3 I PI
.1. 31.5.2.7.
‘

2.. £1 our!

 

.2111.

I? 1
(..\

If?

 

t. i l 3 . .
. . , .rf.i.3flflll.l.x;wblwnflo
1.5..H‘...:Jv.<. ‘ , ‘ . ‘
O l.l 4 .|. .

 

 

 

TERI"

x ‘1

Ci

C\

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Manufacturer Attitudes About Open Dating Techniques for
Packaged Foods and an Evaluation of Regulatory Implications

presented by

Bridgette Michele Johnson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. S. degree in Packaging

 

 

Maury

Major professor

DateWMj 305)

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

'— '~'—

CD

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

05180
9242005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

MANUFACTURER ATTITUDES ABOUT OPEN DATING TECHNIQUES FOR
PACKAGED FOODS AND AN EVALUATION OF REGULATORY
IMPLICATIONS
By

Bridgette Michele Johnson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

2001

ABSTRACT
MANUFACTURER ATTITUDES ABOUT OPEN DATING TECHNIQUES

FOR PACKAGED FOODS AND AN EVALUATION OF REGULATORY
IMPLICATIONS

By

Bridgette Michele Johnson

The purpose of this study was to reveal manufacturer attitudes about
open dating techniques for packaged foods and to evaluate related regulatory
implications. Twenty-Six manufacturers were surveyed. Major findings
include the following:

1) Manufacturers use open and closed dates on packaging and they
feel justified in their date code choice.

2) There is no common approach to open date coding terminology
among the manufacturers.

3) Manufacturers supported industry self-regulation programs for
date coding.

4) A standard method to determine the shelf-life of a product does not
exist.

5) A regulation for open dating will be difficult to enact without first
establishing a standard determination of shelf-life in the industry and coming

to agreement on standard terminology for open dating.

Copyright by
BRIDGETTE MICHELE JOHNSON
2001

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my mother Rosemary and my brother Joseph who taught me
more about life, faith and perseverance than they will ever know. I love you and miss

you dearly.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing this thesis was truly a labor of love and one of the hardest tests of my life. I
would not have completed this project without the steadfast support of several people. I
would like to give a very special acknowledgment to Dr. Hugh Lockhart, my major
professor and chairman of my graduate committee. Dr. Lockhart, I am forever grateful to
you for fighting on my behalf and for being my eyes and strength when I thought I felt I
could go no further. I would like to acknowledge my graduate committee: Dr. Diana
Twede and Dr. Bob Lowry. You were patient and kind and I am grateful for your
support. I would like to thank the University Administrators who directly and indirectly
supported the completion of this work. I would like to thank my father Joseph for
passing on his work ethic by example. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my best
fi'iend and husband Reg. Finishing my thesis was possible because you pushed me to
make the dream a reality. I would not trade our bond for all the light at end of tunnels
and pots of gold at end of rainbows. Our love is my reality and I am blessed to share my

life with you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . viii
Chapter 1: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction 1
Purpose of the Study . 2
Need for the Study 3
Research Questions 5
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Definition of the Terms 7
Industry Considerations 9
History of Regulations 11
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The Research Questions . . . . . . 18
The Survey Instrument . . . . . . 18
Population and Sampling . . . . . . 20
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . 21
Limitation of the study . . . . . . 21
Chapter 4: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA
Demographic Data . . . . . . 23
Section One. Use of Date Codes . . . . . 28
Section Two: Why Not Use Codes? . . . . . 35
Section Three: Open Date Techniques . . . . 36
Section Four: Shelf- Life . . . . . 39
Section Five: Regulatory Implications . . . . 42
Chapter 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of the Results . . . . . . 46
Conclusions . . . . . 48

Recommendations for Further Study. . . . . 49

vi

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:

SURVEY INSTRUMENT
DATA .

vii

51

53
66

Table I.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table l5.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Table 25.

Table 26.

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of Manufacturers by Annual Sales

Distribution of Manufacturers by Number of Employees
Distributim of Products Manufactured

Time Allowed for Products to be Sold At the Grocery Store
Category Manufactured vs. Time to Sell Product

Length of Time a Consumer Stores Product in their Home

Time to Store Products at Home vs. Product Category Manufactured
Manufacturers Who Use Date Codes On Products

Manufacturers Date Code Choice of Style

Advantages of Open vs. Closed Date Codes

Choice of Date Code vs. Advantage of Coding System
Manufacturer’s Perception of the Effect on Sales

Manufacturer’s Perception of Public Opinion

Manufacturer’s Date Code Choice vs. Perception of Public Opinion

Distribution of Open Date Designations for Perishable Products

Distribution of Open Date Designations for Shelf-Stable Products
Expect Consumer to Use Product After Expiration? .

Distribution of Manufactmer Shelf-life Process

Product Category vs. Shel f-Life Method Used

Standardized Formula or Test Method to Determine Shelf-Life?

Support Legislation Requiring Open Dating for Each Category?
Potential Effect on Sales if Required to Use of Open Dates
Manufacturer Response to Industry Self-Regulation .

Manufacturer Awareness of Industry Self-Regulation Programs

viii

Distribution of Open Date Designations for Semi-Perishable Products.

Standardized Format for Identifying Date Information on Packages? .

27

28

29

30

31

31

32

33

33

35

36

37

39

40

42

42

43

43

45

46

47

47

48

48

49

49

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Often as consumers, we make demands about what we want in a product or service. We
participate in surveys to get our opinions known. We even work with legislators to affect
public policy to ensure that a change we want is enacted and enforced. Manufacturers of
consumer products face a dilemma where consumers are concerned. While on one hand
satisfying consumer desires and needs is a priority, making financial profits is also a
necessity.

Manufacturers of food products compete in a saturated market. With this, we
understand competition is abundant and any edge a manufacturer can develop will prove
useful and profitable.

One of the latest trends to develop in the past few decades is “open dating”. An
open date informs consumers about the shelf-life of a product by telling them “when the
product was packaged or processed, when the product should be sold by the store, or
when the product should be used by the consumer”(Food Technology, 1981, p.62). With
an open dating code system, consumers are reassured that the product they are using is
fresh and safe for consumption.

Open dating is the opposite of current manufacturing practice to use codes that are

not easily understood by the consumer. These codes are used more for stock rotation

and assisting in a product recall than for informing the consumer about the product.

While information provided by open dating is useful to consumers, is it necessary?

Statement of thLProblem

Food endures a lengthy set of activities before it reaches us in useable form. Raw
materials are secured and manufacturing plants are engaged to convert the raw materials
into products to be sold at retail. Once products are manufactured, trucks carry them to
all parts of the country and they are stored in distribution centers awaiting orders from
retailers. The final phase in distribution occurs when the retailer secures product, stocks
the shelf and awaits purchase by the consumer. There are many steps in the process and
therefore lots of opportunity for something to go wrong. A consumer, when purchasing a
food item, may want assurance that the product purchased is safe for consumption.
Because there are so many activities in the food distribution process, providing
consumers information about the life of the product in the form of open dating may help

in ensuring its safe consumption.

Purpose of the Stu_d1

The purpose of this study was to assess manufacturer perceptions of the use of code date

systems as related to consumers and regulatory activity. In order to make such an

assessment, several questions were asked. The questions revealed information about the

manufacturer, its demographics, business practices and opinions of legal implications in
the food industry. A survey was created to obtain information about the manufacturer.
The objectives of the survey were to:

1. Analyze manufacturer awareness and perception of the open dating system

2. Investigate consistency among manufacturers within the food industry in
identifying date-related information on packages.

3. Investigate consistency among manufacturers within the food industry in
calculating Shelf life of products

4. Determine support for open dating regulation

Need for the Study

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) conducted a survey in 1978 which found
ninety-one percent of consumers interviewed felt that the open date was the most vital
piece of information on the package label for fresh meat, and fifty percent thought it was
important for frozen vegetables. In another survey, the US. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) concluded that in 1979 three-quarters of the consumers
participating used an open date when making decisions about product purchases (Food
Technology, 1981).

In 1995, Packaging Digest conducted its annual consumer traits survey. The
survey revealed “forty-six percent of consumers rely extremely/very much on package
labeling when buying a product” (Packaging Digest, 1995). This number has steadily
decreased since 1992 when more than fifty-nine percent of consumers rated labeling

information as extremely important information. Some may wonder why consumers’

attitudes have changed. Many attribute this effect to consumers becoming more
suspicious of label language (although the government is now regulating both health and
environmental claims) and therefore, rely less on what the package promises and more on
what the package delivers.

Currently, manufacturers mark date codes in different ways: purchase by; use by;
enjoy until; fresh for so many days after opening. Some packages state that a product
should be used by X number of days after opening, yet, how many people actually write
down the date on which they open a package?

More than four-fifths of the surveyed households indicated they would like more
information about date codes relative to product usage. When asked about the safety of
eating a product after the date code expired, twenty-five percent believed a fresh product
should be thrown out on the day of expiration, and Sixty percent said it should be tossed
within three days. For refrigerated foods, however, only fourteen percent thought the
products went bad on its date code expiration, and forty-one percent within three days.
With processed foods, consumers are willing to continue using a product well beyond its
expiration date code (Packaging Digest, July 1995, pp.23-24).

With so much information about the consumer, how will the manufacturer meet
the challenge of satisfying consumer needs? Will it take a regulation or some form of
legal impact to show the manufacturer the way to meeting consumer needs?

Federal regulations have been established for many areas of food disclosure, but
not open dating. The open dating system has remained a voluntary program at the federal
level and there is no universally accepted open dating system for food in the United

States. Some areas of the country require no open dating while others require an open

date as specified by state law.

Regulation on the state level typically involves perishable products (breads, milk,
dairy, fruits, and vegetables) or infant formula. The state of Michigan defines perishable
products as those having a significant risk of spoilage, loss of value, or loss ofpalatability
within ninety days of the date of packaging (Michigan Dept. of Agriculture). Open
dating of perishable products is regulated for the determination of the date designation

and placement of the information on packages.

Consumers today are continuing to pressure federal agencies to provide as much
information about food products as possible, especially information vital to human
health. These consumer pressures take on many forms, i.e. economic, political, and
social. The need for this research is driven by consumer needs and similar research
preceding it. The intention of this project is to research the need to pursue regulatory

adoption of date coding, Specifically an open date coding system.

Research Questions

The research questions presented in this study were designed to discover manufacturer
perceptions and beliefs about open dates on packages. The following were questions that
prompted the development of the survey instrument:

1. What are manufacturer perceptions of common open date
coding terminology?

2. Do the perceptions vary within the industry?

3. Does the food industry have a consistent measurement and
definition of shelf-life?

4. In general, is there support for regulating Open dating practices?

CHAPTER II
Review of Literature

Packaging serves many functions for a product. A package may convey a
message, it may convince a consumer to make a purchase, and it may protect the product
inside. As a result, packaging serves as probably the single most important aspect of a
product beyond the physical component of the product itself. Often, we concern
ourselves with physical structure as it relates to packaging. It is my intent to use this
discussion to address the issue of date coding in the United States.

Date coding is the next step in the process. We must do more than create
packaging to protect the product. We must convey useful information to the consumer so
that an informed decision can be made with the resources available.

Date coding has often been a source of confusion for consumers. The Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) “encourages manufacturers to put product codes on
packaging, especially for products with a long shelf life. This code enables the
manufacturer to convey a relatively large amount of information with a few small letters,
numbers and symbols.” (FDA Consumer, April 1995). The first part of the confusion lies

in de-coding the manufacturer date code, thereby prompting a move toward open dating.

An open date system is perceived to be a more consumer friendly date system for
measuring shelf-life quality.

For the purpose of this research study, the code date terms are defined as follows
(Kim, 1996):

Pack date

The pack date informs the consumer when the finished product was packaged, nothing
about the age of specific ingredients used to manufacture.

Sell-bvfite or Fridge

The “sell-by” or “pull” date indicates the last date that a product should remain on the
grocer’s Shelf for sale. Generally a sell-by date anticipates a period of home storage
during which the product remains at acceptable quality. The use of this phrase is so
popular it was even discussed on the Oprah Winfrey Show in a segment on “Dangerous
Foods” which aired April 16, 1996 on the ABC network. The purpose of the show was to
eValuate common household food items and their shelf-life.

Ms. Winfrey asked a panel member if it was risky to eat a food product after the
sell-by date? The panel member, who was a nutritionist, responded that the sell-by date
was an indication for the grocer to pull the product from the shelf. Further, if a consumer
bought a product with a sell-by date of today, the food could still be used for another
week; up to a week. Later the panel member replied that a use-by date means a product
must be used by the date indicated. (Oprah, Harpo, 4/16/96)

“Use-by” / “Ram bv” date
The use-by date is the date in which food becomes inedible or unsafe once the date has

been exceeded. After this date, food is no longer at an acceptable level of quality. This

category also includes expiration dates. Expiration dates are regulated by state
government agencies for perishable items such as milk, bread, and eggs. FDA regulates
only the expiration dates of infant formula.

Considering proper storage and handling of the product, the purpose of open
dating is to provide the consumers with information related to expected shelf-life and
quality of the product. However, consumers are often unable to detect any quality
changes in a product until the protective packaging is removed prior to use. While these
quality changes may not endanger health, consumers may find varying degrees of
dissatisfaction. “Lower product quality affects consumers, who do not receive full value
for their food dollar”. (Food Technology, 1991) Obviously, the consumer is looking for
some reassurance as to the freshness of a product.

Open dating may help with providing useful information to the consumer, but it
may also distort value judgments. In a related article, a mother had this to say: “I can
always judge a store by the quality of its meats and I didn’t like the meat in that store
(referring to an urban market). It didn’t smell fresh. And if I don’t like the meat, I’m
suspicious of everything else in the store”. (Food Processing, July 1997) For grocers, it
may seem that it is of critical importance that the meat and produce they sell is fresh.
However, a consumer may try to assess this question: how can identical prices equitably
be assigned to products, which are not identical in age? The question is quite relevant. If
we can assume that consumers are more knowledgeable about nutrition and that they are
able to read labels more easily, then what comes to question is the consumer’s overall

understanding of product nutrition as it relates to shelf-life. A consumer will need to

 

understand what transpires in the food distribution process and what factors are
considered by the manufacturer.

Money is a concern of the manufacturer. In all honesty, bottom line profits
determine who will stay in business and who will fold. Inevitably, providing useful
information to consumers in the form of open dating will require added costs to the food
industry. In addition to existing direct costs related to waste, returns, and expenses in
quality control, (pinpointing and handling the detected quality problems) other costs will
be incurred. “The retailers or wholesalers have no incentive to move products through
the stores because they usually make any incremental profit when they receive the
shipment, via promotional payments. They could care less if it sells, and if it doesn’t,
they will just return it to the manufacturer. This may be why about twenty-five percent
of products turn less than one unit per month in grocery stores”. (Food Processing,
October 1997) This quote points to the need for the manufacturer to get involved in this
issue. The manufacturer cannot simply rely on the retailer to move product through
proper stock rotation, as ultimately, in the consumer’s mind, the manufacturer is
responsible for the product.

Often, manufacturers ship their products from a single plant facility to a regional
distribution center. The regional centers are then responsible for selling the products to
food brokers or supermarket chains, which in turn deliver the products to various
warehouses in the distribution system. At this point, the product is delivered to a
supermarket storeroom, then to the grocery shelf, and finally to the consumer’s home,
where it is further stored prior to consumption. At various points in the distribution

channel, abuse to food products due to changes in temperature or humidity may cause

loss of quality. For example, a food product may change trucks four times before
appearing on a grocer’s shelf. This does not include the final trip of removing product
from a store shelf and driving it home for later consumption. How can a consumer be
certain that each truck was refrigerated properly (in the case of perishable or frozen
products) during each phase of the distribution process? They can’t. The manufacturer
does not even have control over this process. In the consumer’s mind, the responsibility
for quality product lies with the manufacturer, even if quality defects are due to poor
handling in the distribution chain or at the retail level.

Some manufacturers are finding benefits to using an open date system. In 1994,
Pepsi Co. started a media blitz when it introduced “freshness dating” for its soda product
line. The freshness stamp was created to give consumers information about the product.
“With freshness dating, consumers will understand why a product may taste off. The
investment in consumer education will not come wholly free, some product will have to
be pulled”. (Magiera 1994) The attention given this marketing strategy along with
updated packaging graphics, means bottlers must dedicate even more resources to
checking in-store codes. Some bottlers fear fieshness dating will lead consumers to pull
apart neatly stacked displays in search of the freshest package. However, other
manufacturers may have a different strategy.

The premise behind open dating is that consumers can use dates that are given on
food packaging to obtain useful information. In contrast, a closed date will not give the
consumer information desired. The Anheuser-Busch Company looks at the scenario a

bit differently by openly providing open date information to consumers. On the heels on

10

the Pepsi “fleshness dating” campaign, Anheuser-Busch highlights the following

activities to ensure the consumer is getting the freshest product possible.

1)

2)

3)

4)

Minimize shipping time by establishing a series of regional
breweries rather than concentrating all brewing operations at
one or two national sites.

Store flesh beer in warehouses and other holding areas that
are environmentally controlled and maintained.

Mark each can and bottle with a brew date or ‘pull date’ and
establish a rigid policy defining a “fleshness standard” time
between time of brewing and time of consumption.

Create and maintain a full-time, no-exceptions rotation
management system, which makes sure that all unsold beer is
taken off the shelf or out of the cooler as soon as it reaches the
time limits of quality and fleshness.

Before rolling out this program, Anheuser-Busch published de-coding

information on the intemet’s world wide web for consumers to use. The information

provided clues to determine or de-code the pack dates of several beer manufacturers. The

web Site was a success, which transcended into the advertising arena. “Our senior

management felt that a clearly marked fleshness date would enhance the consumer appeal

of Miller products.” (Http://www.budweiser.com) If some manufacturers have found

such measurable success, why is this practice not adopted industry wide?

History of Regulations

Technology has advanced civilization in such a way that it is hard to imagine a

world without modern conveniences. Consumers take food safety for granted. It is our

expectation that the manufacturer and retailer are doing what is necessary to provide us

11

with food that is wholesome and safe. While many organizations exist today to ensure
food safety, the concept was unknown at the end of the nineteenth century.

America was booming and an agricultural economy was being introduced to an
industrial economy. More and more people moved to urban-populated areas, which
changed the nature of food distribution. Gone were the days of growing food on private
land to provide for the family. America was more industrialized, and as such, new food
distribution efforts became necessary.

As people moved away flom agriculture and farm land, something new was
needed to ensure food distribution to the urban areas. Food would travel over longer
distances and in this time in history, the only means of refrigeration was ice.
Sophisticated trucks and chemical preservation were unmanaged and uncontrolled and
consumers were not protected flom adulterated food as we are today. However, food was
not the only product affected.

Medical knowledge was limited and consumers often resorted to “Kick-a—poo
Indian Sagwa” and “Warner’s Safe Cure for Diabetes” as remedies for various ills
(Burkholz 1994). There were no laws for labeling products. Many medicines were laced
with drugs such as opium, heroine, cocaine, and morphine. These products made many
claims, and eager consumers were going to realize that change was needed, unfortunately
very painfirlly.

“Food is adulterated if it is produced in an unsanitary plant, contains ingredients
or additives harmful to human consumption, or contains decomposed, putrid, or filthy
portions.” (Meier 1995) The first law on the books for adulteration dates back to 1784

when Massachusetts enacted a general law against food adulteration. However, Wallace

12

F. J anssen (FDA Historian) notes that as far back as 1630, the Massachusetts Bay Colony
convicted Nicholas Knopf of “selling a water of no worth nor value as a cure for scurvy”
(Burkholz 1994). He was sentenced to pay a fine or be whipped. More and more, states
began to create food and drug statutes but it soon became apparent that a national law
would be required. However, the national government seemed to carefully avoid the
federal responsibility and jurisdiction of food and drug laws.

During the Mexican War (1846 - 1848), a crisis developed over medicines for the
troops and Congress was forced to action. Congress enacted a law that banned
adulterated drugs flom being offered for import. It would be another thirty years before
Congress would consider a general food law, and it may have never happened without the
work of Harvey Washington Wiley.

Dr. Harvey Wiley became chief of the Bureau of Chemistry of the US.
Department of Agriculture in 1883, after leaving a post at Purdue University. In this new
role, Wiley worked with a group of chemists to obtain evidence of widespread
adulteration in food and drugs. “Twelve young male employees of the Department of
Agriculture volunteered to test the safety of food additives. The group became known as
the ‘Poison Squad’ because they ate meals laced with substances and were tested for
adverse effects”(Meier 1995). After going public with their findings, many national
publications aroused public opinion with the reports. One major book, which is still
referenced today, changed the way consumers looked at food products and helped Wiley
in his campaign for a federal food and drug law.

Upton Sinclair’s, The Jungle, described vividly the filthy conditions under which

the nation’s meat supply was prepared. Consumers were displeased and public signs of

13

indignation became apparent when meat sales dropped by half. Opposition to food and
drug laws came primarily flom food manufacturers and makers of patent medicines. Due
to overwhelming consumer outcry, then president Theodore Roosevelt helped to push a
meat inspection bill and a food and drug law through Congress. The law became known
as the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.

Jurisdiction over the new law was assigned to Dr. Wiley and the Bureau of
Chemistry. This group enforced the 1906 law until 1927 when the Food, Drug, and
Insecticide Administration was formed, later renamed the Food and Drug Administration
in 1931. In 1940, the FDA was transferred flom the US. Department of Agriculture to
the Federal Security Agency. In 1953, the Federal Security Agency became known as the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and later the Department of Health and
Human Services.

“The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) specifically the Food
Safety and Inspection Service (F818) is responsible for enforcing regulations on meat and
poultry, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for all other food
products. The mission of the FDA is to ensure that: (1) foods are safe, wholesome, and
sanitary; human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices are safe
and effective; cosmetics are safe; and electronic products that emit radiation are safe; (2)
regulated products are in compliance with the law and FDA regulations; noncompliance
is identified as corrected; and any unsafe or unlawful products are removed flom the
market” (Meier 1995)

There have been many critics of the FDA over the years and even more of the

laws they enforced. The 1906 Pure Food Law, while strong for its time, was filled with

14

loopholes which made it hard for judges to prosecute manufacturers. The Roosevelt
Administration made attempts to revise the law, but it would take another disaster before
anything would be accomplished. In 1937, the Massengill Company came under fire
when a drug it produced caused the death of many people.

In an effort to create a new “wonder drug”, the Massengill Company shipped 240
gallons of “Elixir Sulphanilamide”, an ethylene glycol/water mixture flavored with
raspberry extract. Shortly thereafter, people started dying and the count was up to 107
when the last bottle was recovered in a recall. Massengill had not tested its new product,
but relied on the knowledge of each of its components. What Massengill learned was that
“two purportedly safe ingredients were highly lethal in combination.” Within months of
the “Elixir” disaster, Congress finally passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The law became effective June 1938.

The new Act was a vast improvement over the Pure Food Law of 1906, although

compromises were made to ensure passage. The improvements are outlined as follows:

0 Cosmetics and therapeutic devices were regulated for the first
time.

- Proof of flaud was no longer required to stop false claims for
drugs.

0 Drug manufacturers were required to provide scientific proof
that new products could be safely used before putting them on
the market.

- The addition of poisonous substances to foods was prohibited

except where unavoidable tolerances were authorized for
residues of such substances, as in the case of pesticides.

- Specific authority was provided for factory inspections.

° Food standards were required to be set up when needed to
promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.

15

0 Federal court injunctions against violations were added to the

previous legal remedies of product seizures and criminal
prosecutions. (Burkholz 1995)

Now that testing new “wonder drugs” fell under the jurisdiction of the new Act,
the FDA’S workload was expanded. Consumers were still being used as human guinea
pigs for a number of chemical compounds of unknown safety. The FDA made many
efforts to stop the practice, but the research effort needed to prove that all food chemicals
were safe was clearly beyond its resources. Congress would be asked to take action
again. Representative James T. Delaney of New York chaired a series of hearings on the
dangers of chemicals in food. From these hearings came the following amendments,
which changed the character of the existing food and drug, laws: the Pesticide
Amendment of 1954, the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, and the Color Additive
Amendment of 1960.

The responsibility for research fell on the manufacturer. What once seemed
unmanageable became manageable and consumers had been given an immeasurable
amount of improved protection. Gone were the days when violations could only be
proven after injuries had been reported. It was a good time for America and consumer
protection. For the first time, a consumer could rest assured that no substance could be
legally introduced in the US. food supply unless there had been a prior determination
that it was safe. The trend was now moving toward preventative law, and activity
continued.

Although the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 served its purpose, it
requires constant revision in order to keep in line with current scientific, economic, and

social realities. In 1980, serious illness in babies due to mineral deficiency caused

16

Congress to pass an Infant Formula Act requiring strict controls to ensure the national
content and safety of commercial baby foods. Just two years later in 1982, the FDA
developed and issued regulations requiring tamper-resistant packaging. Congress passed
a law making it a crime to tamper with packaged consumer products after seven people
died of cyanide poisoning traced to Tylenol pain-relief capsules. Not many years pass
without some change to the Act as evidenced by historical activity. With the passage of
the original law andits continuing amendments, the federal government confirmed the
need of people to protect themselves flom the commercial adventures of others.

It was this previous regulatory activity which eventually led to the proposed
ruling of the Food and Drug Administration in December 1979. Docket No. 78N-0158 of
the Federal Register outlines the agency desire to regulate ingredient labeling, nutrition
labeling, open date labeling, food fortification, safe and suitable ingredients and the total
food label. After more than a decade of debates and public hearings, only a small portion
of the proposed ruling became an Act. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act was
the direct result of the proposed ruling and fOcused primarily on nutrition labeling and
educating consumers. The FDA issued a final rule on January 4, 1990 outlining
requirements for manufacturer compliance. Finally, the public had access to information

regarding the foods they were consuming.

l7

CHAPTER III

Researgh MetILodology

The Research Questions

The following six questions provided the foundation to create a survey instrument which

would provide open and critical feedback flom manufacturers. From these, thirty-four

questions were developed to measure manufacturers awareness of date coding systems

and their acceptance of the practice of using date codes. The questions are:

1.

2.

Are manufacturers aware of open dating and how it is used?

What do manufacturers know or believe about consumer
product usage trends?

What are manufacturer‘s perceptions of open date coding terminology?
Do the perceptions vary within the industry?

Is there a consistent model used among food industry manufacturers in
calculating shelf life of products?

In general, is there support for regulating open dating practices?

The Survey Instrument

The instrument was created to obtain information about the manufacturer’s

understanding of date coding and their perception of related activities associated with the

use of date codes. The investigator developed it with input from the thesis committee and

18

feedback from industry representatives participating in research programs sponsored by
Michigan State University. The survey was distributed by mail to packaging
professionals in various segments of the food industry, including snackfoods, main meal,
infant products, and confection. A follow-up letter was sent to each participant who
received the initial survey instrument in order to encourage participation. The survey was
initially distributed in August 1996 and closed with final feedback received in December
1996.

The survey instrument was divided into six sections including a section on
manufacturer profiles. Profiles were assessed by using the following categories: Size,
armual sales, products manufactured, opinion of store selling practices, and opinion of

consumer use of products. The remaining sections are outlined as follows:

Section One: Use of Date Codes

Section one of the survey evaluated a manufacturer’s use of date codes by asking if they
are used. An affirmative response required the survey participant to complete the section
by answering questions about the benefits and drawbacks of the specific date code used

by the manufacturer. The responses, when provided, were open-ended.

Section Two: Search for Date Code Processes
Section two of the survey evaluated a manufacturer’s choice not to use date codes. This
section was only to be completed if a manufacturer answered no in section one. None of

the survey participants completed section two of the survey.

19

Section Three: Date Code Terminology

Section three of the survey asked participants to evaluate various types of date codes for
each product category. The date code types were; date packaged, sell-by date, use-by
date, and a time-temperature indicator. Manufacturers were asked which date code
method was most appropriate for the following product categories: perishable, semi-

perishable, and shelf-stable products.

Section Four: Shelf-Life

Section four of the survey instrument evaluated each manufacturer’s method of
establishing shelf-life. The participants were asked to describe what method the
manufacturer used. The information was gathered to determine if a standardized method

exists in the industry.

Section Five: Regulatory Impact
Section five asked the participants to evaluate the necessity of regulatory influence on the
use of date codes. Participants were asked to highlight known current initiatives and the

success of these initiatives.

Population and Sampling

The sample for the study consisted of twenty-six manufacturers in the food
industry population. The manufacturers produced products in each food category;

perishable, semi-perishable, and shelf-stable. The survey participants were selected

20

randomly using the 1995 Who’s Who and What’s What Among Packaging Professionals,
a publication resource published by the Institute of Packaging Professionals. The overall
industry of choice was food. However, products manufactured represented meats,
snackfoods, infant formulas, cereal/breakfast items, beverages, main meal, and others.
The data were collected over a period of twenty weeks. Initial mailings of the
survey instrument were distributed to fifty manufacturers with a deadline eight weeks
away. The fifty manufacturers represented a target group of the overall population of
food manufacturers. As the deadline approached and response was low (10 responses), a
reminder letter and an additional copy of the survey instrument were distributed to those
manufacturers who had not responded. In the end, more than half of the solicited target
group reSponded with completed surveys and the sample Size was determined to be 26

manufacturers.

Data Analysis

This investigator used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for

data analysis. The results of the data analysis are reported in the next chapter.

Limitation of the Study

The study to evaluate manufacturer’s use of date codes was limited to those
company representatives who received the survey instrument between August and
October of 1996. The results may not represent the food industry entirely, since a small
percentage of manufacturers in various segments were sampled. The responses given by

the company representatives are assumed to be valid and the perceptions may be those of

21

the individual and not the company represented. The study is limited to information
obtained from manufacturer responses to the survey instrument and a review of literature.
The survey instrument was assumed to be a valid mechanism of obtaining Specific
information flom survey participants. Some of the companies were producers in two or
three categories of perishability. It became necessary to interpret their responses as
representing the company in each of the categories. Therefore, for some perishability
questions, the sample Size was taken as 34 rather than 26. The survey instrument used in

this study can be found in Appendix A.

22

CHAPTER IV
Analysis and Interpretation of the Data

Demographic Data

The food manufacturing industry is a huge one indeed, with 9,329 companies and a total
value of shipments of more than $406 billion reported in 1992. The 1992 Census of
Manufactures, Subject Series — Manufacturing (http://www.census. gov) categorizes food
and kindred products into nine areas: meat, dairy, preservatives, grains, bakery, sugar,
beverage, and miscellaneous. Participants in this study represented eight of the nine
categories. Following is a discussion about the profiles of the manufacturers, looking at
sales, size, and product portfolio.

Table 1 shows that the annual sales of manufacturers participating in the study were in

the ($1 million - $1 billion) and ($1 billion +) range:

Table 1. _Di_strib1_ttion of Manufacturers by Annual Sales

 

 

 

 

Sales Frequency Percent of Sample
$1 billion + 14 53.8
$1 million-$1 billion 12 46.2
Total 26 100

 

 

Table 2 Shows that the majority of manufacturers participating in the study had a

company size over 1,000. About 31% were in the 1,000 - 4,999 category, and about 39%

23

had a company size greater than 5000. The remaining responses were probably divisions

of a larger company or small private firms.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Distribution of Manufactng'ers by Mber of Employees
Number of Employees Frequency Percent of Sample
5000+ 10 38.5
1000-4999 8 30.8
500-999 6 23.1
0-500 2 7.7
Total 26 100

 

 

Survey participants were asked to classify products manufactured into three
categories: perishable, semi-perishable and shelf-stable. Perishable products were
described as fluid milk products, flesh baked goods, flesh meats, fish, poultry, fluits and
vegetables. Semi-perishable products included snack foods, cheese, ice cream and
packaged meats. Shelf-stable products were described as dried legumes, nuts and grains,
pasta, cereals, and canned goods. In responding to the survey, twenty participants
reported manufacturing products in one category, four participants reported
manufacturing products in two categories and two participants reported manufacturing
products in all three categories. This created a situation in which six participants reported
as if they represented a separate company for each category. AS a result, the data will
show thirty-four category responses flom twenty-six survey participants.

Table 3 shows the distribution of products manufactured by survey participants.

Most of the survey participants manufactured semi-perishable and shelf-stable products.

24

Table 3. Distribution of Produ+cts Manufactured

 

 

 

 

Product Category Frequency Percent of Sample
Shelf-Stable 14 41.2
Semi-Perishable 14 41.2
Perishable 6 17.6
Total 34 100

 

 

Distribution system pipeline timing describes the amount of time flom the point
the product is manufactured to the point where a consumer purchases the product at
retail. This timing would include storage at the manufacturing site, transportation to a
distribution site, delivery to a customer warehouse, and stocking the product on the store
shelf (distribution pipeline activities). Table 4 shows the majority of manufacturers allow

more than six months flom the time of production for products to be sold at the store.

Table 4. Time Allowed for Prorflrgts to be Sold At the Grocegy Store

 

 

 

 

Time in Food Distribution Frequency Percent of Sample
Channel
6 months + 16 61.5
1-6 months 8 30.8
Missing Data 2 7.7
Total 26 100

 

 

It is expected that perishable and semi-perishable manufacturers would allow less
time for their products to be sold at the grocery store than shelf-stable manufacturers. To
test this theory, a Chi-square test was used to determine if there was a contributing effect
of product category manufactured on time allowed for products to be sold at the grocery
store (with a null hypothesis = no effect). The results yield p= .009. A value of p < 0.05
means that the effect tested does affect the result. Therefore, the food category produced
by a manufacturer was a contributing factor in the time allowed for products to flow
through the distribution channel to be sold at the store. In the cross-tabulation evaluating
time for products to be sold at the grocery store and the food product category.
manufactured, shelf-stable and semi-perishable manufacturers accounted for most of the
responses. AS expected, the more shelf-stable the product, more time is allowed to sell

the product at retail. Table 5 Shows the results:

Table 5. Category Manufactured vs. Time to Sell Produ_ct

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category 1-6 months 6 months + Missing Total
Manufactured Data
Shelf-Stable 12 2 14 (41.2%)
Semi-Perishable 6 6 2 14 (41.2%)
Perishable 3 2 l 6 (17.6%)
Total 9 (26.5%) 20 (58.8%) 5 (14. 7%) 34 (100%)

 

26

Table 6 shows that half of the manufacturers reported their products remained in
consumer’s homes 1—6 months after purchase. This is consistent with the demographics
showing the majority of participants manufactured semi-perishable and shelf-stable

products.

Table 6. Length of Time a Corlsyrmer Stores Product in their Home

 

 

 

 

Time to Store Product Frequency Percent of Sample
1-6 months 13 50.0
1-2 weeks 7 26.9
2-3 weeks 2 7.7
3-4 weeks 1 3.85
6 months + l 3.85
1-6 months, 6 months + l 3.85
Missing data 1 3.85
Total 26 100

 

 

One might assume perishable manufacturers expect consumers to store their
product for 1-2 weeks, while semi-perishable and shelf-stable manufacturers would
expect longer storage. A Chi-square test of product category manufactured vs. time
allowed for consumers to store products at home was used to determine if the product
category was a contributing factor. The results yield p= .017. Since p < 0.05, we can say
the product category manufactured was a contributing factor in the choice of time
allowed for consumers to store product at home. Table 7 shows the results in a cross

tabulation.

27

Table 7. Time to Store Products at Home vs. Produfct Category Manufactured

 

 

 

 

Category 1-3 3-4 1-6 Missing Data Total

Manufactured weeks weeks months

Shelf-Stable l 12 1 14(41 .2%)

Semi- 8 5 1 14(41 .2%)

Perishable

Perishable 2 3 l 6 (17.6%)

Total 10 1 20 3 34
(29.4%) (3%) (58.8%) (8.8%) (100%)

 

 

 

 

Table 7 Shows that a majority of the study participants expected consumers to store their
products for one to six months after purchase. The results suggest there is a relationship
between manufacturer expectations of product storage and categories of products

manufactured.

Section One: Use of Date Codes

The first section of the survey asked about manufacturer use of date code systems
and their opinions about the effectiveness of date coding. Manufacturers often date a
product to inform consumers of its shelf-life or for use as an internal tracking system. All
respondents use a date code on their products. The choice of date code style varied with
almost as many manufacturers choosing open dating as closed dating. Many

manufacturers used open and closed dating. The results are displayed in Tables 8 and 9:

28

Table 8. Maaafacturers Who Use Date Codes 0a Proerts

 

 

Use Date Code? Frequency Percent of Sample
Yes 26 100
No 0 0.0
Total 26 100

 

 

 

Table 9. Manufactarers Date Code Choice of Style

 

 

 

 

Style of Date Code Frequency Percent of Sample
Closed Date 10 38.5
Open Date 9 34.6
Open & Closed Date 7 26.9
Total 26 100

 

The following were manufacturer responses when asked why a specific date code style
was used:

For manufacturers who chose open dating, the following were given as reasons:

- Marketing advantage....only brewer to do so

- ' Consumer needs it for safe use of products
0 Product shelf-life

- Informs consumer

0 Assist retailers with stock rotation

0 Force good internal inventory practices

- Provide fresher products to consumer

° Competitors made conversion to open dating
0 It is a company policy to use open dating

29

 

 

Driven by retail pressure and competition

There is a “good” quality perception by consumers

For manufacturers who chose closed dating, the following were given as reasons:

Product traceability in case of a recall

It’s what the leading manufacturer in our industry does
Minimize buy—back costs

Shelf-life exceeds 2 years

Traceability of production/shelf-life of product

For manufacturers who chose open and closed dating, the following responses were
given as reasons:

Depends on the marketing strategy of our customer (retailer)

Our customers (retailers) dictate what coding system to use

Open date reassures consumers about product safety while closed

dating provides batch and production information

At times we will use both on a product for our tracking and consumer use

Consumer/retailer demand dictates it

Table 10 shows most manufacturers believe there is an advantage to using one date code

system over the other.

 

 

 

 

Table 10. Advantages of Opea vs. Closed Date Codes
Advantage? Frequency Percent of Sample
Yes 18 69.2
No 5 19.2
Missing Data 3 11.5
Total 26 100

 

 

 

30

To determine if the choice of date code was a contributing factor in the perceived
advantage of using one code system over the other, a Chi-square test was used. The test
evaluated date code choice of the manufacturer vs. advantage of using one code system
over the other. The results yield p= .267. Since p > 0.05, we cannot say that the date
code choice of the manufacturer was a contributing factor in the perceived advantage of
using one date code system over the other. The feedback flom manufacturers indicates a
perceived advantage regardless of the date code choice selected. The following were
manufacturer responses regarding the perceived advantage of using one system over the
other:

0 Less returned product (closed)

0 Consumer ease of use and safety (open)

0 Open codes provides consumers with the fleshest product _

0 Product performance and flavor are best when used by sell date

0 Closed date is more confidential to the manufacturer, allows tracibility

0 Closed dates may save costs if inventory controls are poor

The information above shows that the choice of date code style can be rationalized both

positively and negatively. The results are shown below in Table 11.

Table 11. Choice of Date Code vs. Advantage of Qae Coding System Over the

 

 

 

Other
Date Code Used No Yes Missing Total
Data

Closed 1 7 2 10 (38.5%)
Open 1 7 1 9 (34.6%)
Both 3 4 0 7 (26.9%)
Total 5 1 8 3 26

(19.2%) (69.2%) (11.5%) (100%)

 

 

 

 

 

31

 

Table 11 shows that manufacturers who used open, clOsed, or both date code styles
perceived an advantage of using their code style over another. The choice of date code

does not affect the perception of advantage of using one date code system over the other.

Next, manufacturers were asked if sales of their products have been affected by
providing consumers with date information. Table 12 shows that the majority of

manufacturers perceived no effect on sales by providing date codes to consumers.

 

Table 12. Manufacturer’s Perceptioa of the Effect on Sales

 

 

 

 

Affect Sales? Frequency Percent of Sample
No 16 61.5
Yes 4 15.4
Missing Data 6 23.1
Total 26 100

 

 

While most manufacturers did not perceive an effect on sales of their date code choice,
contrary comments received flom manufacturers were: “too soon to tell, but positive
trend” and “absolutely, we are moving product every week.” There was one participant
who indicated sales had been affected, but the situation was not positive. It turns out that

store returns of unsold product affected sales negatively.

Next, manufacturers were askedto respond to open-ended questions based on
their previous responses. The question assessed the manufacturers perceived

benefits/drawbacks of the date code system utilized by their company. A semi-perishable

32

manufacturer responded to the draw-backs of open dating. “The consumer is flee to
choose product with most/longest code date, therefore, product with less date often
expires before it is sold.” A shelf-stable manufacturer responded similarly, “open date
codes result in products being pulled flom the store shelves at the expiration date.
Grocery chains take credit for product and charge disposal fees through reclamation
centers.” Another shelf-stable manufacturer recognized the benefits of stock rotation. l

“The benefits would be to clearly identify shelf-life and pull dates for the sales force.”

 

Overall, manufacturers who used open dating believed consumers perceived they were |
getting the fleshest product available.

A manufacturer who used closed dating considered the possibilities as a benefit.
“The manufacturer can re-evaluate product acceptability near end of shelf-life and
consider extending shelf-life.” Another benefit noted was that closed dates were good for
internal purposes, allowing “effective auditing and production control.” For
manufacturers who used closed dates, the benefits were mostly in the area of product
traceability (in the event of a recall) and internal tracking. However, there were many
comments about the drawbacks of using a closed date. The consensus was that closed
date codes did not provide useful information to the consumer.

The final question in section one asked manufacturers to rate public opinion of
their choice to use date codes. Ahnost half of the manufacturers responded that
consumers were “indifferent” to their choice to use date codes, as seen below in Table 13.
About 19% believed consumers were “somewhat favorable” and approximately 35%

believed consumers were “favorable” to their use of date codes on products.

33

Table 13. Manufacturer’s Perceptioa of Pablic Opinion

 

 

 

 

Public Opinion Frequency Percent of Sample
Indifferent 12 46.2
Favorable 9 34.6

Somewhat Favorable 5 19.2
Total 26 100

 

 

It is interesting to note that no survey participant indicated public opinion about their use
of date codes would be unfavorable. Earlier, eighteen manufacturers indicated a
perceived advantage to using a date code. AS such, it might be expected that sOme of the
consumers would have an unfavorable or somewhat unfavorable opinion, especially
when considering closed date codes. However, a Chi-square test of date code choice style
vs. public opinion of choice yields: p = .012. Since p < 0.05, the results Show that the
choice of date code style is correlated with the perception of public opinion of that
choice. Table 14 shows that manufacturers using closed dates perceived consumers
public opinion would be indifferent, while manufacturers using open dates perceived a
favorable or somewhat favorable public opinion about their choice of date code by the

COHSUITICI‘.

34

Table 14. Manufacturer’s Date Code Choice vs. Perceptioh of Public Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Code Used: Indifferent Somewhat Favorable Total
Favorable
Closed 8 2 10 (38.5%)
Open 1 3 5 9 (34.6%)
Both 3 4 7 (26.9%)
Total 12 5 9 26
(46.2%) (19.2%) (34.6%) (100%)
Sectioh Two: Why Not Use Date Codes?

 

Section two of the survey instrument evaluated companies who did not use date codes.
Participants who completed section one were asked to skip section two and proceed to
section three. The five questions in section two were designed to assess the opinion of
manufacturers who did not use date codes. Similar to section one, the investigator was
looking for the manufacturer to provide information about the effect on sales and public
opinion, considering their choice not to use date codes. There were no respondents in

this section. Each survey participant indicated use of date codes.

35

‘5‘ M‘M?

Section Three: Open Date Techniques

Several surveys have been conducted to assess consumer knowledge of date codes and
their usefulness. Many reports have concluded that consumers, in general, are confirsed
about which designation is most useful for a particular food category. Section three of
the survey evaluated manufacturer responses to questions about open date designations
on packages. The purpose of the questions was for the manufacturer to classify each L
designation by product category, drawing on his or her own expertise in the food

category. Responses to the questions are expected to give consumers useful information

 

about how the open date designations should be used.

Four open date categories were described for the participants:

2 A date packaged is the day, month, and year the product was processed and
packaged for retail sale.

:> A sell-by date (best if sold by) is the last date a product should be sold in order to
allow a reasonable length of time for consumer use.

:> A use-by date (best if used by, recommended last consumption date, expiration
date) is the date after which the product is no longer at its most
acceptable level of quality.

2 A time-temperature indicator changes its color or shape to let you know
whether the product has been exposed to temperatures or'conditions that would
make it go bad.

Manufacturers were asked to choose the most appropriate open date designation,

using the preceding descriptors, for each product category. The survey participants were

36

asked to respond in each product category, although the manufacturer may not produce
food items in each category. For the perishable category, the majority responded that a

“use-by date” is most appropriate as seen in Table 15:

Table 15. Distribution of Open Date Desigr_1_ations for Perishable Products

 

 

 

 

Category Designation Frequency Percent of Sample
Use-By Date 15 57.7
Sell-By Date 5 19.2

Time Temperature Indicator 2 7.7
Missing Data 2 7.7

Date Pkg’d + TTI 1 3.8
Use-By + TTI 1 3.8

Total 26 100

 

For the semi-perishable category, the responses were more mixed. Table 16 Shows that
the majority chose a “use-by date” for this category, while many chose a “sell-by date”.

Manufacturers are divided on which designation is best for this product category.

Table 16. Distribution of Open Date Designations for Semi-Perishable Products

 

 

 

 

Category Designation Frequency Percent of Sample
Use-By Date 12 46.2
Sell-By Date 10 38.5

Date Packaged 1 3.85

Time Temperature Indicator 1 3.85
Missing Data 2 7.7

Total 26 100

 

 

37

 

For the shelf-stable category, more manufacturers chose a “use-by date” but many chose
a “date packaged” designation. Table 17 outlines the results for the shelf-stable category

as follows:

Table 17. Distribution of Open Date Desigpatiops for Shalf-Stable Prodpgg

 

 

 

 

Category Designation Frequency Percent of Sample
Use-By Date 11 42.3
Date Packaged 8 30.8
Sell-By Date 4 15.4
Time Temperature Indicator 1 3.8
Missing Data 2 7.7
Total 26 100

 

 

The remaining questions assessed manufacturer opinion of consumer use of
products. For a particular food category and open date designation, participants were
asked if they expected consumers to use a product after the open date designation.

Manufacturer opinions of consumer use of a product were evaluated in each food

category. Table 18 summarizes the results below:

38

I”?
1

an . iii“
i

Table 18. Expect Consumer to Use Product After Expiration?

 

 

 

 

No Yes No Response Total
Perishables 14 (53.8%) 7 (26.9%) 5 ( 19.2%) 26
Semi-Perishables 9 (34.6%) 11 (42.3%) 6 (23%) 26
Shelf-Stable 11 (42.3%) 12 (46.2%) 3 (11.5%) 26
Overall Total 34 30 14 78
' ' (43. 6%) (38.5%) (I 7.9%) (100%)

 

 

 

 

Overall, table 18 shows more manufacturers did not expect consumers to use
their products after the expiration date. The results were more mixed when looking at
the semi-perishable and Shelf-stable categories. However, about 54% of the

manufactures did not expect consumers to use perishable products after the use-by date.

Section Foucr: SEN-Life

Section four evaluated manufacturers use of shelf-life techniques. Shelf-life is often
defined as the term or period during which a stored product remains effective, useful, or
suitable for consumption. Generally, there are three models employed when determining
shelf-life: real time, accelerated time, or predicted time. The real time model evaluates
product shelf-life by observing product during its actual use. The product is measured
over a period of time of its actual use to determine how long it takes for the product to
spoil. An accelerated time model utilizes equipment that is able to expose the product to
high or low temperatures, by subjecting it to vibration, dropping or stacking at levels
higher than normally encountered. Shelf-life is established based on the results of these

accelerated tests. Finally, a predicted time model uses a calculation to determine shelf-

39

life. Knowing information about variables to be evaluated (e. g. time, characteristics of
the product, and packaging), theoretical assumptions regarding shelf-life can be
determined by using an equation. There are also computer models that can be used to aid
in shelf-life prediction.

Shelf-life is affected by many variables. These variables include production
environments, packaging materials, product characteristics, shipping, and storage. The L

manufacturer will want to establish a shelf-life for his product that mirrors his

 

distribution process. Doing so will efficiently deplete inventory and allow for the product 1
to be sold at retail in a reasonable amount of time. While the consumer will want the l '
shelf-life to be long enough to include the amount of time required to use the product,
this may not be a goal of the manufacturer because it is hard to determine the length of
time required and consumer use patterns.
Manufacturers were asked to Share the process they use to determine shelf-life.
Almost half of the respondents commented on the confidentiality of providing shelf-life
methods. Table 19 shows half of the respondents used a real-time model to. determine

Shelf-life. The results further show there is not one consistent method of determining

shelf-life of food.

40

Table 19. Distribution of Manufacturer Shelf-life Process

 

 

 

 

Shelf-Life Process Frequency Percent of Sample
Real Time 13 50
Accelerated Time 3 11.5
Combination of the above 6 23.1
Other ‘ 3 1 1.5
Missing Data 1 3.85
Total 26 100

 

 

A Chi-square test of product category manufactured vs. manufacturer choice of Shelf-life

 

method yields: p = .392. Since p > 0.05, the product category manufactured is not a
contributing factor in the choice of shelf-life method used. Although the majority of
manufacturer’s responses show real time shelf-life method as the preferred calculation,
Table 20 shows that the use of a specific shelf-life method was not consistent in a food

product category:

Table 20. Product Catagorv vs. Shelf-Life Method Used

 

 

 

 

Products Real Accelerated Other Combinatio Missing Total
Manufactured Time Time
Semi- 9 1 1 3 14
Perishable (41.2%)
Shelf-Stable 7 1 2 4 14
(41 .2 %)
Perishable 2 2 1 1 6
(1 7.6%)
Total 18 4 4 7 I 34
(52.9%) (11.8%) (11.8%) (20.5%) (2.9%) (100%)

 

 

 

 

 

41

Section Five: Regplatory ImplicaLions

Section five is the final section in the survey instrument. This section asked
questions in the area of regulatory support and legislation as it relates to the topic of date
coding. The first question in section five is a follow-up to section four. Participants were
asked if it was necessary to have a standardized
formula or test method when calculating shelf life. The question was asked of each
manufacturer for each product category. Table 21 shows the majority of manufacturers
responded that it was necessary to have a standardized formula or test method to calculate

shelf-life in each product category:

Table 21. Standardiaed Formpla or Test Method to Determine Shelf-Life?

 

 

Product Category No Yes Missing Data Total
Perishable 9 (34.6%) 12 (46.2%) 5 ( 19.2%) 26
Semi-Perishable 8 (30.8%) 13 (50%) 5 (19.2%) 26
Shelf-Stable 10 (38.5%) 12 (46.2%) 4 (15.4%) 26

 

 

 

 

 

The next question in this section assessed the support for using a standardized format
(printing, language, location on package, similar to NLEA) when identifying date
information on packages.

Table 22 shows that the majority of manufacturers responded it was necessary to use a

standardized format for identifying date information on packages in perishable and semi-

42

perishable food categories. However, the majority of manufacturers did not support the

necessity to have a standardized format for packages in the shelf-stable food category.

Table 22. Standariraed FormLfor Ideratifying Date Information on Packages?

 

 

 

Product Category No Yes Missing Data Total
Perishable 10 (38.5%) 14 (53.8%) 2 (7.7%) 26
Semi-Perishable 11 (42.3%) 13 (50%) 2 (7.7%) 26
Shelf-Stable 15 (57.7%) 11 (42.3%) 0 26

 

 

 

Participants were asked if they would support legislation to require open dating for each
of the product categories. Table 23 shows that the majority of manufacturers would
support legislation requiring open dating for the perishable food category. While
manufacturers were divided on the issue of supporting legislation in the semi-perishable
category, most manufacturers would not support legislation for the shelf-stable food

category.

Table 23. Support Legislation Reguiring Open Dating for Each Product

 

 

 

Categorgy?
Product Category No Yes Missing Data Total
Perishable 9 (34.6%) 16 (61.5%) 1 (3.85%) 26
Semi-Perishable 12 (46.2%) 13 (50%) l (3.85%) 26
Shelf-Stable 20 (76.9%) 6 (23.1%) 0 26

 

 

 

43

 

Table 24 shows that the majority of manufacturers believed that there would be no

change in sales as a potential effect of regulation requiring open dating on food packages.

Table 24. Potepgial Effect on Sales if Reqpired to Use of Open Dates

 

 

 

 

Potential Effects Frequency Percent of Sample
No Change 17 65.4
Slightly Decreased Sales 5 19.2
Slightly Increased Sales ’ 2 7.7
Missing Data 2 7.7
Total 26 100

 

 

Table 25 shows the results for manufacturers responding to the issue of self-regulation.
Overwhelmingly, manufacturers supported the concept of industry self-regulation instead
of government agency intervention. This is not surprising since most manufacturers are

not fans of regulation.

Table 25. Manufacturer Response to Industry Self-Regulation

 

 

 

 

Favor Industry Self-Regulation? Frequency Percent of Sample
Yes 23 88.5
No 2 7.7
Missing Data 1 3.8
Total 26 100

 

 

To assess the current efforts in the area of self-regulation programs, participants were
asked of their awareness of on-going programs and their success. Table 26 shows that

most of the manufacturers were not aware of on-going programs in the area of self-

44

regulation. As a result, it is probably not realistic for one to assume a self-regulation
program will actually work. More accountability and enforcement will need to be

addressed.

Table 26. Manufacturer Awareness of On-Going Industm Self-Regulation

 

 

 

 

Programs
Industry Self-Regulation Frequency Percent of Sample
Awareness?
No 23 88.5
Yes 2 7.7
Missing Data 1 3.8
Total ' 26 100

 

 

45

CHAPTER V

Summary & Conclusions

The research for this study utilized survey responses from a small sample, and so may, not
represent perfectly the overall perception of the food manufacturing industry. However,
the results do summarize the perceptions of manufacturers in three particular food
categories for the purpose of determining the need to pursue legislative activity to support

date coding. The data in this study represents perceptions of manufacturers participating

 

in the study. While the data and references are more than four years old, the information
is valid today. In fact, my current experience as an employee at one of the largest food
manufacturers in the country allows me to observe first-hand the current applicability of

experiences and perceptions shared by the study participants, years earlier.

Summag of the Results:

1. Manufacturers use both open and closed date codes on packages. A single
manufacturer may use both, in different applications.

2. Manufacturers perceived an advantage of using one date code system over the
other and the date code choice being used was not a contributing factor in the
perception of advantage of one date code system over the other.

3. Manufacturers believed the use of date codes would not have an effect on product
sales.
4. Manufacturers believed public opinion about their date code choice ranged from

indifferent to favorable. Manufacturers did not report unfavorable public opinion
of their date code choice.

5. Manufacturers preferred a “use-by” open date designation for perishable products.

46

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Manufacturers were about evenly divided between a “use-by” and a “sell-by” date
when selecting the most appropriate open date designation for semi-perishable
products.

Manufacturers preferred a “use-by” date for shelf-stable products.

The majority of manufacturers did not expect consumers to use perishable

products after the “use-by” date. The data also indicated manufacturers did

expect consumers to use products after the “best if used by” and “better if used ,

before” open date designations for semi-perishable and shelf-stable categories

respectively. !

Most manufacturers used some form of real-time test to determine shelf-life.

No standard method exists to determine the shelf-life of food products, although .,
the results show manufacturers may support standardization efforts in this area. E

 

Most participants believe that revealing their use of shelf-life calculation
techniques was not possible as the information was considered proprietary.
Therefore, although support for standardizing methods may exist, getting started
may prove difficult.

More manufacturers believe it is necessary to use a standardized formula or test
method to calculate shelf-life for each of the food categories.

More manufacturers do not believe it is necessary to use a standardized format to
identify date information on shelf-stable products.

Manufacturers would support legislation requiring open dating of perishable
products.

There was no expectation of a change in sales if a regulation were enacted to
require open dates.

Manufacturers support industry self-regulation programs.

Manufacturers are not aware of any current industry self-regulations, as it relates
to this study.

47

Conclusions

Given the results of the survey and literature review, the following conclusions can be

reached:

1.

Manufacturers are aware of date coding techniques and utilize them in the manner
deemed appropriate by their respective organizations. Many manufacturers use
open dating techniques. However, closed dating is used just as much and with
many manufacturers, at the same time. There is no evidence in this research to
support that using one date coding technique over another provides a benefit to
the consumer or the food industry, although some consumers may believe
information obtained from an open date would be usefiil. Manufacturers are
aware of consumer needs, but are realistic about the real benefit of providing '
information that does not consider all the variables in producing food items.

Finding a consistent means of identifying open date codes may prove difficult as
‘date packaged’, ‘use-by’, ‘sell-by’, ‘best if used by’, and ‘better if used by’ have
different applications to each manufacturer. There is no common approach to
open date coding terminology among the manufacturers. The use of various date
code terminologies in a particular food category varied amongst the food
manufacturers participating in the survey. Consumers will not be able to get
useful information from date codes as the terminology and the use of various code
date techniques is not consistent in the food industry. The information given in a
date code gives no indication of the handling the food experienced in the
distribution cycle.

The survey results revealed there was not a common method of determining shelf-
life of products in a food category. Companies keep confidential information,
which may give them a competitive edge in the marketplace. Determining shelf-
life and shelf-life studies will give a company information which may allow them
to get to market sooner with a product. Therefore, to standardize a test method
will prove difficult but useful.

The survey results were surprising in the area of regulatory support. From the _
information gathered in this study, completing the process of getting a regulation
enacted to support open dating will be difficult. The research did not reveal any
overwhelming support of legislation of open date labeling. Industry self-
regulation may be possible if enforced. It is apparent from manufacturer
responses that enforcing self-regulation will prove difficult. More time is needed
to understand how all the factors in the product manufacturing process interact in
order to provide consumers usefiil information. Once additional data is known,
efforts should turn to educating the consumer with information that explains the

48

steps in the manufacturing process so that the consumer can make informed
choices and a regulation is developed which manufacturers support.

Discussion and Recommendations

This study has revealed there is a need to further evaluate consumer/manufacturer
interaction. If the manufacturers have different methods of calculating shelf-life, how
can we be sure the date codes are accurate and not meaningless? While more
manufacturers supported standardizing formulas and test methods to calculate shelf-life,
it will not be an easy task. Most of the participants were reluctant to share information
about their shelf-life calculations. Comments in the section were consistent in their
statement that the information is proprietary and could not be shared. Given this
information, we are a long way from having a consistent approach to the determination of
shelf-life, therefore regulating label content which is dependent upon this information
will be very challenging.

When I first began this research, I was convinced that the only solution to the
problem of consumer confusion at retail was the development of a regulation. I was ,
looking to force compliance by the manufacturers to standardize the information
provided to consumers on a label related to product shelf-life. I now understand this to
be a very difficult task. A regulation requires constant revision. Lack of resourcesat
federal agencies makes enforcing a regulation very difficult. However, given the
importance of the subject, I recommend a regulation to address open dating. Proposing
such activity will initiate dialogue between government, manufacturer and consumer.

There are many groups working to influence the process and support consumerism.

49

Groups such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest are currently participating in

efforts to affect legal matters and promote consumer welfare by educating consumers.

As a result of the conclusion drawn from this research study, the following are

recommended:

1)
2)
3)

4)

5)

Find ways to create a standardized shelf—life determination

Standardize terminology used for open date designations

Promote voluntary industry self-regulation

At the same time, seek ways to mobilize educated consumers in support of open
dates.

Influence manufacturer’s industry-wide standardization, development of

procedures and good manufacturing practices.

50

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Amazing Myth of Fine Aged Beer. (1997). Internet: http://www.budweiser.com
Burkholz, H. (1994). The FDA follies. New York, NY: BasicBooks

Candy is Dandy. (1984). Discount Merchandiser. 61-62.

Census of Manufacturers, Subject Series - Manufacturing. (1992). Internet:
http://www.census. gov

Consumer Rate Packaging Traits. (1995). Packaging Digest, pp. 22-24.

Consumer Shelf-help. (1994). Beverage World, p.56.

The Dating Game. (1994). Advertising Age p.21.

Dwyer, S. (1997). Taking ‘core’ of business. Prepared Foods, pp.12-19.
Federal Register.(1979). Vol. 44. No. 247 (PR). p. 76007.

Open Shelf-Life Dating of Food. (1981). Food Technology. pp.89-96.

The Frozen Food Label and Consumer Needs. (1981). Food Technology, PP.65-66.

The Global 250. (1996). Prepared Foods, pp. 10-20.

Dangerous Foods: The Oprah Winfrey Show. (1996). Chicago, IL: Harpo Productions,

Inc.

Is it time for time/temperature indicators? (1989). Prepared Foods, p.219.

51

Jones, L. (1997). Urban America: the new food frontier. Food Processing, pp.64-65.

Kim, J. (1996). Consumer Attitudes About Open Dating Technicgs for Packaged
FoodL and Non-Prescription Drugs. E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Kurtzweil, P. (1994). Food label close-up. FDA Consumer, pp.15-l 8.

Labels and Packages, A Good Housekeeping Consumer Panel Report. (1962). pp.33-54.

Magiera, M., & DeNitto, E. (1994). Pepsi takes fresh angle in new ad effort. Beverage
World, p.8.

Meier, K., & Garrnan, E. (1995). Regulation and consumer protection. Dame
Publictions, Inc. pp.234-265.

Regulation No. 554 Last Day of Sale. (1985). Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of
Agriculture, Food Division.

Open Shelf-Life Dating of Food. (1979). Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
Congress of the United States.

Phillips, M. (1981) An analysis of consumer demand for information on the frozen food
label. Food Technology. pp.61-66.

Preventing Foodbome Illness. (1997). Internet: http://home.earthlink.net.

Stanton, J. (1997). Beyond the supermarkets. Food Processing- pp.53-54.

Stanton, J. (1997). The art of killing brands. Food Processing, pp.65-66.

Taoukis, P., Fu, B., & Labuza, T. (1991). Time-temperature indicators. Food
Technology, pp. 51-63.

Welcome to Open-Date Coding. (1984). Beverafige World. pp.66-68.

52

Am

53

The Survey Instrument

 

An Evaluation of Regulatory Adoption of
Shelf-Life Dating on Packaged Foods

 

54

The following survey is being conducted to examine manufacturer awareness of shelf-life
dating on consumer products and to investigate consistency within the food industry
when using codes on products. Feedback from the survey will be used to justifiz whether
or not a regulation should be created to require open dating on food packages.

 

Manufacturer Demographics:

(1) Size (number of employees)
1. __ (0-500) 2. __ (500-999) 3. _ (1000-4999) 4. __ (5000+)

(2) Sales (annually in US. dollars)
1._(O-1 million) 2. __ (1 million - 1 billion) 3. _ (1 billion+)

(3) Products Manufactured:

1. _ perishable (fluid milk products, fresh baked goods, fresh meats, fish, poultry, fruits,
vegetables)

2. _ semi-perishable (snack foods, cheese, ice cream, packaged meats)

3. __ shelf-stable (dried legumes, nuts and grains, pasta, cereals, canned goods)

(4) From the time of production, what is the longest amount of time allowed for your
finished product to be sold at the grocery store?

1. _ (1-2 weeks) 2. _ (2-3 weeks) 3. _ (3-4 weeks)
4. _ (1-6 months) 5. __ (6 months+)

(5) From the time of purchase, what is the average length of time a consumer keeps
your product in their home?

1. _ (1-2 weeks) 2. __ (2-3 weeks) 3. _ (3-4 weeks)

4. _ (1-6 months) 5. _ (6 months+)

 

Section One

 

Manufacturers ofien date a product to inform consumers of its shelf-life or for use as an
internal tracking system to be utilized by grocers and retailers for stock rotation.

55

(6) Do you use a date code on your products? 1. No 2. Yes

If you answered NO to question 6, go to section two of this survey. If you answered
YES, please complete section one.

An open date gives useful information to the consumer about product shelf-life, while
a closed date code provides information for the man ufacturer/grocer to determine the
source of production, batch code, etc.

(7) Which form of date coding does your company use?
1. _ open date 2. _ closed date

Why?

 

 

 

 

 

(8) Is there an advantage to using one coding system over the other?
1. _ No 2. __ Yes

Explain:

 

 

 

 

(9) Have sales of your product(s) been affected by providing customers with date
information?

1. No 2. Yes

56

Explain:

(10)

(11)

(12)

 

 

 

 

If open dating is used, what are the benefits/drawbacks? Why do you choose not

to use a closed date? Explain:

 

 

If a closed date is used, what are the benefits/drawbacks? Why do you choose not
to use an open date?

Explain:

 

 

 

 

What, in your opinion, has public opinion been regarding your choice to use a
date code?

1. _ unfavorable 2. _ somewhat unfavorable

3. _ indifferent 4. _ somewhat favorable
5. _ favorable

57

 

L Section Two ]

 

NOTE: If pg completegl section one. skip section two and proceegl to section three.
(13) Why do you choose not to use a date coding system for your product?

1. _ expensive 2. _ unnecessary 3. __ not sure
4. __ other (specify)

 

. 3.0-;

(14) Have you investigated costs associated with establishing a date coding system,
including labor, machinery, research, etc.?

1. _ No 2. _ Yes
If yes, what was the result in dollars:

 

 

An open date gives useful information to the consumer about product shelf-life, while
a closed date code provides information for the man ufacturer/grocer to determine the
source of production, batch code, etc.

(15) In your opinion, will a change to using an open date affect product sales?
1. No 2. Yes

If yes, please rate the previous response:

(16) 1. _ greatly decreased sales 2. _ slightly decreased sales 3. __ no change
4. _ slightly increased sales 5. _ greatly increased sales

Explain:

 

 

 

58

(17) What, in your opinion, would be the impact on public opinion of customers if you
switched to using a date coding system?

1. _ unfavorable 2. _ somewhat unfavorable 3. _ indifferent
4. _ somewhat favorable 5. __ favorable

(Proceed to section three)

 

Section Three

Here are four ways to describe open dating on packages:

:> (A) A date packaged is the day, month, and year the product was processed and
packaged for retail sale.

:> (B) A sell-by date (best if sold by) is the last date a product should be sold in order
to allow a reasonable length of time for consumer use.

:> (C) A use-by date (best if used by, recommended last consumption date, expiration
date) is the date after which the product is no longer at its most acceptable level of
quality.

:> (D) A time-temperature indicator changes its color or shape to let you know
whether the product has been exposed to temperatures or conditions that would make

it go bad.

For the following product categories, please choose the most appropriate open date

designation, using the above descriptors:

59

 

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

perishable (fluid milk products, fresh baked goods, fresh meats, fish, poultry,
fruits, vegetables)

1._(A) 2._(B) 3._(C) 4._(D)
semi-perishable (snack foods, cheese, ice cream, packaged meats)

1._(A) 2. _(B) 3. _(C) 4. _(D)
shelf-stable (dried legumes, nuts and grains, pasta, cereals, canned goods)
1._(A) 2._(B) 3._(C) 4._(D)
A “use by” date often appears on perishable food products such as milk.

Do you expect consumers to use your product after this date?

 

 

 

1. _ No 2. _ Yes
Explain why or why not:
Do you manufacture perishable products? 1. __ No 2. _ Yes

A “sell-by” or “best if used by” date ofien appears on semi-perishable food

products such as cheese and snack products. Do you expect consumers to use

your product afier this date?

1. No 2. Yes

60

"Tr—".1157

__ —'—-_v-

Explain why or why not:

 

 

 

(24) Do you manufacture semi-perishable products? 1. __ No 2. Yes

(25) A “better if used before” date ofien appears on shelf stable products such as
cereal.

Do you expect consumers to use your product afler this date?

 

 

 

1. _ No 2. _ Yes
Explain why or why not:
(26) Do you manufacture shelf-stable products? 1. _ No 2. _ Yes

 

Section Four

 

Shelf-life is often defined as the term or period during which a stored product remains
effective, useful, or suitable for consumption.

61

(27) What process is most often used to determine shelf-life of your product?

1. _ real time 2. _ accelerated time 3. _ predicted time
4. other:

 

Please use space provided to describe your process, or attach additional
information if needed.

 

 

 

 

 

I Section Five

(28) For the following product categories, is it necessary to have a standardized
formula or test method to calculate shelf-life?

(l) =No (2) =Yes
1) perishables (1) _ (2) __
2) semi-perishables (1) __ (2) __
3) shelf stable (1) _ (2) _

Explain:

 

 

62

(29)

(30)

(31)

For the following product categories, is it necessary to have a standardized format
(similar to NLEA requirements) for identifying date information on food
packages?:

1) = No (2) = Yes
1) perishables (l) _ (2) _
2) semi-perishables (1) _ (2) _
3) shelf stable (1) __ (2) _ .

Explain:

 

 

Would you support legislation to require open dating on products included in the
following product categories?:

(1)=N0 (2)-=Yes
1) perishables (l) __ (2) __
2) semi-perishables (l) _ (2) __
3) shelf stable (1) _ (2) _

 

 

 

What, in your opinion, are the potential effects of a regulation requiring open date
information on food packages?

1. _ greatly decreased sales 2. __ slightly decreased sales 3. _ no change
4. _ slightly increased sales 5. _ greatly increased sales

63

Explain:

 

 

 

(32) Would you favor industry self-regulation as an alternative to legislation?
1. _ No 2. _ Yes

(33) Are you aware of any on-going efforts to support industry self-regulation in the
area of date coding or shelf-life?

1. No 2. Yes

Please describe:

 

 

 

 

(34) If you answered yes to the previous question, how successful are these efforts?

1. _ not successful 2. _ somewhat successful 3. _ successful
4. _ very successful

Explain:

 

 

 

64

This concludes the survey. Thank you very much for participating in our research.
Please use the space on the next page to provide any additional information or feedback.

65

Appendix B

66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m 2 l 2 1 2222212
D m

0

C

m

m22 w. u u nrzznuu
E

n

022 2 2 2 2222222
m

U

041 1 3 4 444M454 l
T

S

D

M45 4 5 5 555 5 4
R

P.

S

E

L23 2 2 3 2333232
me

E

E34 2 2 3 2444343
8

 

 

67

 

 

 

 

 

14

34

 

 

 

SALESAFF PUBOPIN PERDATE SEMIDATE SHLFDATE XAFI‘PER MANPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68

 

 

 

123

\

123

12

12

12

12

 

 

 

 

 

XAFI‘SEMI MANSEMI XAFI’SHLF MANSHLF SHELFLIF PERSHELF SEMISHLF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SHLFSHLF STFMTPER STFMTSEM STFMTSHF SUPLEGPE SUPLEGSM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7O

 

 

AWAREFF YHOWSUC

 

 

 

 

SUPLEGSS POTEFREG FAVSELF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

l1111111171)“:willll

93 9 37

     

ll