Transcript

Leah: I think many shoppers treat every printed date as if it were a safety warning, even when the label says 'best before' rather than 'use by'. That can lead people to throw away perfectly good food. Tom: I agree there is confusion, but I would not remove the dates. For products like cereal or biscuits, the date gives some indication of when quality may start to fall. The problem is the meaning people attach to it. Leah: Then perhaps supermarkets should explain the difference more clearly at the shelf. A sign saying 'best before is about quality' would be more useful than expecting people to remember advice they read months ago. Tom: We tested shelf signs. People noticed them for the first few weeks, then stopped seeing them. What had a bigger effect was changing the wording on discount stickers. Instead of 'reduced because near date', we wrote 'still good, enjoy soon'. Leah: That is interesting because the second version tells the shopper what to do rather than simply pointing out a problem. Tom: Exactly. Some phrases make the product sound as if it is already failing. We found that customers were more willing to buy discounted bread and yoghurt when the message was practical rather than apologetic. Leah: I would still like shops to give people more confidence in using their senses. With some foods, looking, smelling or tasting a tiny amount tells you more than a date printed days earlier. Tom: Up to a point. I worry when general advice like 'trust your nose' is repeated without saying which foods it applies to. Nobody should use that approach with products that carry a use-by date for safety reasons. Leah: Absolutely. The distinction has to stay clear. I am talking about foods where the date is mainly about texture or flavour. Tom: Another idea people raise is removing best-before dates from products that keep for a very long time, such as salt. That makes sense to me if the packaging still tells you how to store the product. Leah: Yes, because a date on salt can make the whole system look silly. If shoppers see obviously unnecessary dates, they may start ignoring dates that actually matter. Tom: There is also the problem of consistency. Different brands use different language around the date. Some say 'best before end', some use only numbers, some add storage advice beside it. A shopper should not have to decode a new system every time. Leah: Would you support a single national format? Tom: For presentation, yes. But I would not insist that every product has the same kind of date. The category still matters. Leah: What about apps that remind you when food at home is approaching its date? Tom: Useful for people who already keep a careful list, perhaps. For everyone else, entering each item creates more work than the food is worth. Leah: I feel the same. The biggest gains probably come from simpler habits: put older food at the front of the cupboard, freeze what you cannot use, and understand what the label means. Tom: And shops can help by making that meaning consistent. I do not think the date itself is the enemy. Confusing design is. Leah: So we are not arguing for fewer rules so much as clearer signals. Tom: Exactly. If people know which dates relate to safety and which relate to quality, they can make better decisions without needing expert knowledge. Leah: I would also avoid designing the whole system around people who already understand food labels. The interesting question is what a hurried shopper notices in three seconds. Tom: Yes, because clarity is tested under ordinary conditions, not in a survey where someone studies the package carefully. We recently enlarged the words 'use by' on one own-brand range and reduced the surrounding text. People understood it faster even though we had not added any new information. Leah: That supports the same principle: fewer signals, but signals with a clearer job. Tom: Exactly, and it is much cheaper than another app or campaign.