Advancing the cause of 'sell-by' labels that mean what they say everywhere

Think how many times you've checked a carton of milk or wedge of cheese in your fridge and seen that it had passed the date on the package. The typical response is to throw it away.

However, experts say the problem is often not with the food or beverage but with the system used for notifying consumers about the product's expiration date.

"Most people think expiration dates tell you when food is spoiled or unsafe," said Dana Gunders, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "In fact, what it usually tells you is the manufacturer's recommendation for when the food is at peak quality."

The reality, she told me, is that the "use by," "best by," or "sell by" dates on most foods and beverages vary from state to state and are largely arbitrary. "There's no exact science behind this practice," Gunders said.

Legislation introduced last month in Washington aims to change that.

The Food Date Labeling Act would eliminate confusion over inconsistent labeling that is said to contribute to an estimated 40 percent of food going uneaten in this country. It would establish national standards for informing consumers when food is at its peak freshness and when it may be unsafe to eat.

It also would make it easier for businesses and consumers to donate uneaten food to nonprofit groups and charities, which would go a long way toward reducing hunger nationwide.

"This measure is really about common sense," U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) told reporters at a Washington news conference. "The date is irrelevant to food safety."

Blumenthal introduced the bill in the Senate; U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D., Maine) introduced identical legislation in the House.

Pingree noted that 20 states restrict donations of food once a package date has passed, regardless of quality or safety. "We could feed a lot more people if we weren't throwing it away," she said. "There's no good reason for not fixing these problems."

Their bills are based on advice and recommendations from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, nonprofit groups, and industry representatives.

Gunders said the proposed legislation would clarify expiration dates by removing ambiguity from what's being communicated to consumers. Packages would say "best if used by," which would specify when a product is at its freshest.

It wouldn't mean it's bad once that date has passed, just that freshness may be fading. Packages would feature an "expires on" date for riskier foods such as meat and fish to definitively show when there could be a health risk.

A 2013 report by the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic found that more than 90 percent of consumers toss out food once it hits the date on the package. Yet many consumers couldn't say what "sell by" or "use by" actually mean.

Americans waste 160 billion pounds of food a year, the report found, observing that "the rate of food loss in the United States far exceeds that of much of the rest of the world, with the average American consumer wasting 10 times as much food as the average consumer in Southeast Asia."

"Misinterpretation of the date labels on foods is a key factor leading to this waste," it concluded.

Gunders cited the example of milk. Some states require a "sell by" date of just 12 days after the milk was pasteurized, after which it could no longer remain on store shelves. Other states mandate a "use by" date of 21 days after pasteurization to indicate when the milk will taste best.

"Milk is actually an extremely safe product," Gunders said. "It will typically taste fine about a week after the date on the carton. If it smells OK, it's probably perfectly safe."

Changes at the federal level, which would supersede state rules, are necessary because that's the only way national standards can be put in place. Without such consistency, Gunders said, it would be hard to get the food industry to play ball.

"There are thousands of food companies out there," she said. "They'll all make these changes only if everyone has to do it."

Steve Armstrong, chief food law counsel for Camden-based Campbell Soup Co., called the proposed legislation "a really welcome development for the food industry."

Paul Bakus, president of corporate affairs for Nestle, said at the news conference that this is "no-duh legislation," by which he meant, I think, it would be totally stupid to reject such a sensible move.