I was pleased to hear that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is drawing up new guidance on the use of 'best before' and 'use by' dates. Critics of the present system say too many manufacturers are being over-cautious on this, resulting in a lot of food being thrown away unnecessarily.
On the other hand, food poisoning has not been eradicated so consumers need a simple way of knowing when perishable foods are safe to eat.
The draft guidance, currently out for consultation, includes a decision tree asking questions about the perishability and chemical composition of food to help food producers select the best option. New definitions may include 'unsafe', 'perishable', 'short period', 'long shelf-life' and 'spoilage'.
At Leatherhead, we have just launched a three-year research study looking at consumer perceptions of freshness and food safety and quality indicators.
The study will include shelf-life tests using both microbiological and consumer assessment of the products.
We are also interested in intelligent labels that change colour when foods become unpalatable or unsafe. But some argue that date marking should be restricted to perishable food that could cause food poisoning after the 'use by' date. They argue that most foods past their best before dates are perfectly safe to eat, although they may not taste as good as the fresh product.
In fact, some online retailers specialise in selling food past or close to the sell by date. In my opinion the distinction between 'use by' and 'best before' is very useful. One is about safety, the other is about quality. The key is to ensure that consumers understand the distinction.
Whatever advice is published by the FSA, indications of durability must be meaningful to the consumer, scientifically accurate and as simple as possible.
Dr Paul Berryman Chief executive Leatherhead Food Research