If you see the words “best if used by” on a salad mix package or canned food in a store, what does that mean to you?
It’s a question I asked six acquaintances.
Five thought it meant it’s not good to eat the food after that date.
One indicated it meant the food would not be as good after that date.
Under a California that goes into effect in July 2026, five of them gave an answer the legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom didn’t count on.
The other was close to being on the mark.
What mandating “best If used by” as being one of only two food label dating phrases allowed under Assembly Bill 660 signed by Newsom last September is supposed to do is to end consumer confusion.
The four words, the according to Sacramento powers that be, means the month, day, and year the item marked will be at peak quality. The other allows phase — “use by” — is designed to indicate product safety.
Apparently there is a printed Tower of Babel of confusion out there when it comes to “dating” food.
Food industry experts say there are about 70 different phrases floating around.
But the one drawing the most ire is “sell by”.
“Sell by” is used by food processing firms to inform store personnel of when it is time to rotate stock.
Anyone who has worked in a food bank knows food products are still good past the sell date.
Many food banks when it comes to canned goods are comfortable with at least six months past the “sell date” that apparently a lot of people read as an expiration date.
The idea is uniformity will end consumer confusion.
That, in turn, will lead to Californians throwing out less food.
Decomposing food — along with other organic waste that includes lawn clippings, weeds, and such — are responsible for just over 40 percent of California’s point source methane emissions.
It is also estimated an average American household spends $1,300 a year on food that is never eaten.
The law going into effect 15 months from now will supposedly help trim our recycling costs, reduce grocery bills, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
There’s only one problem with that.
The odds are most California consumers will not read “best if used by” as meaning the food is still good after that date.
That is even with a second “use by” label that gives the date at which the food quality tanks and/or become unsafe to eat.
One assumes there will be a massive re-education campaign when the mandated universal label law goes into effect to set people straight so that they do not waste perfectly good food.
But whether it sticks to the degree proponents believe it will be a game changer is far from certain.
Take a step back and look at how we buy things, including food.
We simply buy too much.
That’s not meant to be a criticism of our shopping habits. It just reflects reality.
The low hanging fruit, literally, will likely not see a reduction in waste.
When we buy too much produce — or something like a watermelon we intend to eat but never get around to it — once it starts to spoil we toss it.
No labeling system is going to change that.
It likely won’t change for package baked goods.
As for canned goods and other processed items such as juices, dressings, pasta — you name it — it is a stretch of the imagination to actually believe simply changing the wording will reduce much of what gets tossed.
Do not misunderstand.
Every little bit helps.
And clearly a uniform labeling system should, if understood and followed, help cut down on waste.
But you can’t help but wonder if there isn’t something the prophets in Sacramento are missing.
An audit of garbage carts a few years back by the City of Manteca underscored the food waste problem.
It noted more than 40 percent of what was placed in green carts destined to be landfilled was food waste.
That was back in 2014.
The statewide average, based on weight, was 20 percent of what people tossed in garbage cans was food waste.
Auditors made an additional observation.
There was an inordinate amount of fast food waste.
Given fast food places in Manteca have multiplied and prospered since then, the odds are that observation still holds today.
Toss in the massive shift to app ordering and delivery services and it may have even gotten worse.
It is why the assumption made by the backers of Assembly Bill 660 that Newsom signed will somehow represent a tectonic turning point in the amount of food being tossed might by a bit of wishful thinking.
The odds are it won’t move the needle that much.
It might help if how to read food labels was somehow incorporated at some point into a life skills class before students graduate from the public school system might start long-range changes.
Besides, there is an inordinate amount of prepared food items that get tossed due to not selling.
The Internet is full of “shocking” waste stories about “Restaurant A” tossing prepared food that wasn’t sold.
The reality is they do so out of an abundance of caution as they have no control on how it may be kept fresh when being transported to charitable “end users” to make sure it doesn’t go to waste.
Lawsuits are a legitimate concern.
Efforts to reduce such food waste under state efforts divert more garbage from the landfill have been mandated.
Many places from Panera to Safeway to delis have arrangements with trusted partners through food banks and such to distribute perishable food they can’t sell before it goes bad.
And what is spoiled or close to it, goes into orange carts for composting and possible use to produce biofuels.
All things considered, you might conclude that the new food labeling mandate likely won’t change the habit most Californians have with over buying food whether it is at the supermarket or a fast food outlet.
It is why the first in-the-nation universal food labeling act Californian politicians crowed about will likely be about as effective at reducing food waste being buried as the reusable 10 cent plastic bag law did in reducing plastic bags that were landfilled.
