Skip to main content

Food labelling confusion a factor in food waste

Misinterpretation of food labels is a major contributor to food waste. In the UK, an estimated 30% of household food waste may be attributable to this consumer confusion. The 'best before' and 'use by' dates are statutory requirements in food packaging for products sold in the UK and in many other countries.  But are they properly interpreted? 

A new study in the US published in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour shows that many consumers misinterpret food date labels, yet use them with confidence. 

Consumer education is needed, the authors argue, to increase understanding of food date labels.  Does it mean “spoiled - throw it out,” or “might not taste as good as it could anymore?”

Food date labels (e.g. “USE By August 16”) can play an important role in helping consumers make informed decisions about food, and ultimately prevent unsafe consumption and waste of food. Perhaps one problem is that this covers too wide a remit for the labelling.  For example, food waste might conflict with a more judicious following of the labels.  What does 'best' mean in this context. How quickly does food deteriorate after the 'best' date?  Does our nose provide a better judge than a label? Who has not used that test?

Researchers surveyed 2,607 adults in the United States to assess consumer understanding of the streamlined 2-date labelling system and explore the relative effectiveness of educational messages in increasing understanding.

“Our study showed that an overwhelming majority of consumers say that they use food date labels to make decisions about food and say they know what the labels mean,” says Catherine Turvey, of the Department of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Milken Institute School of Public Health, in Washington DC. 

“Despite confidently using date labels, many consumers misinterpreted the labels and continued to misunderstand even after reading educational messaging that explained the labels’ meaning.”

Less than half (46 per cent) of study respondents knew that the “BEST If Used By” label specifically indicates that food quality may deteriorate after the date on the label. Less than one-quarter (24 per cent) of study respondents knew that the “USE By” label means that food is not safe to eat after the date on the label.

Researchers explored if framing the messages with values like saving money or avoiding waste, would impact the effectiveness of messages at increasing consumer understanding.  Whilst none of the seven value frames tested was significantly more effective at increasing understanding than another, but all messages significantly increased consumer’s general understanding of the labels.

After viewing educational messages, 37 per cent of consumers still did not understand the specific meaning of the “BEST If Used By” label and 48 per cent did not understand the specific meaning of the “USE By” label.

The research suggests that date labels are so familiar that some consumers believe they are boring, self-explanatory, or common sense despite misunderstanding the labels.  “Unwarranted confidence and the familiarity of date labels may make consumers less attentive to educational messaging that explains the food industry’s labelling system.”

 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba