Sunday, January 1, 2017

Can the 'supermarket of the future' jump from Italy to the US?

Dive Brief:

  • Coop Italia, the leading supermarket chain in Italy, has opened its Supermarket of the Future store, according to a news release
  • Coop Italia partnered with Accenture to overhaul the open-air market's information architecture.
  • Tech developments at the new future-facing store include interactive tables consumers can wave their hand over for more product information, vertical shelving for better browsing opportunities and real-time data visualization.

Dive Insight:

Coop Italia's new supermarket of the future aims to combine "hyper personalization, deep product information and connected devices in-line with customer buying journeys," according to the news release. These developments align with trends that have been popular among consumers in other contexts, so combining them in one grocery retail experience is the next step in elevating the shopping experience.
Also key here is another layer of transparency in the shopping experience, which consumers increasingly demand of food and beverage manufacturers and retailers today. Consumers want product information to be easily accessible and visible, and this store's display screens could be popular among consumers that don't have smartphones needed for other transparency initiatives, such as scannable QR codes.
Retailers continually seek ways to develop customer loyalty by developing unique shopping experiences over other grocery retail options. Amazon Go and other retailers have developed shopping experiences without the need for checkout lanes. But this supermarket of the future takes the loyalty-building strategy one step further by addressing pertinent consumer demands, such as transparency and personalization.
“Nature is not good to human beings”: The chairman of the world’s biggest food company makes the case for a new kind of diet
Nestlé has a vision for the next evolution of food.
Nestlé has a vision for the next evolution of food. (AP Photo/Laurent Gillieron)
SHARE
WRITTEN BY
OBSESSION
December 27, 2016
The modern food movement has brought us to a fork in the road. On one path are people who say it is enough to eat the fresh fruits and vegetables that spring from the earth, the milk from our cows, and the meat from farmed animals. Simplicity is the path to fulfillment, and sticking close to nature and whole foods is the safest bet for achieving nourishment.
The other vision prescribes that the best diet is one that is predetermined for us, collected by farmers and tinkered with by scientists to help us attain our maximum health and eventually prevent chronic illness. It is more obscure and decidedly high tech.
This is where Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the outgoing chairman of the world’s large food company, has staked his flag, casting Nestlé—with its $88.8 billion in annual revenue—not as the purveyor of natural foods or conveniently-available snacks, but as the vessel to deliver a new, scientifically engineered Garden of Eden.
Brabeck-Letmathe, 72, got his start decades ago, loading boxes onto the back of an ice cream truck in Central Europe. He has witnessed changes in agricultural production practices, the rise of and rebellion against processed foods, and the scourge of chronic illnesses left in its wake. In rising to the apex of Nestlé, he has become the chief architect of the company’s vision for the future, a reality in which food operates more like medicine.
Nestlé, of course, has been fortifying food since founder Henri Nestlé began selling an iron-enriched infant cereal called “Farine Lactée” in 1867. And the company will still make chocolates, ice cream, and most of the pizzas and meals found in supermarket freezer sections. But it is also investing billions of dollars in healthcare firms. In steering the company in this direction, Brabeck-Letmathe has forged into new territory, carving out a “nutrition, health, and wellness” industry.
This is a shift from what food companies such as Danone, PepsiCo, and Kellogg have done for decades. The biggest companies have focused mainly on one goal: getting calories to people. They created new technologies to do it, drying and freezing food, then shipping it across the trade routes of an increasingly connected global economy. But as Brabeck-Letmathe would discover around 1995, that crude vision for calories only worked to a point.
To continue carrying out Brabeck-Letmathe’s vision, Nestlé in June named Paul Bulcke, its current CEO, to replace Brabeck-Letmathe after he retires in April 2017. In taking the reins, Bulcke will inherit a role that requires firm resolve as Nestlé seeks to assert its dominance in this new industry that sits squarely between food and pharmaceuticals. The company also chose Ulf Mark Schneider to take over as CEO. Schneider was lured to Nestlé from Fresenius, a German healthcare firm.
“Means for life”
It’s perhaps not surprising that Brabeck-Letmathe’s food views differ from those of most big food company executives, because he doesn’t think about food in English. Rather, the Austrian returns to his native tongue, in which food is a four-syllable mouthful that strikes at the core of his philosophy.
“In German, it’s called lebensmittel,” he says. “Food is called ‘means for life.’ ”
If food is primarily perceived as a means to long life, then it begins to make sense that Brabeck-Letmathe would seek to design it as vehicle for delivering micronutrients such as magnesium and zinc. It’s not about the number of calories you eat or even if they come in the form of fresh fruits and vegetables. It’s about the quality based on what people need.
Brabeck-Letmathe says he arrived at the idea of food as medicine after waking up in a New York hospital bed after a back operation in 1994. As he stirred from narcosis, he vividly remembers a nurse standing before him with a tray of plain food. He pushed it aside in disgust.
Upon recovery, he returned to the company’s headquarters in Vevey and instructed his food scientists to research a line of fortified foods specifically for recovering patients in hospitals and cancer wards. These products would be easier to chew, swallow, and digest, but most importantly they would be nutritious. One of them was Nestlé Thickenup, which can make foods and beverages easier to swallow without impacting taste.
“Do you think when you go through cancer treatment that anybody thinks about what you are going to eat? Nobody!” he says. “So we did it.”Nestlé chairman Peter Brabeck-LetmatheNestlé chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe (Reuters/Valentin Flauraud)
The following year, Brabeck-Letmathe discovered studies showing that, at about 70 years old, eating more than 2,500 calories a day did not necessarily increase life expectancy. Meanwhile, consumers began worrying about how processed foods loaded with preservatives, sodium, and sugar affected their overall health. It didn’t bode well for established food companies. Kellogg, Danone, and General Mills had portfolios chock-full of sugary cereals and yogurts; Nestlé’s freezer section products—which include Stouffer’s, DiGiorno, and Hot Pockets—were filled with ingredients that unnerved shoppers.
 There’s a wonderful audacity in this…I hope they are right. 
Nestlé tackled the problem earlier than most, reformulating many of its products to remove trans fats, sodium, and sugar. It redesigned food packaging to more clearly tell consumers what was inside their Lean Cuisine and DiGiorno pizza boxes, and to illustrate healthier portion sizes. This would be the company’s initial response to a much bigger question about how to adapt to a shift in consumer expectations.
The long-term answer was for Nestlé to pursue the research needed to give people individual diet plans. In Brabeck-Latmathe’s future, people will undergo health testing during varying stages of life to learn more about the genetic material of the microbes—the bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses—living inside their bodies. Each time, the tests would analyze genetics, caloric levels, predisposed illnesses, and more. Such information would allow Nestlé to create products that essentially act as medicine to alleviate known health issues.
To deliver on this vision, Nestlé began buying and partnering with clinical wellness firms, striking deals with seven between 2007 and 2016. It began increasing its research and development budget and now spends more than any other food company on R&D, although it still spends significantly less than drug companies such as Johnson & Johnson (paywall).
Its deals over the last several years have cost billions:
·         In 2007, Nestlé acquired the Novartis Medical Nutrition division for $2.5 billion.
·         In 2010, it acquired for an unspecified amount Liverpool-based Vitaflo, which develops “nutrition solutions” for people with genetically-inherited metabolic diseases.
·         In 2011, it bought for an unspecified amount of San Diego-based Prometheus Laboratories, which created diagnostic products for gastrointestinal diseases and cancer.
·         In 2012, Nestlé bought a minority stake in Accera, which researches and develops (not without controversy) medical nutrition for neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimers. That same year it began a 50-50 joint venture with Chi-Med, a Chinese pharmaceutical company to develop plant-based products for gastrointestinal health.
·         In 2013, it acquired Pamlab, which works in therapeutics for brain and metabolic health (again, for an undisclosed amount).
·         In 2015, Nestlé invested $65 million in Seres Therapeutics Inc. in Cambridge, Massachusetts. That company is a leader in developing microbiome therapeutics. In early 2016, it signed a $120 million deal with Seres for a ‘healthy gut drug.’
Nestlé isn’t looking to enter the prescription drug business, but through these partnerships and acquisitions it plans to apply its new scientific knowledge to food products—something that could one day include a frozen pizza that’s healthy and prevents Alzheimer’s disease.
In July, Nestlé and Samsung announced they were partnering to develop a digital health project, pairing Nestlé data with Samsung hardware. Among other things, Brabeck-Letmathe says Samsung may eventually sell a watch that houses as a nutritional database, “the Nestlé experience.”
He also describes installing Nestlé data into sensors implanted beneath a person’s skin that might send an alert if you have an iron deficiency, or need to schedule a doctor’s appointment. Eventually, your sensor might directly connect to your doctor’s office, alerting a physician if an abnormality is detected. It’s a vision for a more digitally-connected health system, one he hopes might catch Alzheimer’s, early onset diabetes, or even the early stages of cancer, of which Brabeck-Letmathe is a survivor.
As the company incorporates its know-how into hardware, it will further develop its food products, sweeping out more sugars, salts and preservatives, replacing them with micronutrients and potentially with phytonutrients—plant-derived compounds hypothesized to be responsible for much of the disease prevention provided by plants. In theory, if a watch or implant tells you that you need more magnesium in your diet, consumers will be able to go to the grocery store and find products—made by Nestlé—to deliver that nutrient.
Nestlé headquarters in Vevey, Switzerland.Nestlé headquarters in Vevey, Switzerland. (Reuters/Denis Balibouse)
This high tech vision is a far cry from the dietary practices preached by Michael Pollan, the best-selling author of In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. Pollan opened that book with a far more simple approach to health than the one Brabeck-Letmathe envisions: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” It’s a perspective almost diametrically opposed to the one offered by Brabeck-Letmathe. Pollan says the vision by Nestlé is interesting, but is far in the future.
“The whole premise is that we understand nutrition well enough to engineer new foods that will be better than the ones we’ve co-evolved with,” he says. “That’s an ambitious vision, but it’s one that so far has not panned out.”
Giant food manufacturing companies, including Nestlé, have continued to aggressively advertise processed foods that have stoked the increase in chronic illnesses, Pollan says. That the company would now seek to create foods to solve those problems is noteworthy, especially at a time when humans still don’t understand the role of fats in the diet, or even how the body metabolizes certain foods. Pollan pinpoints infant formula, a banner product in the Nestlé portfolio. It still can’t match the benefits of breast milk.
“There’s a wonderful audacity in this, and yeah, I hope they are right,” he says. “I hope [Nestlé] can figure these questions out, but people have been working on them for a long time.”
In the meantime, Pollan says there’s plenty of evidence showing that people on simple diets do avoid chronic diseases, a point that stirs Brabeck-Letmathe from his usual steely, unflappable temperament. He spoke exclusively with Quartz on a chilly evening in December, granting an hour for a sit-down interview at the St. Regis Hotel in New York City:
Shouldn’t a good diet be self-evident, that we should turn to food that grows from the ground?
Let me start with your vision. Your vision is basically saying that nature is good.
Is it not?
That’s wrong. Nature is not good to human beings. Nature would kill human beings. The reason why homo sapiens have become what we are is because we learned to overcome nature. You see, what makes us different from the animals, why we were able to develop afterwards, intelligently, was we learned how to cook. That is something that is completely underestimated.
So cooking then is just a bridge to the next thing, a predetermined, scientifically-made, perfect wonder meal?
This idea about the wonder food. First of all, it exists. I mean, for example when we had the first man on the moon, these people received special nutrition.
But whole foods—
I think they have an absolute right to exist. I am the first one to say, I’m eating an enormous amount of vegetables. I like vegetables a lot. But I also know that it’s not enough for me anymore.
The scorn of skeptics
At New York University, nutrition and food studies professor Marion Nestle (no relation to the company) remains a skeptic. She considers Brabeck-Letmathe’s foray into “health and wellness” a “techno-fix”—effectively selling consumers a high-tech bill of goods they’ll never need to enjoy a healthy life. She puts the strategy in the same light as Soylent, a meal-replacement drink forged in California and heralded by Silicon Valley.
“It’s boy stuff, it’s technological,” she says. “It takes so little to meet nutritional needs, so Nestlé is looking for a way to sell food. And please, show me the evidence that fortified foods make healthy people healthier.”
It may aid affluent consumers living in the first world, but she said she expects it will do little to solve the world’s overarching problems with nutrient deficiencies and starvation. Lots of people will get excited about Nestlé’s vision, she said, but, “I’m not one of them.”
Brabeck-Letmathe’s vision can sound like that of a profit-minded food executive peddling a new version of processed food. For those who’ve spent much of their careers arguing for simple, fresh food straight from the farm, it challenges the idea that the Earth can supply its humans with all the things they need to live long, productive, and healthy lives.
“It really is about do you think shitty food boosted by nutrients is better for you than real food,” says Mark Bittman, author and former food columnist for The New York Times. “There’s not going to be proof on one side or the other, but you can say follow the money. He’s a businessman.”
Any publicly traded food company lives by short term profit goals, he says. Nestlé isn’t an exception.
Braback-Letmathe argues otherwise. Nestlé’s pharma-style acquisitions occurred while its competitors navigated fickle consumer trends toward healthier snacking and convenience. Coca-Cola bought Honest Tea Company in 2011 and recently pushed into designer milk. General Mills spent $810 million to buy Annie’s, an organic food brand. Kellogg has been hunting for ways to regain control of breakfast by expanding its line of breakfast cereal bars. PepsiCo has struggled to introduce (paywall) healthier products. Its attempt to acquire Chobani yogurt brand was snubbed.
Brabeck-Letmathe believes consumers will care more about health than convenience in the long run, and that spending lots of money to acquire new food companies won’t best advance his mission or lead to better margins. This position has left some industry analysts scratching their heads, because it’s unclear to them whether Nestlé, in focusing on healthcare companies, is missing newer food trends on which younger start-up companies are building their brands. But Brabeck-Lethmathe isn’t worried. He said Nestlé has an outpost of 15 employees in Silicon Valley, whose job is to monitor the work of upstarts. If the company sees a concept it likes, it turns to in-house expertise.
“It is important to know what’s going on and to apply that to our existing products,” he says.
The hunt for better margins
As Bittman points out, Nestlé’s vision also is motivated by the need for growth. Like other packaged goods companies, sales growth has slowed in recent years, says Paolo Leschiutta, a food and beverage analyst at Moody’s in London. Sales growth in emerging markets (though still in the high single digits) has started to sputter, and low inflation has made it difficult to increase prices. About 44% of Nestlé s food sales come from emerging markets. At the same time, volatility in Russia, Brazil, Nigeria, and Turkey have created stiffer macro-economic headwinds. Even China, with its rising middle class, has experienced a GDP slow-down, another foil to growth.
For those reasons, the rationale behind Nestlé’s expansion into foods that operate more like medicine becomes clearer, Leschiutta says.
“Medical products are growing much more rapidly than traditional foods,” Leschiutta explains. “And those products carry better margins than traditional food markets.”
Analysts say the shift by Nestlé could very well trigger an evolution in food, but it will likely take years before that trend takes hold in mature and emerging markets—perhaps more than two decades. This is no surprise for Brabeck-Letmathe, who earned the support of the company’s board in the early 2000s to begin exploring more work within pharmaceuticals, even if it meant playing the long game.
And he’s played it for a long time. After five decades of working at the 150-year-old Swiss conglomerate, Brabeck-Letmathe looks forward to controlling his own time. He most fondly recalls his work at the beginning of his career, as an ice cream salesman. He would wake up each morning, load his truck after considering the weather—on cold days people ate more creamy ice creams, on warmer days they opted for a more watery confection. He did this day-in and day-out, describing the work as liberating.

“I was free,” he says. “I didn’t have to say at what time I’m going to this place or the other place. If it was the summer and there was a nice lake, I could stop and take a swim. I was a free entrepreneur, and that’s what I liked.”
Food Price ≠ Food Cost
“In a startling development, almost unheard of outside a recession, food prices have fallen for nine straight months in the U.S. It’s the longest streak of food deflation since 1960,” reports Bloomberg.
Food prices have never been lower, but food prices are not the same as food costs.
These low prices — not just today, but for the past few decades — obfuscate the true cost of food in terms of the environmental and health impacts they make on our society over time. Negative externalities like fossil fuel consumption, air and water pollution, soil degradation, and poor labor practices are all food costs that aren’t reflected in the price tag.
Without a way to bring the impact of these abstractly large negative externalities down to the human scale, it’s a struggle to viscerally connect the actions of an everyday grocery shopper to these big systems issues.
Take a box of corn cereal for instance: The corn was likely grown in a monoculture sprayed with pesticides that can seep into groundwater and have harmful implications for farmworkers. Using petroleum-based fertilizers to increase yield just bolsters our appetite for fossil fuels. The price of that corn is even cheaper when you consider the heavy government subsidies to promote corn production.
The prices are low because this way of farming results in significant yields. But at what broader cost to the ecosystem and society does this maniacal focus on yield create? What’s the aggregate cost of global warming caused by fossil fuel-based transport and production methods? What’s the aggregate cost of water purification needed to remediate the effects of pesticide ridden runoff? What’s the aggregate cost on healthcare from making junk food insanely cheaper than real food?
How might we better represent the impact of buying a particular food product on the food system?
What if we could represent this on the label so everyday consumers could easily understand the cost of their food beyond what the cash they shell out at the checkout? Might it look like this …
The True Cost of a box of Corn Cereal. How might we account for the environmental impacts of monoculture food products?
The True Cost of a box of Corn Cereal. How might we account for the environmental impacts of monoculture food products?
Or like this…
True Cost of Soda
We humans are hard-wired to overemphasize short term effects over long term ones. When we smoke, we don’t think about the lung cancer, we think about the relaxation. When we sit on the couch, we think about the tv show, not the weight gain.
Food is no different. We touch food so frequently that it’s sometimes hard to stop and think about these hard issues in each purchase. Our brains would shut down if we had to think about the full impact of the supply chain on a box of cereal each week at the supermarket.
While people are becoming more mindful about the bigger effects of the food they buy, there’s a lot of room to improve on how we boil down the true systems impact of a food to the individual product.
In 1990, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act mandated Nutrition Facts labeling, changing the game forever for how we think about buying food. Food and health felt more connected as a result of the nutrition facts label. Looking toward the future, as public health and the environment are increasingly being linked to our food choices, isn’t it time we start to rethink how to represent food’s real impact on our world on the label and the price tag?
This post originally appeared on The Future Market.
__________________________
Receipt & Nutrition label stats based on the following:
ACME INDUSTRIES CORN CEREAL
Acme Industries Corn Cereal — $5.29
Monoculture Nitrogen Loss Fee (per 1 ton soil)* — $0.63
Corn Subsidy Refund (25% COGS)** — $0.13
Pesticide Hazard Surcharge (Per US Citizen / 1,000)*** — $0.66
GMO Corn License Fee # 1ZX78211A (Flat Fee) — $2.25
TOTAL — $8.96
*Monoculture Nitrogen Loss: USDA-NRCS studies estimated a loss of 1 kilogram (2.32 pounds) of nitrogen and .45 kilograms (1 pound) of phosphorus for each ton of soil eroded, costing farmers US$.63 and US$.64, respectively, in 2012. (FoodTank – Page 24 )
**About $13.9 billion of net farm income this year will be federal payments, or about 25 percent of total profit estimated at $54.8 billion, according to estimates by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (Farmers Get Biggest Subsidy Check in Decade as Prices Drop — Bloomberg)
***Endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in pesticides are estimated to cost the European Union €157 billion (US$209 billion) in actual health costs and lost earnings per year, due to their linkages to cancer, birth defects, infertility, and learning disabilities. (FoodTank – Page 11 )

COLA NUTRITION LABEL
Serving Size: 1 Can
Amount per Serving*
Calories — 140
Total Fat — 0g — 0%
Sodium — 45mg — 2%
Total Carb — 39g — 13%
Sugars — 39g
Protein — 0g
Annual Weight Gain Amount** — 0.25 lb
Diabetes Type II Risk Increase*** — 26%
Heart Attack Risk Factor Increase**** — 20%
Gout Risk Factor Increase***** — 75%
*Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet.
** “A 20-year study on 120,000 men and women found that people who increased their sugary drink consumption by one 12-ounce serving per day gained more weight over time — on average, an extra pound every 4 years — than people who did not change their intake.” (Sugary Drinks and Obesity Fact Sheet | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health)
*** “People who consume sugary drinks regularly — 1 to 2 cans a day or more — have a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than people who rarely have such drinks.” (Sugary Drinks and Obesity Fact Sheet | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health)
**** “A study that followed 40,000 men for two decades found that those who averaged one can of a sugary beverage per day had a 20% higher risk of having a heart attack or dying from a heart attack than men who rarely consumed sugary drinks. A related study in women found a similar sugary beverage–heart disease link.”(Sugary Drinks and Obesity Fact Sheet | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health)
***** “A 22-year study of 80,000 women found that those who consumed a can a day of sugary drink had a 75% higher risk of gout than women who rarely had such drinks. Researchers found a similarly-elevated risk in men.”(Sugary Drinks and Obesity Fact Sheet | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health)

How Do Food Manufacturers Pick Those Dates on Their Product Packaging – and What Do They Mean?

June 27, 2016 | The Conversation
When does it all become dangerous to eat?
No one wants to serve spoiled food to their families. Conversely, consumers don’t want to throw food away unnecessarily – but we certainly do. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates Americans toss out the equivalent of US$162 billion in food every year, at the retail and consumer levels. Plenty of that food is discarded while still safe to eat.

Part of these losses are due to consumers being confused about the “use-by” and “best before” dates on food packaging. Most U.S. consumers report checking the date before purchasing or consuming a product, even though we don’t seem to have a very good sense of what the dates are telling us. “Sell by,” “best if used by,” “use by” – they all mean different things. Contrary to popular impression, the current system of food product dating isn’t really designed to help us figure out when something from the fridge has passed the line from edible to inedible.
For now, food companies are not required to use a uniform system to determine which type of date to list on their food product, how to determine the date to list or even if they need to list a date on their product at all. The Food Date Labeling Act of 2016, now before Congress, aims to improve the situation by clearly distinguishing between foods that may be past their peak but still ok to eat and foods that are unsafe to consume.
Aside from the labeling issues, how are these dates even generated? Food producers, particularly small-scale companies just entering the food business, often have a difficult time knowing what dates to put on their items. But manufacturers have a few ways – both art and science – to figure out how long their foods will be safe to eat.
Grocery store employee restocking shelves in the meat aisle
Dates can be about rotating product, not necessarily when it’s safe to eat the food. MdAgDeptCC BY

Consumer confusion

One study estimated 20 percent of food wasted in U.K. households is due to misinterpretation of date labels. Extending the same estimate to the U.S., the average household of four is losing $275-455 per year on needlessly trashed food.
Out of a mistaken concern for food safety, 91 percent of consumers occasionally throw food away based on the “sell by” date – which isn’t really about product safety at all. “Sell by” dates are actually meant to let stores know how to rotate their stock.
A survey conducted by the Food Marketing Institute in 2011 found that among their actions to keep food safe, 37 percent of consumers reported discarding food “every time” it’s past the “use by” date – even though the date only denotes “peak quality” as determined by the manufacturer.
The most we can get from the dates currently listed on food products is a general idea of how long that particular item has been in the marketplace. They don’t tell consumers when the product shifts from being safe to not safe.
Here’s how producers come up with those dates in the first place.

Figuring out when food’s gone foul

A lot of factors determine the usable life of a food product, both in terms of safety and quality. What generally helps foods last longer? Lower moisture content, higher acidity, higher sugar or salt content. Producers can also heat-treat or irradiate foods, use other processing methods or add preservatives such as benzoates to help products maintain their safety and freshness longer.
But no matter the ingredients, additives or treatments, no food lasts forever. Companies need to determine the safe shelf life of a product.
Larger food companies may conduct microbial challenge studies on food products. Researchers add a pathogenic (one that could make people sick) microorganism that’s a concern for that specific product. For example, they could add Listeria moncytogenes to refrigerated packaged deli meats. This bacterium causes listeriosis, a serious infection of particular concern for pregnant women, older adults and young children.
The researchers then store the contaminated food in conditions it’s likely to experience in transportation, in storage, at the store, and in consumers' homes. They’re thinking about temperature, rough handling and so on.
Every harmful microorganism has a different infective dose, or amount of that organism that would make people sick. After various lengths of storage time, the researchers test the product to determine at what point the level of microorganisms present would likely be too high for safety.
Based on the shelf life determined in a challenge study, the company can then label the product with a “use by” date that would ensure people would consume the product long before it’s no longer safe. Companies usually set the date at least several days earlier than product testing indicated the product will no longer be safe. But there’s no standard for the length of this “safety margin”, it’s set at the manufacturer’s discretion.
Best before date, expiry date
Do you even know what the manufacturer meant by this date? Sascha GrantCC BY-NC-ND
Another option for food companies is to use mathematical modeling tools that have been developed based on the results of numerous earlier challenge studies. The company can enter information such as the specific type of product, moisture content and acidity level, and expected storage temperatures into a “calculator.” Out comes an estimate of the length of time the product should still be safe under those conditions.
Companies may also perform what’s called a static test. They store their product for an extended period of time under typical conditions the product may face in transport, in storage, at the store, and in consumer homes. This time they don’t add any additional microorganisms.
They just sample the product periodically to check it for safety and quality, including physical, chemical, microbiological, and sensory (taste and smell) changes. When the company has established the longest possible time the product could be stored for safety and quality, they will label the product with a date that is quite a bit earlier to be sure it’s consumed long before it is no longer safe or of the best quality.
Companies may also store the product in special storage chambers which control the temperature, oxygen concentration, and other factors to speed up its deterioration so the estimated shelf life can be determined more quickly (called accelerated testing). Based on the conditions used for testing, the company would then calculate the actual shelf life based on formulas using the estimated shelf life from the rapid testing.
Smaller companies may list a date on their product based on the length of shelf life they have estimated their competitors are using, or they may use reference materials or ask food safety experts for advice on the date to list on their product.
Mouldy Cool Whip, expired food
Sometimes it’s an obvious call. Steven DepoloCC BY

Even the best dates are only guidelines

Consumers themselves hold a big part of food safety in their own hands. They need to handle food safely after they purchase it, including storing foods under sanitary conditions and at the proper temperature. For instance, don’t allow food that should be refrigerated to be above 40℉ for more than two hours.
If a product has a use-by date on the package, consumers should follow that date to determine when to use or freeze it. If it has a “sell-by” or no date on the package, consumers should follow storage time recommendations for foods kept in the refrigerator or freezer and cupboard.
And use your common sense. If something has visible mold, off odors, the can is bulging or other similar signs, this spoilage could indicate the presence of dangerous microorganisms. In such cases, use the “If in doubt, throw it out” rule. Even something that looks and smells normal can potentially be unsafe to eat, no matter what the label says.
Londa Nwadike, Assistant Professor of Food Safety, Extension Food Safety Specialist at University of Missouri, Kansas State University