Safety vs waste — the case for reforming SA’s food dating system

With South Africa discarding a third of its food annually, rethinking “Best Before” labelling is critical. Far from a mere packaging detail, these dates represent a complex intersection of food science, public policy, and constitutional law. Managing them correctly can protect consumers while upholding the fundamental right to sufficient food.

Having spent my career at the intersection of science, law, and regulation, I often find myself returning to a question that deserves urgent public debate: Is South Africa’s approach to food date labelling actually working as intended?

To be clear, this isn’t an argument for compromising food safety — that remains entirely non-negotiable. Instead, it is a challenge to our regulatory framework: can we protect consumers from unsafe food while stopping the needless disposal of food that is still perfectly fine to eat?

A uniquely South African paradox

South Africa loses an estimated 10.3 million tonnes of food every year — approximately one-third of all food produced nationally. At the same time, food insecurity remains one of our country’s greatest social challenges. Recent national reporting indicates that 63.5% of South African households experience some degree of food insecurity, while millions of South Africans continue to experience hunger.

These two statistics should make every South African pause.

On the one hand, enormous quantities of food are removed from the food system. On the other, millions of people struggle to access sufficient, nutritious food.

Food loss and waste occur throughout the value chain — from farms and packhouses to storage facilities, transport networks, processors, retailers and, ultimately, consumers. However, the purpose of this article is not to explore food loss across the entire supply chain. Instead, its purpose is to focus on one small — but potentially significant — part of the conversation: the role that food date marking plays in determining when food leaves the retail food system.

The science is there. The legislation provides the framework. The real challenge lies in ensuring that scientific evidence, legal principles and regulatory interpretation remain aligned in practice.

A “Use By” date is fundamentally a food safety date. It applies to highly perishable foods where microbiological hazards may increase over time. Once this date has passed, the food should not be consumed.

A “Best Before” date is different.

It relates primarily to quality. After this date, a product may gradually lose flavour, texture, aroma or other quality characteristics. Provided it has been manufactured correctly, stored appropriately, remains intact and shows no signs of spoilage, it may still be perfectly safe to consume.

From a scientific perspective, these concepts are distinct.

Unfortunately, from a consumer perspective, the clarity is questionable.

If experts struggle, what about consumers?

Differing interpretations

One of the observations that has struck me most recently is that there appears to be differing interpretations regarding the practical treatment of foods that have passed their Best Before date.

Whether those differences arise from legislation, enforcement practice, risk management or legal interpretation is perhaps less important than recognising the consequence.

Where uncertainty exists, both consumers and businesses naturally err on the side of caution. While this response is entirely understandable, it can also have unintended consequences.

Consumers who are unable to distinguish confidently between a food safety date and a food quality date may simply discard food that remains perfectly safe to consume.

Businesses, meanwhile, are more likely to adopt the approach that best protects consumer trust, maintains the integrity of their brands and minimises potential legal and regulatory risk. In practice, this may result in products being removed from sale earlier than may be scientifically necessary.

In both cases, uncertainty can inadvertently contribute to food waste, despite the shared objective of protecting consumers.

In neither case does the decision necessarily reflect the scientific safety of the food itself.

Looking at the law as a whole

South Africa has a comprehensive legislative framework governing food safety, consumer protection and food labelling.

The Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act 54 of 1972, together with the Regulations Relating to the Labelling and Advertising of Foodstuffs (R146 of 2010), establishes the requirements for food labelling and date marking.

The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 seeks to ensure that (all) consumers receive goods that are safe, of good quality and suitable for their intended purpose.

Both pieces of legislation serve critically important public interest objectives.

The Constitution is the overarching law of South Africa. Section 27(1)(b) provides that “everyone has the right to have access to sufficient food and water”. As such, all legislation must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the spirit of the Constitution and its underlying values.

This raises an interesting policy question.

The Consumer Protection Act grants consumers the right to safe, good-quality goods. The Best Before date indicates that after a certain date, the quality of a food product may be reduced. With this in mind, can our legal framework simultaneously protect consumers while also supporting the constitutional right of everyone to have access to sufficient food (a right recognised in section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution) that remains safe but may have passed a quality-based Best Before date?

I believe this is one of the most important conversations facing our food system.

A sandwich that made me think

Coincidentally, while reflecting on these issues, I bought a cheese-and-ham sandwich, the price of which had been reduced by 30%.

The reason?

Its Best Before date was that day.

I bought it without hesitation. It tasted exactly as expected.

As I ate it, I found myself wondering how many similar sandwiches would remain unsold by the end of the day. How many would still be perfectly safe? How many would ultimately end up as waste?

Sometimes our biggest policy questions are illustrated by the smallest everyday decisions.

The way forward

This is not a call to weaken food safety standards. Nor is it a criticism of the system. Rather, it is a call for greater clarity, stronger consumer education and evidence-based policy.

One of the greatest opportunities may lie in helping consumers better understand the difference between Use By, Best Before and Sell By dates. If consumers cannot distinguish between food safety and food quality, even the best legislative framework cannot achieve its intended purpose.

Equally important is ensuring that regulators, industry, retailers and academia continue working together to develop practical, science-based approaches that protect public health while reducing avoidable food waste.

South Africa’s challenge is not simply to produce more food. It is to make better use of the food we already produce.

If we can improve legal certainty, strengthen consumer understanding and create appropriate pathways for food that remains safe to reach consumers rather than landfill, we have an opportunity to support both environmental sustainability and one of our Constitution’s most important aspirations — the right of everyone to have access to sufficient food.

This article does not seek to provide all the answers. Rather, it seeks to encourage a broader conversation about how science, law and public policy can work together to achieve those objectives.

I’d be interested to hear how others working in food manufacturing, retail, consumer protection, food redistribution, regulation and academia view this challenge. How can South Africa better balance food safety, legal certainty and the reduction of unnecessary food waste? DM