Spesso buono oltre

[Autom. eng. transl.] The European Commission's proposal to add the expression "often good beyond" to the wording "best before" on the food label seems to have triggered a plethora of reactions, on average scandalized and against such a measure. However, I would like to try to reflect on the reasons both behind this proposal and behind its opponents, to save what can be saved or at least understand what paths could be taken. The main motivation that led to the proposal seems to be the fight against waste, as many products today are thrown away just because they have exceeded the minimum shelf life (TMC) even though they are in fact still good to consume. The TMC in fact indicates a period of time, under certain storage conditions, during which the product maintains its qualitative characteristics and requires the indication on the label of a date preceded by the words "best before". It applies to non-perishable products from a microbiological point of view which therefore do not represent a risk to the consumer's health even if consumed after that date. There is no denying that many consumers treat the TMC exactly as if it were an expiration date. At the same time, however, I challenge anyone to say that establishing the TMC is simple. There are so many variables at play to calculate, estimate and validate a TMC that it becomes impossible to define simple protocols for the industry to follow. It is true that with a TMC the safety of the consumer is not at stake, but there remains a certain regulatory "nebulosity" and an evaluation of the TMC which would require a considerable amount of data and specific technical-scientific skills to be put in place. And in any case, no matter how well the data collection, the application of mathematical models and the implementation of experimental campaigns are implemented, the final TMC will always have a certain degree of uncertainty. So I ask myself, why should the possibility of indicating that the product is probably still good beyond the TMC seem so insidious to consumers? Of course, simply indicating "good often beyond" would not seem ideal to me either, as it would not say much to the consumer and would not represent any additional effort for the producer, indeed it could lead the producer to worry less about the accuracy of the chosen TMC. What does “good” mean? What time frame does “beyond” mean? The additional indication should instead explain that beyond that date the product could begin to present quality defects, but also explaining which ones. Could a snack lose its softness, could a chip develop a rancid taste and smell, could a biscuit lose its fragrance? How long could the consumer evaluate whether the product is still consumable? Here, seen from this perspective, the proposal acquires meaning and importance but still presupposes a lot of work to be done. The possible explanatory sentences should be at least regulated so as not to leave too much freedom and risk creating even more confusion for the consumer. The latter, for its part, must take on more and more responsibility but must be provided with the tools to be able to do so. School remains a priority channel for consumer education. Today at school it is now consolidated to discuss the correct methods of waste management, it should also be explained how to read food labels. The countless cooking programs and contests should become a serious channel for disseminating correct hygiene and health practices.