5.3 Date marking Date marking is by far the most commonly studied food safety label element, and surveys are the most common study type. There are many different ways to date mark a food product internationally. Examples include ‘sell by’, ‘best before’, and ‘use by’. Generic terms such as ‘expiry dates’, ‘open dates’ and ‘date marks’ are also used in the literature. Key points Date marking is the most commonly studied food safety label element. This likely relates to date marking being the most commonly looked for and used food label element. 5.3.1 ‘Use by’ dates Key points Very high proportions of New Zealand and Australian consumers (up to 92 percent) say they read and apply ‘use by’ dates. However, when what ‘use by’ means, just under half of New Zealand and Australians say a food is safe to eat after the ‘use by’ date has passed. The study authors commented this is concerning given ‘use by’ date markings are the most widely used food label element. Compared with ‘sell by’ and ‘best if used by’ dates, consumers say ‘use by’ dates are best at urging them to consume the food before the stated date. Of all the date marking options, ‘use by’ is the best understood by consumers. Depending on food type, there are differences in what proportion of the population say they would eat a food beyond its ‘use by’ date, but it is always a large proportion (45-74 percent depending on food type). People in older age brackets are more likely to eat a food beyond its ‘use by’ than people in younger age brackets. Some consumers trust ‘use by’ dates, and others see them as a cynical manipulation by food companies to make additional profits from wasted food. The certainty of date markings and its ‘institutional origin’ contributes to this feeling of distrust and rejection. Most consumers, even those who distrust ‘use by’ dates, see ‘use by’ dates as one piece of information to help decide if a food should be waste or not. Consumers use ‘use by’ (and to a lesser extent ‘best before’) date markings to achieve better value for money (via a product lasting longer) and to a lesser extent to maximise nutritional value. When trying to understand how food becomes waste (the same idea as ‘use by’) – there appears to be a ‘boundary to cross’ – when the food causes ‘a feeling of disgust’. This
eaten (49% of respondents). A further 22% thought a date that ‘tells a consumer the best date to discard a product’ was most useful. Only a minority thought ‘sell by’ or ‘best if used by’ dates were useful (4% for each) (Kosa et al., 2006).
Food Safety Information Council (Australia) Food Safety webpages of the Ministry for Primary Industries website (NZ) Cancer Society (NZ and Australia) Heart Foundation (NZ And Australia) Codex Alimentarius. World Trade Organization US FDA Department of Health (UK) Food Standards Agency (UK) European Food Safety Authority Health Canada Institute of Food Technologists World Health Organization University of Sheffield: Consumer culture in the age of anxiety. Key search terms and sequence ‘Label*’ ‘Food label*’ ‘Food safety label*’ ‘Food label*’ + ‘safe*’ See following search term example from Ovid Medline for used. Secondary/related search to be added/replace key search terms Theory framework background context consumer motivation knowledge risk product Inclusion/ Exclusion criteria Including: theoretical underpinnings prevalence/monitoring data Theory - all countries. Context - New Zealand and Australia only No date restriction English language only. Date inclusion of 1994 onwards. Developing economies excluded. The role of food labelling in addressing the risks of chronic diet-related disease is excluded. Food safety topics excluded: pesticides, genetic modification, heavy metal contamination, traceability, allergens, alcoholic beverages, irradiation Settings excluded: laboratory tests of label instructions (consumers not present), catering, shelf labelling, pamphlets, websites,
Appendix 3: Summary of studies Summary of experimental, direct observation and case control studies Author Study characteristics (design; aims) Participant characteristics Method and/or intervention (if any) Relevant outcome measures Quality rating DeDonder et al., 2009. United States of America To identify if there is a difference between consumer intention and actual behaviour regarding preparation of frozen chicken products. Two groups of participants were studied: 20 adolescents 12-14 of age, and 21 adults (mean age of 40 years) who prepare food in the home at least twice per week. Two thirds of participants female. In a kitchen, three cameras recorded the preparation of the products. Participants were instructed to prepare the meal as they would at home. Observed practices were compared to label instructions. After cooking, participants filled in a 24-question self-report survey about their food practice intentions. Self-report: Percent saying they noticed label instructions during preparation; percent saying the instructions influenced how they prepared the products. Observation: Number of users observed following all label instructions (e.g. wash hands after touching raw product, turn product half way through cooking, use food thermometer to check final temperature). Medium (not in their actual home, limited sample, not eye tracking) MORI, 2010. Scotland, Ireland and England. Aim: To provide evidence of what information people actually look at when shopping, as opposed to what they say they look at. Design: Observation and interviews. Even split of family and post-family participants (aged 18-60 years). Even split of urban and rural participants. Mix of social grades across the sample. 15 non-eye tracked accompanied and 36 eye tracked shopping trips. All in main retail supermarkets. Follow up interviews. 15 filmed meals at home. 20 eye tracked tasked shops in the Retail Lab with field of vision glasses and 6 follow up eye tracked tasked purchases. Follow up interviews. Semiotic and packaging analysis. Observation: Proportion ‘looking directly at’ food labels while shopping and in the home. Stocktake: of what is actually in home pantry. Interviews: Rationale for ‘looking directly at’ food label. Semiotic analysis: How consumers engage with images and text on food labels. High
Kenny et al, 1999. Australia. To identify the source of a Salmonella outbreak Ten of salmonella infection were notified in South Australia over a four week period. Nine cases and 27 controls matched for age, sex and postcode were included in the study. A five day food history and frequency questionnaire was undertaken on all participants. Packaging of foods was retrieved where possible. Infection confirmed by laboratory diagnosis. Food items statistically associated with increased risk of illness. Odds ratio of eating chicken nuggets and risk of illness. Salmonella detected in chicken nugget packaging. High Levis, Chambers IV, Chambers, & Hollingsworth, 1996. United States of America. Quantitative survey; preparation test; and focus groups. To determine if consumers us preparation directions, and/or prefer one format for directions more than other formats. Quantitative survey of food preparers: 166 women (participants on a survey panel) aged 18-62 years. Quantitative survey: Mail-out survey to pre-set panel members (75% response rate). Test kitchen preparation: Four groups of (7-8 per group) were selected from the same survey panel. 7-8 consumers prepared the meals in a test kitchen while being ‘observed’ by a ‘helper’. The ‘helper’ filled out a form describing whether participants were observed carrying out the preparation steps: Focus groups: Discussions followed the test kitchen preparation. Quantitative survey: Frequency of meal preparation. Types of meals prepared. Level of cooking skill. Types of food prepared. Common sources of recipes. How directions are read/followed. Test kitchen preparation: Did they appear to read the instructions? Did they measure the Did they measure the salt? Did they put a lid on the pot? Did they set the timer? Did they taste for doneness? Did they drain and rinse under hot water? Low (survey from a likely biased Preparation: helper had 7-8 people to watch in real time. Focus groups from the same panel.
house. 23 participants in total were interviewed. Vast majority were white middle class British with one Pakistani family. Summary of survey and focus group studies Author and country characteristics (design; aims) Sample frame and participant characteristics Relevant questions asked Quality rating (Boxstael et al., 2014). Belgium. Online survey To obtain a view on the attitude and understanding of Belgian consumers about label dates. 907 Belgians aged 18-92 years (average of 42 years) and 50 % female. Survey posted on several websites. Do you know the labels use by and best before’ (answering categories: (a) yes, both, (b) only use by, (c) only best before, (d) neither of the two) Do you know the difference between the shelf life labels use by and best before’ (answering categories : (a) yes, (b) no), Low (poor questionnaire design, poor sample design) (Carrasco et al., 2007). Face: face interview. 107 participants randomly selected from the street. Do you respect the use by date of fresh cut leafy green salads (yes, no) Low (poor questionnaire
Spain. To identify the consumption patterns of fresh cut leafy green vegetables. design, poor sample design) (Cody et al., 2012). United States of America. Online survey. To identify consumer attitudes to food safety and labelling practices. A multi year survey of between 1000-1064 participants each year for 5 years. Sample selected via an online panel administered by a research company. Post-weighted to the USA census. 55 % female and 95% white and non-Hispanic. What label components do you look for when deciding to purchase or eat a food? Low (poor question construction, and sample via online (Daelman et al., 2013). Belgium. Self-completed survey. To understand consumer attitudes to cooked chilled foods. 874 participants of a Belgian Food Fair Survey Monkey under supervision (female 57%, over-representation of younger people (40%). How strict do you respect the use by date of a cooked chilled food? (four point scale) How strictly do you follow the reheating instructions of a cooked chilled food? (3 point scale) Low (poor sample design) (Food Safety Information Council, 2013). Australia. Telephone survey No stated aim National sample of 1201 Australians aged 18 years and over. Random sample of household telephone numbers with a two stage design. Sample was post- weighted to Australian census. Four scale: reading best before; use by; cooking instructions and storage instruction labels. Four point scale: complying with best before; use by; cooking instructions and storage instruction labels Medium (no data on response rate).
Moderators script was piloted. (McIlveen & Semple, 2002). Northern Ireland. Structured questionnaire followed by focus groups. No aim stated. 103 questionnaire responses (83 female) (28 professionals, 12 skilled, 13 retired, 10 students, 25 others). 3 groups (10 members – 3 male; all retired); (10 females – university students to middle aged mothers); (6 males aged 25-31 years). Questionnaire not described. group not described. Low (No study aim, unclear how sample was generated for questionnaire or focus groups; method poorly described) (Milne, 2011). England. Focus groups. How date labels and food safety information/ behaviours relate to food safety practices. Six groups of people aged 60-90 years recruited through existing social networks via trusted ‘gatekeeper’. The groups were from a church group; residents group; tenants association; allotment holders; coffee morning; and church group. Urban and rural mix achieved. Concerns about food and food storage practices. High (NFO Donovan Research, 2003). Australia and New Zealand To provide baseline indicators of consumer attitudes towards labelling, awareness and use of different labelling elements, beliefs about the clarity and trustworthiness of labels, and which 1940 door-to-door interviews in metropolitan cities in both New Zealand and Australia. The proportions of people in each age group matched very closely to that of census data. In Australia (sample 17%; population 10%) and New Zealand (sample 19%; population 7%) the sample contained a significantly greater proportion of people who have a degree than in the national population. 67 percent of the sample were female, reflecting the sample of ‘household shopper’. Unprompted: What information do you look for on the label or package? Prompted recognition: Photo card with core and non core elements. Here are a range of things found on food labels. “Which of these do you recognise?” Which of these do you look for/use” For each yes: Why? How do you/would you use? How easy/difficult to use? How useful? Issues of concern /problems? High