Better understanding of consumer food waste behaviour is an important key to reducing food waste. Prior research, both national (e.g. Netherlands Nutrition Centre/GfK, 2013), and European (e.g. Flash Eurobarometer 425 on Food waste and date marking, 2015), indicates that misinterpretation of date marking by consumers is very often given as one of the more important causes of food waste. However, little is as yet known about the size of this effect and how the terminology used might affect this. As a result, the Ministry of Economic Affairs commissioned Wageningen Food & Biobased Research to conduct a study on what the effects on consumer discarding behaviour are of using alternative terminology and omitting date marking on products with a long shelf life.
The main question is whether changing or omitting the date marking terminology currently being used (i.e. ‘best before date’) on products with a long shelf life could contribute to decreasing food waste by households. This qualitative study has been conducted in an experimental setting using sorting assignments, online visual surveys and focus group discussions conducted by a group of 86 Dutch consumers. The experiments were conducted in a controlled environment. No research was conducted into discarding behaviour based on the number of kilograms ending up in waste bins, but concerned the selection behaviour related to products that respondents would discard in the experimental setting.
The results provide new indicative insights into how changing date marking terminology – or its omission – could influence the prevalence of food waste. Products with a long shelf life here are taken to mean products which under current legislation must be labelled with a best before date (Dutch: THT datum, Tenminste Houdbaar Tot datum, i.e. ‘can be preserved until at least date’). The study was restricted to a selection of these products, namely those which can be stored at ambient temperature. Examples of such products are rice, pasta, coffee and tinned soup.
This study indicates that respondents discard fewer products if there is no best before date on the packaging. On average, in this experiment 39% of the products were thrown away if the best before date had expired. If there was no best before date on the packaging, 27% was thrown away. This is a difference of 12% on average. However, there are major differences between product categories.
The results with regard to using alternative terminology showed that respondents throw away 31% less if the term ‘Long shelf life’ is used on the packaging (without a specific date). Although respondents discarded less, they indicated that they were uncomfortable with this term. It does not provide any clarity concerning the food safety and quality of the product in question. This uncertainty turns out to have a significant influence on consumer discarding behaviour: Can I still safely consume this product? Will it taste good?
The conclusion of this study is that both omitting date marking and introducing alternative terminology could contribute to decreasing food waste in households. Introducing these measures in stages is recommended, since the study indicated that for some of the product groups being investigated (products such as sugar, rice, flour and tea), respondents did not experience such uncertainty. Using the term ‘long shelf life’ on the packaging of these products seems promising. In addition, attention should be paid to changing the risk perception of consumers. There are various options, such as providing better consumer information, providing information on the product packaging (perhaps also with QR codes or smartphone applications). Further investigation will have to show how precisely this should be done.
Source: Holthuysen, N., Kremer, S., & Bos-Brouwers, H. (2017). The effect of date marking terminology of products with a long shelf life on food discarding behaviour of consumers. (Wageningen Food & Biobased Research report; No. 1709). Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. https://doi.org/10.18174/428726