3 ms·

> 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 — m

by tivert 2y ago

> 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.

brightball 2y ago
I remember seeing a sell by date on salt. It was at that moment that I started questioning the process.
- etrautmann 2y ago
  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
  - nick3443 2y ago
    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.
    - ricardobeat 2y ago
      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.
      - MrDarcy 2y ago
        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.
    - maxerickson 2y ago
      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.
      - kergonath 2y ago
        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.
- Maximus9000 2y ago
  I've seen it on vinegar too.
- alwa 2y ago
  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.)
  - schwartzworld 2y ago
    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.
    - alwa 2y ago
      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.
Simulacra 2y ago
I think people will adjust to the new language but not update their schemas, which means their behavior will not change.
- nsxwolf 2y ago
  "UNSAFE TO USE AFTER"
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
engineer_22 2y ago
"DO NOT CONSUME AFTER"
thomastjeffery 2y ago
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.
- tivert 2y ago
  > 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.
  - thomastjeffery 2y ago
    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.
    - tivert 2y ago
      "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.

by tivert 2y ago

brightball 2y ago

I remember seeing a sell by date on salt. It was at that moment that I started questioning the process.

etrautmann 2y ago
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
- nick3443 2y ago
  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.
  - ricardobeat 2y ago
    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.
    - MrDarcy 2y ago
      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.
  - maxerickson 2y ago
    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.
    - kergonath 2y ago
      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.
Maximus9000 2y ago
I've seen it on vinegar too.
alwa 2y ago
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.)
- schwartzworld 2y ago
  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.
  - alwa 2y ago
    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.

Simulacra 2y ago

I think people will adjust to the new language but not update their schemas, which means their behavior will not change.

nsxwolf 2y ago
"UNSAFE TO USE AFTER"

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

engineer_22 2y ago

"DO NOT CONSUME AFTER"

thomastjeffery 2y ago

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.

tivert 2y ago
> 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.
- thomastjeffery 2y ago
  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.
  - tivert 2y ago
    "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.