Missing BB date on crisps

stephen77

Lugh_Chronain wrote: »

As mentioned by Martin Lewis not so long ago: "Best before labels usually have nothing to do with whether food is safe to eat, it's just a manufacturer's view of optimum quality. Plus it's an easy way to keep us buying more food.

"We should only have use by dates on food when appropriate which ARE for health reasons and 'sell by' dates on food for manufacturers. For everything else we should use our eyes and nose."

Free Food Saving Memo: Reminder to check before you chuck...

1) Best before dates also create instore wastage for both supermarket and food manufacturers. thus stock may got sold more cheaply at companies like approved foods or just binned. So while Martin will say its all about more profit the food industry. Removing them can help with reduce costs as well from food companies as well.

2) While its okay to touch, smell and look at food. I can not do this with a pack of crisps as they are enclosed. Rather not go up to a bread isle and find all the loaves have been squashed as people seeing how fresh it is etc.

Lugh_Chronain

fionajbanana wrote: »

I once saw a supermarket colleague on opening a box of own brand cereal, the whole case had no dates and took them off the shop floor.

Under European law best before or use by dates have to be kept. Probably why the store removed the batch from their shelves.

Nevertheless, personally, and as I'm not a store manager of any sort and only a member of the public, I would ignore this as it appears to only apply to stores and manufactures.

It's also difficult to say whether there should be more checks at the manufacturers and supermarkets end as it probably near impossible to check ever single item as there will most likely be thousands being distributed from the factory shop floor.

However, it won't do no harm to inform the manufacturer about this issue. They rely on the public just as much as the public rely on them.

Lugh_Chronain

stephen77 wrote: »

2) While its okay to touch, smell and look at food. I can not do this with a pack of crisps as they are enclosed. Rather not go up to a bread isle and find all the loaves have been squashed as people seeing how fresh it is etc.

I suppose you have to ask, what's the likelihood of returning them? Has the OP informed the store of the issue. As was pointed out in my previous post they may give a refund as there are no dates showing on the packets, even as a gesture of good will. Worth trying though I'd still say open one and try it.

stephen77

Most companies especially supermarket own brand lines will have quality checks that involve collecting a portion of the wrapping material with the date attached to for there records at the despatch part of the production process.
However the odd mistake may happen when companies are selling millions of products each day. We are talking a lot less than 0.1% of produce.

stephen77

Lugh_Chronain wrote: »

I suppose you have to ask, what's the likelihood of returning them? Has the OP informed the store of the issue. As was pointed out in my previous post they may give a refund as there are no dates showing on the packets, even as a gesture of good will. Worth trying though I'd still say open one and try it.

I was meaning the above in response to the below suggestion of scrapping best before dates and use our eyes and nose before you have purchased the item.

"We should only have use by dates on food when appropriate which ARE for health reasons and 'sell by' dates on food for manufacturers. For everything else we should use our eyes and nose"

Lugh_Chronain

Yeah, understand after rereading your previous post though can you explain this? Are you saying because there will be less waist everyone, including the manufacturers, will benefit?

stephen77

Yes, as less wastage food manufacturers will be better off as well in certain cases.
1) means less planning of your production chain as storage capacity is the only thing stopping you make longer runs. You do have to worry about stock running out of life.
2) Do not have pay people to do stock control checks on dates.
3) Do not have to pay people to remove out of date stock
4) do not have to pay people to remove out of date stock to be removed from store.
5) the cost of the stock binned soon adds up.

Though as article says. There are many people who use a best before date as a absolute guide in deeming the product to be safe. So once past that they bin the item at home and go and re-buy the product. So companies can make more money that way.
To be honest I have no idea if removing best before dates. If food companies would be better off or not. Just the article says they are only there for food companies to make more money may not be quite right.

Lugh_Chronain

It would be interesting to know the exact figures alright. Good point also about stock control, and so on, as companies wouldn't have to employ as many people I suppose. Not good for job prospects though as there are currently 2.52 million people in the UK out of work. :think:

This is shocking as well: 53% of consumers never eat fruit or vegetables that has exceeded the date; 56% would not eat bread or cake; and 21% never even "take a risk" with food close to its date.

What did people do before best before, sell by and use by dates? What did people do when they used to grow and cook their own food?

The problem does appear to be confusion though. Often people don't realise the difference between 'best before' and 'use by' labels which confuse customers, causing them to throw away perfectly edible food. Though it has to be said, there has to be a balance when it comes to consumer safety as well as it can be argued not eating out-of-date food is one of the simplest ways of preventing food poisoning. After all, a large number of people get sick every year due to spoiled food let's not forget.

I suppose what needs to be done is an improvement of labelling so that when we buy food, we know exactly how long it's safe to eat, and not a complete ban.

stephen77

Lugh_Chronain wrote: »

It would be interesting to know the exact figures alright. Good point also about stock control, and so on, as companies wouldn't have to employ as many people I suppose. Not good for job prospects though as there are currently 2.52 million people in the UK out of work. :think:

.

We will never know this as most companies will not release confidential information like as it has no benefits to let any one know it.

stephen77

Lugh_Chronain wrote: »

It
This is shocking as well: 53% of consumers never eat fruit or vegetables that has exceeded the date; 56% would not eat bread or cake; and 21% never even "take a risk" with food close to its date.

.

There are foods that I would not want to eat near there end of life compared to fresh as the quality is not the same. Nothing do to with safety, just quality.
On the other hand some foods are fine to be eaten past the date regarding quality and safety. Some food may improve a slight bit with age as they mature.

The public do need educating on the difference between labels. Not sure what is the best outlet for the public to be made aware of this? May be school.
I am quite educated on this subject so can guage how much allowance I would have on a use by date based on a little science.

I will use steak as a example. I like my steak rare. I would not worry about eating it rare a few days out of date, however I would be less likely to give this steak to eg elderly compared to a fresh steak as the bacteria has longer time to multiply.
Food companies when setting out micro testing have to work to the lower common deminator of person eating eg the elderly rather than young and healthy.