Practically every newspaper headline included a reference to 'sell-by' labels only, demonstrating that people regard 'sell-by' as a synonym for 'use-by' or 'best-before'. I lost the will to live when I read the Daily Mail's assertion that manufacturers would "no longer be allowed to mislead consumers into thinking their food is off".
The environment secretary, hoping to gain some brownie points, said: "This simpler and safer date labelling guide will help households cut down on food waste." What do these words mean? Is it the guide itself that is simpler and safer or the date labelling? The press had already made up their minds. They all seemed to be under the impression that the purpose of the guidance was to tell those naughty supermarkets that they are not allowed to put the words 'sell-by' on their labels and if they followed that dictat, the level of food waste would fall dramatically.
But of course it won't. Nothing will change unless consumers gain a better understanding of the legislation. But it isn't their fault. It is the system that was dreamed up in Brussels over 20 years ago, when officials ignored industry's sensible advice that there should be only one statutory date mark: 'eat by', to be used on foods that could quickly become microbiologically unsafe if kept too long. Labels on keeping times for all other foods should have been left to the discretion of the manufacturer or retailer if they felt it necessary to advise consumers to eat foods before they became stale or rancid.
Consumer education would have been so much easier because the message 'eat by' could be understood as a warning. Anything else is advisory and a matter for the manufacturer, not legislation, which should be restricted to safety matters. Anyway, normal people eat food not 'use' it. I am surprised that the Francophile Commission in those days did not appreciate that.
One thing is now clear: the press release and the press have created such a muddle that a new set of guidance is needed to make sense of it all. Luckily few people read more than one newspaper and those that do might wonder whether they would be better informed if they read none.