A shopper who crosses regularly between Singapore and Indonesia learns to read the date on a packet the way they read it at home. Singapore's Food Regulations declare "best before" and "use by" to mean the same thing. Indonesia looks like the opposite case: it prints only a best-before, on everything.
Then it treats that date the way other countries treat a use-by, and makes selling past it an offence.
One phrase, prescribed
Indonesia's processed-food labelling regulation specifies the wording that must introduce the date, and offers no alternative:
"Keterangan kedaluwarsa sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) didahului tulisan 'Baik digunakan sebelum'."
"Baik digunakan sebelum" translates as "best used before". There is no second form — no "gunakan sebelum", no use-by, no separate mark for food where the risk is bacterial rather than a loss of quality. A search of the regulation for that phrasing finds it only inside the mandatory phrase itself.
The regulation says what kind of date it is
The same article defines the date in terms of quality, not safety:
"Keterangan kedaluwarsa merupakan batas akhir suatu Pangan dijamin mutunya, sepanjang penyimpanannya mengikuti petunjuk yang diberikan produsen."
That is the final limit up to which the food's quality is guaranteed, provided it has been stored as the producer directs. In European or Singaporean vocabulary this is a best-before, and Indonesia applies it universally — including to the chilled, perishable products that other systems would require to carry a use-by.
And then enforces it as a hard stop
⚠️ Three separate instruments make selling past that date an offence. The government regulation on food labelling and advertising is the plainest: "Dilarang memperdagangkan pangan yang sudah melampaui tanggal, bulan dan tahun kedaluwarsa sebagaimana dicantumkan pada Label" — it is prohibited to trade food beyond the expiry date shown on the label.
So the single Indonesian date is worded as the softer of the two European marks and carries the legal force of the harder one. A retailer's obligation does not turn on which kind of date it is, because there is only one kind.
The exemptions are narrower than the familiar list
Three categories may omit the date: beverages containing at least 7% alcohol, bread and cakes with a shelf life of 24 hours or less, and vinegar. Table salt, sugar and hard confectionery — which appear on the exemption list many people carry in their heads — are not exempt in Indonesia.
⚠️ And exemption does not mean an undated packet. The same article requires those three to show a production or packing date instead. Nothing leaves the factory without a date on it.
What this does not mean
It does not mean Indonesian food is held to a lower standard than Singaporean food, or a higher one. These are different drafting choices about how many marks to define, and each system has a coherent answer.
⚠️ It also does not mean a packet is unsafe the moment the date passes, any more than it does elsewhere. The date describes the producer's guarantee under stated storage conditions. What differs across the border is what a shop may lawfully do with the packet afterwards.
What to do with it
If you shop on both sides, the rule of thumb to drop is the one that reads a phrase and infers a risk level. In Singapore the two phrases are legally identical; in Indonesia there is only one phrase, and it is a quality date being enforced as a sales cut-off. Neither situation rewards reading the words.
For anyone putting product into both markets, the practical consequence is that one compliant Indonesian label carries an obligation a Singapore retailer does not face, and the same pack cannot be reasoned about identically in the two places.
Where this comes from
The quoted provisions are articles 34 and 35 of BPOM Regulation 31 of 2018 on processed food labelling, and the trading prohibition is from Government Regulation 69 of 1999, both read from the agency's own legal documentation portal. The English renderings are ours.
⚠️ Two limits. The portal publishes enacted texts rather than consolidations, so currency was established by reading the two amending regulations and confirming that neither reaches articles 34 or 35 — that reconciliation is ours, not the agency's. And we did not obtain a second official copy, because the two other national portals were unreachable.
This dates if BPOM introduces a second date form or amends the exemption list, which would be a visible regulatory change rather than a quiet one.
View author profile → · Editorial policy
