Opinion
As the canny marketers at The Warehouse know, everyone loves a bargain.
Some people can't avoid looking at a sales rack, while at the supermarket little fluorescent stickers with the words "quick sale" or "reduced" are like magnets for the price conscious.
In the fresh food environment, the meaning
behind these enticements is clear - the product is nearing its use-by date.
That thought puts some purchasers off, but most consider, say, a discount on a pricey cut of meat as a shopping victory. So imagine the chagrin purchasers would feel if they were paying full whack for something well past its best-by date.
As the results of a surprising Herald on Sunday survey found last weekend, this scenario happens more often than people might imagine.
Our reporter went to 16 supermarkets, dairies and service stations in Auckland over a week. She found all but four were selling items past their best.
Some were just past their best-by dates, but, worryingly, others were past their use-by date, putting food safety in severe doubt. In the worst case we found, garlic butter was on sale at a dairy 73 days after its best-by date.
Dairy products were the big problem area, but it extended to eggs, prime meat cuts, pastas and dips.
When hit up about our findings, store owners were apologetic. Supermarket chains said shelves were checked daily by staff and suppliers while the little players said stock rotation was paramount.
They pledged more vigilance - and we'll be sure to monitor that for readers. But as the survey showed, even with best intentions consumers can be let down.
Those with a rudimentary knowledge of economic theory will know of the Latin term caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. That's the big lesson here. Buyers should be rigid in their checking of use-by dates on consumables.
Buying fresh food with a "reduced" sticker is a calculated risk. It is the only risk you need to take in a supermarket.
