Watchdog has 'sell-by' issues

This is the National Consumer Commission's stated mission: "To promote compliance with the Consumer Protection Act through advocacy and enforcement ."

And its vision: "To be the leading institution in consumer protection that is professional, responsive and effective."

The commission produces a newsletter every quarter, which it sends to "stakeholders". Having read it, I e-mailed the spokesman Trevor Hattingh with questions pertaining to several issues dealt with in the newsletter.

Here's an edited version of that e-mail:

1. EXPIRY DATES

The newsletter states: "The commission was shocked to discover the business practices of a big retailer with three stores in Western Cape. They specialise in selling 'expired' food. They claim, because a consumer product has reached its 'sell-by' date or has expired, does not mean it's not palatable, unsafe or that its quality is compromised.

"In terms of the labelling regulations, the sell-by date on food products mean that the item should not be on the shelf post that date. The expiry date means that the period for the use of a product has passed and the safety and quality of the product cannot be guaranteed. The commission will engage with relevant stakeholders and other regulators to determine the best route to stem out such practices."

My response: Crucially, the writer fails to make a differentiation between goods with a "best-before" date and those with a "use-by" date - the two date marks which the health department's food labelling regulations specify. Sell-by is a date imposed by some retailers, allowing the consumer to store the product at home for a few days after that date, before consumption, meaning that the food is still safe to consume.

Best-before dates are generally used on products with a long shelf life, usually not requiring refrigeration, while use-by and sell-by dates are put on perishables such as meat and dairy.

Best-before dates are about quality - products after these dates are not dangerous to consumers' health, they may just not taste quite as fresh.

It's foods with use-by dates which should not be consumed or sold, and may legally not be sold after that date, for health reasons.

Foods with best-before dates may be sold after that date. Ideally they should be discounted so the consumer does not pay full price for goods past their prime.

Food wastage is a huge issue internationally, with a third of all food manufactured being wasted, much of it as a result of consumers throwing it out after the best-before date, when it is still perfectly safe to consume.

It is absolutely crucial that consumers learn to tell the difference between best-before and use-by or sell-by dates. The commission is spreading an incorrect message in this regard.

2. DATA EXPIRY

The newsletter states: "The commission is of the view that data should remain valid for three years. The Consumer Protection Act stipulates that pre-paid vouchers . do not expire until the date on which full value has been redeemed in exchange for goods or services or future access to services or three years after the date on which it was issued ."

"The engagement continues with the service providers in this area towards a National Protection Act compliant industry."

My response: This is an issue that infuriates and, more to the point, prejudices millions of consumers on an ongoing basis. For five years now, the commission has been of the view that the networks' practice of denying consumers the use of pre-paid data within a few months is a contravention of the Consumer Protection Act. But still "engagement" is continuing.

How long is it going to take for consumers to benefit from this section of the law on data expiry? The injustice is absolutely enormous. Why no action in five years? Why hasn't it gone to the Tribunal for a ruling?

3. THE GUARANTEED CALL LIMIT

The newsletter states: "One of the cellphone companies confirmed - similar to the position that the commission holds - that it is possible to guarantee a call limit or 'soft lock'. The rest are adamant that there is no technology to guarantee this.

"The commission is in discussion with the Icasa on this issue, to find the best possible recourse for consumers."

My response: Again, this issue has raged on for years, and cost many consumers - who trusted they had a limit in place - a huge amount of money in sky-high bills. Why is there still no resolution on this? Why are you not naming the network that has said that the guaranteed lock is technologically possible?

This is the response I got from the commission's Hattingh:

"Thank you for your sharp observations and clarity-seeking questions. The commission would be operating outside of the publishing norm if it were to respond to your individual queries in a manner and for the purpose that you request these responses.

"Your questions will thus be addressed through our upcoming edition. By doing so, all stakeholders will benefit equally from our reply."

When I protested that that was not an appropriate response to a media query, Hattingh said: "I have responded and you simply refused to accept my response to your queries."

Enforcement? Effective? Responsive? You decide.

CONTACT WENDY:

E-mail: consumer@knowler.co.za

Twitter: @wendyknowler