Somewhere in Britain, a packet of crisps is currently sitting at the back of a kitchen cabinet, a few days past its expiration date, and someone is most likely eating them without even thinking about it. That is not an assessment. That’s the current situation.
According to an Attest survey, 64% of British consumers have consumed crisps and snacks after their expiration date, with biscuits, candies, and cereal following closely behind. Over half said they would consume bread that was past its expiration date. These individuals are not acting carelessly. When everything is more expensive than it was a year ago, these individuals are attempting to stretch the weekly shop a bit further.
This change has caused some concern for the Food Standards Agency. According to their own research, about one in three people had consumed food that was past its expiration date at least once in a single month—not due to negligence, but rather because they were unable to replace it. Separately, 2022 saw the highest rate of food insecurity since tracking started, with nearly one in five households in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland falling into this category. The context of these figures is the ongoing squeeze on living expenses.
This is where things become more complicated than the headlines would imply. The labels themselves have different meanings, and not all expired food poses the same risk. Regardless of how a product looks or smells, a use-by date serves as a safety indicator by indicating the point at which it may actually cause illness. Quality—flavor, texture, and freshness—rather than safety is the focus of a best-before date. There are serious repercussions from the frequent confusion between the two.
Crisps past their best-before date? It’s probably fine, but a little stale. A different calculation applies to a packet of chicken that has passed its use-by date. Meat, fish, soft cheeses, and ready-to-eat foods with use-by dates should never be consumed after that date, according to the FSA. Salmonella and Listeria are examples of bacteria that don’t always cause spoiling or an odor. Food can have a pathogen load high enough to cause serious illness even though it looks and smells completely normal.
According to the Attest survey, 21% of participants said they would consume raw meat that had gone bad, and 23% said they would eat cooked meat that had gone bad. These are the figures that food safety experts are most concerned about. Many members of that group might be making better decisions than the statistic suggests; perhaps the meat is only a day old, properly stored, and cooked through at high heat. However, it’s also possible that they’re using the same reasoning that doesn’t apply to a bag of pasta.
This is a useful middle ground that is seldom given enough consideration. The safe life of most perishables is greatly increased by freezing food before its use-by date, which is completely compliant with FSA guidelines. Keeping the refrigerator below 5°C prolongs the shelf life of products by slowing bacterial growth. Planning meals around what’s about to expire rather than what sounds appealing on a given night isn’t glamorous advice, but Love Food Hate Waste estimates it could save the average family with children around £730 a year. That’s not an insignificant figure.
The harder truth is that the current situation reflects something beyond individual decision-making. When households are skipping meals, buying less fruit and vegetables, and turning off fridges to reduce energy bills — as some FSA survey respondents reported doing — food safety guidance starts to feel like a luxury problem. The watchdog can issue warnings, and it should. But for many, the risk people are taking with expired food is the least bad option available.
Eating a stale biscuit a week past its best-before date is not the same as eating raw fish that’s been sitting in a fridge three days too long. The distinction matters, even when everything else feels uncertain.
