september 2015 - refresh: community of experts · 2018-11-12 · flash eurobarometer 425 food waste...

Flash Eurobarometer 425

Food waste and date marking

Report

Fieldwork

September 2015 Publication

October 2015

This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

Survey conducted by TNS political & social

Survey requested by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety Survey co-ordinated by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication

September 2015


Food waste and date marking

Report

September 2015

Survey conducted by TNS political & social at the request of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety

Survey co-ordinated by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication

(DG COMM “Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions and Eurobarometer” Unit)

1

Food waste and date marking September 2015

Report


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 2 MAIN FINDINGS 4 I. PREVENTING FOOD WASTE 5

1 Who should act to prevent food waste 5 2 How to reduce food waste at home 9

II. “USE BY” AND “BEST BEFORE” DATES 13 1 Frequency of looking at “use by” and “best before” dates 13

2 Understanding of “best before” labelling 16 3 Understanding of “use by” labelling 18

III. NEED FOR “BEST BEFORE” LABELLING ON NON-PERISHABLE FOODS 21 IV. PRODUCT USAGE IN ABSENCE OF “BEST BEFORE” LABELLING 23 V. USE OF STORAGE GUIDANCE INFORMATION ON FOOD LABELS 26 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FINDINGS 29 CONCLUSIONS 30 ANNEXES

Technical specifications

Questionnaire

Tables

2


Report


INTRODUCTION

The European Union has identified resource efficiency and waste management as key elements of EU environmental policy and the Europe 2020 strategy 1 . The Commission is currently reflecting on the scope of a new, more ambitious Circular Economy package 2 to be published by the end of 2015 and considers it as a possible opportunity for further actions aimed at strengthening resource efficiency in the food chain and preventing food waste.

This survey seeks to understand citizens’ perceptions, attitudes and practices related to the management and consumption of food resources, and more specifically, to investigate the role of date marking found on food labelling in relation to food waste. Findings from this study will help inform possible future policy making in this area3.

The first section of the report provides an overview of citizens’ attitudes towards the prevention of food waste. The first part presents information on citizens’ views about the general responsibility of specific actors, ranging from the individual to food producers to public authorities, in helping to reduce food waste. The second part identifies specific actions that citizens feel would help them reduce the wasting of food in their own homes.

The rest of the report focuses on citizens’ attention to, understanding and use of date marking on the labels of food products. Date marking4 is a widespread and important tool to help ensure consumer safety, but can, if misunderstood, contribute to the problem of food waste by encouraging consumers to throw out goods that are still fit for consumption.

This section of the report starts by presenting information on the attention citizens pay to “use by” and “best before” labelling on items of food. It then examines the extent to which citizens across the Member States correctly understand the meaning of these dates.

The report then turns to the issue of the labelling of non-perishable foods. EU food labelling rules currently define a list of non-perishable foods for which the indication of a minimum durability (i.e. "best before") date is not required given that such foods can be consumed safely and their quality does not deteriorate over time (e.g. vinegar, sugar, salt). First, it examines respondents’ attitudes to the necessity of “best before” labelling for foods which do not significantly deteriorate in quality. Secondly, it presents information on citizens’ habits concerning the use and possible disposal of non-perishable food were it not to be labelled with “best before” information.

Finally, the study examines another aspect of date labelling in relation to food use in the home; that is how citizens utilise storage guidelines found on food labelling. Some food manufacturers give guidance to consumers about how long certain foods can be used after opening. The report examines whether, and to what extent, citizens act in accordance with these guidelines.

This survey was carried out by TNS political & social network in the 28 Member States of the European Union between 1 and 3 September 2015. Some 26,601 respondents from different social and demographic groups were interviewed via telephone (landline and mobile phone) in their mother tongue on behalf of the European Commission, Directorate General for Health and Food Safety. The methodology used is that of Eurobarometer surveys as carried out by the Directorate-General for Communication (“Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions and Eurobarometer” Unit)5..

1 http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/pdf/resource_efficient_europe_en.pdf 2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm 3 http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/index_en.htm 4 Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers 5 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

3


Report


Note: In this report, countries are referred to by their official abbreviation.

The abbreviations used in this report correspond to:

Belgium BE Latvia LV Czech Republic CZ Luxembourg LU

Bulgaria BG Hungary HU Denmark DK Malta MT Germany DE The Netherlands NL Estonia EE Austria AT Greece EL Poland PL Spain ES Portugal PT France FR Romania RO Croatia HR Slovenia SI Ireland IE Slovakia SK Italy IT Finland FI

Republic of Cyprus* CY Sweden SE Lithuania LT United Kingdom UK

European Union – weighted average for the 28 Member States EU28 BE, IT, FR, DE, LU, NL, DK, UK, IE, PT, ES, EL, AT, SE, FI EU15

BG, CZ, EE, HR, CY, LT, LV, MT, HU, PL, RO, SI, SK** NMS13 BE, FR, IT, LU, DE, AT, ES, PT, IE, NL, FI, EL, EE, SI, CY, MT, SK, LV, LT Euro area

BG, CZ, DK, HR, HU, PL, RO, SE, UK Non euro area

* Cyprus as a whole is one of the 28 European Union Member States. However, the ‘acquis communautaire’ has been suspended in the part of the country which is not controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus. For practical reasons, only the interviews carried out in the part of the country controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus are included in the ‘CY’ category and in the EU28 average.

** EU15 refers to the 15 countries forming the European Union before the enlargements of 2004 and 2007.

*** The NMS13 are the 13 ‘new Member States’ which joined the European Union during the 2004, 2007 and 2013 enlargements.

We wish to thank all the people interviewed throughout Europe who took the time to take part in this survey.

Without their active participation, this survey would not have been possible.

4


Report


MAIN FINDINGS § The majority of Europeans recognise that

they themselves have a role to play in preventing food waste. Over three-quarters (76%) of Europeans think that the individual consumer is one of the actors involved in the prevention of food waste, compared with less than a half (49%) who consider that the state has a role to play.

§ Europeans also highlight the important role of economic actors in the food supply chain, identifying the responsibility of shops and retailers (62%), the hospitality and food service sectors (62%) as well as food manufacturers (52%).

§ The majority of Europeans also emphasise individual responsibility when it comes to ways to reduce food waste, with nearly two thirds (63%) saying that better shopping and meal planning would contribute to the reduction of waste. Clearer information regarding date marking and on food labels more generally (e.g. food storage and preparation) is cited by nearly one in two respondents as a means of preventing household food waste. However, there are significant differences between countries on this question.

§ Nearly six in ten Europeans (58%) state that they always check “use by” and “best before” labels when shopping and preparing meals, with very few indicating that they never do (only 3%). Young people are significantly less likely to check these labels: just over four in ten (44%) of those aged between 15 and 24 do this, compared with over six in ten (61%) of those aged 55 or over.

§ The Eurobarometer findings confirm that the meaning of date marking found on food products is poorly understood. Just under half (47%) of Europeans understand the meaning of “best before” labelling and somewhat fewer (40%) are aware of the meaning of “use by”. In both cases, a quarter or more think, incorrectly, that the meaning of date marking differs according to the type of food for which it is used.

§ There is significant country-level divergence in both awareness and conceptual understanding of "use by" and "best before" labelling. When asked about the meaning of these two types of dates, in some countries, notably Romania and Greece, a large majority gave the “use by” definition in both cases, whereas in others, such as Sweden, a majority gave the “best before” definition in both cases.

§ There are also significant socio-demographic differences on this question. Those aged between 25 and 39 are more likely than people in other age groups to know the meaning of “best before” (53%) and “use by” (46%) dates. The same is true for people who left education at an older age: 53% of those who left education at the age of 20 or older know the meaning of “best before”, compared with 36% of those who left education aged 15 years or under. The difference is less pronounced with respect to knowledge of the meaning of “use by”, with 43% and 36%, respectively.

§ Less than half (44%) of Europeans say that they would miss “best before” labelling if it were no longer found on certain non-perishable foods. Nearly six in ten (58%) respondents in Member States that entered the EU from 2004 onwards (NMS 13 countries) would prefer "best before" labelling to remain, compared with only four in ten (40%) in EU15 countries.

§ Over two thirds (70%) of Europeans state that if they found a package of spaghetti in their kitchen cupboard without "best before" labelling, they would utilise the food regardless of the absence of date marking.

§ People are more likely to throw away food without date marking in countries where there is uncertainty over the meaning of “best before” dates, such as Greece (50%), Bulgaria (47%) and Cyprus (44%).

§ Most people continue to use opened food products after the recommended storage period indicated on the label has passed. Nearly six in ten (59%) give this reply, compared with just under a third (31%) who throw food away after the stipulated date.

5


Report


I. PREVENTING FOOD WASTE

The first set of questions concerns public attitudes towards the prevention of food waste. First, respondents were asked to identify the actors which according to them should play a role in preventing food waste6.

They were then asked to indicate which actions would help them to reduce food waste at home7. The latter question was asked in a slightly different wording in a previous survey8.

1 Who should act to prevent food waste

- Most consumers recognise their own role in food waste prevention–

The majority of people living in the European Union are aware that the prevention of food waste is something for which the individual consumer bears responsibility, along with other actors. Over three quarters (76%) of respondents said that consumers themselves have a role to play in preventing food waste. Over six in ten (62%) also refer to those actors who sell food directly to the consumer, such as shops, hotels and restaurants.

Only just over half (52%) thought that food manufacturers were also responsible for reducing levels of waste, while less than a third (30%) of respondents thought that farmers should be involved in curbing food waste. And finally, almost half (49%) thought that the state should be involved.

6 Q1. In Europe, about 100 million tonnes of food are wasted annually. Which of the following actors do you think have a role to play in preventing food waste? MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE Farmers, Food manufacturers, Shops and retailers, Hospitality and food service sectors (hotels, restaurants, hospitals, etc.), Public authorities, Consumers, people like you, Don’t know/Not applicable. 7 Q2. What would help you to reduce food waste at home? MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE Better and clearer information on the meaning of "best before" and "use by" dates indicated on food labels, Better and clearer information on food product labels (e.g. information on food storage and preparation), Better shopping and meal planning by your household, Availability of smaller portion sizes in shops, Using up leftovers instead of throwing them away, Using the freezer to preserve food longer, Other, Don’t know/Not applicable. 8 Flash Eurobarometer 388 (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_388_en.pdf)

6


Report


There were some significant differences at the country level, although in most cases a majority of respondents acknowledged the responsibility of the individual. In 27 of the 28 Member States, a majority of those polled said that consumers had a role to play in preventing food waste. The exception was Lithuania, where less than half (44%) gave this answer. In most cases, consumers were the actors with the highest mentions: in the United Kingdom, Finland and Austria over nine in ten (93%) said that individuals had a role to play in combatting food waste.

There was more variation in the case of shops and the food services sector. In France and Finland, nine in ten (90%) of those polled said that shops and retailers had a role to play in preventing food waste, compared with only just over a quarter (27%) of respondents in Greece, and less than a third in Cyprus (30%), Italy (32%) and Malta (32%). Similar country differences can be seen in the case of the hospitality and food service sectors. In the United Kingdom (86%), Finland (84%) and Portugal (81%) over eight in ten of those polled said that hotels, restaurants and hospitals had a role to play in preventing food waste, but in Lithuania less than a fifth (19%) of respondents mentioned these actors.

Again, there was widespread variation in the case of food manufacturers. In Belgium, over three quarters (77%) said that manufacturers had a role to play in preventing food waste, and nearly three quarters (73%) of those polled in the United Kingdom gave the same response. By contrast, less than a fifth of respondents in Slovakia (16%) and Lithuania (19%) said that food manufacturers were responsible for tackling this problem.

There was a wide variation in the perception of the role of public authorities. In 19 of the 28 Member States only a minority of those polled identified the state as an actor in food waste prevention. The proportion was highest in Spain, where over three quarters (77%) of respondents identified the state as responsible, and nearly three quarters (74%) of those surveyed in France gave this answer. At the other end of the scale, just over one in ten (13%) of respondents in Slovakia said that public authorities had a role to play.

In the case of farmers, country differences were not so large, although they were still significant. In all but one case, farmers were the least mentioned category. Only in Portugal (52%) did a majority of respondents say that farmers have a role to play. Elsewhere, the proportion varied between just over four in ten (43%) of respondents in Finland and only just over one in ten (12%) of those polled in Lithuania and Italy.

7


Report


Q1

Cons

umer

s, pe

ople

like

you

Shop

s an

d re

taile

rs

Hosp

italit

y an

d fo

od

serv

ice

sect

ors

(hot

els,

rest

aura

nts,

hosp

itals

, etc

.)

Food

man

ufac

ture

rs

Publ

ic a

utho

ritie

s

Farm

ers

Don'

t kno

w

EU28 76 62 62 52 49 30 2

BE 82 82 78 77 66 35 1BG 52 41 46 29 23 22 8CZ 78 50 43 27 30 17 3DK 85 68 59 51 44 27 1DE 82 58 53 51 39 32 3EE 62 61 41 34 37 18 3IE 71 52 58 33 28 21 1EL 66 27 33 23 35 23 4ES 75 70 80 70 77 39 0FR 89 90 78 70 74 39 0HR 65 56 51 41 43 30 2IT 53 32 46 30 18 12 3CY 76 30 36 22 28 17 1LV 61 64 53 44 38 28 2LT 44 39 19 19 26 12 9LU 84 74 67 60 57 30 0HU 77 36 44 32 34 22 2MT 62 32 59 29 30 22 4NL 86 65 74 51 47 34 1AT 93 83 79 68 57 37 0PL 65 51 50 43 47 30 2PT 77 66 81 58 63 52 4RO 67 45 37 37 29 26 5SI 57 50 40 22 23 18 3SK 51 41 23 16 13 15 6FI 93 90 84 68 61 43 1SE 88 75 66 58 58 28 1UK 93 87 86 73 69 37 0

In Europe, about 100 million tonnes of food are wasted annually. Which of the following actorsdo you think have a role to play in preventing food waste? (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE) (%)

Highest percentage per countryHighest percentage per item

Lowest percentage per countryLowest percentage per item

8


Report


There were very few significant socio-demographic differences in this question. The most noteworthy one concerns the perception of consumer responsibility to reduce food waste.

§ Just over eight in ten (81%) of those who finished their education at the age of 20 or above said that individuals have a role to play, but only two thirds (66%) of those who finished their education at or before the age of 15 gave this answer.

§ Manual workers (71%) and those not working (73%) were also somewhat less likely to give this response than employees (82%).

Q1

Cons

umer

s,

peop

le li

ke y

ou

Shop

s an

d re

taile

rs

Hosp

italit

y an

d fo

od

serv

ice

sect

ors

(hot

els,

re

stau

rant

s, h

ospi

tals

, etc

.)

Food

man

ufac

ture

rs

Publ

ic a

utho

ritie

s

Farm

ers

Don

't kn

ow

EU28 76 62 62 52 49 30 2

Male 74 61 60 52 48 29 2Female 78 64 65 52 49 31 2

15-24 74 60 61 51 45 25 125-39 78 64 63 54 51 29 140-54 78 63 62 54 51 31 255 + 75 61 62 50 48 32 3

15- 66 60 63 49 47 31 516-19 75 60 61 50 46 29 220+ 81 64 63 54 53 31 1Still studying 77 63 60 52 47 27 1

Self-employed 76 60 61 49 50 29 1Employee 82 66 65 56 54 31 1Manual workers 71 59 56 50 42 25 2Not working 73 60 62 50 47 31 3

In Europe, about 100 million tonnes of food are wasted annually. Which of the following actorsdo you think have a role to play in preventing food waste? (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)(% - EU)

Sex

Age

Education (End of)

Respondent occupation scale

9


Report


2 How to reduce food waste at home

- Nearly two thirds mention better food management at home as the main way of reducing food waste. Nearly half highlight the need for clearer information on the

meaning of date marking and on food labels more generally -

Respondents again emphasised the role of the individual when asked about methods of reducing food waste, to an extent echoing the findings from the previous question. Nearly two thirds (63%) of those polled said that food waste can be reduced by individual consumers making better decisions when shopping and planning meals, and by making use of leftovers rather than discarding them, while over half (56%) said that they could reduce food waste by making use of the freezer.

With respect to the role of other actors, just over half (54%) thought that waste could be reduced if shops sold food in smaller portions. Nearly one in two point to the need for better and clearer information about “best before” and “use by” dates (49%) or about how to store and prepare food (46%).

The general emphasis on individual responsibility remains consistent with the findings of a previous survey conducted in December 20139, despite changes in question wording. In December 2013 six in ten (60%) of those surveyed said that they could waste less food by making more use of the freezer, and just under six in ten (59%) said that they could re-use leftovers, although only just under half (49%) mentioned better planning of food purchases.

9 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_388_en.pdf

FL425 September 2015

10


Report


There were considerable country-level differences on this question, although in the majority of cases the most frequently mentioned actions were those performed by the consumer.

In 18 of the 28 Member States, the largest proportion of respondents identified better shopping and meal planning as a method of cutting down on food waste, and in all countries except Lithuania (42%), Italy (45%) and Hungary (48%) a majority of respondents mentioned this. The proportion of respondents giving this answer was particularly high in Spain, where over eight in ten (81%) mentioned it. There was even greater variation in the case of using up leftovers. While nine in ten (90%) of respondents in Belgium identified this as a method for reducing food waste, less than a fifth (17%) of those polled in Lithuania mentioned this method. Similar differences were observed among those who identified freezing perishable goods as a method for cutting down on waste, with over eight in ten of those polled in Belgium (83%) and the United Kingdom (82%) giving this response, compared with less than a fifth (19%) of respondents in Slovenia.

Country-level opinion also varied when considering ways of preventing food waste which could be implemented by actors other than the consumer, although generally these methods were less frequently mentioned. Three quarters (75%) of respondents in the United Kingdom and over two thirds of those polled in Belgium (72%), Austria (68%) and France (67%) suggested that waste could be prevented by decreasing portion sizes in shops, while only a fifth (20%) of those polled in Greece identified this approach. Two thirds or more of respondents in the United Kingdom suggested improving the “best before” or “use by” information on food labels (70%) or improving information about food storage and preparation (66%), compared with only just over one in ten in Slovenia (14% and 12% respectively). In 22 of the 28 Member States, information about food storage and preparation was the least frequently mentioned method of reducing food waste.

FL388 December 2013

11


Report


Q2

Bette

r sh

oppi

ng a

nd m

eal

plan

ning

by

your

hou

seho

ld

Usin

g up

left

over

s in

stea

d of

thro

win

g th

em a

way

Usin

g th

e fr

eeze

r to

pre

serv

e fo

od lo

nger

Avai

labi

lity

of s

mal

ler

port

ion

size

s in

sho

ps

Bette

r an

d cl

eare

r in

form

atio

n on

the

mea

ning

of

"bes

t bef

ore"

and

"u

se b

y" d

ates

indi

cate

d on

foo

d la

bels

Bette

r an

d cl

eare

r in

form

atio

n on

fo

od p

rodu

ct la

bels

(e.g

. inf

orm

atio

n on

foo

d st

orag

e an

d pr

epar

atio

n)

Oth

er (S

PON

TAN

EOUS

)

Don'

t kno

w

EU28 63 63 56 54 49 46 2 2

BE 75 90 83 72 68 64 0 0BG 63 28 33 39 35 27 2 2CZ 53 50 38 37 41 38 4 8DK 51 55 39 57 34 27 3 5DE 52 53 35 53 38 34 3 4EE 67 30 37 28 18 12 4 8IE 57 51 50 51 48 39 1 2EL 63 50 45 20 33 30 1 1ES 81 81 78 60 64 65 1 1FR 68 86 80 67 60 64 2 0HR 60 51 34 25 29 23 5 2IT 45 40 24 30 16 15 2 2CY 69 48 40 31 33 29 1 1LV 63 51 51 40 45 39 4 4LT 42 17 22 23 19 16 6 14LU 65 77 68 61 59 53 2 1HU 48 48 37 46 37 32 1 4MT 71 48 49 29 34 27 1 2NL 56 62 60 61 47 38 4 3AT 73 76 55 68 52 45 3 2PL 70 65 62 56 63 55 2 2PT 79 86 74 62 67 67 3 1RO 66 36 46 44 53 55 3 2SI 57 48 19 22 14 12 5 3SK 47 33 27 27 26 21 6 2FI 79 79 77 62 51 49 1 3SE 58 71 62 43 49 43 2 3UK 74 79 82 75 70 66 1 2

What would help you to waste less food at home? (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE) (%)

Highest percentage per Highest percentage per item


12


Report


There were few differences between socio-demographic groups on this question.

§ While over two thirds (68%) of those aged between 15 and 39 identified better shopping and meal planning as a means to reduce waste, less than six in ten (57%) of those aged 55 or more gave this answer. Similar differences were observed in the case of leftovers (66%, compared with 59%). On the other hand, only half (50%) of the youngest cohort said that smaller portion sizes in shops would help, compared with 57% of those in the oldest cohort.

§ Respondents with higher levels of education were somewhat more likely to mention better meal planning, with nearly two thirds (65%) of those who finished their education at or after the age of 20 mentioning this method of curbing waste, compared with less than six in ten (57%) of those who left at or before the age of 15.

Q2

Bett

er s

hopp

ing

and

mea

l pl

anni

ng b

y yo

ur h

ouse

hold

Usi

ng u

p le

ftov

ers

inst

ead

of th

row

ing

them

aw

ay

Usi

ng th

e fr

eeze

r to

pre

serv

e fo

od lo

nger

Avai

labi

lity

of s

mal

ler

port

ion

size

s in

sho

ps

Bett

er a

nd c

lear

er in

form

atio

n on

the

mea

ning

of

"bes

t bef

ore"

an

d "u

se b

y" d

ates

indi

cate

d on

foo

d la

bels

Bett

er a

nd c

lear

er in

form

atio

n on

fo

od p

rodu

ct la

bels

(e.g

. inf

orm

atio

n on

foo

d st

orag

e an

d pr

epar

atio

n)

Oth

er (S

PON

TAN

EOU

S)

Don

't kn

owEU28 63 63 56 54 49 46 2 2

Male 62 61 54 50 49 45 2 3Female 63 64 57 57 49 46 2 2

15-24 68 66 61 50 49 47 1 125-39 68 65 54 53 48 45 1 240-54 63 64 54 51 48 44 2 255 + 57 59 56 57 50 48 3 3

15- 57 62 58 54 51 48 3 216-19 61 61 55 55 50 47 2 320+ 65 64 55 53 47 44 2 2Still studying 70 68 60 50 49 45 1 1

What would help you to waste less food at home? (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)(% - EU)

Sex

Age

Education (End of)

13


Report


II. “USE BY” AND “BEST BEFORE” DATES

Most foods are labelled with either a “use by” or a “best before” date. “Use by” labelling indicates the date after which an item of food is no longer safe to eat. “Best before” labelling indicates the date after which an item of food may still be eaten but may not be at its best in terms of quality.

The meaning of these labels is often misunderstood. Respondents were asked firstly to say how often they looked at food labels to identify these dates, and then to indicate what they think the date marking means10.

1 Frequency of looking at “Use by” and “Best before” dates

- A majority of people always look at “use by” and “best before” dates when shopping and preparing meals –

By far the largest proportion of respondents said that they ‘always’ check “use by” and “best before” labelling when shopping for food and preparing meals, with nearly six in ten (58%) giving this response.

Nearly a quarter (23%) said that they ‘often’ look at these labels. Less than one in ten said that they ‘sometimes’ (9%) or ‘rarely’ (6%) look at these labels, and very few said that they ‘never’ (3%) do.

10 Q3. How often, if at all, do you look at "use by" or "best before" dates on food labels when shopping and preparing meals? ONE ANSWER ONLY Always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never, Don’t know/Not applicable. Q4. What do you think "best before" on a food product actually means? I am going to read out some options, please select the one that best applies. ONE ANSWER ONLY It depends on the type of food, The food can be consumed after this date, but it may no longer be at its best quality, The food will be safe to eat up to this date, but should not be eaten past this date, None of these, Don’t know/Not applicable. Q5. What do you think "use by" on a food product actually means? I am going to read out some options, please select the one that best applies. ONE ANSWER ONLY It depends on the type of food, The food can be consumed after this date, but it may no longer be at its best quality, The food will be safe to eat up to this date, but should not be eaten past this date, None of these, Don’t know/Not applicable.

Q3 How often, if at all, do you look at "use by" or "best before" dates on food labels when shoppingand preparing meals?(% - EU)

Always58Often

23

Sometimes9

Rarely6

Never3

Don't know1

14


Report


In all Member States, the largest proportion of respondents consisted of those who said that they always check date marking on food labels. In most cases, an absolute majority of respondents gave this answer: the exceptions were Croatia (49%), Poland (48%), Austria (47%) and Sweden (47%). The proportion of those who always check date labels is particularly high in Greece, where nearly three quarters (71%) of respondents gave this reply.

There were few significant country-level differences among those who sometimes or rarely check dates on food labelling. Among those who never check date marking, the proportion ranged from 1% in Malta to 6% in Croatia.

15


Report


There were very few significant socio-demographic differences in responses to this question.

§ The main difference was observed in the case of age. Younger respondents were significantly less likely to say that they always checked date labelling, with just over four in ten (44%) of those aged between 15 and 24 giving this response, compared with over six in ten (61%) of those aged 55 or more.

§ Just over half (52%) of manual workers said that they always checked dates on food labelling, compared with nearly six in ten (59%) of employees and the self-employed.

Q3

Alw

ays

Oft

en

Som

etim

es

Rare

ly

Nev

er

Don

't kn

ow

EU28 58 23 9 6 3 1

Male 52 25 9 8 5 1Female 62 21 9 5 2 1

15-24 44 29 13 10 4 025-39 58 26 8 5 3 040-54 61 22 8 6 3 055 + 61 19 9 6 4 1

Self-employed 59 20 9 8 4 0Employee 59 25 8 6 2 0Manual workers 52 28 8 7 4 1Not working 58 21 10 6 4 1

How often, if at all, do you look at "use by" or "best before" dates on food labels when shopping and preparing meals? (% - EU)

Sex

Age


16


Report


2 Understanding of “best before” labelling

- Less than half of respondents understand the meaning of “best before” labelling on food products –

When asked about the meaning of “best before” labelling, less than half (47%) of those polled correctly said that this marking indicates that food may be consumed after the given date, but that it may not be at its best in terms of quality.

Nearly a quarter (24%) of respondents gave an answer which corresponds instead to the meaning of “use by” labelling, incorrectly saying that food should not be eaten past the "best before" date. A further quarter (25%) incorrectly said that the meaning of “best before” varies according to the type of food.

There were significant country-level differences in the proportions of respondents who gave the correct answer to this question. In Sweden, over two thirds (68%) of those polled were aware that “best before” labelling indicates the date after which food may deteriorate in quality but is still safe to consume. Levels of awareness were also particularly high in Estonia (65%). On the other hand, less than a fifth (16%) of those polled in Romania gave the correct answer to this question, as did less than a quarter of respondents in Bulgaria (21%), Greece (22%), Lithuania (24%) and Poland (24%).

In Romania, nearly two thirds (64%) of respondents said that food should not be eaten after the “best before” date, compared with less than one in ten of those surveyed in Finland (5%) and Sweden (6%). Austria stands out as a country where a particularly high proportion of respondents (45%) said that the meaning of the "best before" marking depends on the type of food on which it is found.

17


Report


At the aggregate level, there is a clear regional difference, with over half (52%) of respondents in the EU15 giving the correct answer, compared

with only 28% of those surveyed in the NMS13 countries.

18


Report


3 Understanding of “use by” labelling

- Only four in ten respondents correctly understand the meaning of “use by” dates on food products –

There was even more uncertainty about the meaning of “use by” dates in comparison with the understanding of “best before” labelling. Only four in ten (40%) respondents correctly said that food should not be eaten after the "use by" date indicated on food labelling.

Over a quarter (28%) confused “use by” and “best before” dates, saying that food may be consumed after the “use by” date; such misunderstanding could lead consumers to eat foods which are unsafe. A similar proportion (28%) said that the meaning of “use by” labelling depends on the type of food on which it is found.

When compared with the answers given to the previous question, the country-level breakdown suggests significant divergence in the extent to which people understand the differences between “use by” and “best before”.

Over two thirds (69%) of those polled in Romania gave the correct definition of “use by” labelling, as did two thirds (66%) of respondents in Greece. Notably, both of these countries had high proportions of respondents who, when asked about “best before” dates, gave the definition which corresponds to “use by”. A similar pattern was observed in Cyprus (61%), Poland (57%) and Bulgaria (54%). This suggests that there are some countries in which consumers are much more familiar with the concept of “use by” than with the concept of “best before”, to the extent that a majority apply that definition in both cases.

In the same way, there are some countries in which consumers are clearly more familiar with the concept of “best before” than with the concept of “use by”. Sweden stands out in this regard: less than a fifth (17%) gave the correct definition of “use by”, while over half (55%) incorrectly opted for the “best before” definition, a similar proportion having employed that definition correctly in response to the previous question.

In most other cases, familiarity varied in a non-systematic way. In the majority of countries, a majority of respondents gave the correct answer to only one of the questions. The exceptions were Ireland, where over half of those polled gave the correct definition of “use by” labels (53%) and “best before” labels (56%), and Italy, where the corresponding proportions were 52% and 56%.

19


Report


Again, Austria stands out for a high proportion of respondents who thought that the definition

of “use by” depends on the type of food, with half (50%) of those polled giving this answer.

For the socio-demographic breakdown, the analysis concentrates on the proportions of respondents who gave the correct answer to the two questions.

§ Awareness of the correct meaning of “best before” labelling was highest among those aged between 25 and 39, with over half (53%) of those polled giving the correct answer. This proportion declined with successive age groups, and only a third (41%) of the oldest – those aged 55 or over – gave the correct answer. Awareness was also lower among the youngest cohort, with less than half (45%) of those aged between 15 and 24 giving the correct answer. A similar pattern was observed in the case of “use by” labels, although the differences were not as substantial. A little less than half (46%) of those aged between 25 and 39 gave the correct definition of this label, compared with less than four in ten (39%) of those aged between 15 and 24, and just over a third (35%) of those aged 55 or more.

§ There were significant differences between those who finished education at 15 or less, and those who finished education at the age of 20 or more. Over half (53%) of respondents who finished education at the age of 20 or more gave the correct definition of the “best before” label and over four in ten (43%) gave the correct definition of the “use by” label. In both cases, only just over a third (36%) of respondents who finished education at the age of 15 or before gave the correct answer.

§ Among occupational groups, employees were significantly more likely to give the right definition of “best before” labels, with nearly six in ten (56%) answering correctly, compared with just over four in ten (41%) of manual workers and four in ten (40%) of those not working. However, there were no significant differences between occupational cohorts in the case of “use by” labelling.

20


Report


Q4

The

food

can

be

cons

umed

af

ter t

his

date

, but

it m

ay

no lo

nger

be

at it

s be

st q

ualit

y

It de

pend

s on

th

e ty

pe o

f fo

od

The

food

will

be

safe

to e

at

up to

this

dat

e, b

ut s

houl

d no

t be

eate

n pa

st th

is d

ate

Non

e of

thes

e (S

PON

TAN

EOU

S)

Don

't kn

ow

EU28 47 25 24 3 1

Male 48 25 22 4 1Female 46 26 25 2 1

15-24 45 26 25 3 125-39 53 22 23 2 040-54 51 24 22 3 055 + 41 29 25 3 2

15- 36 31 27 4 216-19 44 28 24 3 120+ 53 22 21 3 1Still studying 47 25 25 3 0

Self-employed 50 25 21 3 1Employee 56 22 19 2 1Manual workers 41 27 27 4 1Not working 40 28 27 3 2

What do you think "best before" on a food product actually means? I am going to read outsome options, please select the one that best applies. (% - EU)

Sex

Education (End of)


Age

Q5

It de

pend

s on

th

e ty

pe o

f fo

od

The

food

can

be

cons

umed

af

ter t

his

date

, but

it m

ay

no lo

nger

be

at it

s be

st q

ualit

y

The

food

will

be

safe

to e

at

up to

this

dat

e, b

ut s

houl

d no

t be

eate

n pa

st th

is d

ate

Non

e of

thes

e (S

PON

TAN

EOU

S)

Don

't kn

ow

EU28 28 28 40 3 1

Male 27 30 39 3 1Female 29 27 41 2 1

15-24 28 29 39 3 125-39 26 26 46 2 040-54 27 29 40 3 155 + 30 29 35 3 3

15- 31 26 36 4 316-19 30 28 38 3 120+ 25 29 43 2 1Still studying 30 27 40 3 0

Self-employed 27 28 42 2 1Employee 27 30 40 2 1Manual workers 27 27 42 3 1Not working 29 27 39 3 2

What do you think "use by" on a food product actually means? I am going to read outsome options, please select the one that best applies. (% - EU)

Sex

Education (End of)


Age

21


Report


III. NEED FOR “BEST BEFORE” LABELLING ON NON-PERISHABLE FOODS

- Less than half of respondents think that “best before” labels are needed for certain staple, non-perishable foods –

Respondents were asked how they would react if manufacturers removed “best before” dates on labels for certain non-perishable foods, such as rice, pasta, coffee and tea, which currently have to be labelled with this information11.

Over half (54%) of those polled said that they would not need this information, while over four in ten (44%) said that they would miss having this information.

Opinion was very divided on this question at the country level. In Cyprus (77%) and Greece (76%), over three quarters of respondents indicated that they would prefer “best before” dates to remain on selected non-perishable items, and in Italy (69%) and Malta (70%) over two thirds gave this answer. However, in 12 of the 28 Member States, only a minority regarded this information as necessary, with as little as a quarter (25%) giving this response in France, Austria, Netherlands and Germany.

There was a clear divide at the regional level, with nearly six in ten (58%) of those polled in NMS13 Member States saying that they would miss the information, compared with only four in ten (40%) of respondents in EU15 countries. In all but one (Latvia) of the NMS13 Member States, a majority of those polled regarded “best before” labels as necessary.

11 Q6. Currently, manufacturers are not required to indicate dates on food labels for certain non- perishable foods, such as salt, sugar and vinegar. These foods can be consumed safely and their quality does not deteriorate over a long period of time. In future, if you no longer found “best before” dates on other non-perishable foods, such as rice, pasta, coffee or tea, how would you respond? ONE ANSWER ONLY You would miss this information, You would not need this information, Don’t know/Not applicable.

22


Report


There were few significant socio-demographic differences.

§ Respondents with lower levels of education were more likely to say that they would miss information about “best before” dates if it were removed from non-perishable items. Half (50%) of those who finished their education at or before the age of 15 gave this response, compared with only just over four in ten (42%) of those who finished their education at the age of 20 or above.

§ Respondents who live in large towns (47%) or small-to-medium-sized towns (45%) were more likely than those who live in villages (40%) to regard “best before” labels on non-perishable items as necessary.

23


Report


IV. PRODUCT USAGE IN ABSENCE OF “BEST BEFORE” LABELLING

- Over two thirds of people would use non-perishable goods in the absence of “best before” labelling –

The survey then asked respondents about their propensity to use non-perishable goods in the absence of “best before” labelling. Respondents were asked to imagine that they had found a package of spaghetti in their kitchen with no “best before” date, and that they could not remember when they had bought it. They were then asked whether they would use the spaghetti12.

Over two thirds (70%) said that they would use the package regardless of the lack of information. Just over a third (36%) said that they would use it only if there was no obvious damage to the product, while a similar proportion (34%) said that they would use it in any circumstance. However, just under a quarter (24%) of those polled said that they would throw the package away if they could not determine when it was bought or whether it was still in good condition.

There were substantial country-level differences on this question. In eight of the 28 Member States, at least eight in ten (80%) of respondents said they would use the package. All but one of these countries are from the EU15, the exception being Estonia (84%). In almost all countries at least a majority of respondents said they would use it, but in Bulgaria (48%) and Greece (44%) less than half would, and in Romania only just over a third (36%) said that they would use it.

In Estonia (63%) and Luxembourg (51%) a majority of respondents said that they would use the package if it was not damaged. However, in the United Kingdom (24%) less than a quarter responded in this way, and the proportions of respondents who gave this answer were also relatively low in France (25%), Romania (25%), Poland (26%) and Sweden (26%). There is also significant variation among those who said that they would use the package regardless of its condition. In France (59%) and Sweden (55%) over half of those polled gave this answer, compared with less than one in ten of respondents in Malta (7%), Bulgaria (8%) and Cyprus (9%).

In almost all countries, only a minority said that they would throw the package of spaghetti away if they could not be sure of its “best before” date. The exceptions were Greece, where half (50%) of those polled said that they would throw it away, and Romania, where a clear majority (56%) of respondents gave this answer. Proportions were also relatively high in Cyprus (44%) and Bulgaria (47%). These countries were among those with the highest proportions of respondents who said that they would miss “best before” information if it were not displayed on non-perishable goods like spaghetti. However, it should also be noted that these are the same four countries in which a majority of respondents confused the meaning of “best before” on food labelling with that of “use by”. This suggests that the unwillingness of respondents in these countries to eat unlabelled food could be influenced at least in part by a lack of understanding as to what the two types of dates actually mean. At the other end of the scale, less than one in ten (8%) of those polled in Germany said they would throw the package away.

12 Q7. If you found a package of spaghetti in your kitchen cupboard with no "best before" date indicated on the label and you could not remember when you bought it, what would you do? ONE ANSWER ONLY – SPONTANEOUS You would use it anyway, You would use it only if the packaging is not damaged and the product looks all right, You would throw it away, You never look at dates, Don’t know/Not applicable.

24


Report


Q7

You

wou

ld u

se it

onl

y if

the

pack

agin

g is

not

dam

aged

an

d th

e pr

oduc

t loo

ks a

ll rig

ht

You

wou

ld u

se it

any

way

You

wou

ld th

row

it a

way

You

neve

r lo

ok a

t dat

es

Don'

t kno

w

Tota

l 'Yo

u w

ould

use

it'

EU28 36 34 24 1 5 70

AT 37 48 11 1 3 85DE 43 41 8 3 5 84EE 63 21 12 2 2 84FR 25 59 12 1 3 84LU 51 32 12 4 1 83NL 44 37 15 3 1 81SE 26 55 15 1 3 81FI 43 37 18 0 2 80SI 47 31 17 1 4 78BE 37 39 20 1 3 76SK 50 26 20 2 2 76DK 40 35 18 3 4 75CZ 36 38 20 1 5 74LV 42 27 25 1 5 69IE 40 28 30 1 1 68UK 24 44 28 1 3 68HR 40 27 29 1 3 67HU 44 23 29 1 3 67ES 48 18 25 1 8 66IT 43 21 30 1 5 64LT 37 24 28 2 9 61PL 26 33 33 1 7 59PT 39 20 34 1 6 59MT 50 7 37 1 5 57CY 44 9 44 1 2 53BG 40 8 47 2 3 48EL 32 12 50 1 5 44RO 25 11 56 1 7 36



If you found a package of spaghetti in your kitchen cupboard with no "best before" dateindicated on the label and you could not remember when you bought it, what would youdo? (OPEN QUESTION - SPONTANEOUS ANSWERS) (%)

25


Report


There are few significant socio-demographic differences on this question.

§ Older respondents were slightly more cautious about using food without “best before” labelling: just over two thirds (67%) of those aged 55 or over said that they would use the package, compared with nearly three quarters (72%) of those aged between 15 and 24 or between 25 and 39.

§ Respondents with higher levels of education were more likely to say that they would use the package. Nearly three quarters (74%) of respondents who finished their education at or above the age of 20 gave this response, compared with only just over six in ten (62%) of those who finished their education at or before the age of 15.

Q7

You

wou

ld u

se it

onl

y if

the

pack

agin

g is

not

dam

aged

an

d th

e pr

oduc

t loo

ks a

ll rig

ht

You

wou

ld u

se it

any

way

You

wou

ld th

row

it a

way

You

neve

r loo

k at

dat

es

Don

't kn

ow

Tota

l 'Y

ou w

ould

use

it'

EU28 36 34 24 1 5 70

Male 35 34 25 1 5 69Female 37 34 24 1 4 71

15-24 40 32 22 1 5 7225-39 37 35 24 1 3 7240-54 36 35 24 1 4 7155 + 33 34 24 2 7 67

15- 34 28 30 1 7 6216-19 35 34 25 2 4 6920+ 37 37 21 1 4 74Still studying 40 33 22 1 4 73

If you found a package of spaghetti in your kitchen cupboard with no "best before" date indicated onthe label and you could not remember when you bought it, what would you do? (OPEN QUESTION -SPONTANEOUS ANSWERS)(% - EU)

Sex

Age

Education (End of)

26


Report


V. USE OF STORAGE GUIDANCE INFORMATION ON FOOD LABELS

- A majority of people continue to use opened food products after the recommended storage period –

For certain foods, food manufacturers choose to provide storage guidance on food labelling, indicating how long a product can be utilised after being opened. Respondents were asked whether they still used products after the end of the indicated usage period13.

Nearly six in ten (59%) of those polled said that they used opened food beyond the recommended storage period, provided that the packaging was undamaged and the food appeared to be in acceptable condition. Just under a third (31%) of respondents said that they threw food away if the storage period after opening had expired. Just under one in ten (7%) said that it depended on the type of food.

In 23 of the 28 Member States, a majority of respondents said that they would continue to use opened food products beyond the recommended storage date if they looked all right. Austria (82%) stands out for the particularly high proportion of respondents who gave this answer.

However, in Malta (52%), Bulgaria (57%), Cyprus (58%) Greece (60%) and Romania (65%) a majority said that they would throw the food away regardless of how it looked. These five countries also had the highest proportion of respondents who said they would throw away unmarked non-perishable goods if they could not ascertain their “best before” date.

13 Q8. Some food labels indicate that, once opened, a product must be used within a certain number of days. If you find that you have not used up the product within the time indicated on the label, what do you usually do? ONE ANSWER ONLY You use it if the packaging is not damaged and the food looks all right, You throw it away, You never look at dates, It depends on the type of food, Don’t know/Not applicable.

27


Report


Q8

You

use

it if

the

pack

agin

g is

not

dam

aged

and

the

food

look

s al

l rig

ht

You

thro

w it

aw

ay

You

neve

r lo

ok a

t dat

es

(SPO

NTA

NEO

US)

It de

pend

s on

the

type

of

foo

d (S

PON

TAN

EOUS

)

Don'

t kno

w

EU28 59 31 0 7 3

BE 54 36 0 8 2BG 35 57 0 6 2CZ 62 27 0 8 3DK 58 29 0 11 2DE 77 15 0 5 3EE 60 22 1 14 3IE 50 43 0 7 0EL 33 60 0 6 1ES 60 31 0 7 2FR 63 26 0 10 1HR 58 32 1 8 1IT 55 32 0 11 2CY 34 58 0 7 1LV 60 30 0 7 3LT 48 38 0 7 7LU 63 25 1 11 0HU 56 31 1 10 2MT 33 52 0 13 2NL 60 29 0 9 2AT 82 11 0 6 1PL 53 37 0 5 5PT 50 42 0 5 3RO 25 65 0 6 4SI 70 20 1 8 1SK 49 41 0 7 3FI 68 25 0 6 1SE 79 16 0 5 0UK 58 33 0 7 2

Some food labels indicate that, once opened, a product must be used withina certain number of days. If you find that you have not used up the productwithin the time indicated on the label, what do you usually do? (%)



28


Report


Again, there were very few significant and consistent socio-demographic differences on this question.

§ Those who finished their education at the age of 20 or more (62%) were somewhat more likely to use opened food beyond the recognised storage period than those who finished their education at the age of 15 or less (55%).

§ Occupants of rural villages (62%) were slightly more likely than those living in large towns (57%) to use opened food beyond the recommended date.

Q8

You

use

it if

the

pack

agin

g is

not

dam

aged

and

th

e fo

od lo

oks

all r

ight

You

thro

w it

aw

ay

You

neve

r loo

k at

dat

es

(SPO

NTA

NEO

US)

It de

pend

s on

the

type

of

foo

d (S

PON

TAN

EOU

S)

Don

't kn

ow

EU28 59 31 0 7 3

Male 59 31 0 7 3Female 60 31 0 7 2

15-24 62 30 1 6 125-39 59 32 0 7 240-54 61 30 0 7 255 + 57 31 0 8 4

15- 55 32 1 9 316-19 57 33 0 7 320+ 62 29 0 7 2Still studying 62 31 0 6 1

Rural village 62 29 0 7 2Small/mid size town 59 32 0 7 2Large town 57 33 0 7 3

Some food labels indicate that, once opened, a product must be used within a certainnumber of days. If you find that you have not used up the product within the timeindicated on the label, what do you usually do? (% - EU)

Sex

Education (End of)

Subjective urbanisation

Age

29


Report


SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FINDINGS

The socio-demographic breakdown throughout the survey highlights some interesting variations among the different categories of population. Women were more likely than men to answer that consumers (78% vs. 74%), shops (64% vs. 61%) and the hospitality and food service sector (65% vs. 60%) have a role to play in preventing food waste. Similarly, women were more likely to answer that availability of smaller portion sizes in shops would help waste less food at home (57% vs. 50%) and are more likely to look at “use by” or “best before” dates on food labels when shopping and preparing meals (62% vs. 52%).

When looking at the respondents' age, older respondents were less likely to mention better shopping and planning (57% vs. 63-68%) and using leftovers (59% vs. 64-66%), as a means of wasting less food at home, while younger respondents were by far less likely to state that they always check “use by” and “best before” labels (44% vs. 58-61%).

Respondents who remained longer in education were more likely to believe that individuals have a role to play in preventing food waste (81% vs. 66-75%) and to cite better shopping and meal planning (70% vs. 57-65%) and using up leftovers (68% vs. 61-64%) as means of wasting less food at home. People who remained longer in education tend to answer correctly the questions about the meaning of “best before” (53% vs. 36-44%) and “use by” (43% vs. 36-38%) labelling.

Other questions also showed differences when analysed by the level of education. Respondents with a higher educational level were more likely to state that they would use non-perishable foods if no “best before” date were indicated on the label (37% vs. 28-34%) and to use opened food beyond the recognised storage period if it looked all right (62% vs. 55-57%). They would be less likely to miss “best before” dates on non-perishable foods (42% vs. 45-50%).

Respondents who live in larger towns were more likely to look at “best before” dates (60% vs. 55-58%) and to answer that they would miss this information on non-perishable foods (47% vs. 40-45%). Moreover, respondents living in larger towns would be more eager to throw away non-perishable foods with no “best before” date indicated on the label (27% vs. 21-23%) and opened food (33% vs. 29-32%) beyond the indicated storage guidance date.

There are no significant findings in terms of the occupation of the respondent. However, manual workers (71%) and those not working (73%) are less likely to say that consumers have a role to play in reducing food waste than employees (82%).

30


Report


CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this survey show that Europeans recognise the importance of their own role in reducing food waste. While people also think that businesses and organisations which directly consume food resources and provide food to consumers – such as shops, hotels, restaurants, and to a lesser extent food manufacturers – have an important role to play in reducing waste, they are significantly less likely to think that public authorities are responsible for taking action in this area.

There are encouraging findings with respect to the habits of Europeans when it comes to checking date marking on food labels, with a majority stating that they always check dates when shopping and preparing meals and very few stating that they never do so. However, it is also clear from this report that a large proportion of Europeans do not understand the actual meaning of date marking and how "use by" and "best before" dates should be interpreted and utilised.

It is also evident that there is significant variation between countries in understanding of the meaning of date marking found on food labels. In some countries, such as Greece and Romania, a majority of respondents seem to be familiar only with the “use by” concept, with the result that they apply it indiscriminately to both "use by" and "best before" labelling. The tendency to think that all food labels carry “use by” information appears to have consequences for behaviour, with people in these countries appearing to be more likely to throw away foods which are unlabelled or which have been kept past their recommended storage period after opening.

Two conclusions should be drawn from these findings. Firstly, more needs to be done to raise overall awareness of the meaning of date marking on food products, so that the majority of Europeans who pay attention to these labels do so in a more informed way. Secondly, it is necessary to take a targeted approach to the dissemination of information and education about the meaning of "use by" and "best before" dates taking into account the level of interest, understanding and information needs of different population groups. Helping consumers to take a more informed attitude towards the use of non-perishable foods and opened foods which remain fit for consumption could also help reduce current levels of household food waste. Findings from this research will also be relevant to food business operators who define date marking found on the labelling of food products and who contribute to consumer information in this regard.

TS 1

Food waste and date marking September 2015 Technical

specifications


TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Between the 27TH of August and the 3rd of September 2015, TNS political & social, a consortium created between TNS political & social, TNS UK and TNS opinion, carried out the FLASH EUROBAROMETER 425 survey on request of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. It is a general public survey co-ordinated by the Directorate-General for Communication, “Strategy, Corporate Communication Actions and Eurobarometer” Unit.

The FLASH EUROBAROMETER 425 survey covers the population of the respective nationalities of the European Union Member States, resident in each of the 28 Member States and aged 15 years and over.

All interviews were carried using the TNS e-Call centre (our centralised CATI system). In every country respondents were called both on fixed lines and mobile phones. The basic sample design applied in all states is multi-stage random (probability). In each household, the respondent was drawn at random following the "last birthday rule".

TNS has developed its own RDD sample generation capabilities based on using contact telephone numbers from responders to random probability or random location face-to-face surveys, such as Eurobarometer, as seed numbers. The approach works because the seed number identifies a working block of telephone numbers and reduces the volume of numbers generated that will be ineffective. The seed numbers are stratified by NUTS2 region and urbanisation to approximate a geographically representative sample. From each seed number the required sample of numbers are generated by randomly replacing the last two digits. The sample is then screened against business databases in order to exclude as many of these numbers as possible before going into field. This approach is consistent across all countries.

N°INTERVIEWS

BE Belgium 1.001 31/08/15 02/09/15

BG Bulgaria 1.001 31/08/15 02/09/15

CZ Czech Rep. 1.000 31/08/15 02/09/15

DK Denmark 1.007 31/08/15 02/09/15

DE Germany 1.000 31/08/15 02/09/15

EE Estonia 1.000 31/08/15 02/09/15

IE Ireland 1.000 31/08/15 03/09/15

EL Greece 1.000 31/08/15 02/09/15

ES Spain 1.007 31/08/15 02/09/15

FR France 1.008 27/08/15 02/09/15

HR Croatia 1.000 31/08/15 02/09/15

IT Italy 1.003 31/08/15 02/09/15

CY Rep. Of Cyprus 503 31/08/15 01/09/15

LV Latvia 1.003 31/08/15 02/09/15

LT Lithuania 1.000 31/08/15 02/09/15

LU Luxembourg 502 31/08/15 03/09/15

HU Hungary 1.003 31/08/15 02/09/15

MT Malta 515 31/08/15 01/09/15

NL Netherlands 1.002 31/08/15 02/09/15

AT Austria 1.000 31/08/15 02/09/15

PL Poland 1.000 31/08/15 02/09/15

PT Portugal 1.002 31/08/15 02/09/15

RO Romania 1.016 31/08/15 02/09/15

SI Slovenia 1.005 31/08/15 02/09/15

SK Slovakia 1.017 31/08/15 02/09/15

FI Finland 1.001 31/08/15 02/09/15

SE Sweden 1.000 31/08/15 02/09/15

UK United Kingdom 1.002 28/08/15 02/09/15

TOTAL EU28 26.598 27/08/15 03/09/15

COUNTRIESDATES

FIELDWORK

POPULATION PROPORTION15+ EU28

BE TNS Dimarso 8.939.546 2,17%

BG TNS BBSS 6.537.510 1,58%

CZ TNS Aisa 9.012.443 2,18%

DK TNS Gallup DK 4.561.264 1,11%

DE TNS Infratest 64.336.389 15,59%

EE TNS Emor 945.733 0,23%

IE IMS Millward Brown 3.522.000 0,85%

EL TNS ICAP 8.693.566 2,11%

ES TNS Demoscopia 39.127.930 9,48%

FR TNS Sofres 47.756.439 11,57%

HR HENDAL 3.749.400 0,91%

IT TNS Italia 51.862.391 12,57%

CY CYMAR 705.360 0,17%

LV TNS Latvia 1.447.866 0,35%

LT TNS LT 2.829.740 0,69%

LU TNS Dimarso 434.878 0,11%

HU TNS Hoffmann 8.320.614 2,02%

MT MISCO 335.476 0,08%

NL TNS NIPO 13.371.980 3,24%

AT TNS Austria 7.009.827 1,70%

PL TNS OBOP 32.413.735 7,86%

PT TNS Euroteste 8.080.915 1,96%

RO TNS CSOP 18.246.731 4,42%

SI RM PLUS 1.759.701 0,43%

SK TNS AISA Slovakia 4.549.956 1,10%

FI TNS Gallup Oy 4.440.004 1,08%

SE TNS Sifo 7.791.240 1,89%

UK TNS UK 51.848.010 12,57%

412.630.644 100%*

INSTITUTES

* It should be noted that the total percentage shown in this table

TS 2

Food waste and date marking September 2015 Technical

specifications


Readers are reminded that survey results are estimations, the accuracy of which, everything being equal, rests upon the sample size and upon the observed percentage.

With samples of about 1,000 interviews, the real percentages vary within the following confidence limits:

various sample sizes are in rows various observed results are in columns

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50%

N=50 6,0 8,3 9,9 11,1 12,0 12,7 13,2 13,6 13,8 13,9 N=50

N=500 1,9 2,6 3,1 3,5 3,8 4,0 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,4 N=500

N=1000 1,4 1,9 2,2 2,5 2,7 2,8 3,0 3,0 3,1 3,1 N=1000

N=1500 1,1 1,5 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,5 2,5 N=1500

N=2000 1,0 1,3 1,6 1,8 1,9 2,0 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,2 N=2000

N=3000 0,8 1,1 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,8 1,8 N=3000

N=4000 0,7 0,9 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5 N=4000

N=5000 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,4 1,4 1,4 N=5000

N=6000 0,6 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 N=6000

N=7000 0,5 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,2 1,2 N=7000

N=7500 0,5 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 N=7500

N=8000 0,5 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,1 1,1 1,1 N=8000

N=9000 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 N=9000

N=10000 0,4 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,0 N=10000

N=11000 0,4 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 N=11000

N=12000 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 N=12000

N=13000 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 N=13000

N=14000 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 N=14000

N=15000 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 N=15000

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50%

Statistical Margins due to the sampling process

(at the 95% level of confidence)

Q 1


Questionnaire


QUESTIONNAIRE

Q1 In Europe, about 100 million tonnes of food are wasted annually. Which of the following actors do you think have a role to play in preventing food waste?

(READ OUT – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE) Farmers 1, Food manufacturers 2, Shops and retailers 3, Hospitality and food service sectors (hotels, restaurants, hospitals, etc.) 4, Public authorities 5, Consumers, people like you 6, DK/NA 7

NEW

Q2 What would help you to waste less food at home? (M) (READ OUT – ROTATE – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE) Better and clearer information on the meaning of "best before" and "use by" dates

indicated on food labels (M) 1,

Better and clearer information on food product labels (e.g. information on food storage and preparation) (M)

2,

Better shopping and meal planning by your household (M) 3, Availability of smaller portion sizes in shops 4, Using up leftovers instead of throwing them away (M) 5, Using the freezer to preserve food longer (M) 6, Other (SPONTANEOUS) 7, DK/NA 8

FL388 Q10 MODIFIED TREND

Q3 How often, if at all, do you look at "use by" or "best before" dates on food labels when shopping and preparing meals?

(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY) Always 1 Often 2 Sometimes 3 Rarely 4 Never 5 DK/NA 6

NEW

Q 2


Questionnaire


SPLIT BALLOT: Q4 and Q5 are inverted in half of the sample Q4 What do you think "best before" on a food product actually means?

I am going to read out some options, please select the one that best applies. (READ OUT – ROTATE – ONE ANSWER ONLY) It depends on the type of food 1 The food can be consumed after this date, but it may no longer be at its best quality 2 The food will be safe to eat up to this date, but should not be eaten past this date 3 None of these (SPONTANEOUS) 4 DK/NA 5

NEW

Q5 What do you think "use by" on a food product actually means? I am going to read out some options, please select the one that best applies.

(READ OUT – ROTATE – ONE ANSWER ONLY) It depends on the type of food 1 The food can be consumed after this date, but it may no longer be at its best quality 2 The food will be safe to eat up to this date, but should not be eaten past this date 3 None of these (SPONTANEOUS) 4 DK/NA 5

NEW

Q6 Currently, manufacturers are not required to indicate dates on food labels for certain non-perishable foods, such as salt, sugar and vinegar. These foods can be consumed safely and their quality does not deteriorate over a long period of time. In future, if you no longer found “best before” dates on other non-perishable foods, such as rice, pasta, coffee or tea, how would you respond?

(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY) You would miss this information 1 You do not need this information 2 DK/NA 3

NEW

Q7 If you found a package of spaghetti in your kitchen cupboard with no "best before" date indicated on the label and you could not remember when you bought it, what would you do?

(OPEN ENDED QUESTION - ONE ANSWER ONLY) You would use it anyway 1 You would use it only if the packaging is not damaged and the product looks all right 2 You would throw it away 3 You never look at dates 4 DK/NA 5

NEW

Q8 Some food labels indicate that, once opened, a product must be used within a certain number of days. If you find that you have not used up the product within the time indicated on the label, what do you usually do?

(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY) You use it if the packaging is not damaged and the food looks all right 1 You throw it away 2 You never look at dates (SPONTANEOUS) 3 It depends on the type of food (SPONTANEOUS) 4 DK/NA 5

NEW

T 1


Tables of results


TABLES OF RESULTS

T 2


Tables of results


T 3


Tables of results


T 4


Tables of results


T 5


Tables of results


T 6


Tables of results


T 7


Tables of results


T 8


Tables of results


Project title Flash Eurobarometer 425 - September 2015

“Food waste and date marking” Report

Linguistic version EN Catalogue number EW-01-15-600-EN-N ISBN 978-92-79-50578-2 DOI 10.2875/256740 © European Union, 2015

http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion

september 2015 - refresh: community of experts · 2018-11-12 · flash eurobarometer 425 food waste...

Documents