You gents say Big Pharma actually conducts tests, but conveniently, there is no documentation from Big Pharma or the FDA that documents anything beyond "effective", is there?
Every article I've seen in the responsible press, echoes the same findings that the US Department of Defense found: Meds are often good for more than a decade after the expiry date.
And, those same responsible press sources have actually quoted the pharmaceutical companies, on the record, as saying they test for one or two years and they feel that is long enough. That further testing would be too expensive, too complex for environmental variables, and as it is not required, they simply don't do it.
"While possible, I find it unlikely that big pharma is conspiring to establish premature expiration dates just to sell more pills. "
Oh, really? Nelson Rockefeller didn't help Henry Ford kill off electric cars, so he could sell more Kerosene? (A brand name, not just a product. As was "Gasoline".) Ford and others didn't put out fake press releases about exploding steam cars, to kill off their competition even when they knew very well the steamers were safer and better?
And perhaps you hadn't heard of price fixing, cartels, anti-monopoly acts, and documented history, like trolley companies being bought and their tracks and overheads torn down--making it economically impossible to restore them--in order to sell busses that also happened to need rubber tires regularly replaced?
Or the mining strikes in the early 1900's, when military and militia were called out as political favors to certain rich gentlemen in order to end the strikes and destroy the unions?
Big Pharma doesn't have to conspire. All they have to do is play on FUD. The same way that, oddly enough, every mattress store will tell you that you NEED a mattress which is twelve inches thick, the ones only 6" thick that we all grew up on, will kill you. Or at least, leave you so exhausted and uncomfortable, that they will contribute to your early demise.
Sorry, gents, but if the military says their aspirin and ointments have been TESTED a full decade after the expiry date and found perfectly functional...I can't see why they would make that up. Remember, they have incentives to throw it out and place new purchasing contracts too.
Please, do document the loss of effectiveness and the failure of meds, in general, in proper storage. Epipens in hot glove boxes may be trashed in 60 days. Insulin left on the countertop in even less. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule: Most meds, under proper conditions, continue to perform perfectly well.
In fact, there are a class of products sometimes called "blood stoppers" aka coagulation agents, made into a mass market by the military to stop bleeding in field wounds. Blood loss is perhaps the leading cause of death for combat casualties, so they have good reason to look at these products. I spoke directly to one manufacturer about why their product, a fairly simple and stable chemical, had a two-year expiration date and whether I really should throw it out at that point, when we had just used some that was four years old and perfectly effective. Their response? Well, off the record....if it had been stored properly, which they could never be sure of, they just put on the two year date because they had no control over storage conditions, but the FDA required SOME date, and two years seemed to keep everyone happy, so they put it on the labels.
Good for inventory churn, good for safety, good for FUD and profits, too. And if hadn't restocked the aid kit before the expiry date? Sure enough, the product would still be a life-saver, no hazards to keeping and using it, as long as it was kept sealed and stored properly.