Do Sell By Dates Really Matter? California Says No.

Cal

ifornia's Sell By Date Ban Could Change How Americans Buy Food

More than a decade ago the Food and Drug Administration suggested that food manufacturing sell-by dates were an underlying cause of food waste in the United States.  Today, California has turned that suggestion into a state law banning the use of sell-by dates on almost all foods.  And, they are not alone.  New York, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and South Carolina all have similar bills pending in an effort to reduce food waste and maybe even tackle food cost issues at the same time.

How Date Labels Contribute to Food Waste

When food manufacturing companies first started using sell-by dates, they were meant to be a tool for supermarkets to keep track of inventory and used to simplify communication between food producers and retailers.  The intent was never for consumers to see dates and use them to determine the quality of a food product.  Yet, that is exactly what happened and it happened to the extreme.  Today, any product with an expired sell-by date is deemed rotten in the eyes of consumers.

Retailers have picked up on consumer perception and tend to pull products off of shelves early so they don’t get labeled as the grocery store that sells rotten food.  Even as donated items to food pantries the products have trouble not ending up in the trash.  Because the sell-by date is believed to be scientifically backed and a government mandated quality indicator, consumers judge products to be safe or dangerous by this labeling. In reality, it is a grand misunderstanding, and one that is responsible for 20% of the food waste created in the U.S.

If the sell-by labeling was a government backed metric, it would have a clear definition.  But, sell-by has no universal meaning and isn’t tied to any safety standard.  This is why California is pushing for universal language.  If a consumer is going to see a label and use it to make a purchasing decision, it has to mean something specific.  

Best If Used By vs. Sell By Labels

Peak freshness is different from spoiled food.  California will only allow “best if used by” language for labeling as an indicator of a food's freshness.  An apple purchased after its best-by date might not be as crisp.  Nuts and crackers might be slightly stale.  The texture or even the nutrient content of food might change as it sits on a shelf, but that doesn’t mean it is dangerous to eat.  Consumers will be able to make informed choices not only in the supermarket, but at home.  

This is a big deal for California.  The state estimates six million tons of food is thrown in the trash every year because of the sell-by date misunderstanding.  Annually, this waste makes up 18% of California’s garbage.  Nationally, the implications are also significant.  According to a Californians Against Waste report, 50 different types of date labels are being used in the United States.  Some 2.5 billion tons of food is wasted every year because of these labels.

Food waste is a pollutant, but it is also hard on consumer budgets.  As more states adopt similar laws, the perception shift should have a positive impact on the average American’s grocery bill.  Consumers could be inclined to buy in bulk and take advantage of sales if they know they are navigating freshness levels not food safety. Or, they might make fewer trips to the supermarket once they know the food they have at home is past its prime, but still safe to consume.  Similarly, grocery retailers, who tend to have slim profit margins to begin with, should also reap the benefit of being able to keep inventories on shelves for longer periods of time.  

Manufacturers may be the ones to feel the pressure under California’s new law.  The state is leading the charge down a path that could ultimately benefit the food industry at large, but for now, they are the only state with a ban on sell-by language.  This means food manufacturers will have to create unique packaging for California, and any other state that adopts a similar policy. If each state has their own criteria, then we’ve created a confusing, and potentially costly, situation.  If it lays the foundation for universal language, then we will succeed in reducing food waste and food budgets. 

For now, banning confusing labeling is a move that won’t cost the state of California anything.  It doesn't require new infrastructure or the rebuilding of supply chains. At the very least, it should help consumers use more of the food they are purchasing.  At best, it could usure in a new area of food efficiency here in the United States.