CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 189Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityFood Supply Chain TraceabilityConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Applications and Perceptions of Date Labeling of Food

Newsome, Rosetta, Balestrini, Chris G., Baum, Mitzi D., Corby, Joseph, Fisher, William, Goodburn, Kaarin, Labuza, Theodore P., Prince, Gale, Thesmar, Hilary S., Yiannas, Frank·2014·Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety
DOI 10.1111/1541-4337.12086
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Open dating of food products has been practiced for decades, and has been key to achieving stock rotation at retail and providing information to consumers. The open date provides a simple communication tool, which may be based on product quality and/or food safety as determined by the manufacturer or retailer. Date marking is generally open but it can be closed (code intended for managing product at retail, and for recall and traceability), and the terminology and applications vary widely around the world. The variation in date labeling terms and uses contributes to substantial misunderstanding by industry and consumers and leads to significant unnecessary food loss and waste, misapplication of limited resources, unnecessary financial burden for the consumer and the food industry, and may also lead to potential food safety risk in regards to perishable foods. A “use by” or similar date cannot be relied on to indicate or guarantee food safety because absolute temperature control of food products throughout the food supply chain cannot be assured. This paper provides an introduction to the issue of food product date labeling and addresses its history in the United States, different terms used and various practices, U.S. and international frameworks, quality compared with safety, adverse impacts of misconceptions about date labeling, and advantages of technological innovations. Collaboration to develop a simple workable solution to address the challenges faced by stakeholders would have tremendous benefit. Conclusions include a call to action to move toward uniformity in date labeling, thereby decreasing confusion among stakeholders and reducing food waste.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1541-4337.12086

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 65

  1. Anonymous, 1971, Food stability and open dating
  2. Brody AL, 2013, Reports from the front lines of packaging innovation, Food Technol, 67, 76
  3. Brody AL, 2013, More trailblazing innovation for food packaging systems, Food Technol, 67, 92
  4. CAC, 2007, Codex Alimentarius Commission
  5. CFA, 2006, Best practice guidelines for the production of chilled foods
  6. CFA, 2010, Shelf life of ready to eat food in relation to L. monocytogenes—guidance for food business operators
  7. EC, 2013, World Food Day: Commission underlines commitment to reducing food waste in Europe
  8. ERG, 2003, A Report Prepared for the U.S
  9. FAO, 2011, Food loss reduction strategy
  10. FAO, 2012, Natural Resources Management and Environment Dept
  11. FAO, 2013, Reducing the food wastage footprint
  12. FAO, 2014, Global initiative on food loss and waste reduction
  13. FDA, 1975, Consumer nutrition knowledge survey report II. FDA Publication No. 76–2059
  14. FDA, 1997, Guidance on labeling of foods that need refrigeration by consumers. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Fed Reg, 62, 8248
  15. FMI, 2006, U.S. grocery shopper trends 2006
  16. FMI, 2007, U.S. grocery shopper trends 2007
  17. FMI, 2008, U.S. grocery shopper trends 2008
  18. FMI, 2009, U.S. grocery shopper trends 2009
  19. FMI, 2010, U.S. grocery shopper trends 2010
  20. FMI, 2011, U.S. grocery shopper trends 2011
  21. FMI and GMA, 2007, Improving supply chain practices for open dated products: guidelines for manufacturers and distributors
  22. FSA/DEFRA, 2011, Guidance on the application of date labels to food. U.K, Food Safety Agency/Dept. for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
  23. FSANZ, 2013, Food Standards Australia, New Zealand
  24. GAO, 1975, Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States, 75
  25. GMA, FMI, and Deloitte, 2008, Grocery Manufacturers Assn
  26. Health Canada, 2013, Retail guidance document: pathogen control (Including Listeria monocytogenes) in ready‐to‐eat (RTE) refrigerated foods
  27. HHS/PHS/FDA, 2011, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services
  28. IFT, 1981, Open shelf‐life dating of food. A scientific status summary of the Institute of Food Technologists. Chicago, IL, Food Technol, 35, 89
  29. IFT, 1994, Microbial modeling. A scientific status summary of the Institute of Food Technologists. By Whiting RC, Buchanan RL, Food Technol, 48, 113
  30. IFT, 2002, An IFT Expert Report
  31. IME, 2013, Global food waste not, want not
  32. Labuza TP, 1996, An introduction to active packaging for foods, Food Technol, 50, 68
  33. Labuza TP, 2000, The search for shelf life: an update on continued efforts in understanding practical strategies for determining and testing the shelf life of food products, Food Test Anal, 6, 26
  34. Labuza TP, 1999, Playing the open dating game, Food Technol, 53, 70
  35. Labuza TP, 1999, Sloan Foundation, 99
  36. Labuza TP, 2001, Open dating of foods
  37. Labuza TP, 2001, The Retail Food Industry Center
  38. LBRO, 2011, Prepared by Members of the Business Reference Panel
  39. LBRO, 2011, Prepared for the Local Better Regulation Office by IFF Research
  40. LBRO, 2013, LBRO prosperity and protection
  41. Market facts, 1978, Final Report Office of Technology Assessment
  42. Moomaw W, 2012, The critical role of global food consumption patterns in achieving sustainable food systems and food for all
  43. NACMCF, 2002, Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods
  44. NACMCF, 2005, Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods
  45. NIST, 2013, NIST handbook 130 – 2013 edition
  46. NRDC, 2012, Wasted: how America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill
  47. NZFSA, 2005, Information booklet for the food industry
  48. Pal A, 2007, Global Aquaculture Advocate March/April, 32
  49. Raftery Resource Network, 2003, Developed for The Joint Industry Unsaleables Steering Committee
  50. UKIFR–USDA–UT, 2003, ComBase: a combined database for predictive microbiology
  51. UN, 2013, Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs
  52. USDA, 2013, The Interagency Retail Listeria monocytogenes Risk Assessment Workgroup
  53. USDA, 2013, Food Safety and Inspection Service
  54. USDA/ERS, 1973, Food dating: shoppers’ reactions and the impact on retail foodstores
  55. USDA/FSIS, 2003, FSIS risk Assessment for Listeria monocytogenes in Deli Meats
  56. USDA/FSIS, 2013, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) labeling compliance policy guide on poultry food product dating
  57. Verghese K, 2013, Prepared for CHEP Australia
  58. WRAP, 2008, Waste and resource action programme
  59. WRAP, 2010, Waste and resource action programme
  60. WRAP, 2011, Waste and resource action programme
  61. WRAP, 2012, Waste and Resource Action Programme
  62. WRAP, 2012, Waste and Resource Action Programme
  63. WRAP, 2013, Waste and Resource Action Programme
  64. WRAP, 2013, Waste and Resource Action Programme
  65. WRAP, 2013, Waste and Resource Action Programme

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Newsome, R., Balestrini, C. G., Baum, M. D., Corby, J., Fisher, W., Goodburn, K., Labuza, T. P., Prince, G., Thesmar, H. S., & Yiannas, F.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Food Technologists (US)
  • Grocery Manufacturers Assn 1350 I St., NW, Suite 300 Washington DC 20005 U.S.A
  • Feeding America (US)
  • Assn. of Food & Drug Officials 2550 Kingston Rd., Suite 311 York PA 17402 U.S.A
  • Chilled Food Association (GB)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • SAGE Food Safety LLC, P.O. Box 54491 Cincinnati OH 45254 U.S.A
  • Food Marketing Inst 2345 Crystal Drive, Suite 800 Arlington VA 22202‐4801 U.S.A
  • Walmart (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Newsome, Rosetta
ORCID
Venue
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06-21
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
745-769
ISSN
1541-4337 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/1541-4337.12086
OpenAlex
W2099248992
Cited by
189
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6
FWCI
13.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Walmart
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Supply Chain Traceability
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Keywords
use-by date, best before date, food safety, food waste, stock rotation, temperature control, consumer perception, terminology standardization, perishable food

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review