Open dating definition
Though we're still meeting in bars and going to see movies together, dating today would be largely unrecognizable to people 10 years ago; changes in how we find our dates , how we treat them and how we describe ourselves to them have radically altered the dating landscape. If you find yourself in the latter category, this gigantic glossary of 57 dating terms is for you. Aromanticism is pretty rare, but it is real: A certain portion of the population does not experience the feelings of romantic love that seem to come naturally for so many of us.
What do the terms "closed dating" and "open dating" mean?
This paper reviews recent research relating to three new informational displays which have been proposed to assist consumers with their shopping decisions. These innovations in labeling practices are unit pricing, open dating, and nutrient labeling. The literature reviews will be followed by a discussion of the relevance of the research findings to public policy decisions relating to the adoption of these proposed aids. A number of terms unit pricing, price-per-measure, dual pricing, and value pricing have recently been employed to describe the practice of providing price information to consumers by such standard measures as the ounce, pound, pint, and quart.
Unit pricing, as the practice is now widely called, is not a new development, having been used by supermarkets for many years to display price information for such store-packaged, variable-size products as meats and cheeses. What is new however is the effort to extend this practice to many thousands of Pre-Packaged retail Products.
Unit-pricing advocates point to a host of packaging practices packaging-to-price, cents-off labels, slack fill, and fractional quantity units which they feel impair the ability of the consumer to compare prices effectively. They further contend that the tremendous increase in items carried by supermarkets from about 1, in to 8, in has exacerbated the price-comparison problems of the consumer to an unacceptable level.
These advocates believe that unit Pricing will alleviate these problems by shifting the major share of the burden of price comParisons from the consumer to the retailer. Studies addressed to this question have examined the ability of consumers to make price comparisons without the aid of unit-price labels. Four such studies have been reported Friedman, ; Friedman, in press; Gatewood and Perloff, in press; and Houston, , each of which instructed subjects to perform hypothetical price-comparison problems in a laboratory or field setting.
All four studies revealed significant departures from perfect performance. In three of the four Friedman, in press; Gatewood and Perloff, in press; and Houston, , a second experimental condition was introduced to examine the value of unit-price information in solving the problems; all three found a substantial improvement in performance under the unit-price condition. Taken together, these several studies reveal that without additional information, consumers are often unable to make correct price comparisons.
The findings suggest that the use of unit-price labels may substantially reduce purchase errors for economy-minded consumers at a savings in time Gatewood and Perloff, in press and money Friedman, in press; and Houston, Monroe and LaPlaca have recently reviewed studies of consumer reaction to unit-pricing programs which were introduced in five food chains.
Except for the common finding that reported usage of unit-price labels was correlated positively with education, the results of the five studies yield a most inconsistent picture. For example, two of the chains detected no shift in aggregate warehouse movements to products with lower unit prices, while a third found increased sales for the usually lower-priced private label brands.
Reported usage of unit-price labels also varied considerably for the respondents in the five chains, with a high of 65 percent of the respondents in one chain and a low of 7 percent in another. A number of methodological differences among the several studies may well be responsible for the conflicting findings. Likely candidates here are the unit of measure used to express unit-price information, the manner in which the information was displayed, the orientation program used to acquaint store customers with unit pricing, the proportion of store products which were unit-priced, and the time interval which elapsed before customer surveys were conducted.
Several attempts have been made to measure the retailer costs of installing and operating unit-pricing programs. After reviewing six such studies, Monroe and LaPlaca conclude that the costs remain relatively constant per store, regardless of store size and sales volume. Thus small independent stores with low sales volume must expend a relatively high percentage of their annual sales to support a unit-pricing program.
The estimates calculated in one study McCullough and Padberg, of the direct costs of unit pricing as a percentage of total sales ranged from 4. It is important to note that these are direct costs, and do not consider the procedural efficiencies which may well result for retailers as a byproduct of instituting unit-pricing programs. In particular, three chains which have adopted programs report that they provide "tighter inventory control, better space management, and fewer price-marking errors.
Open dating refers to the practice of printing dates on packaged food products for the purpose of informing consumers about the freshness of the products. Advocates of the practice contend that consumers have a right to know whether the packaged food which they purchase is fresh. They further contend that open dating provides the necessary information to make this determination and thus should be adopted by the food industry to assist consumers with their shopping decisions.
That the efforts of these advocates have received substantial public support is evident from the findings of a recent consumer survey study which was reported at the meeting of the National Association of Food Chains Ringler and Berner, The food industry response to open-dating proposals has focused on a number of technical arguments which question the usefulness of dates as indicators of product freshness.
These arguments are based, in large part, on the results of a recently completed two-volume study of food stability which was conducted by the Department of Food Science at Rutgers University Food Stability Survey, The Rutgers' report presents extensive findings and recommendations as well as specific data for 18 consumer products.
Perhaps its most significant general finding is that for most foods, temperature is a far more important determinant of product quality than elapsed time from the date of packaging. For example, the report finds that a frozen food product may deteriorate as much in two months at 10 F as it will in twelve months at 0 F. Thus freshness dates based simply on temporal considerations are not likely to be accurate unless temperature is carefully controlled at all stages of the food distribution cycle.
Advocates of open dating acknowledge the significance of possible deviations from proper temperature controls and handling procedures. They insist however that these problems can be overcome and point to the current widespread use of open dating by American food chains as evidence of its feasibility. Among the many questions raised by the open-dating issue is the type of date information to be presented in open-dating programs.
Some food processors have argued for a pack date since not only is it a known date, but it could be relatively easily provided at the time of packaging. Some retailers, on the other hand, have expressed a preference for a pull date, so that they would know the last acceptable date of sale. Moreover, some consumer advocates have suggested that a quality assurance date be adopted so that consumers would know the last date a product could be used at peak quality.
Other consumer advocates have recommended an expiration date which would inform consumers of the last date on which safe usage of a product can be expected. Of the more than 60 food chains which have recently adopted open dating, almost all have opted for pull dates. This choice recognizes the fact that proper temperature controls and handling procedures are more likely to be assured in the food processor-to-retailer stages of the food distribution cycle than in its later retailer-to-home-consumption stages.
The choice also recognizes the value to the retailer of having simple last-day-of sale indicators to facilitate the removal of non-fresh products from store shelves and to help store clerks with stock rotation. Many retailers also see pull-date benefits for the consumer, believing, as they do, that this indicator of product freshness offers her the best combination of useable and reliable information.
The economic costs of installing and operating an open-dating program have been examined by the U. Department of Agriculture and a study report is expected to be released in the near future. Other studies have looked at consumer awareness, understanding, and usage of open-dating information. Zehner , in a survey study of 1, Michigan consumers, found that 80 percent of the participants had heard about open dating even though, at the time of the study, only a few Michigan food chains were operating open-dating programs.
Zehner also showed future-dated packages to her respondents and asked them what was meant by the dates. When asked what they would like open dates to represent, 27 percent expressed a preference for expiration dates, 22 percent for a guide to freshness, 19 percent for pack dates, and 12 percent for pull dates. It is especially interesting to note that the least preferred indicator pull dates is the one most widely used by food retailers.
In a second study on open-dating, Taylor interviewed 1, female shoppers at 18 stores of a Chicago food chain which had practiced open-dating for several months by printing pull dates on some private brand items. Slightly more than half of the respondents reported that they were aware of the dating information. About half of the shoppers who had indicated awareness of the pull dates agreed to be interviewed in greater depth. However one wonders about the success of their efforts in light of the finding that only 20 percent of the were able to correctly interpret the pull date as the last day a product can be sold.
A third investigation of open-dating is being conducted by the Consumer Research Institute and a final report is expected to be published shortly. The report will present findings on a series of three studies. The first of these studies compares consumer reactions to pull dates and pack dates, each of which was introduced in three or more stores of a national food chain. The second study uses national mail and telephone surveys to examine consumer reactions to food quality and freshness.
The third study in the series will provide before-and-after data relating to new open-dating ordinances which have recently been passed in New York City and Dade County, Florida. An effort will be made to determine the effects of the legislation on consumer attitudes and usage patterns. To sum up, the few behavioral studies which have been conducted on open-dating raise more questions than they answer. Apparently, open-dating information is highly desired by American consumers indeed, according to the Ringler and Berner study, more 90 than a host of other supermarket practices such as discounting, nutritional advice, and unit pricing.
Yet expiration dates, which are most preferred by consumers, according to the Zehner study and some preliminary findings of a Consumer Research Institute study Hoofnagle and Stokes, , would appear to be the most difficult form of open-dating information for the food industry to provide. Other questions concern the confusion relating to the meaning of pull dates by the respondents in Taylor's study and, in light of this confusion, the relatively few disadvantages of the program which were reported by its users.
Few voters are likely to take the time to make sense of these disclosures but they may nevertheless favor such regulations knowing that the possibility of this information being used by even a small segment of the electorate may well serve to dissuade politicians from accepting unduly large contributions from single sources. If the reader will excuse a bad pun, the disclosure of information, even infrequently used information, may be favored by the public to assure that packaged foods can be safely bought and that political candidates cannot!
If, as has been suggested, many consumers would sort through the various packages on sale in supermarkets in an effort to buy the very freshest, many perfectly good food products would spoil on the store shelves, with a resultant economic loss to the retailer and the consumer. Although the Rutgers study states that the U. Prior to the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which was held in Washington in December of , only modest efforts had been made to evaluate nutrient labeling as an aid to purchasers of packaged foods.
The Conference, which was called "a watershed in American social history" by its chairman Jean Mayer , in a report to the scientific community, broke from the virtual inactivity of the past by recommending that the Food and Drug Administration FDA consider the development of a system for identifying the nutritional qualities of packaged foods. The Conference further recommended that the food industry be encouraged to provide nutritional information on package labels to enable consumers to follow recommended dietary regimens.
These Conference recommendations reflect the increasing number of processed and formulated food products which have recently appeared in the marketplace, most of which are not easily classifiable into standard nutritional categories. As Mayer has stated:. Consumers regard labels as their primary source of information about the contents, safety, and nutritional value of the food they buy. Given our existing nutrition education programs, it is not difficult for the average citizen to select simple meats, vegetables, and fruits, and produce a balanced diet.
But what if the choice involves such new foods as frozen pizza or spinach souffle? How should these products be classified, and how should they be labeled? The FDA responded to the Conference recommendation on nutrient labeling by proposing criteria for information panels on food packages in the Federal Register of March 30, These criteria specify the nutrients to be listed on food packages, the units by which they are to be quantified, and the permissible locations on food packages for presenting this information.
In the ninety-day period for filing written comments relating to this proposal, over 2, were submitted. They are now being processed and incorporated into a revised document which is expected to be published later this year. Let us look briefly at the contents of the proposal and the research findings from which they derived. Since almost without exception, these findings are from unpublished reports, our review will of necessity be largely limited to the summaries which have been presented in the Federal Register in support of the proposed regulation.
The proposed regulation calls for the prominent display of the following information on all food packages which present nutritional information:. Number of grams of protein, fat, and carbohydrates per serving, as well as the amount of protein per serving expressed as a percentage of the 65 gram Recommended Daily Allowance RDA. The amount per serving of seven vitamins and minerals expressed as percentages of their RDAs. The seven are vitamin A, vitamin C, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, calcium, and iron.
The research which led to the proposed regulation began with a mail survey by Call and Hayes of members of the American Institute of Nutrition, which sought their professional opinions on nutrient labeling. The study found that 85 percent of these nutritionists favored more nutrient information on the labels of food packages, with a majority giving highest ratings to the disclosure of calories, protein, fat, vitamins A, C, and D, calcium, iron, and additives and preservatives.
While no consensus emerged on presentation modes for communicating nutrient information e. In a second study on nutrient information which was published in a trade magazine Chain Store Age, October , it was found that small shifts in consumer purchase patterns in the direction of nutrient-labeled food had followed their introduction in the marketplace.
Using this information as well as the advice and counsel of various professional, business, and consumer groups, the FDA proceeded to carry out additional research on nutrient labeling. The first in the series of Consumer Research Institute studies was undertaken to secure information on presentation modes and label formats, as well as an indication of consumer understanding and usage of nutrient label information. This study examined the reactions of educated, middle-class households which shopped by catalog, to the inclusion of nutrient information in the catalog descriptions of various food products.
Open dating definition, the practice of putting a freshness date on food packages. See more. Top definition Get a open relationship mug for your mother-in-law Sarah. 2 In a true open relationship the couple will be fully honest with each other (unlike.
This may be a backward way to begin this article, but I have to say it: I tend to let my feelings, carried on the wings of my very vivid imagination, get away from me almost immediately when I meet a guy I like. On the one hand, I am a strong, confident woman, and I know what I want! This is Relationship , but I think it bears repeating in the context of casual, non-serious, non-exclusive relationships.
An open relationship , also known as non-exclusive relationship , is an intimate relationship that is consensually non-monogamous.
This paper reviews recent research relating to three new informational displays which have been proposed to assist consumers with their shopping decisions. These innovations in labeling practices are unit pricing, open dating, and nutrient labeling. The literature reviews will be followed by a discussion of the relevance of the research findings to public policy decisions relating to the adoption of these proposed aids.
These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'open dating. Send us feedback. See more words from the same year. Rhyming Dictionary: Words that rhyme with open dating.
5 Things I Learned When I Tried Dating Casually
Nature changes, politicians change, society changes - so do relationships between individuals change. The need for diversity is strong in people. Lovers start yearning for more polarity and diversity in their relationships - especially during long-term relationships. So People slowly look into other options and experiment with different concepts that suits their lifestyle better. What is the definition of an open relationship and what does it mean to life such a lifestyle? Why would you do such a thing? What rules are required and what matters to keep the peace? While we try to work out the topic of the of open relationship in depth, let us start with the most common definition first. What is open relationship meaning? The open relationship definition is a committed relationship between two individuals who want to share a life together but agree to a non-monogamous lifestyle.
People express love in different ways and no relationship is the same, which is why polyamory and the ability to have a relationship with more than one person has become an increasingly common topic of discussion. However, although most people have heard the term polyamory, not everyone is clear on the meaning or the logistics of how these non-monogamous relationships work.
Friend us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. Suscribe via RSS. Closed dating is a required packing code for tracking products in interstate commerce and locating products that have been recalled.
Top definition. A relationship in which two people agree that they want to be together, but can't exactly promise that they won't see other people too. Basically, to have it all: Common during college for many post-high school relationships. And it's don't ask, don't tell. An open relationship is a relationship where one person does not own the other. The couple are not exclusively seeing each other and can date, flirt and hook up with other people should they wish to do so. In a true open relationship the couple will be fully honest with each other unlike most regular relationships. They will not get pissed at each other for stupid things such as not ringing the day before, wearing a slutty top, passing out cold in a club, kissing that lesbian in the lift. Infact they will just love each other for who they are and support each other through times of need. Although other people will say they are sluts and it will never work, they onlys say this because they are jealous.
The Internet Dating Slang Terms You Need To Know
Are you thinking about having an open relationship with your partner? Or are you simply wondering what an open relationship truly means? What are the pros of an open relationship? Another intriguing component of an open relationship is simply the excitement, thrill and sense of adventure that it can bring. While an open relationship is based on honesty, candor and respect, it may be hard for you not to develop feelings of jealousy. And while jealous feelings can certainly develop in a monogamous commitment, they're likely to be more prevalent in an open relationship simply due to its very nature. However, this is the wrong approach, as opening up a weak relationship is likely going to destroy it.
.Why Polyamory (sadly) can't be for Everyone