Open dating of food products has been practiced for decades, and has been key to achieving stock rotation at retail and providing information to consumers. The open date provides a simple communication tool, which may be based on product quality and/or food safety as determined by the manufacturer or retailer. Date marking is generally open but it can be closed (code intended for managing product at retail, and for recall and traceability), and the terminology and applications vary widely around the world. The variation in date labeling terms and uses contributes to substantial misunderstanding by industry and consumers and leads to significant unnecessary food loss and waste, misapplication of limited resources, unnecessary financial burden for the consumer and the food industry, and may also lead to potential food safety risk in regards to perishable foods. A "use by" or similar date cannot be relied on to indicate or guarantee food safety because absolute temperature control of food products throughout the food supply chain cannot be assured. This paper provides an introduction to the issue of food product date labeling and addresses its history in the United States, different terms used and various practices, U.S. and international frameworks, quality compared with safety, adverse impacts of misconceptions about date labeling, and advantages of technological innovations. Collaboration to develop a simple workable solution to address the challenges faced by stakeholders would have tremendous benefit. Conclusions include a call to action to move toward uniformity in date labeling, thereby decreasing confusion among stakeholders and reducing food waste.

People often talk about the food supply chain, but in reality it isn't a chain at all. The food system today-that is, the way we get our food from farm to tablehas evolved into a complex network that is interdependent on many entities. And while there is no question that today's food system provides consumers with a more diverse, convenient, and economical source of food, it also presents new challenges. For example, in today's food system, the output from one ingredient producer could end up in thousands of products on a grocery store shelf. We saw evidence of this during the peanut butter Salmonella outbreak in 2008 and the E. coli illnesses caused by contaminated flour in 2016.Today there is no widely adopted industry standard for how each segment of the food system (farmer, processor, distributor, retailer, etc.) tracks and records data for food traceability purposes. Many simply record their data on paper, and while some are using digital methods, these methods do not enable communication with other parties in the food system. Thus, the system is limited to

International attention has been focused on minimizing costs that may unnecessarily raise food prices. One important aspect to consider is the redundant and overlapping costs of food safety audits. The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) has devised benchmarked schemes based on existing international food safety standards for use as a unifying standard accepted by many retailers. The present study was conducted to evaluate the impact of the decision made by Walmart Stores (Bentonville, AR) to require their suppliers to become GFSI compliant. An online survey of 174 retail suppliers was conducted to assess food suppliers' opinions of this requirement and the benefits suppliers realized when they transitioned from their previous food safety systems. The most common reason for becoming GFSI compliant was to meet customers' requirements; thus, supplier implementation of the GFSI standards was not entirely voluntary. Other reasons given for compliance were enhancing food safety and remaining competitive. About 54 % of food processing plants using GFSI benchmarked schemes followed the guidelines of Safe Quality Food 2000 and 37 % followed those of the British Retail Consortium. At the supplier level, 58 % followed Safe Quality Food 2000 and 31 % followed the British Retail Consortium. Respondents reported that the certification process took about 10 months. The most common reason for selecting a certain GFSI benchmarked scheme was because it was widely accepted by customers (retailers). Four other common reasons were (i) the standard has a good reputation in the industry, (ii) the standard was recommended by others, (iii) the standard is most often used in the industry, and (iv) the standard was required by one of their customers. Most suppliers agreed that increased safety of their products was required to comply with GFSI benchmarked schemes. They also agreed that the GFSI required a more carefully documented food safety management system, which often required improved company food safety practices and increased employee training. Adoption of a GFSI benchmarked scheme resulted in fewer audits, i.e., one less per year. An educational opportunity exists to acquaint retailers and suppliers worldwide with the benefits of having an internationally recognized certification program such as that recognized by the GFSI.

No abstract