> It's bad if you're a search engine. It's not as bad if you're a human who is capable of parsing natural language semantics.
I am a human capable of parsing natural language semantics, and "use by" is terrible. It's one of those completely unexplained commands you often find in instructions. Why should I use it by that date? If you're not a mindless drone who just unquestioningly follows instructions, the total lack of reason creates a lot of space to decide to do something else. For instance: without consulting California food labeling legislation (which, I admit, Californians all carry around the statute book those regulations several times a day), it's reasonable to interpret "use by" as "best if used by," for instance.
They should use clearer language because they can and have no excuse not to.
I suppose that "use this before" and "this is best if used before" would be preferable.
The compromise here is to keep printing as short as possible. I think the greater issue is that these statements don't point to any trivially available authoritative definition.
"expires on", "not safe after", or "unsafe by" are not meaningfully longer. These aren't telegrams, they're not paying a penny a character. If they're willing to mandate the phrase "best if used by," they can mandate something clear than "use by" for safety issues.
I am a human capable of parsing natural language semantics, and "use by" is terrible. It's one of those completely unexplained commands you often find in instructions. Why should I use it by that date? If you're not a mindless drone who just unquestioningly follows instructions, the total lack of reason creates a lot of space to decide to do something else. For instance: without consulting California food labeling legislation (which, I admit, Californians all carry around the statute book those regulations several times a day), it's reasonable to interpret "use by" as "best if used by," for instance.
They should use clearer language because they can and have no excuse not to.