Consumer Understanding of the Date of Minimum Durability of Food in Association with Quality Evaluation of Food Products After Expiration
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey Study
2.1.1. Sample Collection
2.1.2. Survey
2.2. Quality of Food Products
2.2.1. Food Products Characteristic
2.2.2. Microbiological Quality Assessment
2.2.3. Physico–Chemical Analysis
2.2.4. Sensory Analysis
2.3. Statistical Analysis
2.3.1. Statistical Analysis of Quantitative Research
- Mann–Whitney U test for variation of the results according to gender
- Kruskal–Wallis test for variation of the results depending on age, education, subjective assessment of financial situation and place of residence.
2.3.2. Statistical Analysis of Food Quality Data
3. Results
3.1. Survey Results
3.2. Results of Food Quality Testing
3.2.1. Microbiological Quality Assessment
3.2.2. Physico–Chemical Analysis
3.2.3. Sensory Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Codex Alimentarius Commission Report of the Forty-Second Session of the Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization. 2014. Available online: http://www.jhnfa.org/k152.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2019).
- Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011. Off. J. Eur. Union (L 304/18). 22 November 2011. Article 2(r). Available online: http://www. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32011R1169 (accessed on 11 October 2019).
- Act of 25 August 2006 on Food Safety and Nutrition. Official Gazette 2006. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20061711225/U/D20061225Lj.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2019).
- Evans, E.W.; Redmond, E.C. Behavioral risk factors associated with listeriosis in the home: Review of consumer food safety studies. J. Food Protect. 2014, 77, 510–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neff, R.A.; Spiker, M.; Rice, C.; Schklair, A.; Greenberg, S.; Leib, E.B. Misunderstood food date labels and reported food discards: A survey of U.S. consumer attitudes and behaviors. Waste Manag. 2019, 86, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Newsome, R.; Balestrini, C.G.; Baum, M.D.; Corby, J.; Fisher, W.; Goodburn, K.; Yiannas, F. Applications and perceptions of date labeling of food. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2014, 13, 745–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wansink, B.; Wright, A.O. “Best if used by…” How freshness dating influences food acceptance. J. Food Sci. 2006, 71, 354–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, N.L.W.; Rickard, J.B.; Saputo, R.; Ho, S.-T. Food Waste: The Role of Date Labels, Package Size and Product Category. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 55, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- WRAP. Consumer Insight: Date Labels and Storage Guidance. Waste and Resource Action Programme. 2011. Available online: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Technical_report_dates.pdf. (accessed on 10 October 2019).
- Miles, S.; Frewer, L.J. Investigating Specific Concerns about Different Food Hazards. Food Qual. Prefer. 2001, 12, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theotokis, A.; Pramatari, K.; Tsiros, M. Effects of Expiration Date-Based Pricing on Brand Image Perceptions. J. Retail. 2012, 88, 72–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsiros, M.; Heilman, C.M. The Effect of Expiration Dates and Perceived Risk on Purchasing Behavior in Grocery Store Perishable Categories. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 114–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of The European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union (L139/1). 30 April 2004. Available online: http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32004R0852 (accessed on 10 October 2019).
- PN-EN ISO 4833:2004 Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs—Horizontal method for the enumeration of microorganisms—Colony-count technique at 30° C. Available online: http://www.http://docplayer.net/42894871-Culture-media-according-to.html (accessed on 10 October 2019).
- ISO. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal methods for the detection and enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae. Part 2: Colony-count method. PN-ISO 21528-2:2005; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland.
- PN-ISO 21527:2008 Microbiology of food and feed. Horizontal method to determine yeast and mould counts. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/38275.html (accessed on 4 January 2020).
- PN-EN ISO 6579:2003 Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs—Horizontal method for the detection of Salmonella sp. Available online: http://www.pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3fce/f744647e128b6c015c810d1d505a7882e56f.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2020).
- PN-EN ISO 11290−1:2017-07 “Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs—Horizontal method for the detection and enumeration of Listeria monocytogenes and others Listeria spp.—Part 1: Detection method. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/60313.html (accessed on 4 January 2020).
- ISO 21807:2004 Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs—Determination of water activity. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/34728.html (accessed on 4 January 2020).
- Papadakis, S.E.; Abdul-Malek, S.; Kamdem, R.E.; Yam, K.L. A versatile and inexpensive technique for measuring color of foods. Food Technol. 2000, 54, 48–51. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 13299:2016 Sensory analysis—Methodology—General guidance for establishing a sensory profile. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/58042.html (accessed on 4 January 2020).
- Food Waste and Date Marking. Flash Eurobarometer 425. 2015. Available online: http://www.refreshcoe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Flash-Eurobarometer-425.pdf. (accessed on 10 October 2019).
- Grunert, K.; Hieke, S.; Wills, J. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 2014, 44, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Angowski, M.; Kijek, T.; Skrzypek, A. Wpływ jakościowych determinant produktów mleczarskich na wybór dyskontów jako miejsc ich zakupu przez młodych nabywców. ŻYWNOŚĆ Nauka Technol. Jakość 2019, 26, 152–161. [Google Scholar]
- Kosa, K.M.; Cates, S.C.; Shawn, K.; Godwin, S.L.; Chambers, D. Consumer knowledge and use of open dates: Results of a web-based survey. J. Food Protect. 2007, 70, 1213–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FMI. U.S. grocery shopper trends 2011; Analytics LLC: Arlington, VA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hall-Phillips, A.; Purvi Shah, P. Unclarity confusion and expiration date labels in the United States: A consumer perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 35, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koivupuro, H.K.; Hartikainen, H.; Silvennoinen, K.; Katajajuuri, J.M.; Heikintalo, N.; Reinikainen, A.; Jalkanen, L. Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres-Giner, S.K.J.; Figueroa-Lopez, B.; Melendez-Rodriguez, L.; Hilliou, A.A.; Vicente, J.M.; Lagaron, J.M. Functionalization of agro-food waste fillers to develop antimicrobial green composites of interest in active food packaging. In Proceedings of the POLYMAR 2018-2nd Conference for Early Stage Researchers in Polymer Science Through the Aegean Sea. In Proceedings of the POLYMAR 2018-2nd Conference for Early Stage Researchers in Polymer Science Through the Aegean Sea, Athens, Greece, 8–12 October 2018; pp. 97–98. [Google Scholar]
- Makdoud, S.; Rosentrater, K.A. Development and Testing of Gluten-Free Pasta Based on Rice, Quinoa and Amaranth Flours. J. Food Res. 2017, 6, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pałacha, Z.; Makarewicz, M. Aktywność wody wybranych grup produktów spożywczych. Post. Techn. Przetw. Spoż. 2011, 2, 24–29. [Google Scholar]
- Kołożyn-Krajewska, D. (Ed.) Higiena Produkcji Żywności; SGGW Editorial Office: Warsaw, Poland, 2019; ISBN 978-83-7244-893-4. [Google Scholar]
- Ghazaei, S.; Mizani, M.; Piravi-Vanak, Z.; Alimi, M. Particle size and cholesterol content of a mayonnaise formulated by OSA-modified potato starch. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 35, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- PN-A-869650:1995 Majonez.
- Hussain, I.; Shakir, I. Chemical and organoleptic characteristics of jam prepared from indigenous varieties of apricot and apples. World J. Diary Food Sci. 2010, 5, 73–78. [Google Scholar]
- Rahman, M.S. Hurdle technology in food preservation. In Minimally Processed Foods; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 17–33. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, S.; Shalini, R. Effect of hurdle technology in food preservation: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 2016, 56, 641–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chambers, E. Analysis of sensory properties in foods. A special issue. Foods 2019, 8, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ferreira, B.M. Packaging texture influences product taste and consumer satisfaction. J. Sens. Stud. 2019, 34, e12532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, C.; Umezuruike, L.O. Texture measurement approaches in fresh and processed foods—A review. Food Res. Int. 2013, 51, 823–835. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, N.; Bhirud, P.; Sosulski, F.; Tyler, R. Pasta—Like product from pea flour by twin—Screw extrusion. J. Food Sci. 1999, 4, 471–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosa, C.S.; Prestes, R.C.; Tessele, K.; Crauss, M. Influence of the different addition levels of amaranth flour and rice flour on pasta buckwheat flour. Int. Food Res. J. 2015, 22, 691–698. [Google Scholar]
- Goff, H.D.; Hill, A.R. Chemistry and physics. In Dairy Science and Technology Handbook; Hui, Y.H., Ed.; VCH Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1993; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Daszkiewicz, T.; Rymkiewicz, M. Zmiany zawartości 5-hydroksymetylofurfuralu (HMF) i barwy mleka uht w trakcie jego przechowywania. Bromat. Chem. Toksykol. 2017, 2, 156–162. [Google Scholar]
- Lennersten, M.; Lingnert, H. Influence of wavelength and packaging material on lipid oxidation and colour changes in low-fat mayonnaise. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2000, 33, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendelová, A.; Mendel, Ľ.; Fikselová, M.; Czako, P. Evaluation of anthocynin changes in blueberries and in blueberry jam after the processing and storage. Potravin. Slovak J. Food Sci. 2013, 7, 130–135. [Google Scholar]
- Ścibisz, I.; Mitek, M. Effect of processing and storage conditions on phenolic compounds Nd antioxidant capacity of highbush blueberry jams. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2009, 59, 45–52. [Google Scholar]
- Oancea, S.; Calin, F. Changes in Total Phenolics and Anthocyanins during Blackberry, Raspberry and Cherry Jam Processing and Storage. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2016, 21, 11232–11237. [Google Scholar]
- Wrolstad, R.E.; Durst, R.W.; Lee, J. Tracking color and pigment changes in anthocyanin products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2005, 16, 423–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gender | Women Men | 51.1 48.9 |
---|---|---|
Age | 18–24 years old 25–34 years old 35–44 years old 45–59 years old over 60 years old | 8.3 19.0 18.0 27.4 27.4 |
Place of Origin | Village City with up to 50,000 residents Cities with 50,001 to 100,000 residents Cities with 100,001 to 200,000 residents Cities over 200,001 up to 500,000 residents Cities over 500,001 residents | 38.2 24.8 7.4 9.1 9.0 11.6 |
Educational Level | Primary school Basic vocational Secondary school Higher | 8.4 31.9 42.0 17.7 |
Subjective Assessment of One’s Financial Situation | Very good Rather good Average Rather bad Very bad No answer | 3.6 37.9 53.5 3.5 0.6 0.8 |
Food Product | Name of Product: Ingredients | Details (Name of Producer; Gross Weight; Type of Packaging Material) | Declared Certifications |
---|---|---|---|
Milk | UHT milk, fat content 3.2% | SM Mlekovita, Poland; 500 ml; stored below 25°C, FSC-certified carton from SIG Combibloc | FSSCS 22000, ISO9001, ISO14001 |
Pasta | Pasta, gluten-free: corn flour, water | Pol-FOODS, Poland; 500g; stored in dry, cool place, plastic bag, 05 PP | - |
Mayonnaise | Mayonnaise: refined rapeseed oil, mustard, water, chicken egg yolk | Społem, Poland; 310 ml; glass jar, packed in a protective atmosphere, stored at 2 °C –20°C in a dark place | Q certificate, “JakośćTradycja” Certificate |
Jam | Blueberry jam: blueberries (35%), water, sugar, pectin, guar gum, citric acid, sodium citrate | Agros Nova, Poland; 280 g; glass jar, pasteurized | - |
Demographic Variable | Chi-Squared Test | Category | Yes, Regardless of the Type of Food | Yes But Only Durable Products, e.g. Barley/Groats or Pasta | Yes But Only Short-Lived Products, e.g. Yoghurt | No, I Never Consume Products After the Expiry Date | I don’t Know because I don’t Check the Dates | It’s Hard to Say |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TOTAL | - | - | 7.0 | 19.5 | 8.5 | 48.9 | 11.2 | 4.9 |
Gender | 0.000 | Woman | 7.0 | 21.2 | 8.8 | 52.9 | 7.1 | 3.0 |
Man | 6.9 | 17.7 | 8.2 | 44.8 | 15.4 | 6.9 | ||
Age | Ns | |||||||
Education | 0.002 | primary school | 9.1 | 19.5 | 10.6 | 35.1 | 22.7 | 3.1 |
basic vocational school | 7.8 | 21.7 | 7.7 | 45.5 | 13.1 | 4.3 | ||
secondary school | 6.4 | 17.8 | 9.3 | 51.2 | 8.3 | 7.0 | ||
university/college | 5.9 | 19.6 | 7.0 | 55.8 | 9.5 | 2.2 | ||
Place of Residence | 0.000 | countryside | 8.3 | 21.1 | 7.5 | 44.3 | 13.2 | 5.5 |
city with up to 50,000 residents | 9.5 | 13.9 | 12.6 | 48.0 | 13.2 | 2.7 | ||
city with 50,001–100,000 residents | 3.8 | 37.2 | 6.6 | 42.3 | 8.0 | 2.3 | ||
city with 100,001–200,000 residents | 6.4 | 11.1 | 13.5 | 56.4 | 5.0 | 7.7 | ||
city with 200,001–500,000 residents | 5.3 | 26.5 | 0.7 | 50.4 | 11.2 | 6.0 | ||
city with over 500,001 residents | 0.8 | 14.3 | 6.4 | 64.9 | 6.6 | 6.9 | ||
Assessment of one’s Financial Situation | 0.000 | very good | 9.6 | 4.7 | 14.3 | 55.2 | 6.5 | 9.7 |
rather good | 4.2 | 17.5 | 7.4 | 53.9 | 12.1 | 4.9 | ||
average | 7.9 | 22.3 | 9.5 | 46.1 | 9.4 | 4.8 | ||
rather poor | 14.6 | 14.5 | 2.2 | 31.5 | 32.8 | 4.4 | ||
Poor | 39.6 | 11.2 | 0.0 | 49.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
No. | Answers | % of Answers | p-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Age | Education | Place of Residence | Assessment of Financial Situation | |||
The significance of the information found on the label of the purchased product(n = 945) | Expiration Date* | 92.1 | ns | ns | 0.007 | 0.025 | ns |
country or place of origin* | 64.3 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
name of the company or entity that released the product to the market* | 60.9 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
nutritional and caloric value* | 62.0 | ns | 0.018 | 0.001 | 0.001 | ns | |
list of ingredients* | 70.6 | ns | 0.017 | 0.000 | 0.027 | 0.036 | |
Price* | 92.4 | ns | ns | 0.155 | 0.000 | 0.003 | |
storage conditions* | 80.8 | ns | ns | 0.436 | 0.000 | ns | |
The information on the packaging labelled as “use by” and “best before” mean the same thing (n = 1115) | yes | 42.8 | ns | ns | ns | 0.008 | ns |
no | 36.0 | ||||||
It’s hard to say | 21.2 | ||||||
Products on which the term “best before” is placed, in the respondents’ opinion (n=1115) | barley/groats | 40.0 | 0.007 | ns | ns | 0.009 | ns |
eggs | 25.0 | ns | ns | ns | 0.000 | ns | |
canned corn | 31.8 | ns | ns | ns | 0.000 | ns | |
yoghurt, buttermilk, etc. | 41.7 | ns | ns | ns | 0.000 | ns | |
flour | 35.1 | ns | ns | ns | 0.000 | ns | |
sandwich meats | 32.8 | 0.020 | ns | ns | 0.002 | ns | |
I don’t know | 26.8 | ns | ns | ns | 0.000 | ns | |
The term “best before” means: (n = 1,115) | the date after which the product becomes unsafe for the consumer (may cause poisoning, for example) | 39.8 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
the date after which the product loses quality (e.g. inferior colour) | 37.4 | 0.005 | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
the date after which the product cannot be sold | 34.5 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
the date after which the product can be consumed | 9.8 | ns | ns | ns | 0.004 | ns | |
It’s hard to say | 10.7 |
Product | Time [Months] | Enterobacteriaceae [log CFU/g] | TVC [log CFU/g] | TYMC [log CFU/g] | Salmonella spp. | Listeria Monocytogenes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Milk | 0 | 2.03 ± 0.36 | 2.48 ± 0.35 | <1.00 | ND | ND |
1 | 1.15 ± 1.00 | 1.53 ± 0.40 | <1.00 | - | - | |
3 | <1.00 | <1.00 | <1.00 | - | - | |
6 | <1.00 | <1.00 | <1.00 | ND | ND | |
Pasta | 0 | 1.77 ± 1.55 | 1.13 ± 0.98 | 1.02 ± 0.28 | ND | ND |
1 | 1.51 ± 1.34 | 2.36 ± 0.37 | <1.00 | - | - | |
3 | <1.00 | 2.29 ± 0.03 | <1.00 | - | - | |
6 | <1.00 | <1.00 | <1.00 | ND | ND | |
Mayonnaise | 0 | <1.00 | 1.74 ± 0.04 | <1.00 | ND | ND |
1 | <1.00 | 1.72 ± 0.36 | <1.00 | - | - | |
3 | <1.00 | <1.00 | <1.00 | - | - | |
6 | <1.00 | 1.93 ± 0.76 | <1.00 | ND | ND | |
Jam | 0 | 1.30 ± 0.52 | 1.52 ± 0.24 | <1.00 | ND | ND |
1 | 2.71 ± 0.30 | 1.70 ± 0.00 | 1.32 ± 0.15 | - | - | |
3 | 2.32 ± 0.28 | 2.74 ± 0.45 | <1.00 | - | - | |
6 | <1.00 | <1.00 | <1.00 | ND | ND |
Product | Time [Months] | Water Activity | pH Value |
---|---|---|---|
Milk | 0 | 0.99 ± 0.01 | 6.59 ± 0.09 |
1 | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 6.59 ± 0.08 | |
3 | 1.00 ± 0.01 | 6.61 ± 0.09 | |
6 | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 6.56 ± 0.08 | |
Pasta | 0 | 0.48 ± 0.02 | - |
1 | 0.49 ± 0.02 | - | |
3 | 0.53 ± 0.00 | - | |
6 | 0.51 ± 0.01 | - | |
Mayonnaise | 0 | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 3.80 ± 0.04 |
1 | 1.00 ± 0.01 | 3.82 ± 0.05 | |
3 | 0.96 ± 0.01 | 3.82 ± 0.05 | |
6 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 3.7 ± 0.10 | |
Jam | 0 | 1.00 ± 0.04 | 3.64 ± 0.06 |
1 | 0.96 ± 0.01 | 3.66 ± 0.04 | |
3 | 0.97 ± 0.00 | 3.67 ± 0.05 | |
6 | 0.93 ± 0.01 | 3.65 ± 0.04 |
Time | Yield Stress of Mayonnaise [N/m2] | Viscosity [N] of Jam | Hardness [N] of Pasta |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 113.80 ± 7.98 | 0.23 ± 0.05 | 0.48 ± 0.11 |
1 | 106.77 ± 8.07 | 0.23 ± 0.05 | 0.32 ± 0.02 * |
3 | 108.87 ± 6.22 | 0.24 ± 0.03 | 0.32 ± 0.02 * |
6 | 106.27 ± 2.93 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 0.32 ± 0.02 * |
Time | Milk | Pasta | Mayonnaise | Jam | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
L | 0 | 94.50 ± 0.64 | 76.17 ± 1.46 | 90.96 ± 0.92 | 18.72 ± 0.36 |
1 | 89.25 ± 0.69 * | 76.40 ± 1.55 | 85.68 ± 0.38 * | 18.70 ± 0.37 | |
3 | 89.50 ± 0.30 * | 75.72 ± 1.38 | 84.15 ± 0.39 * | 18.75 ± 0.35 | |
6 | 89.14 ± 0.71 * | 76.19 ± 1.30 | 84.90 ± 0.94 * | 18.98 ± 0.14 | |
a * | 0 | −5.07 ± 0.05 | −2.83 ± 0.77 | −1.55 ± 0.39 | 10.71 ± 0.75 |
1 | −3.18 ± 0.04 * | −3.38 ± 1.01 | −1.20 ± 0.19 | 10.68 ± 0.75 | |
3 | −3.20 ± 0.04 * | −1.97 ± 1.24 * | −1.19 ± 0.19 | 10.53 ± 0.85 | |
6 | −3.22 ± 0.07 * | −2.99 ± 0.97 * | −1.20 ± 0.15 | 10.05 ± 0.51 | |
b * | 0 | 5.62 ± 0.86 | 50.87 ± 1.76 | 18.87 ± 0.58 | 11.23 ± 0.26 |
1 | 5.93 ± 0.95 | 52.02 ± 2.29 | 19.48 ± 0.43 | 11.24 ± 0.28 | |
3 | 6.24 ± 0.41 | 47.27 ± 4.14 * | 19.48 ± 0.30 | 11.19 ± 0.25 | |
6 | 6.22 ± 0.68 | 50.84 ±3.27 * | 19.31 ± 0.36 | 10.97 ± 0.32 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zielińska, D.; Bilska, B.; Marciniak-Łukasiak, K.; Łepecka, A.; Trząskowska, M.; Neffe-Skocińska, K.; Tomaszewska, M.; Szydłowska, A.; Kołożyn-Krajewska, D. Consumer Understanding of the Date of Minimum Durability of Food in Association with Quality Evaluation of Food Products After Expiration. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051632
Zielińska D, Bilska B, Marciniak-Łukasiak K, Łepecka A, Trząskowska M, Neffe-Skocińska K, Tomaszewska M, Szydłowska A, Kołożyn-Krajewska D. Consumer Understanding of the Date of Minimum Durability of Food in Association with Quality Evaluation of Food Products After Expiration. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(5):1632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051632
Chicago/Turabian StyleZielińska, Dorota, Beata Bilska, Katarzyna Marciniak-Łukasiak, Anna Łepecka, Monika Trząskowska, Katarzyna Neffe-Skocińska, Marzena Tomaszewska, Aleksandra Szydłowska, and Danuta Kołożyn-Krajewska. 2020. "Consumer Understanding of the Date of Minimum Durability of Food in Association with Quality Evaluation of Food Products After Expiration" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 5: 1632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051632