Label-Centric Review of Food Labeling Interventions for Reducing Food Waste: A Motivation–Opportunity–Ability Framework-Based Perspective

Abstract

Food waste presents a major challenge to global sustainability. Up to 60% of this waste occurs at the household level, at which point labeling confusion causes avoidable loss. The present study employed the motivation–opportunity–ability framework to conduct a narrative synthesis of 82 studies and pieces of gray literature, incorporating policies and industry practices to elucidate how food labeling modulates food waste behavior through interactions with consumer motivation, external opportunities, and individual abilities. Food labeling should be considered a systemic intervention tool spanning the entire food supply chain rather than mere carriers of information. The present findings indicate that although standardizing quality and safety label terminology mitigates cognitive confusion, it may have limited efficacy to reduce food waste. Extending shelf life and providing explicit storage guidance are critical strategies that are often undervalued and comparatively underexplored. Labels most effectively reduce waste when they simultaneously activate motivation, opportunity, and ability. When all three elements cannot be activated concurrently, stakeholders should prioritize improving external opportunities or enhancing individual abilities rather than stimulating motivation. Food labeling interventions can only be effective at waste mitigation if systemic and transdisciplinary synergy is achieved among all stakeholders in food supply chains.

1. Introduction

1.1. Global Challenge of Food Waste

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, which relates to food waste, requires the following: “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.” Food loss and waste generate 8% to 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions and costs more than USD 1 trillion annually [1,2]. This problem is prevalent worldwide, although most food loss and waste occur in developing and developed countries, respectively [3]. How food is lost and wasted is illustrated in Figure 1. Food loss specifically refers to a decrease in the quantity or quality of food resulting from the decisions and actions of food suppliers in the production and distribution segments of the food supply chain. Conversely, food waste refers to food and its associated inedible parts removed from the human food supply chain at the retail, food service, and consumer levels [4,5]. According to United Nations statistics, the total mass of global food waste was 931 million tons in 2019 and 1.05 billion tons in 2022, with households consistently contributing approximately 60% of these masses [4,5,6]. At the consumer level, numerous factors lead to food waste, including but not limited to excessive purchasing, overpreparation, improper storage, food discarding because of label misinterpretation, and limited reuse of leftovers [7,8,9]. Champions 12.3 reported that for every GBP 1 invested in efforts to curb avoidable household food waste, households and local authorities saved GBP 250 [10]. Although consumer-level food waste remains disproportionately high, its etiology is multifaceted and rooted in interconnected nodes across the food supply chain. Upstream strategic decisions often propagate downstream, modulating waste volumes at the retail and household levels. Consequently, the conventional attribution of responsibility to households should be reevaluated in this systemic context.

1.2. Critical Role of Food Labeling

Research conducted by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) revealed that 41% of edible household food waste results from food not being used before it expires [11]. The WRAP highlighted that the key strategies that retailers can adopt to assist customers in reducing their food waste are to help people buy exactly what they need, keep what they have bought at its best, and use what they buy. More specifically, the type of date label, period-after-opening statements, storage instructions, practical tips, and other informational cues can all help consumers maximize their utilization of purchased food, and implementing related changes may reduce household food waste by approximately 350,000 tons annually [12]. More than 20% of household food waste is due to food being thrown away once the date on its label has been passed [13]. ReFED, a US-based food waste nonprofit, estimated that standardizing date labels and educating consumers would lead to a net financial benefit of USD 1.82 billion and would be inexpensive to implement [14]. Chu et al. [15] identified tensions in current date and storage labeling systems. Patra et al. [16] pioneered the use of scientometric analysis to map research into date labels and food waste. Patra et al. [17] further synthesized articles published between 2020 and 2022 and proposed an integrated conceptual approach to mitigate date label confusion. Furthermore, a systematic scoping review conducted by Llagas et al. [18] revealed that consumers generally perceive date labels as confusing and difficult to interpret and that inconsistent storage guidance further exacerbates misunderstandings and ultimately drives household food waste. Although these studies provide valuable insights, the mechanisms through which food labeling modulates waste behaviors require deeper elucidation to inform the development of more robust interventions.

1.3. Contributions of This Study

In accordance with the definitions established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, this study defined a label as any tag, brand, mark, pictorial, or other descriptive matter that is written, printed, stenciled, marked, embossed or impressed on, or attached to a container of food. Labeling includes any written, printed, or graphic matter that is present on the label, accompanies the food, or is displayed near the food, including that for the purpose of promoting its sale or disposal. Traditionally, food labeling has primarily delineated physical attributes. However, rapid advancements in food science and technology have enhanced the industry’s ability to alter product characteristics, and this stronger ability, coupled with the increasing complexity and globalization of supply chains, has weakened consumers’ ability to intuitively assess a product’s status. Because of this shift, consumers now strongly rely on granular labeling information to mitigate information asymmetry. Food labeling is not a mere visual manifestation of food science and technology; it serves as a key heuristic for consumers’ food management, with policy acting as an intermediary interface to ensure stakeholder consensus. This study adopts a broad conceptualization of labeling that includes not only date labels and storage guidance but also pricing, iconographic symbols, point-of-sale promotions, and other elements of product–consumer communication. This scope provides a more holistic framework compared with other previous reviews. Food labeling includes mandatory and voluntary components; the general requirements are discussed in book sections written by Hutt and Gonzalez [19] and Roche [20]. The present analysis focused specifically on labeling attributes that affect food waste mitigation as supported by direct empirical evidence. Champions 12.3 emphasized the complexity of food waste, noting that no single solution can sustainably reduce it and that awareness-raising actions alone rarely yield lasting behavioral change [10]. Geffen et al. [21] and Soma et al. [22] introduced the motivation–opportunity–ability (MOA) framework, which was created for the field of consumer marketing, into the food waste domain. Vittuari et al. [9] utilized a modified MOA framework to systematically investigate the drivers and levers of household food waste; however, they treated labeling as merely one of several variables within the opportunity domain and did not explore it in depth. The present study addresses the gaps in other reviews by providing a more granular and exhaustive analysis of labeling components and their multifaceted effects. To the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the few to rigorously apply the MOA framework to food labeling, conceptualizing it as a complex, systemic intervention in supply chains. We reexamined how labeling design, technology, and policy modulate the consumer journey—from retail acquisition to domestic food management—by elucidating the interplay between motivation stimulation, opportunity creation, and ability enhancement. These synergistic interactions among labeling characteristics were analyzed to determine their ultimate governance of food waste outcomes.

2. Research Methods

Because of the high interdisciplinarity and methodological heterogeneity inherent in research into food labeling and waste, this review transcended academic boundaries by incorporating regulatory frameworks and industrial practices. We used purposive sampling and a narrative synthesis approach to consolidate heterogeneous multisource evidence (from academic articles and gray literature) into a cohesive framework. The literature search was conducted using an iterative approach. Academic publications were primarily retrieved from the Web of Science database and supplemented by Google Scholar. The initial search was performed on 6 May 2023, and the final update was completed on 12 November 2025. The search followed the Boolean search string: (“food waste” AND (“label” OR “labeling” OR “date label” OR “shelf life”) AND (“consumer” OR “consumers” OR “behavior”)). Searches were limited to English-language, full-text publications. Continuous citation tracking (snowballing) was subsequently employed to identify relevant studies. In addition, gray literature—including regulatory frameworks, policy reports, and industrial practices—was identified through targeted web searches for documents from authoritative organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme, ReFED, the WRAP, Champions 12.3, and relevant government departments. Inclusion criteria were: (1) studies reporting direct empirical and data-supported evidence linking food labeling to food waste outcomes; (2) peer-reviewed articles or authoritative gray literature. Exclusion criteria were: (1) studies focusing solely on consumer preferences without food waste factors; (2) studies addressing food waste but omitting labeling factors. We meticulously screened all retrieved publications by reviewing their title, abstract, and content. The study selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 2). Ultimately, we identified 82 peer-reviewed studies and pieces of gray literature highly relevant to the scope of this review and analyzed them through the MOA framework. The operationalization of the MOA framework followed a thematic synthesis approach. Variables from the included literature were coded into the three dimensions based on their primary functional role in food waste behavior. Constructs related to attitudes, intentions, or value perceptions were categorized as Motivation, while label design, technological interventions, and policy measures settings were assigned to Opportunity. Variables reflecting consumer comprehension, knowledge, or skills were coded under Ability. This coding enabled consistent comparison across heterogeneous sources and facilitated the synthesis of convergences and divergences among studies. A detailed summary of all included studies, covering their context, methods, and key findings, is provided in

Table A1. Summary of analyzed studies including research contexts, methods, key findings, and MOA dimension.

Author	No.	Research Context	Methodology	Key Findings	MOA Dimension
Daelman et al., 2013	[82]	874 valid questionnaires from Belgium	Consumer survey	Only 53.3% fully respect “use by” dates. Those ignoring dates are also less likely to follow reheating instructions.	Ability
Van Boxstael et al., 2014	[85]	907 residents from Belgium	Online survey	About 80% were familiar with labels but less than 50% considered the differences when judging edibility.	Ability
Samotyja, 2015	[84]	110 participants from Poland	Sensory panel evaluation and consumer testing	Shelf-life labels significantly affect perception of crispness and oxidized flavor.	Ability
Liang, 2016	[37]	507 valid questionnaires from Taiwan	Survey-based a linear structural equation model	Trust in labels and attitudes positively impact purchase intention. Price moderates these relationships, with higher prices requiring more consumer confidence.	Motivation
Ceuppens et al., 2016	[80]	1477 pre-packed refrigerated products from Belgium	Inventory snapshot and challenge test	Label inconsistency within categories causes consumer confusion and waste. Challenge tests showed some products with quality labels posed safety risks, highlighting need for stricter labeling standards.	Ability
Wilson et al., 2017	[31]	200 subjects from United States	Between-subject, laboratory experiment	Willingness to waste is greatest for “Use by” labels due to safety hints. “Sell by” has lowest willingness to waste but causes highest consumer confusion.	Motivation/Ability
Hooge et al., 2017	[38]	4214 consumers from five Northern European countries	Online choice experiment	Willingness to buy suboptimal products is lower in supermarkets than at home. Preferences vary by sub-optimality type.	Motivation/Opportunity
Maza et al., 2018	[52]	170 consumers from Spain	Choice experiment	Consumers value vacuum packaging, but primarily when coupled with protected geographical indication certification. New labels were not valued more than traditional ones.	Opportunity
Roe et al., 2018	[59]	88 regular milk drinkers from Ohio, United States	Sensory assessment, hypothetical choice experiments, and survey	Presence of a date label increased discard intention by 28%. Without labels, consumers rely on sensory assessment.	Opportunity/Ability
Schanes et al., 2018	[8]	Systematic literature review; 60 academic articles	Systematic literature review	Food waste as a complex and multi-faceted issue driven by socio-demographic, psycho-social factors, and behaviors.	Motivation/Ability
EU, 2018	[100]	2296 products from Germany, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden	Desk research, market survey, and stakeholder consultations	10% of EU food waste is linked to date marking; 96% of products comply with FIC Regulation but 11% have poor legibility; significant variation exists between member states in usage of “use by” and “best before” for same products.	Opportunity
Alongi et al., 2019	[47]	700 subjects from Italy	Laboratory analysis and survival analysis	Expiry date presence significantly increases rejection and wasting risk regardless of temperature.	Opportunity/Ability
WRAP, 2019	[68]	Synthesizes WRAP’s empirical research and consumer insights with expert input and food law to establish best practice guidance for retail and manufacture	Not applicable	Apply “Use By” only for safety and “Best Before” for quality; remove dates for uncut produce and strengthen advice for fridge storage below 5 °C.	Opportunity
Neff et al., 2019	[79]	1029 respondents from United States	Online survey	84% of consumers discard food near label dates. Misunderstanding meanings is associated with more discards.	Ability
Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2019	[39]	Synthesizes various studies	Not applicable	Consumers accept suboptimal food significantly more at home than in-store. Price reduction is the most common retail strategy, but aesthetic standards and logistics remain key barriers.	Motivation/Opportunity
Yuan et al., 2019	[26]	21 participants from Texas, United States	Focus groups	Consumers identify as Influencers or Learners. Key themes include food safety, price sensitivity, and the need for targeted education.	Motivation/Ability
Kavanaugh et al., 2020	[78]	1042 respondents from United States	Online survey	Majority use labels but lack understanding; correct knowledge correlates with reduced food waste behaviors.	Ability
Kim et al., 2020	[96]	Multi-stage studies from Australia	Co-design, online survey, and fridge audit	Consumers prefer leftover-reuse targeting and tech-based strategies. Fruit and vegetables are most wasted.	Ability
Zielinska et al., 2020	[75]	1115 participants survey and 4 food types laboratory tests from Poland	Survey and laboratory tests	Many struggle with date terms. Laboratory tests confirmed products remain safe 6 months after “best before” date.	Ability
Dordevic et al., 2020	[90]	1107 respondents from Czech Republic	Questionnaires, in-person and online	Changing “best before” to “Date of highest quality” was highly accepted, but there was no evidence to suggest that the label reduced food waste.	Ability
Patra et al., 2020	[16]	Scientometrics analysis of records to evaluate global trends, interdisciplinarity, and outreach efforts	Scientometrics analysis	Research has gained momentum recently and is highly interdisciplinary, but lacks integrated multi-stakeholder perspectives.	Motivation/Opportunity/Ability
van Geffen et al., 2020	[21]	147 participants from Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Spain	Focus groups	Household food waste results from balancing competing goals.	Motivation/Opportunity/Ability
Dusoruth et al., 2020	[86]	333 subjects from Minnesota, United States	Interactive survey and conjoint task	Likelihood to discard increases as appearance deteriorates for both Planners and Extemporaneous Consumers. Skills in identifying edibility reduce waste.	Motivation/Ability
EFSA BIOHAZ Panel et al., 2020	[66]	Scientific opinion and guidance development from European Union	Not applicable	Developed a risk-based decision tree to assist FBOs in deciding between “best before” or “use by” dates. Decisions should be product-specific, considering hazards, characteristics, and storage.	Opportunity
Toma et al., 2020	[72]	Analyzed Flash Eurobarometer 425 data using structural equation models across regional models for Western, Eastern, and Mediterranean Europe	Structural equation models	Understanding of date labels and frequency of checking date labels are key behavioral determinants. The stated understanding is a key influence in models and explains a consistent fifth of the variance in behavior.	Opportunity/Ability
Bilska et al., 2020	[77]	1115 respondents from Poland	Computer-assisted personal interviews and multidimensional cluster analysis	Identified three segments. Misunderstanding dates and improper storage drive waste. Targeted education is recommended.	Ability
Chu et al., 2020	[15]	27 papers and 24 reports reviewed, 10 consumer workshops, and 10 industry practitioner interviews from Sweden, Australia, and global literature	Systematic literature review, consumer workshops, and industry practitioner interviews	Identified 12 tensions consumers face, such as confusion over terminology. Proposed 16 actions including improved on-pack presentation, knowledge communication, and technological innovations like smart labels.	Motivation/Opportunity/Ability
Paterson et al., 2020	[91]	100 participants from Iowa, United States	Experimental auctions, sensory evaluation, and survey	Consumers failed to distinguish fresh milk from near-end milk blindly, but paid premiums for fresh dates when visible. Education did not increase value and unexpectedly lowered overall bids.	Ability
Liegeard et al., 2020	[61]	A review article evaluating the evolution of date labeling laws, shelf-life determination, and developments in intelligent packaging and IoT appliances	Review	Intelligent applications improve inventory management but face hurdles like high cost, privacy risks, and consumer trust.	Opportunity
Gil-Pérez et al., 2020	[49]	A review on how imagery features influence consumer behavior	Review	Packaging imagery elicits sensory associations and influences consumption intent.	Opportunity
Soma et al., 2021	[22]	44 participants from Toronto, Canada	Focus groups and Qualitative approach	Awareness interventions improved motivation and ability but were less effective in providing opportunities. Promotions and urban sprawl remain barriers.	Motivation/Opportunity/Ability
Weis et al., 2021	[62]	579 participants from United States and 583 participants from United Kingdom	Split-plot experimental design and online survey	Safety-based labels like “Use By” lead to more waste than quality-based labels. Freshness Indicators significantly decrease discard rates.	Opportunity
EFSA BIOHAZ Panel et al., 2021	[67]	Scientific opinion and guidance development from European Union	Not applicable	Developed a decision tree to help FBOs determine secondary shelf-life after opening. Provided technical guidance on thawing and preventing cross-contamination.	Opportunity
Samotyja et al., 2021	[83]	180 participants from Poland	Consumer sensory study and questionnaire	Date type significantly influences rejection. Consumer behavior is irrational by rejecting safe expired food or accepting risky ones.	Ability
Turvey et al., 2021	[76]	2607 respondents from United States	Online survey with random message variations	Education significantly improved label understanding, but no specific messaging frame or narrative strategy was significantly more effective than others.	Ability
Jürkenbeck et al., 2021	[50]	924 respondents from Germany	Discrete Choice Experiments	Sensory quality signals are important; sensory descriptions are preferred over variety names.	Opportunity
Yu et al., 2021	[71]	Constructs a theoretical model of rational food waste and examine New York City’s new policy	Difference-in-difference and structural model	The results provide empirical verification on the influence of sell-by dates on consumption behavior.	Opportunity
Langley et al., 2021	[45]	87 participants from Australia	Journey Mapping and In-depth Interviews	Packaging designs that offer clear storage information and resealability help reduce household food waste.	Opportunity
Brennan et al., 2021	[46]	Systematised literature review of 345 papers and reports	Systematic review	Consumers see packaging as a negative but ignore its waste-reduction potential. Acceptance of smart packaging is low due to poor knowledge. Design should use life cycle assessment and consider household demographics to reduce waste.	Opportunity/Ability
Samotyja, 2021	[43]	1145 respondents from Poland	Face-to-face interviews with questionnaire	94% check dates but 40% have trouble finding them. Youths struggle with interpretation, while elderly struggle with small font.	Opportunity/Ability
Carolan, 2021	[34]	102 residents from Colorado, United States	Triangulation of surveys, records/reports, and focus groups	Waste is driven by human-material assemblages, identity performance as a “good parent,” storage capacity, and car-dependent mobility.	Motivation
Chan, 2022	[93]	A review of 43 publications	Review	Packaging acts as both a driver and solution; date-labels and overly large pack sizes are key drivers.	Ability
Champions 12.3, 2022	[10]	Champions 12.3 has collated this guide to help key actors in the food system to focus on how they can help consumers reduce food waste through behaviors change	Not applicable	The causes of food waste at household level are complex; lasting change requires multi-stakeholder collaboration and a mix of interventions targeting motivation, ability, and opportunity.	Motivation/Opportunity/Ability
Shamim et al., 2022	[74]	389 participants from India	Online questionnaire	High label usage but low understanding. “Best Before” is often misunderstood as safety indicator.	Ability
Block et al., 2022	[7]	Literature review and conceptual organization	Review	Consumer (mis)perception of food safety and (mis)estimation of food for consumption as the dominant mechanisms underlying food waste	Motivation/Ability
Tang et al., 2022	[40]	336 participants from China	Two separate survey	Retailer’s voluntary AED labeling increases patronage intention by making consumers perceive higher concern for their well-being.	Motivation
WRAP, 2022	[70]	Combined laboratory shelf-life testing of five produce items, online consumer surveys on disposal decisions, and household behavioral modeling	Not applicable	Selling loose and removing date labels of five produce items could prevent of food waste; storing produce in fridges below 5 °C significantly extends shelf life.	Opportunity/Ability
WRAP, 2022	[12]	Surveyed high-waste products across 11 major retailers in United Kingdom	Store visits and product artwork review	Improved freezing advice on meat but confusing statements still present.	Opportunity/Ability
Nicosia et al., 2022	[94]	2 brands UHT milk, multiple domestic environments from Italy	Domestic use simulation and laboratory analysis	Actual secondary shelf life is 6–7 days, nearly double current labels. Reassessing labels can reduce domestic waste.	Ability
Chang et al., 2022	[30]	569 valid questionnaires from Taiwan	2 × 2 × 2 factorial between-subject experiment	Perishability and discount levels significantly affect perceived value. Familiarity with expiration date-based pricing enhances purchase intention.	Motivation
Santi et al., 2022	[44]	Over 35 experts from Italy	Literature review and expert workshops	Developed the Food Packaging Sustainability Framework as an operational tool for packaging design, assessment, and supply chain coordination.	Opportunity
Patra et al., 2022	[81]	A needs assessment survey of 123 stakeholders in United States	Stakeholder needs assessment survey	75% of respondents are confused by labels and link them to safety. Standardized labels and tech-based education are recommended.	Ability
Gong et al., 2022	[25]	660 individuals from United States	Mixed-design experiment	Date labels affect consumption via quality and safety concerns. Sensory information and storage guidance significantly increase consumption intentions.	Motivation/Ability
Nicosia et al., 2023	[95]	10 households’ domestic use simulation from Italy	Domestic use simulation and laboratory analysis	Secondary shelf life can be 13 days, 2–3 times longer than the label. Extending this information on labels can reduce waste.	Ability
WRAP, 2023	[11]	A pilot to add the DAY on the DATE label (DoDL) label	A pilot	Participants were positive about the inclusion of DoDL, but there was no evidence to suggest that DoDL reduced food waste.	Ability
Wang et al., 2023	[35]	510 participants from China	Three online experimental studies	“Natural” labels increase purchase intention for unattractive produce by activating beliefs that natural food is tastier and healthier.	Motivation
WRAP, 2023	[73]	2024 respondents from United Kingdom	Adapted Implicit Test and online survey	Consumers treat “Use By” and “Best Before” dates labels similarly. Trusting sensory judgement can reduce waste.	Ability
Endara et al., 2023	[41]	498 respondents from United States	Choice-based conjoint study via online survey	Consumers pay premiums for longer shelf life but dislike smart labels. Messaging increases willingness to pay for ecolabels.	Motivation/Opportunity/Ability
Su et al., 2023	[29]	Two studies and total of 480 valid responses from Taiwan	Between-subjects design	Interaction between shape and organic labeling affects intention.	Motivation
Vasko et al., 2023	[88]	514 valid questionnaires from Montenegro	Online survey and cluster analysis	Consumers are responsible with low waste levels and maintain traditional home cooking habits, but confuse date labels.	Ability
Vittuari et al., 2023	[9]	Drivers and levers of consumer food waste are identified, categorized, analyzed, and discussed in line with the revised MOA framework	Review	Identified 13 behavioral drivers and connected levers, highlighting consumer segmentation as vital for impactful interventions.	Motivation/Opportunity/Ability
Sielicka-Rozynska et al., 2023	[60]	110 participants from Poland	Consumer sensory study	Date labels, not sensory quality, determine perceived food value. Expired labels lead consumers to unreasonably believe sensory attributes are altered, causing waste.	Ability
WRAP, 2023	[69]	WRAP’s empirical research on five key items	Empirical research	Selling loose and removing date labels could prevent over 100,000 tonnes of household food waste annually; fridge storage below 5 °C was proven to treble product shelf life.	Opportunity
Karanth et al., 2023	[63]	A comprehensive review article identifying and synthesizing research on microbial spoilage mechanisms, QMSRA, smart packaging, IoT, and date labeling	Literature review and risk assessment framework analysis	QMSRA and smart labels provide scientific, dynamic shelf-life predictions, helping resolve consumer misunderstanding of date labels and reduce waste.	Opportunity
Liu et al., 2023	[42]	334 respondents from Australia	Survey, principal component analysis, and econometric modeling	Affluent, waste-conscious consumers with children who eat out frequently still waste food. Economic cost concerns are key factors in waste reduction.	Motivation/Opportunity/Ability
Badiger et al., 2023	[58]	68 participants from Ohio, United States	Eye tracking study and survey	Participants fixated on the date over 3 times longer than the phrase. Over 50% of decisions involved no visual fixation on the phrase at all.	Opportunity/Ability
Chang et al., 2024	[36]	624 valid samples from Taiwan	Full factorial between-subjects experiment and survey	Interaction between price and discount presentation exists. Ethical labeling improves purchase willingness on suboptimal food.	Motivation
Neubig et al., 2024	[24]	1135 respondents from Germany	Online survey, IAT, and priming experiment	Consumers have negative implicit associations with dairy products beyond the best-before date. Reduction in safety and health perception is a direct predictor of willingness to consume products beyond the best-before date.	Motivation
Pandey et al., 2024	[27]	400 consumers from Denmark	Online questionnaire	Perceived quality, safety, and price are key drivers of purchase intention.	Motivation
Chen et al., 2024	[28]	353 valid samples from China	Survey with structural equation model	Perceived behavioral control is the primary driver. Visual packaging elements affect it positively, while health consciousness negatively impacts purchase intention.	Motivation/Opportunity
Shan et al., 2024	[48]	680 valid questionnaires from China	Quantitative analysis	A gap exists between intention and behavior. Environment, emotional information, and ability moderate positively, while face consciousness moderates negatively.	Motivation/Opportunity/Ability
Wallnoefer et al., 2024	[51]	397 participants from Austria	Online experiment and food lab experiment	Look–smell–taste labels did not significantly increase overdate acceptance, though consumers preferred them over text-only options.	Opportunity/Ability
Champions 12.3, 2024	[54]	Uses the “Target-Measure-Act” roadmap as an assessment framework to track the progress of global governments and businesses against milestones	Not applicable	Global progress is currently insufficient to reach 2030 targets; while the private sector outpaces governments, overall action needs massive scaling.	Opportunity
President Chain Store Corporation, 2024	[56]	President Chain Store Corporation presents its sustainability outcomes and future plans	Not applicable	“i-Sharing Food” reduced over 17,000 tons of food waste; achieved record-high consolidated revenue	Opportunity
Heidig et al., 2025	[92]	536 participants from Germany and 529 participants from South Africa	Quantitative descriptive approach, cross-sectional survey, and regression	The ability to reduce food waste (habits, knowledge) has a strong influence; motivation (attitudes, values) had the lowest impact on reported behavior.	Motivation/Opportunity/Ability
Bonioli et al., 2025	[65]	A review of 36 articles	systematic literature review	Significant barriers to smart labels persist including consumer unfamiliarity, lack of trust, and usability concerns. External factors, such as perceived regulatory effectiveness, technical challenges, and cost implications, also impact consumer acceptance.	Opportunity
Llagas et al., 2025	[64]	A mixed-methods approach to evaluate pilot design concepts for date labels and storage advice through seven collective intelligence workshops.	Collective intelligence workshops	Consumers focus on usability and waste reduction, while stakeholders care about compliance and safety. Both agree clear visual cues improve clarity.	Opportunity
Wilson et al., 2025	[33]	200 respondents from Alabama and New York, United States	Inperson experimental auction and risk preference elicitation	“Use by” labels lead to more premeditated waste than “Best by.” Higher loss aversion correlates with higher waste rates.	Motivation
Parker et al., 2025	[53]	125 consumer interviews and 6 stakeholder groups from Australia	Literature review, consumer interviews, design concepts, and stakeholder workshops	Consumers find date labels confusing. Clear, consistent, and legible labels along with detailed storage advice reduce waste.	Opportunity/Ability
Grendstad et al., 2025	[87]	A mixed-methods approach including focus groups (n = 16) and an online survey (n = 298) with a conjoint experiment testing from Norway	Focus groups and online conjoint test	Date labels and appearance significantly influenced willingness to consume, while instructions had no effect.	Ability
Mu et al., 2025	[89]	513 valid questionnaires from China	Online questionnaire	Packaging design factors like visual or functional attributes positively influence waste refusal attitudes. Negative factors such as information overload or improper sizing have a more significant impact on waste behavior than positive factors.	Motivation/Ability
Cheng et al., 2025	[32]	4221 participants from China	Quasi-natural intervention experiment	Information intervention significantly improved label cognition and tended to extend intended discard dates.	Motivation/Ability

(Appendix A). The theoretical pathways through which food labeling modulates food waste behavior are illustrated in Figure 3. The figures in this review were designed using Napkin AI (Los Altos, CA, USA) The tool was used solely for layout and graphic arrangement based on manually defined conceptual structures. No textual or conceptual material was generated by the software. All conceptual content and figure structures were manually compiled by the authors to ensure academic accuracy and alignment with the manuscript’s content. The software version is not specified by the provider.

To ensure the reliability of the synthesis, the included sources underwent a descriptive quality appraisal focusing on methodological rigor and internal consistency. Peer-reviewed articles were evaluated based on the clarity of research design, sample representativeness, transparency of data collection procedures and analysis, and completeness of reporting. For gray literature, the assessment focused on the authority and credibility of the issuing organizations and the evidence-based nature of their recommendations. Potential risk of bias was addressed by cross-referencing findings across different study types to ensure that the conclusions were supported by a convergence of evidence. In addition, the strength of evidence for each MOA component was assessed using a qualitative classification scheme based on the volume of relevant studies and the consistency of reported findings. This assessment prioritized recurring empirical results over isolated observations to ensure the reliability of the derived insights, with the specific classification criteria detailed in the summarized table presented in Section 3.4.

3. Results

Within the MOA framework, motivation refers to the psychological attitudes and social drivers prompting action, opportunity denotes the external conditions enabling behavior, and ability reflects the knowledge and skills required to act. All three components are indispensable and interdependent [10,21,22,23].

3.1. Motivation

We investigated how labeling, as a persuader, stimulates or suppresses consumers’ willingness to reduce food waste.

3.1.1. Negative Motivation

Risk perception constitutes the primary motivational conflict: foods approaching expiry or with an exceeded “best before” date are widely perceived as being less healthy and as posing a quality or safety risk [8,24,25,26,27,28]. Because of the anchoring effect, the date label is the primary cognitive anchor in consumers’ judgments of a product’s safety. Consumers’ concerns extend to cosmetically imperfect produce and products with minor packaging defects, wherein excessive caution often leads to the premature disposal of edible foods [7,29]. However, some concerns are justifiable from a food safety perspective; for instance, consumers tend to be more apprehensive about consuming highly perishable foods than less perishable foods [30]. Higher safety awareness leads consumers to be more willing to bear the cost of wasting items past their use-by date to ensure safety [31,32]. Wilson and Miao [33] hypothesized that consumer disposal decisions depend on a precarious trade-off between food loss and perceived health risks. Their findings confirmed that strong loss aversion positively correlates with premeditated waste and that for highly loss-averse consumers, date label terminology does not significantly influence food waste behavior [33]. Carolan [34] utilized a nonessentialist lens to illustrate how sociocultural expectations drive a “good mother” effect—in which fresh, natural, and health-oriented foods are prioritized—that is counteracted by “good father” acquisitions of processed foods and snacks. They also argued that overprovisioning and subsequent waste can be rationalized as a necessary cost of enacting domestic care and responsibility.

3.1.2. Positive Motivation

Consumers tend to believe that natural products are inherently imperfect. Consequently, adding a “natural” label to cosmetically imperfect produce substantially enhances consumers’ aesthetic evaluation of such produce and their intention to purchase it [35]. When consumers trust that labels protect their interests and provide reliable information, they become better able to accurately evaluate the value of foods [28]. Suboptimal foods have ethics or sustainability attributes (e.g., organic certification, responsible fertilization, or origin transparency) and thus elicit substantially higher purchase intentions [29,36,37]. Consumption context also matters: imperfect produce is perceived as more natural and acceptable in farmers’ markets than in supermarkets [26]. Moreover, consumers tend to be more willing to consume suboptimal foods at home than in retail settings [38,39]. This phenomenon may relate to perceived ownership; food personally selected or prepared rather than chosen or prepared by others is more strongly linked to the self, enhancing the feeling of safety and reducing the likelihood of waste [7]. Studies have reported that products nearing or exceeding their date label are categorized as suboptimal food, with reminders found to exert negative effects on product evaluations [38,39]. However, Tang et al. [40] found that retailers’ voluntary implementation of an “approaching expiration date” (AED) label considerably increases consumers’ perceptions of a retailer’s care, which in turn fosters stronger patronage intention and bolsters the retailer’s brand image.

3.1.3. Economic Motivation

Consumers tend to pay a premium for an extended shelf life, with estimates suggesting that this premium can reach USD 0.08 for each extra day of shelf life [41]. As noted earlier, consumers generally perceive suboptimal food—that nearing expiration, with aesthetic imperfections, or with compromised packaging—as being defective. Consequently, their intention to purchase suboptimal foods is affected by whether the price discount is perceived to sufficiently offset the disutility associated with the food’s flaws; in other words, purchase intention positively correlates with the depth of the discount [29,30,38]. This effect becomes particularly prominent when food is explicitly labeled with an “avoid food waste” message [39]. Consumers familiar with expiration-date-based pricing perceive higher value and have stronger purchase intention than do those unfamiliar with such pricing because they understand that such a promotional pricing strategy is an inventory management tool designed to accelerate turnover rather than an indicator of low quality [30,36]. Furthermore, the format in which a discount is presented is influential; for expensive suboptimal foods, presenting the discounted final price is most effective, whereas for inexpensive items, presenting the percentage discount is more impactful. Purchase decisions are also shaped by price involvement; price-sensitive consumers and those who prioritize transactional value tend to have a relatively positive attitude to suboptimal foods with acceptable quality, whereas those who prioritize quality or social status have a relatively negative attitude to suboptimal foods [36]. In home settings, concerns over the cost of waste similarly motivate efforts to minimize kitchen discards [42].

3.2. Opportunity

This study considered how labeling, as an enabler, provides or removes external conditions that help consumers adopt waste-reducing behaviors.

3.2.1. Design

Consumers often check date labels when purchasing and before consuming food, but more than 70% of them report difficulties due to labels’ poor visibility, small font, obscured placement, or illegibility [43]. In addition to technical improvements in layout and print quality, clear and easily understood labeling content can function as behavioral guidance, improving food waste outcomes and promoting sustainable consumption [15,44,45,46,47]. Emotional messages that evoke empathy and identification can more effectively translate waste-reduction intention into actual behavior compared with rational appeals [48]. At the retail level, perceived behavioral control is the strongest predictor of purchase intention; optimizing visual packaging elements, such as iconography, dimensions, and color schemes, can result in consumers perceiving that they have more control over a product and thus have stronger purchase intention [28]. Packaging imagery is more attractive and influential than text and always dominates consumer expectations and judgments, even when explicit textual descriptions are provided [49]. Sensory taste descriptions further enable consumers to select products that are aligned with their preferences, which in turn reduces the likelihood of disposal due to dislike [50]. At the household level, addition of the “look–smell–taste” icon alongside the date label increases consumer favorability but does not substantially affect actual product use [51]. Notably, laboratory experiments have revealed that all participants who actively engaged in a sensory evaluation ultimately opted to utilize an expired product. This finding suggests that sensory assessment is an effective strategy for reducing waste, although labeling itself is not the main trigger of such behavior [51]. Similarly, improvements to label stickers, such as a large size and transparent design, do not considerably enhance consumer preference, reinforcing the importance of information clarity over format changes [52]. A national initiative implemented by End Food Waste Australia piloted 20 labeling concepts, and a stakeholder workshop revealed a consensus on the importance of clarity and readability. However, although consumers were open to innovation and focused on waste reduction, many industry stakeholders were discovered to prioritize regulatory compliance, food safety, and the cost and logistical challenges of change [53].

3.2.2. Technology

Discounting suboptimal foods effectively reduces retail food waste because consumers are motivated by economic incentives [39]. The Netherlands-based retailer Albert Heijn utilizes electronic price tags and an algorithm that automatically reduces the price of products approaching their sell-by date, which minimizes the volume of unsold perishable products [54]. Similarly, the Israeli company Wasteless assists retailers with precise dynamic pricing based on products’ shelf life and sales status, and their approach achieved up to a 50% reduction in food waste and a 20% increase in revenue [55]. In Taiwan, two major convenience store brands, namely 7-ELEVEN and FamilyMart (owned by President Chain Store Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan and Taiwan FamilyMart Co., Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan, respectively), apply discounts to fresh products before their expiration (when the shelf life is less than 3 days). This practice enabled 7-ELEVEN to reduce approximately 17,867 tons of food surplus in 2024 [56] and enabled FamilyMart to reduce its food waste by an average of 574 tons monthly, equating to a monthly CO₂ emission reduction of 191,000 kg [57]. An eye-tracking study investigated the effects of label phrases (“sell by,” “best if used by,” and “use by”) and date information on discard behavior and revealed that the effect of the date itself was far stronger than that of the phrasing [58]. Although a date label enhances the acceptance of quality products with sensory characteristics that vary over their shelf life, it simultaneously risks unnecessary rejection of perfectly edible food after the date [59,60]. Total elimination of date labels may prompt consumers to preventively discard packaged foods because of uncertainty regarding product condition, thereby increasing the waste of products within their shelf life [59]. These findings suggest that, rather than merely modifying phrasing or removing labels, extending shelf life, which results in a more distant date, is a more promising intervention. Furthermore, implementing smart labels, such as freshness indicators, facilitates rational consumer judgment regarding foods’ edibility, which in turn prevents premature disposal [61,62,63]. Crucially, freshness indicators should convey information intuitively and visually. The need to scan a QR code adds complexity, which creates a frictional barrier that diminishes intervention effectiveness [41,64,65].

3.2.3. Policy

Table 1. Global critical food labeling policies.

Country/Region	Authority/Regulation	Year (Announced/Implemented)	Key Policy or Guideline	Regulatory Nature
USA	USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service	Existing	Food manufacturers and retailers that apply product dating use a “Best if Used By” date	Recommended
Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea, etc.	Regulations	Existing	Require labeling formats (such as year/month/day) to improve information readability	Mandatory
Australia, Canada, China, EU, India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, and Taiwan, etc.	Regulations	Existing	Packaged food must be labeled with storage conditions	Mandatory
UK	WRAP Guidance	2017–2023	A series of guidance on how to use food date labels and how UK law applies throughout the life cycle of a food product	Recommended
India	Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations	2020	Requires “Date of manufacture or packaging” and “Expiry/Use by” together; “Best before” as optional or additional information	Mandatory
EU	European Food Safety Authority Guidance	2020	Decision tree to help food businesses decide on the type of date label	Recommended
EU	European Food Safety Authority Guidance	2021	Help food businesses develop appropriate storage conditions and expiration dates for opened and thawed foods	Recommended
South Korea	Enforcement Rule of the Act on Labeling and Advertising of Foods	2023	Replaces “Sell-by” with “Use-by”	Mandatory
California, USA	The Food and Agricultural Code Amendment	2024/2026	Standardizes “BEST if Used by” and “USE by”; bans “Sell by”	Mandatory
China	General Principles for Labeling of Prepackaged Foods Amendment	2025/2027	Requires YYYY-MM-DD; adds “consumption guarantee period”	Mandatory
USA	S.2541-Food Date Labeling Act of 2025	Introduced in Senate (30 July 2025)	Standardizes “BEST if Used by” and “USE by”	Bill proposal to law
EU	Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 Amendment	Preparing the proposal	Review the Farm to Fork strategy and revise existing EU rules on date marking	Proposal for a regulation

Note: This list is by no means comprehensive. Only information about food label regulations within the review topic is listed.

presents a summary of the global food labeling policies that support food waste reduction. Countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and New Zealand have implemented regulations on labeling formats and storage conditions to ensure the readability of label information and ensure food is of high quality. South Korea and California (in the United States) have officially banned “sell by” terminology to prevent consumer misunderstanding and premature disposal of food. US states and European nations primarily utilize official recommendations and guidelines to grant food business operators (FBOs) greater autonomy; by contrast, Asian countries typically implement mandatory labeling policies to ensure information transparency. Policy reforms have two main directions: (1) the standardization of labeling terminology and formats to improve information readability and (2) the clarification of storage conditions and elimination of “sell by” labels to extend products’ usability. The European Food Safety Authority has published official risk-assessment-based directions to help FBOs determine appropriate date marking terms, set shelf lives, and identify appropriate postopening and postthawing storage and consumption periods [66,67]. Similarly, the WRAP has published multiple guidance documents offering practical recommendations on food labeling [68,69]. The objective of these guidance documents is to standardize information, reduce consumer confusion, and thereby improve comprehension. The WRAP recommends that retailers do not apply “best before” dates for five fresh produce items (apples, bananas, broccoli, cucumbers, and potatoes). This measure was estimated to reduce household food waste in the United Kingdom by 50,000 tons annually and save families approximately GBP 50 million in food expenditure each year [70]. Yu and Jaenicke [71] constructed a theoretical model and demonstrated that the policy to eliminate the “sell by” date for pasteurized dairy products in New York City resulted in at least a 10% reduction in food waste and a 13–19% increase in household food utilization. Moreover, emerging policies that permit the donation of foods past their “best-before” date have expanded the external opportunities for waste mitigation, a topic that will be further elaborated in the context of food donation in Section 4.3.

3.3. Ability

We evaluated the literature on how labeling, as an educator, strengthens or weakens the knowledge and skills required for consumers to reduce food waste.

3.3.1. Fundamental Comprehension

Using big data analytics, Toma et al. [72] demonstrated that the frequency at which consumers consult and comprehend date labels is a primary determinant of their behavior. Consumers consistently check date labels; however, their comprehension of label terms such as “use by,” “best before,” “best if used by,” “sell by,” “recommended last consumption date,” “fresh by,” “freshest by,” “expiration date,” and “expires on” typically ranges from 40% to 80% [73,74,75,76,77,78,79]. Inconsistent use of “use by” and “best before” for the same food categories across retailers further exacerbates misunderstanding [80]. Even among consumers who perceive date label systems as simple, only 65.5% and 83.4% correctly interpret “best before” and “use by,” respectively, indicating that actual knowledge levels remain unsatisfactory [43]. Greater standardization and clarity in date labels can therefore mitigate confusion [81]. Consumers typically discard food solely on the basis of the date, irrespective of actual quality status, with the proportion of discarded expired food ranging from 30% to 70%. This variance is primarily attributable to the different food categories rather than types of date labels [73,74,75,77,79,82,83,84,85,86]. Some studies support that “use by” labels lead to higher discard rates than do “best before” labels [31,33,73,83,87], whereas another study reported that misinterpretation resulted in a greater disposal of “best before” products [88]. A US study indicated that individuals who regarded date labels as safety information were more likely to discard foods approaching their labeled date than were those who regarded date labels as quality or store labels; additionally, those who mistakenly believed that date labels were federally regulated were more likely to discard foods approaching their labeled date than were those who did not [79]. Although consumers can explicitly recognize the distinction between “use by” and “best before” labels, they fail to account for this difference when judging foods’ edibility [85,87].

In one study, more than 90% of the respondents reported that they knew the meaning of “best if used by” and “use by,” but only approximately half had a correct understanding; educational messages increased this proportion to 82% [76]. In another study, an information intervention significantly boosted the accuracy of label cognition; comprehension of the “quality guaranteed” date label increased from 19.05% to 64.77%, and that of the “best before” date label increased from 75.38% to 93.45% [32]. This information intervention also significantly reduced the net amount of food that the participants anticipated discarding and postponed the disposal time. The WRAP reported that individuals who had consulted the Love Food Hate Waste’s A–Z of Food Storage Guide adopted more number of food waste prevention practices and that awareness of the “Little Blue Fridge” label increased from 9% to 24% [70]. Although clear labeling and supplementary educational messages aid consumers’ comprehension, information overload can negatively impact their attitude toward reducing food waste [22,89]. In one study, changing a label from “best before date” to “date of highest quality” enhanced comprehension, but no significant correlation was observed between preference for the revised label and actual food waste behavior [90]. Overall, although appropriate label terminology and educational messages increase consumer comprehension, they have limited effects in terms of behavioral changes [90,91]. Strengthening consumers’ knowledge and skills and cultivating sustainable habits are more crucial than is raising awareness [92].

3.3.2. Technical Knowledge

In a study on household food waste in which date labels were not provided, lettuce stored at an inappropriate temperature (12 °C) was found to generate four to six times more waste than was lettuce stored at the recommended temperature (8 °C) [47]. Storing fresh produce at its optimal storage temperature can extend its shelf life twofold to sevenfold and thus substantially reduce waste [70]. Providing supplementary information, such as recommended storage conditions and normal sensory quality, significantly increased the willingness of one study’s participants to consume expired yogurt [25]. Notably, up to 96.12% of participants in another study were willing to consume unopened yogurt past its “best before” date if the packaging also had an “often good after” label [87]. Clear storage guidance helps consumers maintain products at their best and contributes to food waste reduction [12,15,25,44,93]. The US Food and Drug Administration stated that “most date labels are not based on exact science” [17]. Beyond labeling, Zielińska et al. [75] demonstrated that unopened products past their “best before” date were microbiologically safe for up to 6 months, having stable water activity and pH; although some of their sensory attributes changed, their overall quality and acceptability remained high. Nicosia et al. [94,95] evaluated products’ secondary shelf life (SSL) after opening and reported that, under challenging household test conditions, the SSL of ultrahigh-temperature milk and Italian meat sauce was at least twice the labeled duration. With enhanced educational outreach and storage practices, even longer SSLs may be achievable. These results highlight that risk-based date-label validation is imperative. FBOs should reevaluate and adopt scientifically derived protocols for producing date labels (inclusive of SSL) to prevent excessive conservatism from causing unnecessary food waste.

3.3.3. Practical Skills and Efficacy

From the qualitative insights of van Geffen et al. [21] to the quantitative analysis of Shan et al. [48], the evidence consistently confirms the existence of an attitude–behavior gap and indicates that willingness to reduce food waste is more likely to translate into actual behavior when consumers have stronger abilities. A food product’s date label and aesthetics both strongly modulate a person’s willingness to consume that product. Even when participants in one study were provided with clarifying information, more than 80% of them reported an intention to discard yogurt exhibiting whey separation [87]. In the absence of date labels on milk, reliance on olfactory and visual inspection alone results in discard intention that is largely independent of the number of days since bottling [59]. Consumers often lack confidence in their own sensory judgment and instead depend on date labels to assess food’s value [60,93]. Only when a product’s quality is visibly poor do they prioritize sensory cues over labeling [84]. These findings align with the conceptual framework of Chu et al. [15], which posits that deficiencies in domain-specific knowledge and sensory experience function as behavioral barriers. Chu et al. [15] recommended that targeted consumer education campaigns be used to bolster consumers’ confidence and technical literacy in food quality assessment. In terms of how to improve waste reduction, consumers were discovered to have the highest preference for using leftover food and also have a clear preference for online recipes and instructional platforms [96]. Additionally, rational meal planning, a strong ability to assess food’s safety, and knowledge of proper storage practices help maximize food utilization [21]. Multitheme awareness campaigns can strengthen consumers’ food and food-waste-prevention knowledge and skills [22]. For the attitude–behavior gap to be bridged, consumers must be given opportunities to accumulate positive experiences in which they strengthen their abilities, establish self-efficacy, and cultivate useful habits.

3.4. MOA Framework

Food labeling features create opportunities through external conditions, trigger consumers’ motivation to reduce food waste, and translate intention into behavior when sufficient ability is present (Figure 3). The specific mediating and moderating effects of labeling features on behavior are summarized in

Table 2. Analysis of labeling features through the MOA framework.

The Dimensions of MOA	Label Characteristics	Key Impacts	Expected Outcomes	Interventions	Evidence Strength
Motivation	date label	risk perception	premature discarding of edible food	optimization of product shelf life	★★★
	natural, AED, organic label	increase favorability and trust	promote purchasing/consuming	add relevant labels	★★★
	health food	social role	promote purchasing	educational campaigns	★
Opportunity	font was too small; information was difficult-finding and unreadable	difficulties with getting information	reject purchasing/consuming	improves design and printing technology	★★
	emotional information	create empathy and recognition	reduce food waste	marketing strategies	★
	visual imagery; distinct colors	increase readability	promote purchasing/consuming	packaging design	★
	discount	economic incentives	promotion of suboptimal product sales	dynamic pricing at the retail level	★★★
	freshness indicators	assess edibility	avoidance of premature disposal	smart/intelligent visual labels	★
	standardization of label phrases and format	mitigating consumer confusion; enhancing comprehension	improved household food utilization	policy innovation; official guidelines	★★★
Ability	storage advice; SSL	keep at its best	optimizing food management practices	clear and explicit storage recommendations	★★★
	often good after look–smell–taste	facilitating sensory judgement	avoidance of premature disposal	increased labeling; awareness campaigns	★
	recipe instruction	improvement of cooking skills	improved household food utilization	online tutorials	★
	educational information	enhancement of understanding	optimizing food management practices	printed materials; awareness campaigns	★★

Note: The strength of evidence was categorized into three levels based on the volume of relevant literature and the consistency of reported findings, reflecting a qualitative synthesis rather than quantitative weighting. Evidence strength is defined as: ★★★ (High: >10 studies with consistent results); ★★ (Moderate: 5–10 studies); ★ (Low: <5 studies or conflicting outcomes).

. Date labels, sustainability-related labels, dynamic pricing, label readability, and storage guidance are the features that exert the strongest influences on behavior. Through the MOA framework, this study revealed that food labeling is not merely a tool for information transfer; it is a mechanism of intervention that can increase consumer motivation, improve their abilities, and create opportunities. This integrated perspective underscores that labels most effectively bridge the attitude–behavior gap when they activate all three dimensions simultaneously; this provides the necessary conditions for behavior to be executed. The specific impact pathways are illustrated in Figure 4. If these three elements cannot be activated concurrently, stakeholders should focus on improving external opportunities or individual abilities rather than on improving motivation. Opportunity has a direct influence on consumer behavior and indicates that consumers have sufficient information to make an informed choice. However, ability has a stronger and more enduring effect; consumers who have more knowledge and skills are more likely to react and behave in an appropriate manner when they see food labels.

4. Discussion

4.1. Interactions Among the Three MOA Components

Motivation to reduce food waste increases consumer sensitivity to external opportunities (e.g., label design). In turn, external opportunities embedded in labeling and policy can enhance consumers’ knowledge and skills (ability). This increase in ability positively contributes to motivation, resulting in an interdependent relationship among the three elements. However, imbalance among these elements can weaken behavioral enactment. For example, although consumers are willing to pay a premium for ecolabels, the presence of a QR code reduces this premium because QR scanning increases the complexity of the shopping process. This finding indicates that although QR codes create an opportunity, they can negatively affect ability, thereby suppressing motivation [41]. Respondents reported that labels had inconspicuous placement, unclear information, small fonts, insufficient contrast, and no storage guidance, indicating the existence of motivation without adequate opportunity [15,45]. Heidig et al. [92] further suggested that the ability to reduce food waste, specifically manifested through habits and knowledge, exerts the strongest influence on behavior, followed by opportunity and then motivation. Santi et al. [44] categorized labels guiding sensory assessment as potent “levers” within their food packaging sustainability framework. However, empirical evidence obtained by Wallnoefer et al. [51] suggests that the efficacy of such assessment is affected by ingrained consumer habits (ability) rather than motivation triggered by labeling. Advancements in food processing technology have rendered intrinsic quality assessment increasingly difficult for consumers. Roe et al. [59] reported that the removal of all labels, in the absence of both individual ability and external guidance (opportunity), prompts precautionary disposal. Conversely, WRAP findings suggest that when consumers are capable of evaluating the quality of fresh produce, habitual reliance on date labels for decision-making transforms these labels into barriers to waste reduction [70]. Therefore, interventions should strategically provide environmental opportunities and bolster consumers’ abilities to facilitate the seamless translation of intention into waste-reduction behaviors [21]. Finally, consumers tend to exhibit an attitude–behavior gap, with their intentions failing to fully translate into actual actions [21,42,48,91]. Therefore, to facilitate waste-reduction behaviors, food companies and relevant authorities should not simply motivate consumers to reduce their food waste but should additionally strategically optimize external opportunities and augment consumers’ abilities.

4.2. Cross-Dimensional Interventions: Extending Shelf Life

Extending shelf life is distinct from changing labeling itself; however, shelf life functions as a key upstream factor that can fundamentally influence a product’s labeled date. Food-related risks fall broadly into two categories: safety risks, characterized by pathogenic microorganisms or toxins exceeding threshold levels, and quality risks, involving unacceptable sensory degradation. These risks originate from biological, physical, and chemical hazards, with microbial activity serving as a predominant driver of product deterioration. FBOs are responsible for establishing and validating products’ shelf life within their food safety management systems. Shelf life determination must involve a comprehensive evaluation of a product’s intrinsic characteristics, an analysis of deterioration factors, and scientific trials targeting key markers of decay to obtain objective data. Ultimately, the designated labeling date must be determined through a risk-based synthesis of regulatory requirements, empirical data, and supply chain conditions, with the more conservative duration selected between the safety shelf life and sensory shelf life. Furthermore, determining the appropriate consumption period after opening (i.e., SSL) necessitates accounting for consumers’ food-handling patterns and reasonably foreseeable consumption conditions, which introduces considerable stochastic complexity into the validation process [63,66]. Methods for extending shelf life include the use of preservation technologies and optimization of packaging. These approaches result in labels that offer wider opportunities and stronger abilities. Reyes et al. [97] estimated that extending the shelf life of bread by 1 day (a 20% increase) may reduce waste by approximately 5%, whereas extending the shelf life of poultry by 10 days (a 40% increase) may reduce waste by 6%. Settier-Ramirez et al. [98] developed bioactive bags that extended the shelf life of pastry cream by up to fourfold and projected that these bags may dramatically reduce re-tail-stage waste from 40% to 2%. Demirel [99] comprehensively reviewed the innovative technologies aimed at extending shelf life. Extending shelf life has considerable waste-reduction potential and provides firms with greater inventory flexibility and competitive advantage. However, when determining label dates, FBOs must navigate not only the risks posed by the product but also the costs associated with applying preservation technologies or enhanced packaging, as well as the higher warranty liabilities that accompany a further-away date. Moreover, limited consumer knowledge of food technologies can weaken the perceived association between shelf life and freshness, potentially depressing sales and harming brand image. Consequently, FBOs often adopt a paradoxical stance to extending a product’s life [99,100]. Ultimately, the date label serves as the definitive manifestation of complex food processing technologies and multifaceted strategic considerations. The present study calls upon FBOs to integrate social responsibility into their shelf life determination processes, which would meaningfully contribute to environmental sustainability.

4.3. Cross-Dimensional Interventions: Food Donation

Barriers often prevent households from acting on their motivation and ability, primarily because they have more opportunities to waste food than to prevent this waste [22]. Lack of opportunity clearly places a high pressure on consumers, forcing them to make trade-offs among competing goals [21]. Although it falls outside the immediate scope of food labeling, food waste can also be reduced in the context of food donation. In particular, regulations permitting foods to be donated past their “best before” date would inherently expand situational opportunities for date labels. Many countries operate food bank systems to facilitate the redistribution of foods of acceptable quality that cannot be sold or consumed in time. As depicted in Figure 5, governments increasingly seek to encourage or mandate corporate food donation, which redirects products otherwise destined for disposal. Some countries have implemented legislation that provides protection against liability (qualified civil or criminal immunity) to persons, gleaners, and nonprofit organizations who donate food in good faith. Regulatory frameworks empower consumers, manufacturers, and retailers by providing them with redistribution opportunities as a feasible alternative to disposal. This legal legitimacy bolsters stakeholder motivation, with streamlined donation protocols enhancing behavioral ability, effectively bridging the attitude–behavior gap. Without such mechanisms, substantial quantities of edible food are ultimately discarded. Consequently, food donation represents the final critical link in conceptualizing labeling as a systemic tool for reducing waste.

4.4. Limitations and Recommendations

Although this study rigorously applied the MOA framework to food labeling, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, this review employed purposive sampling and narrative synthesis, integrating diverse evidence from the academic and gray literature. Although this approach facilitates the exploration of interdisciplinary contexts, it falls short of the reproducibility and bias-control standards of systematic reviews. Second, the articles included in this review exhibited significant methodological heterogeneity, employing diverse analytical tools and modeling frameworks. This diversity complicates the identification of precise convergences and divergences in empirical outcomes across different contexts. Consequently, this review prioritized the synthesis of overarching trends and the elucidation of underlying mechanisms rather than conducting a direct comparative analysis of specific methodologies or absolute reduction outcomes. Third, although the MOA framework can be effectively used to assess the influences of labeling features on behavior, few studies have simultaneously examined the interactions between motivation, opportunity, and ability. Therefore, some interaction effects may have been insufficiently quantified, hindering direct empirical comparisons. Finally, several potential biases inherent in the review process should be acknowledged. Selection bias may have occurred as the literature search was primarily restricted to major databases and English-language publications, potentially overlooking relevant studies in other languages or regions. Publication bias is also a consideration, as research with positive or significant findings are more likely to be published and retrieved. Lastly, while the inclusion of grey literature provides essential practical insights, these sources may lack the rigorous peer-review process of academic journals and could reflect the institutional perspectives of the issuing organizations. These potential biases should be considered when interpreting the overall synthesis.

To address these limitations, research should proceed in two strategic directions. First, in research into consumer-level food waste, measurement barriers and high costs are encountered because of the myriad behavioral variables involved. Consequently, high-efficiency survey methodologies are the predominant approach in this field. Such surveys enable the rapid exploration of field requirements and provide valuable baseline data. Although studies have been rigorously designed to mitigate self-reporting and hypothetical biases and thereby obtain accurate and credible findings, their data have primarily been on cognitions, attitudes, intentions, and premeditated behaviors. Because of the persistent attitude–behavior gap, attitude and intention cannot be interpreted as indicative of actual behavior. Therefore, future studies should prioritize empirical behavioral experiments that confirm the actual efficacy of interventions and policy optimization. Researchers can obtain evidence-based results regarding the efficacy of interventions and policy optimization by conducting rigorous cross-sectional comparisons and thereby minimizing the interference of the attitude–behavior gap. Second, although researchers have reported that sociodemographic and cultural characteristics influence food waste behavior, the interpretation of labeling information remains highly context-dependent. Because of marked disparities in economic infrastructure, storage facilities, regulatory frameworks, and cultural backgrounds between developing and developed nations, consumers in these nations exhibit substantial heterogeneity in their interpretation of labels and have behavioral complexities that transcend the scope of labeling itself. Consequently, future research should obtain representative empirical evidence tailored to specific national policies and cultural contexts to deepen the understanding of complex consumer behaviors within the framework of global trade.

5. Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the few to involve an in-depth application of the MOA framework to food labeling systems, clarifying its original contribution relative to existing literature by treating labels as systemic intervention tools. From a theoretical perspective, reexamining label design, technology, and policy as complex behavioral interventions provides a novel lens to understand how these factors simultaneously influence motivation, opportunity, and ability. Although labeling is a key contributor to household food waste, such waste should not be disproportionately attributed to individual consumer behavior. Labeling is the composite result of industrial decisions and policy implementation; because consumers occupy the end of the supply chain, they should not be held accountable for systemic problems. Such displacement of responsibility risks obscuring systemic problems in food supply chains.

Regarding policy implications, policymakers must prioritize establishing standardized labeling regulations to ensure that label information is transparent and easily comprehensible. While standardizing label phrases relating to quality and safety can effectively reduce cognitive confusion, evidence suggests its solitary efficacy in reducing food waste may be overstated. Therefore, an effective labeling strategy necessitates collaboration among stakeholders rather than pursuing a single standardized format.

For the food industry and FBOs, practical efforts should focus on scientifically determining foods’ shelf-life and providing clear usage guidance. These critical strategies, such as extending shelf life and providing explicit storage guidelines, are often undervalued and comparatively underexplored. Prioritizing these technical aspects can effectively lower the barriers to consumer food management and reduce avoidable waste at the end of the supply chain.

Finally, for consumers and educators, the focus should be on implementing educational initiatives that cultivate individual practical competencies. True behavioral shifts require refining consumers’ risk perceptions and promoting sensory evaluation skills to transform these into ingrained habits.

Systemic interventions that prioritize enhancing individual abilities and creating opportunities, supplemented with stimulating motivation, are expected to maximize the benefits of food labeling in mitigating food waste.