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

California bans sell-by dates

foodandwine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 288 posts

Re: California bans sell-by dates

#101

Post by guelo »

hentrep wrote: post #52

Here’s the actual USDA article describing the difference between “sell by, “use by”, and “best by” terms: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-... I don’t have time to find a source that supports this, but I understand that these dates also refer to the durability of the “food safe” container/packaging. Ever drink water from an unopened plastic bottle that has been stored for awhile? That taste…

Those cheap plastic water bottles should be banned. They’re one of the greatest sources of micro plastics in our bodies. (Not to mention unstudied nano plastics)

Re: California bans sell-by dates

#102

Post by fmbb »

torgoguys wrote: post #67

> To adhere with the requisite language outlined, any food products with a date label — with the exception of infant formula, eggs, beer, and malt beverages — must state “Best if Used By” to indicate peak quality, and “Use By” to designate food safety. Infant formula is required federally, so OK. Eggs are an oddly specific one, but I guess I can see it (although I'd wonder why some other products like milk, or meat m…

American eggs are incredibly sensitive due to the chlorine washing they go through before making it to the store. Not oddly specific.

Here in Sweden (and I assume the rest of the EU) when I buy eggs they are not refrigerated and I keep them in the pantry at room temp for weeks or months without issues. The price I pay is that they sometimes come with a little bird poop on them from the store.

Re: California bans sell-by dates

#103

Post by mywittyname »

bko wrote: post #15

You know who hates food waste more than Gavin Newsom? Every greedy supermarket market executive that throws away 30% of their inventory. Especially when their profit margins are often in the low single digits. The article says there is no mandates on any types of dates. So I imagine these dates serve some purpose, otherwise they wouldn't be there. Laws like this often sound like they're helping but since no one is fo…

> Especially when their profit margins are often in the low single digits.

This is a little misleading, since a lot of their product on their shelve isn't paid for until 60/90/180/365 days after receiving it, and generally suppliers set aside money to help cover shrinkage. And they'll often agree to take back unsold goods.

There's a reason that so many of the largest companies in the USA are/were retailers. Borrowing something worth $100, then selling it for $103 may be low margin, but it scales incredibly well.

Re: California bans sell-by dates

#104

Post by vel0city »

bilekas wrote: post #78
vel0city wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pathogens cant live in beer Depending on the beer there might be live yeasts in it. Beers can still go bad. Not always from a "not safe to consume" but often at least a "not going to taste very good anymore" kind of thing. Beers will end up oxidizing, the stuff in the beer will degrade over time, etc. Not all beers age well, some need to be had within a certain period of freshness. Generally I prefer a "born-on" da…

A born date is a nice idea actually, they do it for wines so it would transfer easily. When you say beeds end up oxidizing, could this kind of activity cause maybe a reaction to say an aluminium can for example ?

Most aluminum cans have a plastic lining inside of the can. Assuming the lining was undamaged and applied properly, it should prevent the beer from reacting with the can for a long while. Usually, the oxidization is with the oxygen which was already dissolved in the beer during brewing (important to have some for fermentation) but depending on ingredients oxidization can happen without the presence of molecular oxygen.

Re: California bans sell-by dates

#105

Post by guelo »

bko wrote: post #15

You know who hates food waste more than Gavin Newsom? Every greedy supermarket market executive that throws away 30% of their inventory. Especially when their profit margins are often in the low single digits. The article says there is no mandates on any types of dates. So I imagine these dates serve some purpose, otherwise they wouldn't be there. Laws like this often sound like they're helping but since no one is fo…

Why do you assume the legislators didn’t talk to industry executives? I’m sure they did and all these issues were discussed

Re: California bans sell-by dates

#106

Post by anon291 »

causal wrote: post #66
SoftTalker wrote: post #58

I don't pay dates much mind. If it looks good, smells good, and tastes good I eat it. We are pretty adept at smelling and tasting spoiled food.

Botulism can be present without any smell or taste

Botulism is a concern with canned food which have no real sell by date. Moreover, if botulism was in there during canning it's there on day one and day 1000.

Re: California bans sell-by dates

#107

Post by sureIy »

hentrep wrote: post #52

Here’s the actual USDA article describing the difference between “sell by, “use by”, and “best by” terms: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-... I don’t have time to find a source that supports this, but I understand that these dates also refer to the durability of the “food safe” container/packaging. Ever drink water from an unopened plastic bottle that has been stored for awhile? That taste…

I wish regulators stopped trying to be poetic and just use clear English.

What's "best by?" You need to write "do not eat after." Nobody needs to be explained what that means.

Re: California bans sell-by dates

#108

Post by _visgean »

sureIy wrote: post #107
hentrep wrote: post #52

Here’s the actual USDA article describing the difference between “sell by, “use by”, and “best by” terms: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-... I don’t have time to find a source that supports this, but I understand that these dates also refer to the durability of the “food safe” container/packaging. Ever drink water from an unopened plastic bottle that has been stored for awhile? That taste…

I wish regulators stopped trying to be poetic and just use clear English. What's "best by?" You need to write "do not eat after." Nobody needs to be explained what that means.

But thats the point, none of these actually mean that you cant eat it after te cutoff date.

Re: California bans sell-by dates

#109

Post by robertlagrant »

hentrep wrote: post #52

Here’s the actual USDA article describing the difference between “sell by, “use by”, and “best by” terms: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-... I don’t have time to find a source that supports this, but I understand that these dates also refer to the durability of the “food safe” container/packaging. Ever drink water from an unopened plastic bottle that has been stored for awhile? That taste…

I wonder if Best Buy use best by dates.

Re: California bans sell-by dates

#110

Post by vel0city »

sdo72 wrote: post #85
vel0city wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the food that sits on the shelf for weeks shouldn't be consumed. Salt? Flour? Oil? Oats? Rice? Garlic? Black pepper? Most ground spices? Nuts? Beans? Honey? Vinegar? Quinoa? All of these can reasonably sit on a shelf for weeks. I guess none of these are safe to be consumed, all just "toxins".

That isn't most, and I mentioned synthetic chemicals & preservatives.

Pretty much all oils are processed foods. Vinegar is a preservative and is a processed food. Most salts are processed and are common preservatives. Flour is a processed food.

The reasons why Twinkies are so shelf stable are largely the same reasons why flour or rice or olive oil is shelf stable.

Better be careful of those chemicals like sodium chloride and dihydrogen monoxide.

Post reply on HN