• NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I have no reason to doubt what you’re saying, but I really have to say this is the dumbest bullshit I’ve ever heard. The whole idea of putting expiration dates on products (and nutritional info for that matter) is for consumers to be able to interpret this stuff. Not manufacturers and not store managers. Consumers. There’s no excuse for allowing this.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Well, that would be the reason if they were legally required to do so, but Baby Food is the only product in the US legally required to have an expiration date.

      So, all the other food manufacturers voluntarily put expiration dates on, and they want you to buy more food, so the date on most packages is functionally meaningless

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Like the other comment here says, no it wasn’t. It’s useful for the store to guarantee it’s good, but customers should be ignoring them as using the senses we evolved to use to detect bad food. A store can’t rely on this, partially for liability, partially for speed and consistency, but also largely because they can’t open the packaging to smell it or look at it better.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      No arguments that it’s shifty and dumb, but it’s better if the store can be held liable for selling bad product. That said, almost anything with “best by” as opposed to “expired by” is still safe to eat for probably decades.