In Kimberley Kausen’s home, a passed “sell by” date on a jug of milk means different things to different family members. For her daughter, it means the jug belongs in the trash. For her husband, it means the milk is still good for a few more days.
“Discard after” or “do not consume after”would be better for actual food safety, much more direct and literal. But there are plenty of times I’ve eaten something after the “use by” date - not a long time after, but the food was still good.
The problem is that you cannot guarantee a date for which something may go bad. It would end up still being a freshness date, because you can guarantee that. Semantics, I know, but could you imagine someone suing because a can of tuna was still edible despite its “do not consume” date?
But that was kinda my point, I understand that food can be good past a “use by”. But if people want to make it literally about safety there should be a “do not consume” date.
But that isn’t safe, you understand that no? If we are being reasonable, I get what you’re saying, but the end result would just be the same date with another name. The “use by” is a fail-safe. Now whether or not those dates are too conservative is up to interpretation (especially after leaving controlled environments).
Unless you really are implying that a 50 yr old can of processed meat recalls because it only lasted 49 years due to a defect and won’t hit it’s “do not consume” date. That’s not realistic at all. Some stuff can last very, very long times under perfect conditions. Stuff like honey and butter would never spoil. But to imply any of these items would still be safe (even after said perfect conditions) introduces a fail-unsafe situation.
On the other hand, I sympathize with the idea of reducing food waste. But there are other ways to tackle that - like donating food to shelters and such when it is still safe to eat. But that’s a different agenda entirely.
“Discard after” or “do not consume after”would be better for actual food safety, much more direct and literal. But there are plenty of times I’ve eaten something after the “use by” date - not a long time after, but the food was still good.
The problem is that you cannot guarantee a date for which something may go bad. It would end up still being a freshness date, because you can guarantee that. Semantics, I know, but could you imagine someone suing because a can of tuna was still edible despite its “do not consume” date?
People will sue for any reason.
But that was kinda my point, I understand that food can be good past a “use by”. But if people want to make it literally about safety there should be a “do not consume” date.
But that isn’t safe, you understand that no? If we are being reasonable, I get what you’re saying, but the end result would just be the same date with another name. The “use by” is a fail-safe. Now whether or not those dates are too conservative is up to interpretation (especially after leaving controlled environments).
Unless you really are implying that a 50 yr old can of processed meat recalls because it only lasted 49 years due to a defect and won’t hit it’s “do not consume” date. That’s not realistic at all. Some stuff can last very, very long times under perfect conditions. Stuff like honey and butter would never spoil. But to imply any of these items would still be safe (even after said perfect conditions) introduces a fail-unsafe situation.
On the other hand, I sympathize with the idea of reducing food waste. But there are other ways to tackle that - like donating food to shelters and such when it is still safe to eat. But that’s a different agenda entirely.
I’d like to have a label that detects if the food is still good. That would be nice.