How International Standards Divide Food Date Labels Between Quality and Safety

On one side of the modern kitchen, consumers treat printed date labels as absolute biological deadlines, discarding unopened yogurt, slightly wilted vegetables, and perfectly sealed pasta the moment the calendar turns. On the other side, food waste advocates and sustainability researchers argue that these dates are largely arbitrary suggestions, pointing out that a sealed can of beans does not spontaneously become toxic at midnight on its printed date.[2]

The tension between these two approaches stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the dates actually measure. The global regulatory framework governing these labels, the Codex Alimentarius—established jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO)—does not treat all dates equally. Instead, it enforces a strict bifurcation between dates that measure a product's culinary quality and dates that measure its microbiological safety.[1][6]

Under the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods (CXS 1-1985), the "Best Before" date is defined purely as a quality indicator. It represents the end of the period under which the product will remain fully marketable and retain any specific qualities for which tacit or express claims have been made. After this date, the food may lose some of its optimal flavor, texture, or nutritional value, but it remains entirely safe for human consumption.[1][5]

Conversely, the "Use By" or "Expiration" date is a hard safety threshold. The Codex dictates that this label must be applied to highly perishable goods—such as fresh meat, raw fish, and unpasteurized dairy—that pose an immediate microbiological threat to human health after a certain period. Once a "Use By" date has passed, the food should not be sold, redistributed, or consumed, regardless of whether it looks or smells normal.[1][3]

This distinction is mirrored in regional regulations worldwide. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission have spent years attempting to clarify this exact divide for EU consumers. In 2020, EFSA introduced a new tool to help food business operators decide which date to apply, emphasizing that "Use By" is about safety and "Best Before" is about quality.[3][4]

Similarly, in Australia and New Zealand, the Food Standards code strictly separates the two terms. The official regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), states explicitly: "Foods must not be eaten after the use-by date and should not be sold after this date because they may pose a health or safety risk." A "Best Before" date, conversely, simply means the food might lose some of its peak quality. Yet, research from RMIT University indicates that up to 82 percent of Australian consumers do not correctly understand this distinction.

The consequences of this conflation are massive. The European Commission estimates that up to 10 percent of the 88 million tonnes of food waste generated annually in the EU is directly linked to date marking confusion. In the United Kingdom, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) reports that 60 percent of the country's 10.7 million tonnes of annual food waste occurs in households, much of it driven by consumers throwing away safe food because a "Best Before" date has passed.[4]

To combat this, regulators and food safety organizations are pushing for clearer labeling practices. EFSA's 2025 guidance on food date labeling reiterates that consumers should rely on their senses—sight, smell, and taste—to evaluate foods past their "Best Before" dates, rather than discarding them automatically.[5][6]

However, standardizing these labels remains a complex challenge. Different jurisdictions allow for a variety of phrases, such as "Sell By" or "Display Until," which are intended for retailer inventory management but further confuse consumers. While the Codex Alimentarius provides a clear international baseline, the translation of that standard into local law—and consumer behavior—remains fragmented, leaving millions of tonnes of perfectly safe food bound for the landfill.[2]