Adding a Safety Date to a Freshness Date Label Reduces Premature Food Disposal

Abstract

Packaged perishable foods often display one of two date label formats: a freshness date (e.g. “Best before,” “Best if used by”) or a safety date (e.g. “Use by”). Many consumers misinterpret a freshness date as a safety date and infer that the food is unsafe, leading to the premature disposal of edible food. This article offers a viable solution to this form of consumer food waste. We suggest that displaying both freshness and safety dates (i.e. a combined date label) can reduce premature food disposal. Across four studies, we investigate the impact of date-label formats on consumers’ food-disposal decisions after the freshness date has passed. The results show that a combined date label, relative to a freshness date label, reduces date-label confusion and, in turn, premature food disposal. We discuss the implications of these findings for date-label policy and contemporary retail packaging.

Keywords

food waste food date label expiration date date label policy label-based intervention

Introduction

Every day, people prematurely discard edible food. While some food waste is unavoidable, studies conducted in the United Kingdom suggest that about 60% of discarded household food is edible (Quested et al., 2013). In the United States, the average household wastes about 30% of the food it purchases (Yu & Jaenicke, 2020). Several factors account for consumer food waste, including misunderstanding the meaning of date labels (Neff et al., 2019; Shamim et al., 2022), concerns about food safety (Gong et al., 2022; Wilson et al., 2017), the desire to eat only the freshest food (Gong et al., 2022; Neff et al., 2015), everyday food routines and practices (i.e. planning, buying, storing, preparing, consuming, and disposing of food; Hebrok & Heidenstrøm, 2019; Stancu et al., 2016), and attitudes toward food waste (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014; Stancu et al., 2016).

Among the many causes of food waste, misinterpretation of the date label is one of the most widely cited contributors (see Chan, 2022 for a review). In most developed countries, date labels come in two common formats: (a) a freshness date label (e.g. “Best if used by,” “Best before”) that indicates food quality and, (b) a safety date label (e.g. “Use by”) that indicates the potential for harm (i.e. consuming food after this date could cause illness; Newsome et al., 2014). Food manufacturers are often free to select the type of label (i.e. freshness, safety) placed on a food package. As a result, date label practices vary widely within and across product categories (see Table 1; see also Ceuppens et al., 2016; Roe et al., 2019). The inconsistent use of the type of label encourages consumers to misinterpret the meaning of date label information (Patra et al., 2022). This label confusion is exacerbated in the United States owing to the lack of a federal policy that clearly defines the meaning of date labels, label language, and their use, with the exception being infant formula. Consistent with this claim, Roe et al.’s (2019) survey of six Columbus, Ohio food chains showed date label usage is varied: “best if used by” (30.7%), “use by” (4.9%), “best by” (20.6%), “sell by” (8.7%), and just a date (12.9%).

Table 1.

Food Date Labels in Major Grocery Stores (United States and Australia).

Categories	United States				Australia
Categories	Freshness (%)	Safety (%)	Other (%)	No label (%)	Freshness (%)	Safety (%)	Other (%)	No label (%)
Beverage	13 (18)	0 (0)	10 (14)	50 (68)	66 (17)	12 (14)	5 (6)	3 (3)
Bread/bakery	6 (19)	24 (75)	2 (6)	0 (0)	52 (95)	2 (4)	1 (2)	0 (0)
Candy	25 (83)	0 (0)	0 (0)	5 (17)	31 (89)	0 (0)	4 (11)	0 (0)
Canned goods	50 (71)	2 (3)	0 (0)	18 (26)	57 (73)	0 (0)	13 (17)	8 (10)
Condiment	39 (75)	0 (0)	0 (0)	13 (25)	20 (17)	0 (0)	0 (0)	8 (29)
Dairy	34 (52)	0 (0)	0 (0)	32 (48)	49 (80)	12 (20)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Dry goods	110 (90)	1 (1)	0 (0)	11 (9)	101 (81)	11 (9)	9 (7)	4 (3)
Frozen food	24 (80)	1 (3)	0 (0)	5 (17)	41 (91)	0 (0)	3 (7)	1 (2)
Meat	0 (0	14 (70)	6 (30)	0 (0)	74 (87)	9 (11)	0 (0)	2 (2)
Packed meat	0 (0)	15 (88)	2 (12)	0 (0)	25 (66)	13 (34)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Produce	12 (80)	2 (13)	0 (0)	1 (7)	35 (69)	14 (27)	0 (0)	2 (4)
Salty snacks	38 (81)	8 (17)	0 (0)	1 (2)	42 (98)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (2)

Note. Analysis of food date label practices in a major grocery store in the United States and Australia. Numbers indicate the number of items for each corresponding label, Freshness = best before, best if used by, best if used before, Safety = expires on, use by, Other = packed date, packaged date, production date, sell by.

There are two sources of confusion about the meaning of date label information. The first source of confusion is when consumers assume that a freshness date label indicates food safety. This misinterpretation leads to premature disposal of edible food because people think the food is no longer safe to consume. Survey data suggest this type of label misinterpretation leads to 10% of the food waste in the European Union (European Commission, 2018), which is about €14B of the EU’s estimated €143B in annual food waste (European Commission, 2021). In the United States, the FDA (2019) estimates that date label confusion accounts for 20% of consumer food waste, and ReFED (2017) estimates this corresponds to approximately $29B in wasted annual consumer spending. The second source of confusion is when consumers assume that a safety date label indicates food quality. This misinterpretation is not a source of food waste but does pose a health risk because the food is being consumed after its safety date (Thompson et al., 2018; Van Boxstael et al., 2014).

The efforts to address label-based food waste have been largely focused on correcting freshness label misinterpretation. For example, over the past two decades, consumer education campaigns and improvements in label clarity have sought to improve consumer understanding of specific label language (Neff et al., 2019; Patra et al., 2022; ReFED, 2023; Van Boxstael et al., 2014; WRAP, 2024b). Similarly, in 2017, the U.S.-based Food Industry Association and the U.S.-based Consumer Brands Association (CBA) recommended a voluntary industry standard that uses two date labels: a freshness date label of “Best if used by” and a safety date label of “Use by.” This standard was intended to reduce U.S. consumer confusion about the meaning of date labels (Grocery Manufacturers Association, 2017).¹

Despite these efforts, consumer confusion over date labels persists, and food waste remains significant (Forbes et al., 2024; Gong et al., 2022; ReFED, 2023). The effectiveness of awareness and education campaigns has been shown to be limited and short-lived (D’Amato et al., 2023; Stöckli et al., 2018). Similarly, the effectiveness of label standardization is questionable, as substantial consumer confusion over freshness date labels persists even in countries with the standardized label language system (e.g. EU, United Kingdom, Australia; Ananda et al., 2022; European Commission, 2018; WRAP, 2023). This highlights the need to consider an alternative approach to label-based consumer food waste. Reflecting this need, for example, in December 2023, the U.S. government released the “National Strategy for Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics” report, calling for more stringent approaches to reducing consumer food waste (EPA et al., 2023).

Across four studies, this article addresses label-based consumer food waste by adopting a temporal paradigm (i.e. the idea that a freshness date precedes a safety date; see Figure 1) to better understand how food date labels influence decisions about premature food disposal. The temporal paradigm recognizes that date label-driven food disposal occurs between a freshness date and a safety date. Building on prior work in psychology, suggesting that individuals make more reasoned decisions in joint (vs. separate) evaluation (Bohnet et al., 2016; Kahneman, 2003), we proposed that a food date label that displays both a freshness date and a safety date (henceforth a combined label) should reduce premature food disposal that occurs when a freshness date is misinterpreted as a safety date.

Figure 1.

Food disposal defined by freshness date and safety date.

Food Date Label and Consumer Food Waste

Prior studies on how food labels contribute to food waste have provided conflicting evidence about what type of label leads to more food waste. Some studies (WRAP, 2011; Shamim et al., 2022; Van Boxstael et al., 2014) suggest that “best if used by” and “best before” labels lead to more food waste than a “use by” label. Other studies (Gong et al., 2022; Neff et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2017) suggest the opposite. Two related factors contribute to the conflicting conclusions: (a) inconsistent operational definitions of date labels and, (b) a failure to acknowledge the temporal gap between an objective freshness date and an objective safety date.

One of the most confusing aspects of the label-based food waste literature is the competing definitions of food date labels and, consequently, author inferences about how label misinterpretation encourages food disposal. Some studies use the U.S.-based Consumer Brands Association (CBA, 2019) definition of date labels (see column 3 in Table 2), where the “best if used by” or “best before” labels indicate food quality and the “use by” label indicates food safety. Within these studies, there is mixed evidence that either the “best before” or “use by” label can lead to more food disposal (see column 2 in Table 2). Survey studies suggest that a “best before” label leads to food waste when the current date is on the date or after the date shown on the “best before” (Shamim et al., 2022; Van Boxstael et al., 2014; WRAP, 2011). Authors attribute this finding to freshness label misinterpretation, though this conclusion is not conclusive because it relies on correlational data. Experimental studies suggest that a “use by” label leads to more food disposal when the current date (e.g. June 22, 2024) is after the same date shown on the “best before” and “use by” labels (e.g. “use by: June 21, 2024,” “best before: June 21, 2024”; Thompson et al., 2018). Authors attribute this finding to the correct interpretation of the “use by” label – a current date after the “use by” date should encourage food disposal owing to concerns about food safety (Gong et al., 2022; Wilson et al., 2017).

Table 2.

Our Contribution Relative to Selected Studies on Food Date Label and Consumer Food Waste.

Source	Mixed findings	Reasons for mixed findings			Results interpretation and solutions proposed		Method
Source	What label encourages food discard? (Best before vs. Use by)	Date label definition (CBA vs. USDA)	Timing of the decision date relative to label dates	Temporal gap between freshness label and safety label	Reason for food discard	Proposed solution	Method
WRAP (2011)	Best before	CBA	Prior to, on the date, and post the date on the label	N/A	“Best before” label misinterpreted as a safety label.	Reduce date label misinterpretation: Make labels easier to understand and standardize labels within product categories.	Food waste diary, Survey
Shamim et al. (2022)	Best before	CBA	N/A	N/A	“Best before” label misinterpreted as a safety label.	Reduce date label misinterpretation: Increase consumer education and date label standardization.	Survey
Van Boxstael et al. (2014)	Best before	CBA	N/A	N/A	“Best before” label misinterpreted as a safety label.	Reduce date label misinterpretation: Increase consumer education.	Survey
Thompson et al. (2018)	Use by	CBA	Prior to, on the date, and post the date on the label	No gap exists	Not discussed.	Improve communication: Provide information in addition to date labels.	Experiment
Weis et al. (2021)	Use by	CBA	Prior to the date on the label	No gap exists	“Use by” label correctly interpreted as a safety label.	Improve date labels: Provide consumers with easy access to real-time information about food quality and safety.	Experiment
Wilson et al. (2017)	Use by	CBA	Prior to the date on the label	No gap exists	“Use by” label heightens food safety concern because “Use by” label suggests food safety.	Restrict use of safety labels: Limit the use of “Use by” labels.	Experiment
Davenport et al. (2019)	Use by	USDA	N/A	N/A	“Use by” label misinterpreted as a safety label.	Reduce date label misinterpretation: Increase consumer education and date label standardization.	Survey
Gong et al. (2022)	Use by	USDA	Past the date on the label	No gap exists	“Use by” label misinterpreted as a safety label.	Restrict use of freshness labels: Limit the use of “Use by” labels.	Experiment
Kavanaugh & Quinlan (2020)	Use by	USDA	Post the date on the label	N/A	“Use by” label misinterpreted as a safety label.	Reduce date label misinterpretation: Increase consumer education.	Survey
Leib et al. (2016)	Use by	USDA	Post the date on the label	N/A	“Use by” label misinterpreted as a safety label.	Reduce date label misinterpretation: Increase consumer education and date label standardization.	Survey
Neff et al. (2019)	Use by	USDA	N/A	N/A	“Use by” label misinterpreted as a safety label.	Reduce date label misinterpretation: Increase consumer education and date label standardization.	Survey
Present study	Best before	CBA	Between freshness date and safety date	Temporal gap exists (Freshness date precedes safety date)	Freshness date labels (“Best before” and “Best if used by”) misinterpreted as safety labels.	Alternative date label solution: A combined label (freshness date + safety date) reduces consumer food waste; informs consumer decisions and food management.	Experiment

Note. CBA date label definition: best if used by, best before = freshness label, use by = safety label; USDA date label definition: best if used by, best before, use by = freshness label, no safety label except for infant formulas (where use by = safety label). N/A = participants were not provided with product stimuli; CBA = Consumer Brands Association.

Other studies use the USDA definition of date labels, where there is no safety date label (see column 3 in Table 2). The USDA asserts that both “best if used by” and “use by” labels indicate food quality, except on infant formula. Researchers adopting the USDA definition have repeatedly shown that the “use by” label leads to more food waste. This occurs when the current date is after the same date shown on the “best before” and “use by” labels. Although this result is equivalent to the findings of those adopting the CBA definition (Thompson et al., 2018; Weis et al., 2021; Wilson et al., 2017), the interpretation of the result is different (see column 6 in Table 2). Researchers adopting the USDA definition of food labels argue that the “use by” label (i.e. a USDA-defined food freshness label) is being misinterpreted as a food safety label. Thus, researchers adopting a USDA definition of the “use by” label would consider the disposal of food after a “use by” date to be food waste rather than the correct disposal of potentially hazardous food (i.e. the conclusion reached by researchers adopting the CBA definition of labels). Consequently, authors of these papers suggest solutions based on these competing interpretations (see column 7 in Table 2).

There are two complementary solutions to the confusion that characterizes the label-based food waste literature. First, label definitions should be consistent with a consumer’s understanding of the meaning of food labels, rather than a policy position that has been negotiated by industry and government officials. Survey research has repeatedly found that a majority of consumers, but not all consumers, consider “best if used by” or “best before” labels to indicate food quality and the “use by” label to indicate food safety (Neff et al., 2019; Shamim et al., 2022; Van Boxstael et al., 2014). Thus, U.S. consumer interpretation of date labels is in agreement with the CBA definition. Second, investigations into the impact of labels should be consistent with label usage by industry and consumers. Industry and consumers implicitly understand that a food quality date occurs prior to a food safety date. Although this temporal relationship between food quality and food safety should be obvious, no studies have accounted for this temporal gap when investigating the relationship between date label types and consumer food waste (see column 5 in Table 2). That is, consumer food waste has been investigated using labels with an identical date, rather than with food freshness labels having an earlier date than food safety labels. In this type of experimental design, premature food disposal is more likely when the current date is past the label date, as compared to other date labels, because the “use by” date is most likely to be interpreted as a safety date (Neff et al., 2019). We address the confusion in the label-based food waste literature by (a) adopting the U.S.-based CBA definition of food date labels and (b) using a paradigm that recognizes the temporal precedence of a freshness date relative to the safety date. In doing so, we establish a causal link between freshness date labels and premature food disposal and demonstrate the effect of a combined date label in reducing label-based premature food disposal.

Theoretical Framework and Predictions

We propose an information-based label intervention that can be used to reduce food waste attributed to the misinterpretation of a freshness date label. Specifically, we argue that packaged food products should be labeled with both a freshness date and a safety date. Building on dual-process theory (Kahneman, 2003; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002), we posit that the dual referents present in a combined (vs. freshness) date label may shift consumers from intuitive, heuristic-based processing (System 1) to more deliberative processing (System 2) when evaluating food past the label date. Consequently, this shift in information processing may reduce premature food disposal by discouraging consumers from misinterpreting a freshness date as a safety date.

Dual-process theory has often been applied to explain judgment biases under uncertainty (Kahneman, 2003). Because judgments under uncertainty are often made through System 1, which is automatic, quick, and heuristic-based, consumers evaluating food with a freshness date label may rely on a simple intuition that an “expired” label date means “expired” food. This heuristic can be especially influential when the meaning of the label is ambiguous, leading to premature food disposal. By contrast, System 2 processing is more effortful, systematic, and deliberative, and is more likely to be engaged when cues in the environment suggest that closer consideration of available information is warranted (Evans & Stanovich, 2013; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002). We theorize that providing consumers with more comprehensive information (i.e. both freshness and safety dates) can prompt such processing, reduce date label confusion, and in turn reduce premature food disposal.

Our theorizing is further supported by research on evaluation mode (joint vs. separate). Prior work shows that judgment errors are more likely under separate evaluation (e.g. a single date label) because people focus on easily calibrated attributes (Bohnet et al., 2016; Hsee et al., 1999), rely on readily available internal referents (Kahneman & Miller, 1986), and engage in more affect-driven decision-making (Bazerman et al., 1998; Bazerman & Moore, 2012). Increasing the number of reference points (e.g. combined date labels) can improve decision-making by encouraging evaluators to move from intuitive processing in a separate evaluation mode to more reasoned processing in a joint evaluation mode (Kleinmuntz & Schkade, 1993). Consistent with this perspective, Hsee’s (1996) evaluability hypothesis suggests that individuals’ ability to evaluate information increases when options are evaluated jointly (e.g. side-by-side) rather than separately. Similarly, Bohnet et al. (2016) show that joint evaluation (involving multiple referents) facilitates comparative processing and more objective assessment, thereby reducing bias relative to separate evaluation (involving a single referent).

Synthesizing these insights, we predict that premature food disposal will be lower when a combined date label is used than when a freshness date label is used. The dual referents in a combined label should encourage more accurate interpretation of date label information by prompting consumers to compare freshness and safety cues and revise potentially incorrect beliefs about the meaning of the freshness date. Because a combined date label provides more comparative information than a single date label, it should make the distinction between freshness and safety easier to discern, reduce confusion about the meaning of date labels, and in turn discourage premature disposal of edible food.

Overview of Studies

We conducted four studies (three experiments and one survey) to assess the impact of a combined date label. Using a U.S. university student sample, Study 1 examined food disposal decisions and found that no date label, a safety date label, and a combined date label led to less premature food disposal relative to a freshness date label. Using U.K. and U.S. adult samples, Study 2 showed that consumers prefer a combined date label over a freshness date label or a safety date label because they perceive it as more informative. Using an Australian university student sample, Study 3 provided evidence that a combined date label reduces premature disposal behaviors relative to a freshness date label and that this effect is mediated by improved understanding of the freshness date. Lastly, using a U.S. adult sample, Study 4 showed (a) that misinterpreting the freshness date increases food safety concerns, which in turn increases premature food disposal and (b) that the combined date label attenuates these safety concerns and thereby reduces premature food disposal. All data are available at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/sgyhf/?view_only=e4ea995d6e3b482c855f4baa76c7d9d2).

Study 1

In Study 1, we assessed how date labels influence premature food disposal decisions. Specifically, in an online experimental study, we investigated the influence of date label type (a freshness date vs. no date vs. a safety date vs. a combined date) on food disposal decisions in six product categories. To capture premature food disposal, we examined the impact of a date label on a day between the freshness date and safety date. Study 1 also introduced a second manipulation. While the extant literature suggested that consumers rely on date labels, consumers also reported using appearance, smell, and taste to guide their disposal decisions (Ray et al., 2024; Van Boxstael et al., 2014). This raises the possibility that date labels may not directly drive disposal decisions but instead act as cues prompting sensory evaluation. If this notion holds true, then a freshness label would only influence a food disposal decision when visible signs of spoilage are present. If not, then the label would influence a food disposal decision regardless of visual cues. Thus, the current study design allows us to better understand how freshness labels interact with sensory information to shape food disposal decisions.

Design and Procedure

A total of 640 undergraduate students at a large state university in the United States participated in the study in exchange for course credit. The participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions, 4 × 2 between-subjects design based on the type of label (no date label, freshness date label, safety date label, or combined date label) and the visual food quality (poor or normal). We removed incomplete responses (n = 47) and responses that failed the attention check (n = 141), which resulted in a final sample of 452 participants (56.4% female; 99.6% 18–24 years old) for the analysis.

First, participants were given instructions for a food product sorting task. Participants were asked to imagine a close friend’s out-of-town trip had been extended and that they needed to visit the friend’s home and manage the perishable food. Their job was to inspect the food and divide it into two categories: products to be thrown away versus products to be kept for personal consumption or given away (Holthuysen et al., 2017). Participants were then presented with pictures of six perishable food products, one at a time (yogurt, fruit salad, bread, prepared green salad, packaged fresh vegetables, shredded cheese). In three of the four conditions, fictitious “freshness – best if used by” dates (a date earlier than the data collection date) and “safety – use by” dates (a date later than the data collection date) were assigned based on the standard shelf-life of each food category. For example, if the data collection date was September 10, the “best if used by” date was September 06 and the “use by” date was September 14, for a product expected to have an eight-day post-freshness date shelf-life. The manipulations are shown in Appendix A. Since the experiment took multiple days to complete, the label dates were adjusted to each data collection date.

To manipulate visual food quality, we changed the product or its form by introducing imperfections. In the normal visual quality condition, the food had no imperfections. In the poor visual quality condition, the following imperfections were introduced: yogurt (black spots on surface), fruit salad (browning from oxidation), bread (crumbling due to dryness), prepared green salad (browning of salad leaves), packaged fresh vegetables (brown or yellow discoloration on surface), and shredded cheese (moldy areas). An example of the manipulation is shown in Appendix B. Participants were asked to indicate whether they would choose to keep or discard each product. Afterwards, they completed an attention check (“select ‘Not at all’ for this question”) and answered demographic questions (see Supplemental Web Appendix A for stimuli and measures).

Results and Discussion

The analyses were performed using parametric (ANOVA) and nonparametric (Poisson regression) tests. The parametric results are reported in the main text, and the nonparametric results are reported in the Supplemental Web Appendix F. The two analyses show similar patterns of significance across Studies 1, 3, and 4.

We created a count dependent variable (M = 3.04, standard deviation [SD] = 1.90) by summing the six binary responses (0: keep; 1: discard). The variable ranged from zero (did not discard any food) to six (discarded all six food products). Figure 2 presents the means. The results of a two-way ANOVA showed that the main effect of label type (F(3, 444) = 31.94, p < .001, ω_p² = .065) and visual food quality (F(1, 444) = 117.08, p < .001, ω_p² = .207) were significant. The interaction was also significant (F(3, 444) = 4.02, p = .008, ω_p² = .007). The pattern of interaction suggests that the negative impact of the freshness date label on premature food disposal was more pronounced in the normal food quality condition than in the poor food quality condition. This finding is inconsistent with the notion that a freshness date heightens consumers’ sensitivity to indicators of poor quality – if so, there would have been a more pronounced negative effect of the freshness label in the poor food quality condition. This finding suggests that consumers may rely on date labels independently of visual food quality cues, leading to premature food disposal decisions even when food appears normal.

Figure 2.

Food discarded owing to food date labels and visual food quality (Study 1).

Simple effects analyses with follow-up pairwise comparisons (see Figure 2) revealed that in the normal visual quality condition, premature food disposal was significantly higher in the freshness date (“best if used by”) label condition (M = 3.65, SD = 1.68) than in all other label conditions: no date label (M = 1.69, SD = 1.40, F(1, 444) = 43.99, p < .001, ω_p² = .088), safety date (“use by”) label (M = 1.38, SD = 1.48, F(1, 444) = 60.09, p < .001, ω_p² = .117), or combined date label (M = 2.18, SD = 1.86, F(1, 444) = 24.01, p < .001, ω_p² = .049) condition. A similar pattern emerged in the poor visual quality condition, where the food disposal rate in the freshness date label condition (M = 4.63, SD = 1.46) was significantly higher than in the safety date label (M = 2.85, SD = 1.79, F(1, 444) = 35.31, p < .001, ω_p² = .071) and combined date label (M = 3.68, SD = 1.50, F(1, 444) = 10.97, p < .001, ω_p² = .022) conditions, and marginally higher than in the no date label condition (M = 4.08, SD = 1.25, F(1, 444) = 3.44, p = .064, ω_p² = .005). As a robustness check, we conducted the analysis with the full sample (n = 593) including responses that failed the attention check. The results remain essentially unchanged (see Supplemental Web Appendix B for details).

In Study 1, we examined the effect of date labels (a freshness date label vs. no date label vs. a safety date label vs. a combined date label) on food disposal decisions under two visual quality conditions: normal and poor. Across both appearance conditions, the freshness date label led to a higher rate of premature food disposal decision than all other label conditions, while the safety date label appeared to be the most effective at reducing premature food disposal. This raises the question of why manufacturers prefer freshness date labels (Newsome et al., 2014; Theotokis et al., 2012). Although there may be cynical reasons for this preference (e.g. premature disposal of food increases sales, the lack of a safety date reduces litigation), we expect that a major reason is that retailers and consumers find this information useful.

Study 2

In Study 2, we examined consumers’ preferences for different types of food date labels on perishable food products. Prior literature indicates that consumers value food date labels because they inform pre-purchase, post-purchase quality assessment, and food disposal decisions (European Commission, 2018; Newsome et al., 2014; Qi & Roe, 2016; Shah & Hall-Phillips, 2018). Although the freshness date is often misinterpreted, it provides consumers with valuable information for assessing quality and informing food management and consumption planning. However, the absence of a safety date can create ambiguity in a safety judgment after seeing the freshness date.

Consistent with our hypothesis that a combined date label, relative to a freshness date label, reduces the likelihood that a person will prematurely dispose of food, we predict that consumers will prefer a combined date label over other date label options (no date label, a freshness date label, and a safety date label). Consumers should perceive a combined date label to be more informative and, therefore, more useful. Specifically, a combined date label should be more useful when making post-purchase food decisions (e.g. consumption planning, storage, disposal, etc.).

Design and Procedure

To examine consumer preferences for date labels, we recruited 400 adults (200 from the United States and 200 from the United Kingdom) via Prolific. Thirteen participants failed an attention check question, so their responses were removed from the analysis. This resulted in the final sample of 387 adults (with 192 from the United States and 195 from the United Kingdom) for the analysis.

In the survey, we measured consumers’ assessment of each type of food date label and to what extent they found each label useful. Since misunderstanding the meaning of a label could bias the usefulness of the results, we educated participants on the correct meaning of each date label prior to measuring its usefulness. Participants completed a label preference measure, two label usefulness measures, an attention check and demographic questions.

Measures

Food Date Label Preference

Respondents were asked: “Which of the following label options would you most prefer to see on packaged perishable food products sold in the supermarket?” Participants were asked to choose the most preferred type of label: no date label versus a freshness date label versus a safety date label versus a combined date label.

Label Usefulness I

Participants were presented with an image of a product with four different types of date labels (no date, a freshness date, a safety date, and a combined date) one at a time and were asked to rate how informative, helpful, and useful they were (1 = not at all, 9 = very much).

Label Usefulness II

Next, participants were presented with an image of a product with four different types of date labels and were asked to rate how helpful (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree) they were on (a) consuming food at its best quality, (b) reducing the risk of food disease/illness, (c) making a more informed food consumption/disposal decision, (d) making a better food consumption plan (e.g. when to consume the food, weekly meal plan, etc.), and (e) making better food storage decisions (e.g. if there is a need to freeze the food).

Demographics

The survey also collected information on gender, age, race, education, income, employment status, household size, and the number of children in the household. See Supplemental Web Appendix C1 and C2 for survey questionnaire and sample characteristics, respectively.

Results and Discussion

Food date label preference. The majority of participants in the United States reported that they prefer a combined date label (72%) over the freshness (9%) and safety (18%) date labels (χ² = 134.09, df = 2, p < .001). A similar pattern was observed among the U.K. sample, with the combined date label being the dominant preference (59%; χ² = 66.58, df = 2, p < .001). No one indicated preference for a no date label option, suggesting that consumers value a date label on food packaging (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Food Date Label Preference (Study 2).

Date label type	United States (n = 192) (%)	United Kingdom (n = 195) (%)
No date label	0 (0)	0 (0)
Freshness date label	18 (9)	23 (12)
Safety date label	35 (18)	57 (29)
Combined date label	139 (72)	115 (59)

Label Usefulness I

We created a label usefulness index for each date label for the analysis, averaging the scores of the three items (α > .90 for all label types). We performed a repeated measures ANOVA followed by post-hoc tests (see Table 4). U.S. participants identified the combined date label (M = 8.66, SD = 0.76) as more useful than a safety date label (M = 7.48, SD = 1.16; F(1, 191) = 198.94, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.02) and a freshness date label (M = 6.59, SD = 1.41; F(1, 191) = 384.80, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.45). Similarly, U.K. participants also identified the combined date label (M = 8.27, SD = 1.30) as more useful than a safety date label (M = 7.59, SD = 1.18; F(1, 194) = 32.36, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .41) and a freshness date label (M = 6.51, SD = 1.53; F(1, 194) = 174.08, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .95). No date label was deemed the least useful.

Table 4.

Label Usefulness I (Study 2).

Date label type	United States (n = 192)	United Kingdom (n = 195)
No date label	1.99 (0.09)	2.00 (0.05)
Freshness date label	6.59 (1.41)	6.51 (1.53)
Safety date label	7.48 (1.16)	7.59 (1.18)
Combined date label	8.66 (0.76)	8.27 (1.30)

Label Usefulness II

The results of the repeated measures ANOVA indicate that participants considered the combined date label as the most helpful in making all five food decisions. Post-hoc tests revealed that the combined date label received significantly higher ratings than all other labels across all five criteria (see Table 5). This pattern was consistent in both the U.S. and the U.K. samples. Detailed test statistics are reported in the Supplemental Web Appendix C3.

Table 5.

Label Usefulness II (Study 2).

Food-related decision	No date label	Freshness date label	Safety date label	Combined date label
United States (N = 192)
Helps to consume food at best quality	1.26 (0.87)^a	7.68 (1.43)^b	6.80 (1.74)^c	8.67 (0.75)^d
Helps to reduce the risk of food illness	1.20 (0.58)^a	6.06 (1.93)^b	8.07 (1.18)^c	8.66 (0.84)^d
Helps to make an informed food discard decision	1.21 (0.73)^a	6.61 (1.62)^b	7.92 (1.27)^c	8.64 (0.80)^d
Helps to make a better consumption plan	1.26 (0.79)^a	6.94 (1.52)^b	7.62 (1.43)^c	8.59 (0.95)^d
Helps to make a better food storage decision	1.29 (0.78)^a	6.53 (1.88)^b	7.41 (1.60)^c	8.32 (1.39)^d
United Kingdom (N = 195)
Helps to consume food at best quality	1.54 (1.30)^a	7.73 (1.31)^b	6.76 (1.78)^c	8.51 (0.90)^d
Helps to reduce the risk of food illness	1.43 (1.13)^a	6.12 (1.93)^b	8.21 (1.01)^c	8.52 (0.99)^d
Helps to make an informed food discard decision	1.57 (1.38)^a	6.48 (1.78)^b	7.96 (1.14)^c	8.47 (0.95)^d
Helps to make a better consumption plan	1.53 (1.26)^a	6.83 (1.51)^b	7.68 (1.30)^c	8.45 (1.06)^d
Helps to make a better food storage decision	1.51 (1.27)^a	6.22 (2.18)^b	6.98 (2.03)^c	7.95 (1.87)^d

Note. Conditions with different superscript, in the same row, are significantly different (p < .001).

Study 2 assessed preferences for date label formats when participants were explicitly informed of each label’s meaning before evaluating each label format. Under this procedure, consumers perceived the combined date label as more useful and helpful for making various food-related decisions. In addition, consumers reported that, relative to other labels, a combined date label (a) helped them form better food consumption plans, and (b) facilitated better food storage strategies. Prior literature highlights that these perceived benefits are associated with reductions in household food waste. For example, educating consumers about food consumption planning and storage has been shown to reduce household food waste by up to 20% (Principato et al., 2021). Similarly, recent research suggests that date label-based food management (i.e. organizing a pantry) can lead to significant reductions in household food waste (Cliceri et al., 2025).

Study 3

Study 3 had two goals. First, Study 3 further investigated the effect of a combined date label (vs. freshness date label) on premature food disposal behavior. Participants were given four food items and asked to discard (retain) the items they wished. Consistent with Study 1, we expected less premature food disposal when a combined date label was on the items than when a freshness date label was on the items. Second, Study 3 provided evidence for why a combined date label reduces premature food disposal (i.e. a mediator). Earlier, we posited that a combined date label should increase freshness date label knowledge because the existence of two dates (dual referents), one being safety, should make it clear that the other date (i.e. freshness) has a meaning that is not related to food safety. Consequently, enhanced label knowledge should lead to less premature food disposal. We investigated this mediation model: label type (0 = freshness date label, 1 = combined date label; independent variable) → enhanced freshness date knowledge (mediator: freshness date knowledge) → less food disposal (dependent variable: amount of food discarded).

Design and Procedure

Participants were recruited in the library of a large state university in Australia. Research assistants approached students individually and asked them to participate in a study. Those who agreed to participate (n = 200, 50% female, M_age = 21.9) were led to a private area of the library. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two food date label conditions (freshness date label vs. combined date label).

The research assistants told participants they had collected leftover food from events catered during the prior week. Participants were then presented with four packaged, perishable food products (bread, yogurt, tomatoes, and cream cheese). Each package had a “best before” date label, similar to what would be seen in an Australian grocery store, or combined date label (see Appendix A for date label manipulation).² Participants were told that they could inspect the food (i.e. view, smell, taste, feel) and take any food they wished to consume. Participants were also told to discard the food they felt should be thrown away, using the provided waste bin. The number of items participants discarded was used as the dependent measure. The experiment was conducted one participant at a time using an empty trash bin. Data were collected over multiple days, with the dates on date labels being updated on each new data collection day. New food was also purchased for each data collection date.

After deciding which food to keep versus discard, participants responded to a freshness date label knowledge measure: “What is meant by the “best before” date in relation to food and drinks?” with the response options: (a) Food may be unsafe for consumption after this date; (b) Food is still safe for consumption after this date as long as it is not damaged, deteriorated, or perished; (c) None of the above; and (d) Not really sure what it means. Lastly, participants completed demographic questions (see Supplemental Web Appendix D for details).

Results and Discussion

Amount of Food Discarded

We created a count dependent variable (M = 2.80, SD = 1.33) from the four binary responses (0 = keep; 1 = discard). The variable ranged from zero (did not discard any food) to four (discarded all four food products). Results show that food disposal was significantly lower in the combined date condition (M = 2.27, SD = 1.38) than in the freshness date condition (M = 3.33, SD = 1.05; F(1, 198) = 37.35, p < .001, ω_p² = .154; see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Food discarded by date label condition (Study 3).

Freshness Date Label Knowledge

We recoded the knowledge measure into a binary knowledge variable (0: incorrect; 1: correct). A logistic regression indicates that more consumers correctly interpreted the meaning of the freshness date when shown a combined date label (74%) than a freshness date label alone (48%, B = 1.13, standard error [SE] = 0.30, p < .001, Cohen’s h = .541). This result suggests that the combined date label clarifies the meaning of the freshness date.

Test for Mediation (Label Knowledge)

We tested if freshness date knowledge mediates the influence of the date label on the amount of food discarded. The mediation model, freshness date label (0) versus combined date label (1) → freshness date label knowledge (0: incorrect, 1: correct) → amount of food discarded, was significant (indirect effect = −0.11, SE = 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−0.240, −0.021], 10,000 resamples). The results suggest that the combined date label (vs. freshness date label) increased correct understanding of the freshness date label knowledge, which in turn reduced the amount of food discarded.

The results of study 3 are important for two reasons. First, food disposal behavior was observed, providing behavioral evidence that a combined date label, relative to a freshness date label, reduces premature food disposal. Second, the findings provide a detailed account of why a combined date label reduces premature food disposal. People who do not understand the meaning of the freshness date are more likely to prematurely dispose of food because they believe the food is unsafe to consume (i.e. they have incorrect freshness date knowledge). On the other hand, the combined date label clarifies the meaning of the freshness date and, thus, reduces the premature disposal of edible food.

Study 4

While Studies 1 and 3 provide evidence that a combined date label, compared to a freshness date label, can reduce premature food disposal, they rely on university student samples. Thus, one could have concerns about whether these results generalize to non-students. This study aims to address this concern plus offer a more nuanced examination of the reasons for premature food disposal. Prior studies (Shamim et al., 2022; Van Boxstael et al., 2014; WRAP, 2011) suggest that misinterpreting a freshness date label as a safety date results in food waste because consumers believe the food is no longer safe to consume. If a combined date label corrects this misinterpretation, it will reduce safety concerns and, thus, reduce premature food disposal.

In this study, we investigated date label knowledge as a moderator. We assessed whether people correctly or incorrectly understood the meaning of the freshness date label prior to seeing any food products. We then had them make food disposal decisions. We anticipated that people who misinterpreted the meaning of the freshness date label as an expiration label would prematurely dispose of food owing to safety concerns. In addition, we increased the realism of the food disposal decision by making additional information available at the time of the food disposal decision (i.e. nutrition, ingredient, and allergens labels for each product).

Design and Procedure

Four hundred and one U.S. adults from Prolific completed the study. After excluding 9 participants who failed an attention check question, the final sample of 392 participants was used for the analysis (49.7% female; M_age = 37.7 years).

First, we measured participants’ understanding of a “best if used by” freshness label, using the knowledge question from study 3. Next, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two food date label conditions (freshness: “best if used by” vs. the combined: “best if used by” + “use by”) and asked to complete a scenario-based food sorting task similar to Study 1. Participants were then presented with eight food products, one at a time in a random order (yogurt, fruit salad, bread, prepared green salad, packaged fresh vegetables, potato salad, pasta salad, smoked salmon) with one of the two food date labels. “Freshness – best if used by” dates (a date earlier than the data collection date) and “safety – use by” dates (a date later than the data collection date) were assigned based on the standard shelf-life of each food category (see Appendix A). For each food item, participants rated food safety using two items (safe, edible; r = 0.95) after each product decision; these ratings were reverse-coded to represent poorer food safety. The composite measure was created by averaging the means of eight food items. Lastly, participants completed an attention check and demographic questions. See Supplemental Web Appendix E for details.

Results and Discussion

We coded the freshness date knowledge measure into a binary variable (0: incorrect; 1: correct). We coded responses that indicated the freshness label was a freshness date as a correct label knowledge (1) and responses that indicated the freshness label was an expiration date as incorrect label knowledge (0). Those who indicated “None of the above” (n = 5) and “Not really sure what it means” (n = 10) were coded as missing values.

Amount of Food Discarded

We created a count dependent variable (M = 3.39, SD = 2.55) from the eight binary responses (0: keep; 1: discard). The variable ranged from zero (discarded no food) to eight (discarded all food). We conducted a two-way ANOVA. Results indicate that the main effect of label type was significant. Replicating the results of Studies 1 and 3, the combined date label (M = 2.36, SD = 2.36) reduced the amount of food discarded relative to the freshness date label (M = 4.47, SD = 2.30; F(1, 373) = 86.07, p < .001, ω_p² = .184). Further, participants who incorrectly interpreted the freshness label (M = 4.12, SD = 2.74) discarded more food than those who correctly interpreted the freshness date label (M = 3.00, SD = 2.35; F(1, 373) = 18.41, p < .001, ω_p² = .044). Finally, the interaction was also significant (F(1, 373) = 7.90, p = .005, ω_p² = .018).

Follow-up simple effects analysis supported our predictions. The means are shown in Figure 4. Participants (n = 141) who incorrectly interpreted the freshness date label disposed of a greater amount of food when a freshness date label was used (M = 5.51, SD = 2.13) compared to when a combined date label was used (M = 2.59, SD = 2.52; F(1, 373) = 58.32, p < .001, ω_p² = .133). Interestingly, we found the combined label’s effect even among those who correctly interpret the freshness date label. Participants (n = 236) who correctly interpreted the freshness date label disposed of more food when a freshness date label was used (M = 3.80, SD = 2.17) than when a combined date label was used (M = 2.23, SD = 2.27; F(1, 373) = 27.99, p < .001, ω_p² = .067). Additional simple effect tests found the food disposal rate in the freshness label condition was higher when people had incorrect knowledge (M = 5.51) than correct knowledge (M = 3.80; F(1, 373) = 25.77, p < .001, ω_p² = .062). However, in the combined label condition, the difference in the food disposal rates between correct versus incorrect knowledge groups was not significant (M_correct = 2.23 vs. M_incorrect = 2.59, F(1, 373) = 1.07, p = .30).

Figure 4.

Food discarded by knowledge and date label condition (Study 4).

Food Safety Concern

There was a label type by knowledge interaction on perceived food safety (F(1, 373) = 6.50, p = .011, ω_p² = .014). Food was perceived as less safe when there was a freshness label than a combined label in the correct knowledge condition (M_freshness = 4.43, SD = 1.39; M_combined = 3.34, SD = 1.85; F(1, 373) = 25.40, p < .001, ω_p² = .061), and more so in the incorrect knowledge condition (M_freshness = 5.97, SD = 1.75; M_combined = 3.98, SD = 1.60; F(1, 373) = 50.60, p < .001, ω_p² = .117).

Test for Mediation

We tested a moderated mediation model with food safety as a mediator: freshness (0) versus combined (1) label → less safe → amount of food discarded with Hayes’ Process model 8 (Hayes, 2017). The lower perceived safety mediated the effect for those who incorrectly understood the meaning of the freshness date label (indirect effect = −1.77, SE = 0.29, 95% CI [−2.356, −1.211], 10,000 resamples) and those who correctly understood the meaning of the freshness date label lower safety (indirect effect = −0.97, SE = 0.21, 95% CI [−1.389, −0.576], 10,000 resamples). More important, the safety mediation effect was larger in the incorrectly understood condition (difference = 0.80, SE = 0.32, 95% CI [0.168, 1.446]).

Together, the results replicated the finding that a combined date label can lower premature food disposal relative to the freshness date label. These results also show that people who incorrectly interpret the freshness date are more likely to engage in food disposal because they feel the product has become less safe. Interestingly, food safety perceptions mediated the combined date label effect for both people who incorrectly and correctly interpreted the freshness date. One could argue that although this pattern of mediation is expected in the incorrect interpretation condition, it was unexpected in the correct interpretation condition (i.e. there should not be safety concerns if the freshness date is interpreted correctly). It may be that even when the freshness date label is interpreted correctly, there is ambiguity about how far away the safety date is when only the freshness date is provided. This ambiguity might have led to food safety concerns among some people in the freshness date label condition.

General Discussion

Findings from three experimental studies demonstrate that freshness date labels encourage premature food disposal decisions (Studies 1 and 4) and behaviors (Study 3). We showed that consumers misinterpret the freshness date as a food safety indicator and it leads to the premature disposal of food owing to safety concerns. A combined date label, consisting of both freshness and safety dates, corrects the misinterpretation of the freshness date, lowers safety concerns, and thus reduces premature food disposals. This result is consistent with our prediction that providing dual referents (multiple date labels) in a combined date label encourages more deliberate, reasoned evaluation (rather than intuitive heuristics), thereby reducing premature food disposal. Further, an online survey shows U.K. and U.S. adults prefer a combined date label, over other date labels, because it is most useful for food consumption and management decisions (Study 2). As a post-hoc analysis, we also analyzed individual product items and found that the effect of a combined date label, relative to freshness date labels, showed a similar pattern across the product items examined in this research.

Theoretical Contributions

First, our findings contribute to the food label and consumer food waste literature. By recognizing the temporal difference between freshness dates and safety dates for the same product, we offer a more nuanced understanding of the impact of date labels on consumer food waste. Our results help clarify mixed findings regarding the relationship between date labels and food waste and establish a causal link between freshness date labels and premature food disposal. The findings can also inform future research on food date labels.

Second, we contribute to the literature on information processing and food disposal decisions. The benefits of a combined date label illustrate that people process information more accurately, and engage in more reasoned judgment (System 2), when they are given multiple referents (i.e. joint evaluation) versus a single referent (separate evaluation) (Bohnet et al., 2016; Kahneman, 2003). In our research, the combined date label corrected misperception about a freshness date, which reduced premature food disposal, and was expected to aid food management and consumption planning decisions.

Third, the findings improve our understanding of the influence of single versus multiple cues on consumer inferences. Typically, people use a single cue to disambiguate product information (Kardes et al., 2008). For example, a person may be told a product is “cold pasteurized” and use this information to infer the product has more nutrients and flavor than a “warm pasteurized” product. In our studies, a single cue (freshness date) creates ambiguity. Knowing a product is past its freshness date encourages consumers to make incorrect inferences about product safety. It is only when people have two cues, a freshness date and a safety date that they make proper inferences.

Public Policy and Practice Implications

Current Practice and Reform Efforts

Date labeling practices and reform efforts vary meaningfully across jurisdictions and product categories, which is important for interpreting baseline consumer confusion and the feasibility of alternative labeling practices. In the United Kingdom, retailer-led initiatives have removed “best before” dates in some uncut, fresh produce categories; for example, Waitrose removed “best before” dates from a large number of fresh products in September 2022, encouraging shoppers to rely on sensory judgment (John Lewis Partnership, 2022). This is consistent with WRAP (2022)’s guidance that uncut fresh produce should only carry a “best before” date when judged necessary. “Best before” date labels should be reserved for other pre-packaged foods. Furthermore, U.K. government guidance similarly notes that unpeeled, uncut fresh fruit and vegetables are exempt from durability dates (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, & Food Standards Agency, 2022). In Australia, coordinated national work is also underway to improve date labeling, explicitly targeting clearer consumer understanding and decision-making in order to reduce household food waste (Parker et al., 2025).

Implementation

We argue that a more holistic approach is necessary so that proposed interventions have a better chance of being widely supported and adopted (Bartezzaghi et al., 2024; Chu et al., 2020; Hutter et al., 2016; King, 2008; Patra et al., 2020). Given the stakeholder conflict in setting date label policy, we advocate a willingness-to-accept approach that focuses on how an intervention creates value for each stakeholder (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006; Mathwick et al., 2008; Press & Arnould, 2009). For a policy solution to be successful, it must be easy to implement and appealing to the stakeholders who control its implementation–namely manufacturers and retailers (Giesler & Veresiu, 2014; Mesiranta et al., 2022; Soneryd & Uggla, 2015).

From an operational standpoint, adopting a combined date label is likely to have a low operational burden for manufacturers. Date information is typically applied to packaging during production (ReFED, 2017). Increasing the number of date labels from one to two likely involves a small change in software, which can be done during a packaging update cycle (ReFED, 2017). Furthermore, given that many manufacturers use freshness date labels on some products and safety date labels on other products, existing software is likely to have both options available. Accordingly, a combined date label would rely on established date-marking conventions rather than requiring the introduction of a new coding capability, thereby reducing implementation friction for manufacturers. Combined date labels may also offer advantages for retailers by reducing consumer sensitivity to the freshness date as a salient purchase criterion, thereby lowering shrink, markdowns, and related waste while still providing date information useful for stock rotation. Finally, a combined date label would give an early-mover advantage to manufacturers who adopt the policy because they would be providing additional useful information to consumers and retailers.

Potential Impact

Combined date labels represent an opportunity for manufacturers and retailers to meet consumer needs and to reduce food waste. To underscore potential economic relevance in the U.S. context, the FDA (2019) has associated date label confusion with an estimated $43B in waste. If we use this figure to illustrate the potential benefits of reducing date label confusion, even a 10% reduction in date label-based waste would correspond to approximately $4.3B annually. In addition to these economic implications, reducing date label confusion may also be environmentally beneficial, given the greenhouse gas emissions associated with food loss and waste (FAO, 2014; Zhu et al., 2023). Reducing date label confusion also represents a relatively low-cost opportunity to reduce food waste (EPA et al., 2023; European Commission, 2021). That said, the realized impact of any date labeling change on food waste would depend on current labeling practices (see Table 6), the product category, baseline rates of confusion within the product category, and the extent to which a combined label is adopted in a product category. For example, the effect of a combined date label, relative to a freshness label, is likely to be stronger for packaged perishable products (e.g. dairy products, fruit salad, and yogurt) than for shelf-stable products (e.g. rice, honey, and canned foods). Supporting this possibility, WRAP (2024a) suggests that consumers’ reliance on date information varies across product categories, with greater reliance on date labels when evaluating products for which safety concerns are more salient, such as fresh chicken, pork, and yogurt. An additional consideration is how manufacturers determine the freshness and safety dates included in a combined date label for a product. Although the proposed intervention builds on existing date-marking practices, its practical effectiveness would depend on how accurately and consistently these dates are set across product categories.

Table 6.

Food Date Labeling Practices – Freshness vs. Safety Label.

Country	Freshness label	Safety label
CODEX international food standards (FAO; WHO)	Best before	Use by
Australasia	Best before	Use by
Canada	Best before	Expiration
China	Quality guarantee period	Use by
EU and United Kingdom	Best before	Use by
India	Best before	Use by; Expiry
Japan	Best before	Expiry; Consume by
United States	Best if used by; Best if used before; Best by	Use by; Expiration

Impact will also be influenced by jurisdiction. The heterogeneity of country approaches to sustainability-focused consumption is well documented in the literature (Backman et al., 2017; Jones & Levy, 2007; Levy & Egan, 1998; Weinhofer & Hoffmann, 2010). Thus, we anticipate that a combined label might initially be mandated by countries with a commitment to food sustainability (e.g. Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands) and, to the extent it is possible, by signatories of the C40 Good Food Cities Declaration. As global warming increases, and low-cost sources of reduced carbon emissions are sought, reducing food waste via combined date labeling may appeal to other countries with a strong commitment to sustainable food production, distribution, and consumption (e.g. Canada, France) or sustainable lifestyles (e.g. Norway, Sweden, Switzerland).

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations associated with our research. First, two of the four studies rely on university student samples (Studies 1 and 3). Although student samples are common in experimental research, they raise generalizability concerns for household food decisions, particularly because students may be less likely to be primary household food managers and may face different routines and constraints than the broader population (e.g. household size, presence of children). Study 4 extends the evidence using a U.S. adult sample and demonstrates the proposed effect. Nonetheless, future research should extend this evidence by testing more representative household samples, including adult samples in the United Kingdom and Australia, as well as samples from non-English-speaking and developing countries.

Second, the study designs limit our ability to make inference about in-home behaviors. Studies 1 and 4 were conducted online and, therefore, captured disposal intentions rather than disposal behavior. Study 2 did not measure disposal decisions or behavior; instead, it assessed label preferences and perceived usefulness under conditions of full knowledge of date label meanings. Moreover, because Study 2 used a structured, repeated-measures evaluation in which label meanings were made explicit, the stated preferences may be susceptible to demand characteristics (and related consistency or comparison effects) that can arise when a series of explicit judgments are measured. Future research could mitigate these concerns by using between-subject designs and more naturalistic choice tasks that elicit preferences without defining the meaning of labels. Study 3 incorporated a behavioral choice task, but it was conducted in a controlled and relatively low-stakes context compared to everyday household food disposal decisions. These limitations create opportunities for future research to examine the effect of combined labels in more ecologically valid settings, such as in-home studies or diary-based tracking, and in other decision contexts, including retail field experiments, to estimate realistic effect sizes and persistence over time.

Third, although our theorizing emphasizes the role of textual meaning (freshness date vs. safety date) in driving confusion, wording is only one component of label comprehension. This is particularly pertinent because the studies were conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia – contexts with culturally and linguistically diverse populations where English proficiency cannot be assumed. In addition, our samples were in general, highly educated and, by design, Study 2 educated participants about label meanings prior to evaluation; thus, the observed preference for combined labels may not generalize to consumers with lower literacy or limited English proficiency. Future research could explore label designs that reduce reliance on text, including icons, color cues, layout changes that minimize clutter, simplified or alternative wording, and explicit prompts for sensory checks (e.g. look–smell–taste) where appropriate.

Fourth, our studies necessarily simplified real-world decision environments. In practice, date labels are often interpreted under information overload (e.g. multiple on-pack claims and nutrition, ingredient, and allergen information), time pressure, and habitual routines. Disposal decisions are also shaped by contextual and temporal factors such as household inventory, storage constraints, planned meals, and perceived risk. While Studies 3 and 4 increase realism relative to the earlier studies, by incorporating more complete on-pack information, other contextual factors remain underexplored. Future research should examine boundary conditions by embedding date labels in more realistic choice environments (e.g. varying competing product cues, time pressure, perceived risk, and attitudes toward food waste).

Fifth, freshness judgments rely on multiple sensory modalities beyond visual appearance, including smell, texture, and taste. These cues could not be directly incorporated into our online studies (Studies 1, 2, and 4), which necessarily relied on image-based stimuli. Study 3 addressed this limitation by allowing participants to evaluate products using smell, texture, and taste; however, the food disposal decision occurred in a controlled and relatively low-stakes context compared to everyday household decisions, and the data relied on a student sample. Future research should therefore examine how combined date labels interact with multisensory assessments in more naturalistic settings (e.g. in-home studies) and across longer time horizons, using more representative household samples.

Lastly, as shown in Study 4, a correct understanding of the meaning of the freshness date substantially reduces, but does not eliminate, the effect of the freshness date on premature food disposal decisions. Prior work (Gong et al., 2022; Wilson et al., 2017) offers a potential explanation for this finding. Specifically, these studies suggest that consumers’ food disposal decisions are shaped by two key judgments: a food safety judgment (i.e. is it safe to eat?) and a food quality judgment (i.e. is it fresh?). Accordingly, some consumers may still discard food after the freshness date has passed because they perceive it to be no longer fresh, even if they understand that it remains safe to consume. Future research should examine this phenomenon further and identify ways to reduce premature food disposal driven by perceived declines in food quality.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-bas-10.1177_00076503261449363 – Supplemental material for Adding a Safety Date to a Freshness Date Label Reduces Premature Food Disposal

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-bas-10.1177_00076503261449363 for Adding a Safety Date to a Freshness Date Label Reduces Premature Food Disposal by Hyoje Jay Kim, Hyun Seung Jin, Chris Janiszewski and Joowon Ban in Business & Society

Footnotes

Appendix A

Table A1.

Stimuli Label Dates.

Study 1	No date label	Freshness date label	Safety date label	Combined date label
Study 1	No date label	Best if used by date	Use by date	Best if used by date	Use by date
Yogurt	No date	4 days prior	4 days after	4 days prior	4 days after
Fruit salad	No date	2 days prior	2 days after	2 days prior	2 days after
Bread	No date	2 days prior	3 days after	2 days prior	3 days after
Prepared green salad	No date	3 days prior	4 days after	3 days prior	4 days after
Packaged fresh vegetables	No date	3 days prior	4 days after	3 days prior	4 days after
Shredded cheese	No date	3 days prior	4 days after	3 days prior	4 days after
Study 3	Freshness date label		Combined date label
Study 3	Best before date		Best before date		Use by date
Bread	2 days prior		2 days prior		3 days after
Yogurt	4 days prior		4 days prior		4 days after
Tomatoes	3 days prior		3 days prior		2 days after
Cream cheese	5 days prior		5 days prior		5 days after
Study 4	Freshness date label		Combined date label
Study 4	Best if used by date		Best if used by date		Use by date
Yogurt	5 days prior		5 days prior		5 days after
Fruit salad	2 days prior		2 days prior		3 days after
Bread	3 days prior		3 days prior		2 days after
Prepared green salad	2 days prior		2 days prior		3 days after
Packaged fresh vegetables	4 days prior		4 days prior		3 days after
Potato salad	3 days prior		3 days prior		4 days after
Pasta salad	4 days prior		4 days prior		4 days after
Smoked salmon	8 days prior		8 days prior		6 days after

Note. Freshness and safety dates were set relative to the data collection date.

Appendix B

ORCID iD

Hyoje Jay Kim

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approvals were obtained from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Ethics Review Board, (approval number 2021000474) on August 02, 2021 (Studies 1 and 3), and the University of Strathclyde Ethics Committee (approval number MKETH-2022-01 on September 02, 2022 (Study 2).

Consent to Participate

Participants received a participant information sheet at the beginning of each study. Submission of the completed survey was considered an indication of informed consent to participate in the research for online studies (Studies 1 and 3), and written consent was obtained from the participants in Study 2.

Author Contributions

The first three authors contributed equally to this work.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data and analysis files are stored at Open Science Framework ().

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Hyoje Jay Kim (PhD, Queensland University of Technology) is a lecturer in marketing at the University of Strathclyde. His research examines consumer behavior and decision-making in the context of social marketing. His work has appeared in journals such as Journal of Advertising, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Communication Research, International Journal of Hospitality Management, and International Journal of Advertising.

Hyun Seung Jin (PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) is an associate professor in the School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations at QUT Business School. His research interests include prosocial and sustainable behaviors, psychological well-being, social media advertising, and marketing in new technologies. He has published in journals such as the Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Advertising, European Journal of Marketing, Psychology & Marketing, and Journal of Business Research.

Chris Janiszewski is the Russell Berrie Eminent Scholar Chair, Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida. His current research focuses on how people pursue goals, how they derive utility from experience, and how experienced utility becomes associated with product features (i.e. how people determine the value of products and services). Professor Janiszewski has published in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, and the Journal of Consumer Research.

Joowon Ban (PhD) is a lecturer in marketing at Central Queensland University, Australia, within the School of Business and Law. Her research interests focus on sustainable hospitality and tourism, as well as social marketing. Her work has appeared in journals such as Circular Economy, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of Vacation Marketing, The TQM Journal, and Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing.

References

Ananda

Karunasena

G. G.

Pearson

(2022). Identifying interventions to reduce household food waste based on food categories. Food Policy, 111, Article 102324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102324

Backman

C. A.

Verbeke

Schulz

R. A.

(2017). The drivers of corporate climate change strategies and public policy: A new resource-based view perspective. Business & Society, 56(4), 545–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315578450

Bagozzi

R. P.

Dholakia

U. M.

(2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.01.005

Bartezzaghi

Garrone

Rizzuni

Melacini

Perego

(2024). Resource orchestration in cross-sector partnerships for systemic change: A longitudinal study of urban food assistance. Business & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503241306293

Bazerman

M. H.

Moore

D. A.

(2012). Judgment in managerial decision making. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Bazerman

M. H.

Tenbrunsel

A. E.

Wade-Benzoni

(1998). Negotiating with yourself and losing: Making decisions with competing internal preferences. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533224

Bohnet

Van Geen

Bazerman

(2016). When performance trumps gender bias: Joint vs. separate evaluation. Management Science, 62(5), 1225–1234. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2186

Ceuppens

Van Boxstael

Westyn

Devlieghere

Uyttendaele

(2016). The heterogeneity in the type of shelf life label and storage instructions on refrigerated foods in supermarkets in Belgium and illustration of its impact on assessing the Listeria monocytogenes threshold level of 100 CFU/g. Food Control, 59, 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.06.009

Chan

R. B. Y.

(2022). A review of packaging-related studies in the context of household food waste: Drivers, solutions and avenues for future research. Packaging Technology and Science, 35(1), 3–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2611

10.

Chu

Williams

Verghese

Wever

Glad

(2020). Tensions and opportunities: An activity theory perspective on date and storage label design through a literature review and co-creation sessions. Sustainability, 12(3), Article 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031162

11.

Cliceri

Pedrotti

Gasperi

Endrizzi

(2025). European consumers’ involvement with date labels and implications for household food waste. Food Quality and Preference, 129, Article 105522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105522

12.

Congress. (2019). S.2–37 – Food Date Labeling Act of 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2337/text

13.

Consumer Brands Association (CBA). (2019). Best if clearly labeled: How the consumer packaged goods industry is reducing confusion and food waste. https://consumerbrandsassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ConsumerBrands_ClearlyLabeled.pdf

14.

D’Amato

Goeschl

Lorè

Zoli

(2023). True to type? EU-style date marking and the valuation of perishable food. Food Policy, 114, Article 102381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102381

15.

Davenport

M. L.

Roe

B. E.

(2019). Food-related routines, product characteristics, and household food waste in the United States: A refrigerator-based pilot study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 150, Article 104440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104440

16.

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, & Food Standards Agency. (2022, September 20). Food labelling: Giving food information to consumers. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/food-labelling-giving-food-information-to-consumers

17.

EPA, USDA, & FDA. (2023, December). Draft national strategy for reducing food loss and waste and recycling organics. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/draft_national_strategy_for_reducing_food_loss_and_waste_and_recycling-organics.pdf

18.

European Commission. (2018, January). Market study on date marking and other information provided on food labels and food waste prevention. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e7be006f-0d55-11e8-966a-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

19.

European Commission. (2021, November). Tackling the avoidable issue of food loss and waste. https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/sante/items/726024/en/

20.

Evans

J. S. B.

Stanovich

K. E.

(2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685

21.

FAO. (2014). Food wastage footprint: Full-cost accounting. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3991e.pdf

22.

FDA. (2019). Confused by date labels on packaged foods? https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/confused-date-labels-packaged-foods.

23.

Forbes

Peacock

Abbot

Jones

(2024). Food waste index report 2024. Think eat save: Tracking progress to halve global food waste. https://wedocs.unep.org/items/dbe2cd4c-8384-4636-8359-5847f42b9711

24.

Giesler

Veresiu

(2014). Creating the responsible consumer: Moralistic governance regimes and consumer subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 840–857. https://doi.org/10.1086/677842

25.

Gong

Yi-Fan Su

Zhang

J. S.

Chen

Wang

(2022). Understanding the association between date labels and consumer-level food waste. Food Quality and Preference, 96, Article 104373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104373

26.

Graham-Rowe

Jessop

D. C.

Sparks

(2014). Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 84, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.005

27.

Grocery Manufacturers Association. (2017). Grocery industry launches new initiative to reduce consumer confusion on product date labels. https://consumerbrandsassociation.org/posts/grocery-industry-launches-new-initiative-to-reduce-consumer-confusion-on-product-date-labels.

28.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

29.

Hebrok

Heidenstrøm

(2019). Contextualising food waste prevention-Decisive moments within everyday practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.141

30.

Holthuysen

Kremer

Bos-Brouwers

(2017). The effect of date marking terminology of products with a long shelf life on food discarding behaviour of consumers. https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/428726

31.

Hsee

C. K.

(1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0077

32.

Hsee

C. K.

Loewenstein

G. F.

Blount

Bazerman

M. H.

(1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.576

33.

Hutter

Hoffmann

Mai

(2016). Carrotmob: A win–win–win approach to creating benefits for consumers, business, and society at large. Business & Society, 55(7), 1059–1077. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315576367

34.

John Lewis Partnership. (2022, August 1). Spoiler alert! Best before dates removed on nearly 500 Waitrose products. https://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/media-centre/latest-news/2022/14097

35.

Jones

C. A.

Levy

D. L.

(2007). North American business strategies towards climate change. European Management Journal, 25, 428–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.07.001

36.

Kahneman

(2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.

37.

Kahneman

Frederick

(2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Gilovich

Griffin

Kahneman

(Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge University Press.

38.

Kahneman

Miller

D. T.

(1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136.

39.

Kardes

F. R.

Posavac

S. S.

Cronley

M. L.

Herr

P. M.

(2008). Consumer inference. In Haugtvedt

C. P.

Herr

P. M.

Kardes

F. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 165–191). Taylor & Francis Group; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

40.

Kavanaugh

Quinlan

J. J.

(2020). Consumer knowledge and behaviors regarding food date labels and food waste. Food Control, 115, Article 107285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107285

41.

King

(2008). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650307306636

42.

Kleinmuntz

D. N.

Schkade

D. A.

(1993). Information displays and decision processes. Psychological Science, 4(4), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00265.x

43.

Leib

E. B.

Rice

Neff

Spiker

Schklair

Greenberg

(2016). Consumer perceptions of date labels: National survey. https://chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Consumer-Perceptions-on-Date-Labels_May-2016.pdf

44.

Levy

D. L.

Egan

(1998). Capital contests: National and transnational channels of corporate influence on the climate change negotiations. Politics & Society, 26, 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329298026003003

45.

Mathwick

Wiertz

De Ruyter

(2008). Social capital production in a virtual P3 community. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 832–849. https://doi.org/10.1086/523291

46.

Mesiranta

Närvänen

Mattila

(2022). Framings of food waste: How food system stakeholders are responsibilized in public policy debate. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 41(2), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156211005722

47.

Neff

R. A.

Spiker

M. L.

Rice

Schklair

Greenberg

Leib

E. B.

(2019). Misunderstood food date labels and reported food discards: A survey of US consumer attitudes and behaviors. Waste Management, 86, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.023

48.

Neff

R. A.

Spiker

M. L.

Truant

P. L.

(2015). Wasted food: US consumers’ reported awareness, attitudes, and behaviors. Plos One, 10(6), e0127881. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127881

49.

Newsome

Balestrini

C. G.

Baum

M. D.

Corby

Fisher

Goodburn

Labuza

T. P.

Prince

Thesmar

H. S.

Yiannas

(2014). Applications and perceptions of date labeling of food. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Safety, 13(4), 745–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12086

50.

Parker

Brennan

Jenkins

Rodrigo Llagas

Lockey

Schivinski

(2025, March). National date labelling and storage advice – Phase 1: Final report. End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre. https://endfoodwaste.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2503_EFWCRC_124_Final-Report.pdf

51.

Patra

Henley

S. C.

Benefo

E. O.

Pradhan

A. K.

Shirmohammadi

(2022). Understanding and addressing food waste from confusion in date labeling using a stakeholders’ survey. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 8, Article 100295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100295

52.

Patra

Leisnham

P. T.

Tanui

C. K.

Pradhan

A. K.

(2020). Evaluation of global research trends in the area of food waste due to date labeling using a scientometrics approach. Food Control, 115, Article 107307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107307

53.

Press

Arnould

E. J.

(2009). Constraints on sustainable energy consumption: Market system and public policy challenges and opportunities. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(1), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.28.1.102

54.

Principato

Mattia

Di Leo

Pratesi

C. A.

(2021). The household wasteful behaviour framework: A systematic review of consumer food waste. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 641–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.010

55.

Roe

B. E.

(2016). Household food waste: Multivariate regression and principal components analyses of awareness and attitudes among US consumers. Plos One, 11(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159250

56.

Quested

T. E.

Marsh

Stunell

Parry

(2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.011

57.

Ray

DeLong

K. L.

Jensen

Burns

Luckett

(2024). Consumer preferences for foods with varying best if used-by dates: An experimental auction and sensory evaluation analysis. Food Policy, 125, Article 102650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102650

58.

ReFED. (2017). ReFED date labeling standardization tool: Guidelines. https://refed.org/downloads/ReFED-Standardization-Package.pdf

59.

ReFED. (2023). Explore solutions to food waste. https://insights-engine.refed.org/solution-database?dataView=total&indicator=us-dollars-profit

60.

Roe

B. E.

Bender

K. E.

Hilty

(2019). Industry versus government regulation of food date labels: Observed adherence to industry-endorsed phrases. Sustainability, 11(24), Article 7183. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247183

61.

Shah

Hall-Phillips

(2018). Antecedents and implications of expiration date search effort. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 52(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12141

62.

Shamim

Ahmad

Alam

(2022). Consumer understanding of food date labels: Preventing food wastage. British Food Journal, 124(10), 3116–3132. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2021-0672

63.

Soneryd

Uggla

(2015). Green governmentality and responsibilization: New forms of governance and responses to ‘consumer responsibility’. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 913–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1055885

64.

Stancu

Haugaard

Lähteenmäki

(2016). Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite, 96, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.025

65.

Stöckli

Niklaus

Dorn

(2018). Call for testing interventions to prevent consumer food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.029

66.

Theotokis

Pramatari

Tsiros

(2012). Effects of expiration date-based pricing on brand image perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 88(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2011.06.003

67.

Thompson

Toma

Barnes

A. P.

Revoredo-Giha

(2018). The effect of date labels on willingness to consume dairy products: Implications for food waste reduction. Waste Management, 78, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.021

68.

Van Boxstael

Devlieghere

Berkvens

Vermeulen

Uyttendaele

(2014). Understanding and attitude regarding the shelf life labels and dates on pre-packed food products by Belgian consumers. Food Control, 37, 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.08.043

69.

Weinhofer

Hoffmann

V. H.

(2010). Mitigating climate change – How do corporate strategies differ? Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.618

70.

Weis

Narang

Rickard

Souza-Monteiro

D. M.

(2021). Effects of date labels and freshness indicators on food waste patterns in the United States and the United Kingdom. Sustainability, 13(14), Article 7897. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147897

71.

Wilson

N. L.

Rickard

B. J.

Saputo

S. T.

(2017). Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.004

72.

WRAP. (2011). Consumer insight: Date labels and storage guidance. https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/Consumer-insight-date-labels-and-storage-guidance.pdf

73.

WRAP. (2022). When to sell uncut fruit and vegetables loose; Labelling to help people waste less food. https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/WRAP%20Food%20labelling%20guidance_2022_UNCUT_FRESH.pdf

74.

WRAP. (2023). Citizen insights on use by and best before dates on dairy products. https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/WRAP-Citizen-insights-on-Use-By-and-Best-Before-dates-on-dairy-products.pdf

75.

WRAP. (2024a). Behaviours, attitudes, awareness and competencies: UK Household Food Management Survey key findings. https://www.wrap.ngo/sites/default/files/2025-03/WRAP-UK-Household-Food-Management-Survey-2024.pdf

76.

WRAP. (2024b). Improving date labels to cut food waste. https://behaviourchange.org.uk/case-studies/improving-date-labels-to-cut-food-waste

77.

Jaenicke

E. C.

(2020). Estimating food waste as household production inefficiency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 102(2), 525–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12036

78.

Zhu

Luo

Sun

Zhou

Wang

Fei

Yin

(2023). Cradle-to-grave emissions from food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems. Nature Food, 4(3), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00710-3

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

30.66 MB

0.00 MB