🎉 NEW soft, tangy, delicious corn & soy free goat chevre! BUY CHEVRE.

The ridiculousness of best by dates and why we use them anyway

written by

Marie Reedell

posted on

August 20, 2021

The “sell by” date is a pretty new thing. It all started in the 1950s, when one little store started using it. By the 1970s, it was the norm. And today, I dare to say that perishable products without a date somewhere on the package won’t sell nearly as well as those with one.

There’s a variety of different wordings for dates that go on food packages. As a consumer, it’s very important to understand the difference between them:

  • Packed on or Bottled on: The date the product was officially packaged for sale, which has nothing to do with the age of the product before it was packaged. Not to be confused with wine, where the date is the date the grapes were harvested and not the date it was bottled. 
  • Sell by: The date a product needs to be taken off the shelves and can no longer be sold to customers. A sell by date gives no indication of how long it will actually last. For example, Miller’s eggs come with a sell by date, but the eggs can last 6 weeks (or much longer) past that date.
  • Best by, Use by, or Expires on: This is an estimate of when a product will either spoil or significantly lose nutritional value or quality. For example, Miller’s milk comes with a best by date set two weeks past bottling. However, there are so many uses for sour milk. It doesn’t mean it’s unusable or unsafe past that date.
  • Best if used by: Kind of the same as above, but reworded to be a little more vague. The USDA is now promoting this language in an effort to reduce food waste. 

But here’s the thing - best by dates are completely made up.

When you take a minute to think about it, it totally makes sense. I mean, how can we magically know the exact date a product will go “bad”? There are so many variables - temperature, light, contaminants, handling, etc.

What if the manufacturer has everything temperature and humidity controlled but then the product travels in a truck for 24 hours in sweltering heat? What if a store has lots of beautiful natural light that reduces shelf life on some products? What if the product is cold and fresh when received but your fridge is unknowingly a warm 45F? What if you lick your spoon before going in for another taste of yogurt?

And here’s the kicker - with the exception of infant formula, the USDA does NOT regulate or require best by dates on any food. 

That’s right, dates on food are completely up to the discretion of the manufacturer.

So, why does Miller’s use best by dates? It’s a simple answer - it’s for you, the customer!

Back in the day, years ago, Miller’s didn’t use best by dates. In my house, there was a ritual when unpacking my weekly farm order. Take each item out of the bag → put it on the counter → dry it with a towel → write the date on the lid with a Sharpie → put it in the fridge. 

I want to know, with certainty, which jar to open next - the oldest of course!

But now my ritual is much shorter. And, it’s all because of the best by dates! I’m probably collectively saving hours per year. No more drying the lids. No more Sharpies. Just stick it in the fridge and done.

On the flip side, there is a dark side to best by dates - food waste. The FDA estimates that 20% of food waste is because of confusion due to date labeling.

I’ve totally done it. I’ve tossed food past the provided date without actually testing to see if it’s ok. I get it. It’s easy. And, you avoid the potentially unpleasant experience of smelling rotten food. Yuck!

But, with this knowledge, I now have power. I am aware of the arbitrariness of food dating and can make a choice.

So, what do you think? Do you like best by and sell by dates? Do you toss food when it passes the date or keep using it? Should best by dates be part of the food future we’re creating together?

Opinion

More from the blog

Raw milk or fermented dairy and lactose intolerance. Why might it help?

I was misinformed. At some point, I read that raw milk contains lactase. As it turns out, this is not true! It is true that raw milk contains many live enzymes that are inactivated during pasteurization. But, what about lactase? I’ve heard many anecdotal stories from people who are lactose intolerant... but can handle raw milk or fermented dairy. If raw milk, yogurt, kefir, or cheese doesn’t contain lactase, then why is that?

Our bone broth tested negative-ish for heavy metals 🥳 NATURAL AND CLEAN

Over the past few months a bunch of people asked us if we tested our bone broth for toxic heavy metals. When we get the same question a lot, we of course look into it. My first question was --- Is there an issue with toxic metals in bone broth? As it turns out, yes, there "can" be an issue! Heavy metals are naturally present in our environment. We need the "good" heavy metals to thrive: iron, zinc, magnesium, copper, etc. But, we can 100% do without the toxic heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, etc. Too many toxic heavy metals can lead to a host of pretty awful issues: nervous system damage, cardiovascular issues, cancer, endocrine disruption, kidney damage, and so on. Our body is designed to excrete heavy metals through urine (and a little bit through sweat, hair, and breastmilk too)... but only so much. There's a limit. If you're overloaded, your body will store those heavy metals in your bones, blood, tissues, and organs. Similarly, if an animal is exposed to heavy metals via food, water, air, dust, or soil, those heavy metals accumulate in the bones. Maybe the farm's soil or air is contaminated from a nearby factory. Maybe the pipes for the water has lead solder connecting them. Maybe the feed a farm is buying was grown on contaminated soil or processed on contaminated equipment.  And, of course, a main purpose of bone broth is drawing out as much as possible from the bones. If there are heavy metals in bones, they will make their way into the broth. This is especially true when you pre-soak with apple cider vinegar and simmer for 48 hours to make it thick and gelatinous (like our broth). And that led me to my second question --- Should I be concerned about every bone broth? Where is the fear coming from? Well... it seems it might be a little political. There was a study done in the UK in 2013 that scared a lot of people. It's titled "The Risk of Lead Contamination in Bone Broth Diets". This study found high levels of lead in organic chicken bone broth, which is quite concerning. And, in fact, this one study is still cited in articles written today! Let's dig a little deeper. Let's go farther than the short abstract. Here are the broths tested in the study and their test results for lead:  (9.5 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus skin and cartilage(7.01 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus bones(2.3 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus meat(0.89 parts per billion): Tap water alone cooked for the same amount of time as a control. But, they only used organic chicken from one farm. And, there's zero information about that farm, their practices, the feed, and the broth recipe. Did they use vinegar or wine in the broth? Was the chicken's water contaminated with lead? What was the quality of the feed and the soil? Were the chickens raised indoors or outdoors? So many unanswered questions! All we get is that it was one "organic chicken" that created a lead issue with broth. Another curious thing is that the broth with skin and cartilage contained more lead than the broth made with just bones. Bones are where lead is stored, so why wouldn't the broth made with bones only contain more lead? It's an odd result. Moreover, the abstract of the study specifically called out "bone broth diets" like GAPS and paleo. They even go so far as to write, "In view of the dangers of lead consumption to the human body, we recommend that doctors and nutritionists take the risk of lead contamination into consideration when advising patients about bone broth diets." That's quite curious. Why are they worried about these diets? Are the researchers anti healing through food? Who funded the research? Is it political? My opinion? This study is not comprehensive. It does not speak to all bone broths. But it does cover a potential issue if the water or animals are overloaded with heavy metals. What I glean from this study is that we need more research. We don't need fear to spread and people to stop drinking broth from this one study. Regardless of whether the fear was fabricated or legit, we tested our bone broth anyway. After all, it's always nice to validate that your food choices are as clean as you think. For Miller's, here were my concerns before testing: What if there's mercury in the fishmeal in our chicken feed?What if the soil that our animals live on is contaminated?What is the well water that the broth is made with is contaminated?What if the Celtic sea salt has lots of heavy metals? We got the test results back. I was super excited. But, I was also confused. At face value, it appeared that our bone broth tested NEGATIVE for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. You can find the test results right here! You'll notice that, for every sample, the results are "<0.01 mg/kg" and "<0.02 mg/kg".  I asked the lab what the "<" means. They said that it indicates their limit of quantitation (LOQ), the lowest concentration that can be accurately tested using the test procedure in that sample type. So the results simply report that none of the metals tested were found in the sample above the specific reporting LOQs. Whether or not they were present below this LOQ is information that is not provided by the test. When talking to the lab, I told them what we needed and assumed that this test would go below a 1 ppb. So, when the results came in, I assumed that a "mg/kg" was the same as a part per billion (ppb). Ummm... that math wasn't write! A "mg/kg" is actually a part per million (ppm). That means that the test we ran had results saying that the broth had less than 0.02 ppm (or 20 ppb) of arsenic and lead. And, it had less than 0.01 ppm (or 10 ppb) of cadmium and mercury. For some reference, the EPA says that less than 15 ppb of lead is safe in drinking water. Not saying that I agree, but it's a good reference point.  These results are good. It means the broth definitely isn't overloaded with toxic heavy metals. But, it's not good enough!!! We need to test again! We really need to a lower LOQ. We need to know the results with an accuracy of as low as 1 ppb. It looks like the lab we sent the original samples to doesn't have an LOQ that low. So here I am on the hunt for a lab to do it again. As soon as I can, I'll send samples in again and paying for more expensive testing to get the info you deserve. Stay tuned! I hope to have the new results in by the end of April 2025. Do you worry about toxic metals (or other junk) in your food? Where have your fears stemmed from? I'd love to hear from you. You can comment below (no account required) or contact us 😊 ----- Sources The risk of lead contamination in bone broth dietsBone Broth and Lead Toxicity: Should You Be Concerned?Bone Broth and Lead Contamination: A Very Flawed Study in Medical HypothesesBone Broth, Collagen, and Toxic Metals: A Research Review