Is the 'date' to eat by, use by etc. more confusing than helpful?

Pollycat

Itisme wrote: »

I know a lot of the time they are a guide, but I think something like 'use by' is more important than 'best before'. For the most part I try to adhere to the dates, but if something seems fine and has gone a bit past, then it probably is fine.

There is a clear difference between 'use by' and 'best before'.

'Best before' means it's perfectly OK to consume after the BB date but the taste might not be so good as it was before the BB date.
Typical items are coffee, tinned foods, crisps, biscuits, pickles, sauces and even butter.

'Use by' dates are generally put on items that go off e.g. milk, cream & yogurt.

The oldest I've probably eaten is this (posted 14/4/2017):

Pollycat wrote: »

OK. How about this for not wasting food.

I found a can of condensed Campbell's lentil soup under my food shelf in my garage.
The 'best before' date was Oct 2008!

Not dented or blown.
Opened it, it looked OK, smelled OK.
Added water, tasted OK.
It's in the slow cooker with lamb, potatoes, turnip, carrots, onions & leeks.

Just curious if anyone else would have used it too.

From the replies to that post, it seems a lot of people would have used it.

Sniff it, taste it and if it passes the test, use it.

LameWolf

The cynic in me wonders if all these confusing dates are actually designed to get consumers to throw out perfectly edible food and buy more. :cool:

I've never come across a "not ripe until...." date on fruit/veg; but then, I buy all mine loose on the market. Not a date in sight (apart from the sticky things with stones in)

I don't take a blind bit of notice of the dates on things, I use my eyes, nose, and finally taste buds; and I always use the oldest first if I have more than one of something.