Manufacturers "too cautious” with best-before dates

By Elaine Watson

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags Food safety Food

Best-before dates 'overly conservative'
Best-before dates 'overly conservative'
Food manufacturers are being “far too cautious” when it comes to setting best-before dates for many ambient food products, according to a leading academic in the field of sensory shelf-life testing.

Speaking at Leatherhead Food Research’s food innovation day last week, Dr Guillermo Hough said that consumer testing on products at the end of their shelf-life typically revealed that “many could have had their shelf lives extended”​.

Hough, a research fellow at the Instituto Superior Experimental de Tecnologa Alimentaria in Argentina, said that many products had a relatively low rejection rate from consumers at the end of their shelf-life, which suggested manufacturers were being overly conservative with best-before dates​ and good food was going to waste.

Given that many products were typically consumed well before their best-before dates, even a 50% rejection rate at the end of a product’s shelf-life might be acceptable given the small numbers of consumers that would eat the product at this late stage, he added.

Using the example of a product with a 35-day shelf-life consumed by 100 people, only four would typically consume it after 20 days, he said, meaning that a 50% rejection rate at the end of the shelf-life only correlated to two consumers. And this was “probably acceptable”,​ he said.

Quality, acceptability, not food safety

He added:“With cheese, meat, milk and so on, it’s microbiology that dictates shelf-life, but in 80% of categories, it’s sensory shelf-life that matters, not food safety, so the issue is consumer acceptance.”

However, it was still fairly unusual for food manufacturers to use consumer testing in shelf-life work, he said. Most firms instead relied on a combination of historical information, instrumental/analytical studies and trained sensory panellists to predict shelf-life and set best-before dates.

But correlating consumer rejection rate data with data from trained sensory panellists and instrumental data might help firms select a more appropriate cut-off point at which a product’s shelf-life should be set, he argued.

For example, once a certain flavour compound known to be a marker of rancidity/fat oxidation reached a particular level (as measured by analytical techniques such as GCMS), or once sweetness (as measured by a trained sensory panel) reached a certain threshold, consumer acceptability might suddenly drop, with rejection rates hitting 50% or more.

Conversely, if trials repeatedly showed a correlation between sensory/analytical data and consumer rejection rates, it should be possible to use such data to predict consumer acceptability.

If a firm decided that a 30% consumer rejection rate was the point at which it wanted to set a product’s shelf-life, it could predict, from sensory panel or analytical data, when a 30% rejection point would occur, and set the shelf-life accordingly.

Accelerated shelf-life testing

Hough also sounded a note of caution about the use of accelerated shelf-life testing, a widely used tool to help manufacturers predict shelf-life.

But trying to predict what a product would be like after nine months after exposing it to ‘extreme’ conditions over, say, three months, was inherently risky, said Hough.

Related news

Follow us

Featured Jobs

View more


Food Manufacture Podcast

Listen to the Food Manufacture podcast