Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 84 posts

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#11

Post by mc32 »

Cider9986 wrote: post #7

>With 395,608 regulatory restrictions, California is the most heavily regulated state in the nation, according to the report. On average, states have 135,000 regulatory restrictions in administrative rules, with California's regulations more than doubling the national average. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-11-03/... I wonder how many they've added in 5 years. Do all these laws improve peoples…

I hope they refactor and harmonize them at some point to reduce duplication, contradiction as well as proliferation.

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#12

Post by lokar »

irishcoffee wrote: post #8

It’s be pretty cool if they figured out their water problem instead of passing all these nebulous laws that don’t push the needle any.

The only water problems are for farmers growing in a semi-arid valley. California has droughts, not water shortages.

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#13

Post by lokar »

garciansmith wrote: post #3
exabrial wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Did you read what they are replacing it with? I.e., "best if used by" (indicating the time the item is at its best quality), "best if frozen by", and "use by" (indicating when the food is and isn't safe to eat). Because those seem much more clear and useful to me than the useless "sell by" date.

The subtitle:

The law standardizes language around expiration dates, aiming to minimize confusion about when food is safe to eat. More than one-third of food sold nationwide is wasted, the U.S.D.A. says.

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#14

Post by vrganj »

Cider9986 wrote: post #7

>With 395,608 regulatory restrictions, California is the most heavily regulated state in the nation, according to the report. On average, states have 135,000 regulatory restrictions in administrative rules, with California's regulations more than doubling the national average. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-11-03/... I wonder how many they've added in 5 years. Do all these laws improve peoples…

All of them? No. Some of them? Yes.

Some examples:

* ARL / Automatic Renewal Law: If a company allows you to sign up for a subscription online, they also must provide an immediate, straightforward way to cancel it online.

* SB 478: No bullshit junk fees tacked on to prices. Any price displayed, be it for concerts, hotels, or whatever else, must be the full, out-the-door price.

* SB 244: Right to Repair: Electronics and appliance manufacturers must make diagnostic tools, manuals etc available for at least 7 years after manufacture.

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#15

Post by sega_sai »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #5

I'm curious why food producers didn't do this on their own, since no one likes "sell by" anyway? Or was there an existing regulation that got changed? In any case I think the new way is better.

Presumably food producers benefit if people throw things out earlier, as they will buy more ?

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#16

Post by m4ck_ »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #5

I'm curious why food producers didn't do this on their own, since no one likes "sell by" anyway? Or was there an existing regulation that got changed? In any case I think the new way is better.

I'm pretty sure food producers are the ones putting the "sell by" labels on stuff, with the hope that people will needlessly throw away food and buy more because of that label.

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#18

Post by SilasX »

jrussino wrote: post #9
cleaning wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sell by" is instead replaced with clearer, more standardized wording. Please at least read the (very short) article before posting.

To be fair, it's a bad title. We should be able to skim the headlines and get an accurate impression of the news items of the moment. This headline seems intentionally misleading. It should have been clear to the publisher that it would be interpreted this way. Intentionally inflammatory clickbait titles poison the information ecosystem. (That being said - yes, commenting on something you have not read does as well!)

Agreed. In this case, a better title would be "California replaces 'Sell by' Labels with 'Use by', Hoping to Cut Food Waste"

Still a simplification, but doesn't horribly mislead you into thinking it's a reckless policy.

Re: California bans 'sell by' labels, hoping to cut food waste

#20

Post by WaxProlix »

vrganj wrote: post #14
Cider9986 wrote: post #7

>With 395,608 regulatory restrictions, California is the most heavily regulated state in the nation, according to the report. On average, states have 135,000 regulatory restrictions in administrative rules, with California's regulations more than doubling the national average. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-11-03/... I wonder how many they've added in 5 years. Do all these laws improve peoples…

All of them? No. Some of them? Yes. Some examples: * ARL / Automatic Renewal Law: If a company allows you to sign up for a subscription online, they also must provide an immediate, straightforward way to cancel it online. * SB 478: No bullshit junk fees tacked on to prices. Any price displayed, be it for concerts, hotels, or whatever else, must be the full, out-the-door price. * SB 244: Right to Repair: Electronics a…

Does SB478 apply to car dealerships? That would be a huge boon to consumers on its own.
Post reply on HN