Past Its Prime

I think that one of the interesting things about the concept of media literacy is the understanding that the way a story is framed is important. I suspect the problem is that it can be difficult to tune into this without becoming suspicious of an outlet's motives; mainly because such framing is often partisan in nature, or at least show where someone's sympathies lie.

The framing of a story can also be about expectations, and who is understood to be best placed to take action on a given subject. I was checking through LinkedIn this morning, and they had a brief news segment on food expiration dates, titled: "Expiration Dates Waste Money, Food." It's linked to an article from The Wall Street Journal (which is always on the hunt for more subscribers), titled: "Here’s Something Past Its Expiration Date: The Expiration Date Itself" (subscription required, because it's The Wall Street Journal). Of course, given the theme of the article, the title is ironic, but that's beside the point.

In any event, the framing of the LinkedIn News snippet is that the "expiration dates" (which is a misnomer) are the culprit. Unless food manufacturers are doing something weird with their inks, it's not the dates themselves that are causing the problem, it's people's response to them, which is to throw away food once the dates have passed. But even that isn't really the problem, which is likely better described as: People's lack of knowledge of how to determine if food is safe results in them throwing away things that could be used. Because the expiration dates aren't the concern; the behavior is driven by the fact that for many people, "use by," "sell by" and "best by" dates are really all they have to go on, especially given the belief (correct or not) that it's possible for a food item to be invisibly tainted, and that the processes involved aren't "all or nothing."

And I'll admit to being one of those people. I'm not a stickler for the various dates that manufacturers place on food, but I do attempt to keep use of foods within those dates, and if I'm uncertain, I'm not going to experiment with it; out it goes. Because food poisoning or gastroenteritis really suck. And if I'm not confident that something won't make me ill, I'd rather skip it entirely. And I expect that this is the thinking on the part of a lot of people.

To be sure, the retail food landscape factors into this. Stack and stacks of "perfect" produce in grocery stores and supermarkets create a wariness of blemishes beyond the idea that one might be considered a less than conscientious host at a picnic or dinner party. And for restaurants, another source of food waste called out by LinkedIn, liability law can be unforgiving, especially in a society were a surviving a bout of foodborne illness can be like winning a (rather unpleasant) lottery; especially if one is a lawyer (for whom the situation is a lot less unpleasant).

In short, the overall task that people have difficulty with is one of risk management. But that's something that's been known about the public at large for a long time, because modern society is far too complex for people to be experts in the myriad of subjects that have possible consequences for them on a daily basis. Still, if the goal is to reduce food waste, the focus on dating is misplaced. Either people have to be better educated in how to assess risks through understanding risk factors, or the risks have to be somehow reduced. Expecting companies to take that risk onto themselves is likely not going to be successful, especially if any instance of getting it wrong will be costly.