eat food from a company’s garbage bins and then get sick. Remove the liability, and you remove the motive to protect against said liability at the expense of the commons.
Hmm, I can't find (in one minute searching, busy, sorry) someone winning such a case..
I find it a bit strange. First, because many people do dumpster diving. Second, because it is mostly the big companies locking their bins, so why do the smaller ones don't if it's risky?
