9 ms·

This has been the case in the UK for many years. There's an actual regulatory difference between 'use by' and 'best before': https://www.food.gov.uk/science/mic

This has been the case in the UK for many years. There's an actual regulatory difference between 'use by' and 'best before': https://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/use-by-and-best-before-dates https://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/use-by-and-best...

jwdunne 10y ago
This can generate a bit of confusion. Many won't eat anything past its best before date, as though it's a use by date. Best before date = no guarantee of quality after. Use by date = potentially poisonous after. In fact, we have online stores that sell past best before date food at ridiculous prices because retailers can't really sell them.
- simplehuman 10y ago
  They could simply have used the terms "Unsure quality after" and "Discard after"
  - gpawl 10y ago
    How would using more confusing terms help?
    - jwdunne 10y ago
      "Guaranteed until xxx" - all brands guarantee their products before the best before. "Hazardous after xxx" - literally, this could kill you after this date. The other problem is forcing brands to put "hazardous" on their labels.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Or "could be dodgy" and "will be dodgy".
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      Fellow Australian think we are going to have to explain to most of the rest of the world what dodgy means first :) Anyway shouldn't it be "might be dodgy" and "is dodgy"?
      - jwdunne 10y ago
        Except the British, or at least Mancunians. "Ugh tastes a bit dodgy" does not sound foreign to me in any way.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  I think the confusion is due to the fact that some products have both types of date marking, some have only use-by, and some have only best-by. Some consistency would go a long way to fixing the confusion. If you have both on the product it's clear.
  - jwdunne 10y ago
    I don't think I've seen this before but good point. I'd have thought use by would be equivalent to best before in that case. Usually the use by is a couple of days, up to a week e.g meat, milk, etc.
    - awjr 10y ago
      Use By = Unsafe to eat. Can make you sick or even kill you. Best Before = Tastes funny. Found a bag of crisps(chips) with a Best Before of about two years ago. Tasted horrible, but not unsafe to eat. Although I do take some Use By dates as a guide only. Eating yoghurt within 4-5 days of the use by is usually ok.
      - jwdunne 10y ago
        2 year old gone off crisp?! Anyway, I just don't think I've seen a product with both dates on!
        awjr 10y ago
        Found at the back of kitchen cupboard. I was curious as to how bad a sealed packet of crisps 2 years out of date would taste.
        jwdunne 10y ago
        What did they taste like and what was the flavour?
        10y ago
- wbillingsley 10y ago
  That's not because of confusion over whether it's means the same as "Use By" so much as because some products, though perfectly safe after their "Best Before" in practice might be a bit yuck, while others are generally ok, and you can't always tell because often it's about "did the humidity get to it?". That KitKat might have more bend than snap to it... That box of stale cornflakes might be a bit more chewy than crunchy... And unsurprisingly, consumers aren't keen on the risk of getting home from the shops, only to discover that £1 product that's past its best before really is ickily unpleasant and now they have to walk all the way back to the shops again if they wan't something palatable...
  - jwdunne 10y ago
    There is that. It rarely happens the day after best before - still perfectly edible if stored right. I've met people who refuse to eat food a few days before the best before so as to completely avoid getting ill. After the best before, it's considered "gone off", just like the use by.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
It's part of EU law also, at least the “use by” part.
- Theodores 10y ago
  ...which is a very important point in this era of 'Brexit'. In a few years food in the UK is going to be as poor as it is in the U.S. since the EU regulations will no longer apply. British people might even end up like Americans where everything is essentially a by-product of corn - corn fed meat, corn based pasta, corn based sugary drinks, corn based batter and corn based thickeners adulterating everything. I am old enough to remember when food wasn't labelled the proper EU way. Sell by dates were vague and didn't apply to lots of products, there was inflation back then and everything had a price sticker (remember them) and often the low price of a tin (e.g. 7 1/2 New Pence) would give you a clue that it was past it. The worst bit of food label changes happens next year in the U.S. when the nutrition labels get confusing. You can imagine 'big food' ('big corn') would want. Maybe the US should apply for EU membership to get the benefits of decent regulation on food, this could shift the US diet away from obesity-corn products.
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    I don't think EU and US food policy could be reconciled. That was a part of the argument against TPIP. The EU has a glucose-fructose syrup production quota, annual production is limited to 300,000 tonnes. Meanwhile the US subsidises maize. The EU cares more for the origin of food, and the preparation method: Champagne, Stilton, Scotch whisky, Plarma ham, Greek yoghurt. The US cares more for trademarks.
  - DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
    Legitimate concerns, but the UK now is a much smaller fry in the global market with considerably less local production - Switzerland and Norway are both out of the EU too (EEA regulations aside) and the products they consume are th same quality - I don't see companies going out of their way to exploit any regulatory laxness in the UK - it just wouldn't be worth it. Unless Ms. May decides the only way to save the UK economy post-Brexit is to change the country to a Laissez Faire model overnight.
caf 10y ago
Very similar to the Australia / New Zealand standard too - http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/dates/Pages/default.aspx http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/dates/Pag...
NamTaf 10y ago
Australia's the same - 'best before' aka 'it won't go very bad very quickly but it may be stale and unpleasant', and 'use by' aka 'this is milk and you know milk goes bad rapidly after a set time so use it before then'. 'Sell by' never made sense to me, because it doesn't instruct the end consumer what to do with it once they get home. It's got a relatively variable amount of time after the 'sell by' date until the product goes bad, and consumers simply can't judge that.

jwdunne 10y ago

This can generate a bit of confusion. Many won't eat anything past its best before date, as though it's a use by date. Best before date = no guarantee of quality after. Use by date = potentially poisonous after. In fact, we have online stores that sell past best before date food at ridiculous prices because retailers can't really sell them.

simplehuman 10y ago
They could simply have used the terms "Unsure quality after" and "Discard after"
- gpawl 10y ago
  How would using more confusing terms help?
  - jwdunne 10y ago
    "Guaranteed until xxx" - all brands guarantee their products before the best before. "Hazardous after xxx" - literally, this could kill you after this date. The other problem is forcing brands to put "hazardous" on their labels.
- flukus 10y ago
  Or "could be dodgy" and "will be dodgy".
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Fellow Australian think we are going to have to explain to most of the rest of the world what dodgy means first :) Anyway shouldn't it be "might be dodgy" and "is dodgy"?
    - jwdunne 10y ago
      Except the British, or at least Mancunians. "Ugh tastes a bit dodgy" does not sound foreign to me in any way.
k-mcgrady 10y ago
I think the confusion is due to the fact that some products have both types of date marking, some have only use-by, and some have only best-by. Some consistency would go a long way to fixing the confusion. If you have both on the product it's clear.
- jwdunne 10y ago
  I don't think I've seen this before but good point. I'd have thought use by would be equivalent to best before in that case. Usually the use by is a couple of days, up to a week e.g meat, milk, etc.
  - awjr 10y ago
    Use By = Unsafe to eat. Can make you sick or even kill you. Best Before = Tastes funny. Found a bag of crisps(chips) with a Best Before of about two years ago. Tasted horrible, but not unsafe to eat. Although I do take some Use By dates as a guide only. Eating yoghurt within 4-5 days of the use by is usually ok.
    - jwdunne 10y ago
      2 year old gone off crisp?! Anyway, I just don't think I've seen a product with both dates on!
      - awjr 10y ago
        Found at the back of kitchen cupboard. I was curious as to how bad a sealed packet of crisps 2 years out of date would taste.
        jwdunne 10y ago
        What did they taste like and what was the flavour?
        10y ago
wbillingsley 10y ago
That's not because of confusion over whether it's means the same as "Use By" so much as because some products, though perfectly safe after their "Best Before" in practice might be a bit yuck, while others are generally ok, and you can't always tell because often it's about "did the humidity get to it?". That KitKat might have more bend than snap to it... That box of stale cornflakes might be a bit more chewy than crunchy... And unsurprisingly, consumers aren't keen on the risk of getting home from the shops, only to discover that £1 product that's past its best before really is ickily unpleasant and now they have to walk all the way back to the shops again if they wan't something palatable...
- jwdunne 10y ago
  There is that. It rarely happens the day after best before - still perfectly edible if stored right. I've met people who refuse to eat food a few days before the best before so as to completely avoid getting ill. After the best before, it's considered "gone off", just like the use by.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

It's part of EU law also, at least the “use by” part.

Theodores 10y ago
...which is a very important point in this era of 'Brexit'. In a few years food in the UK is going to be as poor as it is in the U.S. since the EU regulations will no longer apply. British people might even end up like Americans where everything is essentially a by-product of corn - corn fed meat, corn based pasta, corn based sugary drinks, corn based batter and corn based thickeners adulterating everything. I am old enough to remember when food wasn't labelled the proper EU way. Sell by dates were vague and didn't apply to lots of products, there was inflation back then and everything had a price sticker (remember them) and often the low price of a tin (e.g. 7 1/2 New Pence) would give you a clue that it was past it. The worst bit of food label changes happens next year in the U.S. when the nutrition labels get confusing. You can imagine 'big food' ('big corn') would want. Maybe the US should apply for EU membership to get the benefits of decent regulation on food, this could shift the US diet away from obesity-corn products.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  I don't think EU and US food policy could be reconciled. That was a part of the argument against TPIP. The EU has a glucose-fructose syrup production quota, annual production is limited to 300,000 tonnes. Meanwhile the US subsidises maize. The EU cares more for the origin of food, and the preparation method: Champagne, Stilton, Scotch whisky, Plarma ham, Greek yoghurt. The US cares more for trademarks.
- DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
  Legitimate concerns, but the UK now is a much smaller fry in the global market with considerably less local production - Switzerland and Norway are both out of the EU too (EEA regulations aside) and the products they consume are th same quality - I don't see companies going out of their way to exploit any regulatory laxness in the UK - it just wouldn't be worth it. Unless Ms. May decides the only way to save the UK economy post-Brexit is to change the country to a Laissez Faire model overnight.

caf 10y ago

Very similar to the Australia / New Zealand standard too - http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/dates/Pages/default.aspx http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/dates/Pag...

NamTaf 10y ago

Australia's the same - 'best before' aka 'it won't go very bad very quickly but it may be stale and unpleasant', and 'use by' aka 'this is milk and you know milk goes bad rapidly after a set time so use it before then'. 'Sell by' never made sense to me, because it doesn't instruct the end consumer what to do with it once they get home. It's got a relatively variable amount of time after the 'sell by' date until the product goes bad, and consumers simply can't judge that.