How improving sell-by dates can reduce food waste

The consumer confusion over food expiration dates leads to millions of pounds of food being thrown away each year. But there's a better way.

Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor/File
Spices sit on a table in Hingham, Massachusetts. Some argue that spices have an expiration date, others that they last years.

A new short film produced in partnership by the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic (FLPC) and Racing Horse Productions spotlights how the confusion around expiration date labels contributes to food waste in America.

"EXPIRED? Food Waste in America" looks at the specific example of milk in Montana, where the state law requires the sell-by date on all milk to be no later than twelve days after pasteurization. "After the sell-by date passes, the milk may not be sold or donated. As a result of the law, thousands of gallons of milk have been thrown away, and milk prices in the state have risen," writes Harvard Law Today.

However, as with many so-called expired foods, the milk in Montana is safe to drink beyond those first twelve days. And, Montana isn't the only state with laws that promote food safety uncertainty and food waste.

According to FLPC Director Emily Broad Lieb, "date label confusion harms consumers and food companies, and it wastes massive amounts of food, which harms the planet. The U.S. wastes 160 billion pounds of food, or nearly 40 percent of food produced in this country, annually. Twenty-five percent of our freshwater is used to grow food we throw away. What gets tossed out goes into landfills, releasing hazardous methane into an already stressed atmosphere. Making date labels clear and uniform offers a relatively low-cost way to eliminate confusion and save consumers money, and it would make a big dent in the unnecessary waste of wholesome food."

The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic hopes that this film raises awareness about the consequences of confusing date labeling and how a uniform labeling system could impact food waste and consumer food safety.

Click here for more information and to view the film.

This article first appeared at Food Tank.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.