Companies are allowed to do this in some nations as long as they also distribute the cipher to grocers. For example, literally every chewing tobacco I’ve seen. This leads to higher sales because lazy employees don’t take the time to check the printout and remove expired product.
I have no reason to doubt what you’re saying, but I really have to say this is the dumbest bullshit I’ve ever heard. The whole idea of putting expiration dates on products (and nutritional info for that matter) is for consumers to be able to interpret this stuff. Not manufacturers and not store managers. Consumers. There’s no excuse for allowing this.
No arguments that it’s shifty and dumb, but it’s better if the store can be held liable for selling bad product. That said, almost anything with “best by” as opposed to “expired by” is still safe to eat for probably decades.
No, best before is for the market, it was never intended for customers, that’s not the date the food goes bad, it’s the date it starts to be different from their best, e.g. a bread might become harder than intended, so it’s meant to have the store sell it on pristine condition. Use by date is the one that is for customers.
Well, that would be the reason if they were legally required to do so, but Baby Food is the only product in the US legally required to have an expiration date.
So, all the other food manufacturers voluntarily put expiration dates on, and they want you to buy more food, so the date on most packages is functionally meaningless
Even if similar markings are not required by law everywhere in the USA, food manufacturers are probably afraid of getting sued due to violating local laws, or even international laws if the food is transported across borders, so it’s probably negligent to neglect printing them.
Like the other comment here says, no it wasn’t. It’s useful for the store to guarantee it’s good, but customers should be ignoring them as using the senses we evolved to use to detect bad food. A store can’t rely on this, partially for liability, partially for speed and consistency, but also largely because they can’t open the packaging to smell it or look at it better.
If I as a buyer can’t tell the difference between fresh and expired food before I buy it, then what’s the store’s incentive to not sell me something a few days or weeks after its sell-by date? Even if they want to, they can’t keep track of every product on the shelves (I’ve encountered items past their date on shelves a number of times, sometimes significantly so) and they certainly don’t check each item’s date at checkout. If customers can’t do the check as they shop, there’s no way to protect against it. And just kick the shop, customers can’t open the packaging before they buy.
I do realise based on your comment and others that I may have been wrong (probably country dependent), printed dates might be intended more for stock keepers than for consumers, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to hide this information from buyers.
Companies are allowed to do this in some nations as long as they also distribute the cipher to grocers. For example, literally every chewing tobacco I’ve seen. This leads to higher sales because lazy employees don’t take the time to check the printout and remove expired product.
I have no reason to doubt what you’re saying, but I really have to say this is the dumbest bullshit I’ve ever heard. The whole idea of putting expiration dates on products (and nutritional info for that matter) is for consumers to be able to interpret this stuff. Not manufacturers and not store managers. Consumers. There’s no excuse for allowing this.
No arguments that it’s shifty and dumb, but it’s better if the store can be held liable for selling bad product. That said, almost anything with “best by” as opposed to “expired by” is still safe to eat for probably decades.
Wow that’s stupid as fuck
No, best before is for the market, it was never intended for customers, that’s not the date the food goes bad, it’s the date it starts to be different from their best, e.g. a bread might become harder than intended, so it’s meant to have the store sell it on pristine condition. Use by date is the one that is for customers.
Well, that would be the reason if they were legally required to do so, but Baby Food is the only product in the US legally required to have an expiration date.
So, all the other food manufacturers voluntarily put expiration dates on, and they want you to buy more food, so the date on most packages is functionally meaningless
I don’t know about today, but in the past New Jersey required that “expiration dates” be stamped on bottled water: https://nj1015.com/does-bottled-water-expire-nj-was-the-only-state-that-thought-so/
Even if similar markings are not required by law everywhere in the USA, food manufacturers are probably afraid of getting sued due to violating local laws, or even international laws if the food is transported across borders, so it’s probably negligent to neglect printing them.
Like the other comment here says, no it wasn’t. It’s useful for the store to guarantee it’s good, but customers should be ignoring them as using the senses we evolved to use to detect bad food. A store can’t rely on this, partially for liability, partially for speed and consistency, but also largely because they can’t open the packaging to smell it or look at it better.
If I as a buyer can’t tell the difference between fresh and expired food before I buy it, then what’s the store’s incentive to not sell me something a few days or weeks after its sell-by date? Even if they want to, they can’t keep track of every product on the shelves (I’ve encountered items past their date on shelves a number of times, sometimes significantly so) and they certainly don’t check each item’s date at checkout. If customers can’t do the check as they shop, there’s no way to protect against it. And just kick the shop, customers can’t open the packaging before they buy.
I do realise based on your comment and others that I may have been wrong (probably country dependent), printed dates might be intended more for stock keepers than for consumers, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to hide this information from buyers.
I’d imagine the fact that is not legal and is negligent would stop them.