(1)Existing law, the Milk and Milk Products Act of 1947, regulates milk and milk products and establishes standards for the manufacturing, handling, processing, and marketing of milk and milk products. Existing law requires that there appear on the package or container of market milk, market cream, and other milk products made from market milk or any component or derivative of market milk the date established by the processor as the date on which, in order to ensure consumer quality, the product is normally removed from the shelf or similar location from which the milk product is offered for sale to the consumer.

This bill would instead require that there appear on the package or container of those milk products the date established by the processor as the date by which the milk product should normally be used to ensure consumer quality.

(2)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require, on and after July 1, 2026, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use specified uniform terms on the date label, as provided. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with that requirement or that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, these provisions do not require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption. The bill would authorize a grocery store, on and after July 1, 2026, to display a label with the phrase packed on on a prepared food item and to sell or offer for sale in the state the prepared food item with that label, if the prepared food item also displays a quality or safety date label in accordance with the above-described requirement. The bill would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a person from displaying on wine, a distilled spirit, or a wine- or distilled spirit-based product bottled or packaged on and after July 1, 2026, a label with a statement that communicates the date on which the wine, distilled spirit, or wine- or distilled spirit-based product was produced, manufactured, bottled, or packaged, or from selling or offering for sale in the state the wine, distilled spirit, or wine- or distilled spirit-based product with that label. The bills above-described provisions would not apply to infant formula, eggs, pasteurized in-shell eggs, or beer and other malt beverages.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions. The California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before July 1, 2026, and, on and after July 1, 2026, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law, the Milk and Milk Products Act of 1947, regulates milk and milk products and establishes standards for the manufacturing, handling, processing, and marketing of milk and milk products. Existing law requires that there appear on the package or container of market milk, market cream, and other milk products made from market milk or any component or derivative of market milk the date established by the processor as the date on which, in order to ensure consumer quality, the product is normally removed from the shelf or similar location from which the milk product is offered for sale to the consumer.

This bill would instead require that there appear on the package or container of those milk products the date established by the processor as the date by which the milk product should normally be used to ensure consumer quality.

(2)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require, on and after July 1, 2026, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use specified uniform terms on the date label, as provided. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with that requirement or that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, these provisions do not require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption. The bill would authorize a grocery store, on and after July 1, 2026, to display a label with the phrase packed on on a prepared food item and to sell or offer for sale in the state the prepared food item with that label, if the prepared food item also displays a quality or safety date label in accordance with the above-described requirement. The bill would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a person from displaying on wine, a distilled spirit, or a wine- or distilled spirit-based product bottled or packaged on and after July 1, 2026, a label with a statement that communicates the date on which the wine, distilled spirit, or wine- or distilled spirit-based product was produced, manufactured, bottled, or packaged, or from selling or offering for sale in the state the wine, distilled spirit, or wine- or distilled spirit-based product with that label. The bills above-described provisions would not apply to infant formula, eggs, pasteurized in-shell eggs, or beer and other malt beverages.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions. The California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before July 1, 2026, and, on and after July 1, 2026, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law, the Milk and Milk Products Act of 1947, regulates milk and milk products and establishes standards for the manufacturing, handling, processing, and marketing of milk and milk products. Existing law requires that there appear on the package or container of market milk, market cream, and other milk products made from market milk or any component or derivative of market milk the date established by the processor as the date on which, in order to ensure consumer quality, the product is normally removed from the shelf or similar location from which the milk product is offered for sale to the consumer.

This bill would instead require that there appear on the package or container of those milk products the date established by the processor as the date by which the product should normally be used to ensure consumer quality.

(2)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require, on and after July 1, 2026, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use one of the specified terms on the date label, as provided. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with these terms. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, these provisions do not require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption. The bill would authorize a grocery store, on and after July 1, 2026, to display a label with the phrase packed on on a prepared food item and to sell or offer for sale in the state the prepared food item with that label, if the prepared food item also displays a quality or safety date label in accordance with the above-described provisions. The bill would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a person from displaying on wine, a distilled spirit, or a wine- or distilled spirit-based product bottled or packaged on and after July 1, 2026, a label with a statement that communicates the date on which the wine, distilled spirit, or wine- or distilled spirit-based product was produced, manufactured, bottled, or packaged, or from selling or offering for sale in the state the wine, distilled spirit, or wine- or distilled spirit-based product with that label. The bill would not apply the above-mentioned provisions to infant formula, eggs, pasteurized in-shell eggs, and beer and other malt beverages.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before July 1, 2026, and, on and after July 1, 2026, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law, the Milk and Milk Products Act of 1947, regulates milk and milk products and establishes standards for the manufacturing, handling, processing, and marketing of milk and milk products. Existing law requires that there appear on the package or container of market milk, market cream, and other milk products made from market milk or any component or derivative of market milk the date established by the processor as the date on which, in order to ensure consumer quality, the product is normally removed from the shelf or similar location from which the milk product is offered for sale to the consumer.

This bill would instead require that there appear on the package or container of those milk products the date established by the processor as the date by which the product should normally be used to ensure consumer quality.

(2)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require, on and after July 1, 2026, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use one of the specified terms on the date label, as provided. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with these terms. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would also require the State Department of Public Health to make certain updates to its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as provided. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, these provisions do not require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption. The bill would authorize a grocery store, on and after July 1, 2026, to display a label with the phrase packed on on a prepared food item and to sell or offer for sale in the state the prepared food item with that label, if the prepared food item also displays a quality or safety date label in accordance with the above-described provisions. The bill would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a person from displaying on wine or a distilled spirit wine, a distilled spirit, or a wine- or distilled spirit-based product bottled or packaged on and after July 1, 2026, a label with a statement that communicates the date on which the wine or distilled spirit wine, distilled spirit, or wine- or distilled spirit-based product was produced, manufactured, bottled, or packaged, or from selling or offering for sale in the state the wine or distilled spirit wine, distilled spirit, or wine- or distilled spirit-based product with that label. The bill would not apply the above-mentioned provisions to infant formula, eggs, pasteurized in-shell eggs, and beer and other malt beverages.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before July 1, 2026, and, on and after July 1, 2026, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(2)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require, on and after July 1, 2026, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use one of the specified terms on the date label, as provided. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with these terms. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would also require the State Department of Public Health to make certain updates to its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as provided. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, these provisions do not require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption. The bill would authorize a grocery store, on and after July 1, 2026, to display a label with the phrase packed on on a prepared food item and to sell or offer for sale in the state the prepared food item with that label, if the prepared food item also displays a quality or safety date label in accordance with the above-described provisions. The bill would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a person from displaying on wine or a distilled spirit bottled or packaged on and after July 1, 2026, a label with a statement that communicates the date on which the wine or distilled spirit was produced, manufactured, bottled, or packaged, or from selling or offering for sale in the state the wine or distilled spirit with that label. The bill would not apply the above-mentioned provisions to infant formula, eggs, and pasteurized in-shell eggs. eggs, and beer and other malt beverages.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before July 1, 2026, and, on and after July 1, 2026, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, requires raw shucked shellfish to be obtained in nonreturnable packages that bear a legible label that identifies the name, address, and certification number of the shucker-packer or repacker of the molluscan shellfish, and a sell by date or a best if used by date for packages with a capacity of less than ¹/₂ gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of ¹/₂ gallon or more.

This bill would retain the sell by date or best if used by date requirements for raw shucked shellfish packaged before July 1, 2026, and, for raw shucked shellfish packaged on and after July 1, 2026, would require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require, on and after January 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, to use one of the specified terms on the date label, as provided. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with these terms. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would also require the State Department of Public Health to make certain updates to its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as provided. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, nothing in these provisions shall be construed to do not require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption. The bill would authorize a grocery store, on and after July 1, 2026, to display a label with the phrase packed on on a prepared food item and to sell or offer for sale in the state the prepared food item with that label, if the prepared food item also displays a quality or safety date label in accordance with the above-described provisions. The bill would not apply the above-mentioned provisions to infant formula, eggs, and pasteurized in-shell eggs.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before January 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, and, on and after January 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires raw shucked shellfish to be obtained in nonreturnable packages that bear a legible label that identifies the name, address, and certification number of the shucker-packer or repacker of the molluscan shellfish, and a sell by date or a best if used by date for packages with a capacity of less than ¹/₂ gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of ¹/₂ gallon or more.

This bill would retain the sell by date or best if used by date requirements for raw shucked shellfish packaged before January 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, and, for raw shucked shellfish packaged on and after January 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, would require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of existing crime, this bill would constitute impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require, on and after January 1, 2025, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, to use one of the specified terms on the date label, as provided. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with these terms. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would also require the State Department of Public Health to make certain updates to its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as provided. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, nothing in these provisions shall be construed to require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption. The bill would not apply the above-mentioned provisions to infant formula. formula, eggs, and pasteurized in-shell eggs.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires raw shucked shellfish to be obtained in nonreturnable packages that bear a legible label that identifies the name, address, and certification number of the shucker-packer or repacker of the molluscan shellfish, and a sell by date or a best if used by date for packages with a capacity of less than ¹/₂ gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of ¹/₂ gallon or more.

This bill would retain the sell by date or best if used by date requirements before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of existing crime, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require, on or before and after January 1, 2025, food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to use specified terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates and safety dates, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, to use one of the specified terms on the date label, as provided. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, that displays a food product quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with these terms. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would also require the State Department of Public Health to make certain updates to its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as provided. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, nothing in these provisions shall be construed to require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption. The bill would not apply the above-mentioned provisions to infant formula.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Under existing law, except as provided, it is unlawful for an egg handler to sell, offer for sale, or expose for sale certain eggs that are packed for human consumption unless each container intended for sale to the ultimate consumer is labeled with certain information, including, among other information, the words sell by immediately followed by the month and day in bold type, as specified.

This bill would retain that sell by requirement before January 1, 2025. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, instead require each container to be labeled with, among other information, specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

Under existing law, if on reinspection certain eggs fail to meet the specification of the grades with which they are labeled, the seller must remark or repackage the eggs to meet the specifications for their actual grades before calling for reinspection. Existing law requires repackaged eggs to be labeled with the original sell by date.

This bill would retain that labeling requirement before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would instead require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

Existing law provides a misdemeanor penalty for an intentional violation or a 2nd or subsequent violation of these egg-related provisions. Existing law also requires agricultural commissioners of each county, their deputies, and qualified inspectors, under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, to enforce these egg-related provisions.

By revising the standards that are enforced and by expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires raw shucked shellfish to be obtained in nonreturnable packages that bear a legible label that identifies the name, address, and certification number of the shucker-packer or repacker of the molluscan shellfish, and a sell by date or a best if used by date for packages with a capacity of less than ¹/₂ gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of ¹/₂ gallon or more.

This bill would retain the sell by date or best if used by date requirements before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of existing crime, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require the Department of Food and Agriculture to, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, before require, on or before January 1, 2025, publish information to assist food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to use specified terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption that displays a food product date label that is not labeled in accordance with these terms. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would also require the State Department of Public Health to make certain updates to its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as provided. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, nothing in these provisions shall be construed to require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption. The bill would not apply the above-mentioned provisions to infant formula.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Under existing law, except as provided, it is unlawful for an egg handler to sell, offer for sale, or expose for sale certain eggs that are packed for human consumption unless each container intended for sale to the ultimate consumer is labeled with certain information, including, among other information, the words sell-by sell by immediately followed by the month and day in bold type, as specified.

This bill would retain that sell-by sell by requirement before January 1, 2025. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, instead require each container to be labeled with, among other information, specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

Under existing law, if on reinspection certain eggs fail to meet the specification of the grades with which they are labeled, the seller must remark or repackage the eggs to meet the specifications for their actual grades before calling for reinspection. Existing law requires repackaged eggs to be labeled with the original sell by date.

The bill would retain that labeling requirement before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would instead require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

Existing law provides a misdemeanor penalty for an intentional violation or a 2nd or subsequent violation of these egg-related provisions. Existing law also requires agricultural commissioners of each county, their deputies, and qualified inspectors, under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, to enforce these egg-related provisions.

By revising the standards that are enforced and by expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires raw shucked shellfish to be obtained in nonreturnable packages that bear a legible label that identifies the name, address, and certification number of the shucker-packer or repacker of the molluscan shellfish, and a sell by date or a best if used by date for packages with a capacity of less than ¹/₂ gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of ¹/₂ gallon or more.

The bill would retain the sell by date or best if used by date requirements before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of existing crime, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require the Department of Food and Agriculture to, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, before January 1, 2025, publish information to assist food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to use specified terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption that displays a food product date label that is not labeled in accordance with these terms. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would also require the State Department of Public Health to make certain updates to its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as provided. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, nothing in these provisions shall be construed to require the use or display of a date label on a food item, item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item. item for human consumption. The bill would not apply the above-mentioned provisions to infant formula.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would constitute impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Under existing law, except as provided, it is unlawful for an egg handler to sell, offer for sale, or expose for sale certain eggs that are packed for human consumption unless each container intended for sale to the ultimate consumer is labeled with certain information, including, among other information, the words sell-by immediately followed by the month and day in bold type, as specified.

This bill would retain that sell-by requirement before January 1, 2025. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, instead require each container to be labeled with, among other information, specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

Under existing law, if on reinspection certain eggs fail to meet the specification of the grades with which they are labeled, the seller must remark or repackage the eggs to meet the specifications for their actual grades before calling for reinspection. Existing law requires repackaged eggs to be labeled with the original sell by date.

The bill would retain that labeling requirement before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would instead require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

Existing law provides a misdemeanor penalty for an intentional violation or a 2nd or subsequent violation of these egg-related provisions. Existing law also requires agricultural commissioners of each county, their deputies, and qualified inspectors, under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, to enforce these egg-related provisions.

By revising the standards that are enforced and by expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires raw shucked shellfish to be obtained in nonreturnable packages that bear a legible label that identifies the name, address, and certification number of the shucker-packer or repacker of the molluscan shellfish, and a sell by date or a best if used by date for packages with a capacity of less than ¹/₂ gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of ¹/₂ gallon or more.

The bill would retain the sell by date or best if used by date requirements before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of existing crime, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require the Department of Food and Agriculture to, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, before January 1, 2025, publish information to assist food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to use specified terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item that displays a food product date label that is not labeled in accordance with these terms. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would also require the State Department of Public Health to make certain updates to its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as provided. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, nothing in these provisions shall be construed to require the use of a date label on a food item, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(2)Under existing law, except as provided, it is unlawful for an egg handler to sell, offer for sale, or expose for sale certain eggs that are packed for human consumption unless each container intended for sale to the ultimate consumer is labeled with certain information, including, among other information, the words sell-by immediately followed by the month and day in bold type, as specified.

This bill would retain that sell-by requirement before January 1, 2025. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, instead require each container to be labeled with, among other information, specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

Under existing law, if on reinspection certain eggs fail to meet the specification of the grades with which they are labeled, the seller must remark or repackage the eggs to meet the specifications for their actual grades before calling for reinspection. Existing law requires repackaged eggs to be labeled with the original sell by date.

The bill would retain that labeling requirement before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would instead require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

Existing law provides a misdemeanor penalty for an intentional violation or a 2nd or subsequent violation of these egg-related provisions. Existing law also requires agricultural commissioners of each county, their deputies, and qualified inspectors, under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, to enforce these egg-related provisions.

By revising the standards that are enforced and by expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires raw shucked shellfish to be obtained in nonreturnable packages that bear a legible label that identifies the name, address, and certification number of the shucker-packer or repacker of the molluscan shellfish, and a sell by date or a best if used by date for packages with a capacity of less than ¹/₂ gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of ¹/₂ gallon or more.

The bill would retain the sell by date or best if used by date requirements before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of existing crime, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates, as defined, and safety dates, as defined. Existing law also requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing sell by dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that, unless a different penalty is expressly provided, a violation of any provision of that code is a misdemeanor.

This bill would instead require the Department of Food and Agriculture to, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, before January 1, 2025, publish information to assist food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to use specified terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item that is not labeled in accordance with these terms. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item that is labeled with the phrase sell by, as specified. The bill would also require the State Department of Public Health to make certain updates to its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as provided.

By creating new requirements regarding the labeling of food items, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(2)Under existing law, except as provided, it is unlawful for an egg handler to sell, offer for sale, or expose for sale certain eggs that are packed for human consumption unless each container intended for sale to the ultimate consumer is labeled with certain information, including, among other information, the words sell-by immediately followed by the month and day in bold type, as specified.

This bill would retain that sell-by requirement before January 1, 2025. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, instead require each container to be labeled with, among other information, specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

Under existing law, if on reinspection certain eggs fail to meet the specification of the grades with which they are labeled, the seller must remark or repackage the eggs to meet the specifications for their actual grades before calling for reinspection. Existing law requires repackaged eggs to be labeled with the original sell by date.

The bill would retain that labeling requirement before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would instead require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

Existing law provides a misdemeanor penalty for an intentional violation or a 2nd or subsequent violation of these egg-related provisions. Existing law also requires agricultural commissioners of each county, their deputies, and qualified inspectors, under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, to enforce these egg-related provisions.

By revising the standards that are enforced and by expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities for regulation by the State Department of Public Health, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce those provisions.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan, as specified, that, among other things, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturers sell by or use by date, whichever occurs first.

This bill would retain that requirement before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date, as specified, whichever occurs first.

Existing law, located within the California Retail Food Code, requires raw shucked shellfish to be obtained in nonreturnable packages that bear a legible label that identifies the name, address, and certification number of the shucker-packer or repacker of the molluscan shellfish, and a sell by date or a best if used by date for packages with a capacity of less than ¹/₂ gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of ¹/₂ gallon or more.

The bill would retain the sell by date or best if used by date requirements before January 1, 2025, and, on and after January 1, 2025, would require specified terms to communicate quality dates and safety dates, as provided.

A violation of the California Retail Food Code is generally a misdemeanor. By revising the standards that are enforced by local health agencies and by expanding the scope of existing crime, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 660

Author:(Irwin)

As Amended Ver:August 23, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

This bill requires food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food items, beginning July 1, 2026, to use "BEST if Used by" to indicate quality, and "Use by" to indicate safety of a food item, and prohibits the use of the term "sell by."

Senate Amendments

1. Change the operational date of the bill from January 1, 2025 to July 1 2026.
2. Allow the use of UB or BU if the item for sell is too small, as specified.
3. Specifies that this bill does not apply to infant formula; eggs or pasteurized in-shell eggs; or, beer and other malt beverages.
4. Allows, for distilled spirit-based product, for a label that identifies the date a product was produced, manufactured, bottled, or packaged, as specified.
5. Requires that other laws or a National Shellfish Sanitation Program provision governing the labeling of shellfish supersede shellfish labeling in this bill
6. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption.

These amendments align with the Assembly Committee on Agriculture's policy goals.

COMMENTS

The United States Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the Department of Agriculture, in an explainer on food product dating on their website, states that except for infant formula which requires a "Use By" date, product dating is not required by federal regulations. According to FSIS, for meat, poultry and egg products, dates may be voluntarily applied, provided they are labeled in a manner that is truthful and not misleading. To comply, a calendar date must express both the month and day of the month, and in the case of shelf-stable and frozen products, the year must also be displayed. Additionally, immediately adjacent to the date must be a phrase explaining the meaning of that date, such as "Best if Used By." FSIS states that manufacturers provide dating to help consumers and retailers decide when food is of best quality, and that except for infant formula, dates are not an indicator of the product's safety and are not required by federal law. To reduce confusion and wasted food, FSIS recommends that food manufacturers and retailers that apply product dating use a "Best if Used By" date. Research shows that this phrase conveys to consumers that the product will be of best quality if used by the calendar date shown. Foods not exhibiting signs of spoilage should be wholesome and may be sold, purchased, donated and consumed beyond the labeled "Best if Used By" date.

According to the Author

Food products often feature phrases next to dates such as "Best By," "Expires On," "Enjoy By," "Best Before," and "Sell By," among countless other variations. The meaning of these phrases can be unclear to average consumers as they can indicate a product's peak freshness, when a product is no longer safe for consumption, or, in the case of "Sell By" dates, act as a guide for when retailers should pull products from the shelf. These phrases are often all referred to as "expiration dates," which can lead to consumer confusion. With the exception of baby formula, date labels on packaged food are not federally regulated. Furthermore, state rules can be widely inconsistent and only apply to certain product groups. This confusion ultimately leads to food being unnecessarily wasted, grocery budgets strained, and increased methane emissions from rotting food contributing to climate change. This bill addresses this problem by prohibiting the use of misleading food product date labels. This bill would require the use of two standard terms for food products that choose to use a date label – "Best if used by" to indicate the quality date of food, or "Use by" to indicate the safety of food.

Arguments in Support

Minimizing food waste, and organics waste at large, is integral to the success of meeting existing greenhouse gas reduction goals, and that such actions will limit needless consumer food waste and the stream of organic waste being landfilled. Food and other organic waste decomposing in landfills accounts for 41% of the state's point-source methane emissions. Supporters state that in 2017, the Legislature adopted the U.S. FDA-supported phrases "Use By" and "Best if Used By," set forth in AB 954, which outlined voluntary date label standards. The Consumer Brands Association 2018 report that 87% of its member's companies were in compliance in 2018, and anticipated 100% by 2020. However, a consumer fridge study showed an estimated 43% compliance with the voluntary standard, and a related 2019 shelf study found only 36% of products displayed these recommended labels. Supporters state that given recent federal and brand support towards streamlining labels, state action to reduce food waste, methane emissions, and save consumers money is crucial.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Unknown ongoing General Fund costs, likely hundreds of thousands, for CDPH for state administration; and unknown costs for the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) for state administration.
2. Costs to local health agencies for administration would be potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.

VOTES:

ASM AGRICULTURE: 7-0-4

YES: Mathis, Aguiar-Curry, Connolly, Irwin, Soria, Villapudua, Wood

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Flora, Jones-Sawyer, Robert Rivas

ASM HEALTH: 11-3-1

YES: Wood, Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Boerner, Wendy Carrillo, Maienschein, McCarty, Rodriguez, Santiago, Villapudua, Weber

NO: Flora, Vince Fong, Joe Patterson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-16-1

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO: Alanis, Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron

SENATE FLOOR: 34-1-5

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

NO: Jones

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dahle, Grove, Nguyen, Niello, Seyarto

UPDATED

VERSION: August 23, 2024

CONSULTANT: Victor Francovich / AGRI. / (916) 319-2084 FN: 0004613

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 660

Author: Irwin (D), et al.

Amended: 8/23/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/21/23

AYES: Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Limón, Menjivar, Roth, Rubio, Wahab, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Grove, Hurtado

SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/18/24

AYES: Hurtado, Grove, Alvarado-Gil, Cortese, Padilla

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NOES: Jones

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-16, 5/30/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Food and beverage products: labeling: quality dates, safety dates, and sell-by dates

SOURCE: Californians Against Waste

Natural Resources Defense Council

DIGEST:

This bill requires food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food items, beginning July 1, 2026, to use “BEST if Used by” to indicate quality, and “Use by” to indicate safety of a food item, and prohibits the use of the term “sell by.”

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/23/24 make a technical clarification regarding an exemption in the bill for labeling requirements for shellfish.

ANALYSIS: Existing federal law establishes, through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), various requirements for food labels under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which includes the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act and the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act. These include requiring specified nutrition information, a listing of all ingredients, and whether a produce contains any of eight major food allergens, such as milk, eggs, shellfish, tree nuts, etc. [21 CFR §101 et seq.]

Existing state law:

1. Enacts the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, enforced by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), which provides broad authority for CDPH to enforce food safety requirements, including that food is not adulterated, misbranded, or falsely advertised. Food labeling requirements generally adopt federal food labeling laws as the state requirement, including nutrition labeling and allergen labeling, but CDPH is permitted, by regulation, to adopt additional food labeling regulations. [HSC §109875 et seq., §110380]
2. Defines “food,” in the Sherman Act, as any article used or intended for use for food, drink, confection, condiment, or chewing gum by man or other animal, including any article used or intended for use as a component of any of these items. [HSC §109935]
3. Requires raw shucked shellfish to bear a label that includes a “sell by” date or a “best if used by” date for packages with a capacity of less than one-half gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of one-half gallon or more. [HSC §114039]
4. Requires eggs that are packed for human consumption to be labeled with the words “sell-by” immediately followed by the month and day in bold type, and prohibits the sell-by date from exceeding 30 days from the date on which the eggs were packed. [FAC §27644]
5. Requires milk, cream, or milk products to have a date appear on the package or container that is the date upon which, in order insure quality, the product is normally removed from the shelf or similar location from which the product is offered for sale to the consumer. [FAC §36004]

This bill:

1. Requires food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use one of the following uniform terms on the date label:
   1. “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality of a food item, or BB if the food item is too small for the full term or if the food item is a beverage; and,
   2. “Use by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of a food item, or UB if the food item is too small for the full term.
2. Prohibits, beginning July 1, 2026, the sale of a food item for human consumption that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with 1) above.
3. Prohibits, beginning July 1, 2026, the sale of a food item for human consumption that is labeled with the phrase “sell by.” Permits, however, the use of “sell by” dates that are presented in a coded format that are not easily readable by consumers and that do not use the phrase “sell by.”
4. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit, and cannot be construed to discourage, the sale, donation, or use of food after the food’s quality date in 1) a) above has passed. Permits a food facility to donate a food item for human consumption that is not labeled in accordance with this bill.
5. Prohibits anything in this bill from being construed to require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, unless otherwise required by law.
6. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption.
7. Permits a grocery store to display a label with the phrase “packed on” on a prepared food item if the prepared food item also displays a quality or safety date label in accordance with 1) above.
8. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a person from displaying on wine or a distilled spirit, or a wine- or distilled spirit-based product, bottled or packaged after July 1, 2026, a label with a statement that communicates the date on which the wine or distilled spirit was produced, manufactured, bottled, or packaged.
9. Specifies that this bill does not apply to the following:
   1. infant formula;
   2. eggs or pasteurized in-shell eggs; or,
   3. beer and other malt beverages.
10. Exempts shellfish from the provisions of this bill to the extent there is any other law or a National Shellfish Sanitation Program provision governing the labeling of shellfish that conflicts with, or is inconsistent with, the provisions of this bill.
11. Revises a provision of law governing the use of a reduced-oxygen packing method where Clostridium botulinum is identified as a microbiological hazard in the final prepackaged form so that beginning July 1, 2026, the limit on the refrigerated shelf life of the product is limited to a specific time frame or the original safety date that is consistent with 1) b) above, rather than the original manufacturer’s “sell by” date.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, “food products often feature phrases next to dates such as “Best By,” “Expires On,” “Enjoy By,” “Best Before,” and “Sell By,” among countless other variations. The meaning of these phrases can be unclear to average consumers as they can indicate a product’s peak freshness, when a product is no longer safe for consumption, or, in the case of “Sell By” dates, act as a guide for when retailers should pull products from the shelf. These phrases are often all referred to as “expiration dates,” which can lead to consumer confusion. With the exception of baby formula, date labels on packaged food are not federally regulated. Furthermore, state rules can be widely inconsistent and only apply to certain product groups. This confusion ultimately leads to food being unnecessarily wasted, grocery budgets strained, and increased methane emissions from rotting food contributing to climate change. This bill addresses this problem by prohibiting the use of misleading food product date labels. This bill would require the use of two standard terms for food products that choose to use a date label – “Best if used by” to indicate the quality date of food, or “Use by” to indicate the safety of food.”
2. Background on federal labeling requirements and recommendations. The United States Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the Department of Agriculture, in an explainer on food product dating on their website, states that except for infant formula which requires a “Use By” date, product dating is not required by federal regulations. According to FSIS, for meat, poultry and egg products, dates may be voluntarily applied, provided they are labeled in a manner that is truthful and not misleading. To comply, a calendar date must express both the month and day of the month, and in the case of shelf-stable and frozen products, the year must also be displayed. Additionally, immediately adjacent to the date must be a phrase explaining the meaning of that date, such as “Best if Used By.” FSIS states that manufacturers provide dating to help consumers and retailers decide when food is of best quality, and that except for infant formula, dates are not an indicator of the product’s safety and are not required by federal law. To reduce confusion and wasted food, FSIS recommends that food manufacturers and retailers that apply product dating use a “Best if Used By” date. Research shows that this phrase conveys to consumers that the product will be of best quality if used by the calendar date shown. Foods not exhibiting signs of spoilage should be wholesome and may be sold, purchased, donated and consumed beyond the labeled “Best if Used By” date.
3. The problem of food waste. There have been numerous reports and studies looking at the abundance of food produced in the U.S. and the amount of safe food that ends up in landfills. The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a report in March of this year, entitled Don’t Waste, Donate: Enhancing Food Donations Through Federal Policy. According to this report, 40% of the U.S. food supply goes uneaten, resulting in at least 62.5 million tons of wasted food each year, and uneaten food is the single largest contributor of solid waste in our nation’s landfills. This report states that despite the large amount of discarded food, 12.7% of U.S. households were food insecure in 2015, meaning that at some point in the year they lacked access to a sufficient amount of food. The Food Waste Reduction Alliance, which is a joint project of the Food Marketing Institute, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the National Restaurant Association, conducts a survey every two years to collect data from food manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers and restaurants in order to understand the current state of food waste. Their most recent survey, published in the Fall of 2016, found that donated food made up only 3.3% of total unsaleable food, and that transportation constraints was the most often cited barrier to donating and recycling. The survey found, however, that 58% of respondents are investing in increasing food donation for those in need, making it the most often cited investment area. The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic issued a report in October of 2016, entitled “Keeping Food Out of the Landfill: Policy Ideas for States and Localities.” This report states that in recent years, state and local governments have sought to increase food recovery by providing state tax incentives to food donors, allocating funding to support food recovery infrastructure, re-evaluating how schools handle food waste, and passing laws that ban organic waste from landfills. With regard to liability protections, the report said states can improve liability protections by clarifying and expanding the federal Emerson Act, including extending protection to organization that sell or otherwise charge for food, when donors donate directly to end-users, and when donors donate past-date foods. Additionally, the report stated that for liability protections to lead to increased food recovery, potential food donors need to know that such protections exist, and states can increase food donation by making potential food donors aware of the federal and state liability protections available.
4. Report on date labeling of food. The National Resources Defense Council and the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic published a report in September of 2013, entitled The Dating Game: How Confusing Food Date Labels Lead to Food Waste in America. According to this report, the lack of coordinated action at the federal level increases the complexity of the food labeling regime by causing a regulatory void that states and localities have attempted to fill in various ways, resulting in a tremendously varied set of state and local laws regarding the use of date labels. The report notes that industry has also attempted to provide direction, with some food trade associations creating voluntary guidance on date labeling practices for specific commodities that don’t necessarily help to improve public health. The report made several recommendations, including that “sell by” dates should be made invisible to the consumer as they are intended for stock control by retailers, and that the consumer-facing dating system be standardized to better inform consumers of the meaning of different dates and clearly delineate between safety-based and quality-based dates.
5. Industry report on progress toward “Best if Used By.” In 2019, the Consumer Brands Association, which represents a large number of grocery manufacturers, released a report entitled “Best if Clearly Labeled.” Subtitled, “How the Consumer Packaged Goods Industry is Reducing Confusion and Food Waste,” this report stated that the Consumer Brands Association along with the Food Marketing Institute brought together 25 consumer packaged goods and grocery retail companies to simplify and streamline the number of labels and bring much-needed clarity to consumers. They narrowed date labeling down to the two labels proposed by this bill, and that since launching in February 2017, 87% of products have adopted the streamlined phrases, according to a survey conducted by Consumer Brands Association in December 2018. Their survey found that 32,093 products carried the new labels, and that 85% of Americans say that the streamlined date labels are helpful to them. They expected complete adoption by January 2020.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Unknown ongoing General Fund costs, likely hundreds of thousands, for CDPH for state administration; and unknown costs for the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) for state administration.
• Costs to local health agencies for administration would be potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/23/24)

Californians Against Waste (co-source)

Natural Resources Defense Council (co-source)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Active San Gabriel Valley

Alameda County Community Food Bank
California Compost Coalition
California Environmental Voters
California Product Stewardship Council
California Resource Recovery Association
California Public Interest Research Group

Catholic Charities of Stockton

City of Berkeley
Climate Action California
Community Action Partnership of Orange County
Dr. Bronner's
Elders Climate Action NorCal Chapter
Elders Climate Action SoCal Chapter
Environmental Working Group
Food Empowerment Project
Food for People
Food Share

Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic
Imperial Valley Food Bank
Inika Small Earth
Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles Regional Food Bank

Lutheran Office of Public Policy – California

Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority

National Stewardship Action Council

Northern California Recycling Association
Pesticide Action Network
Plastic Free Future
ReThinkWaste
San Francisco-Marin Food Bank
Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission
Save Our Shores
Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley
Second Harvest of The Greater Valley

Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

StopWaste
Zero Waste Sonoma

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/23/24)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: An extensive coalition of environmental and other organizations are supporting this bill, led by the bill’s sponsors, Californians Against Waste and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Supporters state that minimizing food waste, and organics waste at large, is integral to the success of meeting existing greenhouse gas reduction goals, and that such actions will limit needless consumer food waste and the stream of organic waste being landfilled. Food and other organic waste decomposing in landfills accounts for 41% of the state’s point-source methane emissions. Supporters state that in 2017, the Legislature adopted the U.S. FDA-supported phrases “Use By” and “Best if Used By,” set forth in AB 954, which outlined voluntary date label standards. Supporters point to the Consumer Brands Association 2018 report that 87% of its member’s companies were in compliance in 2018, and anticipated 100% by 2020. However, supporters state that a consumer fridge study showed an estimated 43% compliance with the voluntary standard, and a related 2019 shelf study found only 36% of products displayed these recommended labels. Supporters state that given recent federal and brand support towards streamlining labels, state action to reduce food waste, methane emissions, and save consumers money is crucial.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-16, 5/30/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NOES: Alanis, Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis

NO VOTE RECORDED: Waldron

Prepared by: Vincent D. Marchand / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111

8/26/24 17:33:57

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 660

Author: Irwin (D), et al.

Amended: 8/21/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/21/23

AYES: Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Limón, Menjivar, Roth, Rubio, Wahab, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Grove, Hurtado

SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/18/24

AYES: Hurtado, Grove, Alvarado-Gil, Cortese, Padilla

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NOES: Jones

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-16, 5/30/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Food and beverage products: labeling: quality dates, safety dates, and sell-by dates

SOURCE: Californians Against Waste

Natural Resources Defense Council

DIGEST:

This bill requires food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food items, beginning July 1, 2026, to use “BEST if Used by” to indicate quality, and “Use by” to indicate safety of a food item, and prohibits the use of the term “sell by.”

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/21/24 delete a requirement that the California Department of Public Health update its regulations involving the retail food code to reflect the changes made by this bill; delete revisions to date labeling requirements for raw shucked shellfish, and instead exempts the provisions of this bill from applying to shellfish if there is any other law governing the labeling of shellfish that conflicts with, or is inconsistent with the provisions of this bill; and, make other minor, technical clarifications, including adding wine- or distilled spirit-based products to the provisions of this bill affecting wine or distilled spirits.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law establishes, through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), various requirements for food labels under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which includes the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act and the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act. These include requiring specified nutrition information, a listing of all ingredients, and whether a produce contains any of eight major food allergens, such as milk, eggs, shellfish, tree nuts, etc. [21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §101 et seq.]

Existing state law:

1. Enacts the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, enforced by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), which provides broad authority for CDPH to enforce food safety requirements, including that food is not adulterated, misbranded, or falsely advertised. Food labeling requirements generally adopt federal food labeling laws as the state requirement, including nutrition labeling and allergen labeling, but CDPH is permitted, by regulation, to adopt additional food labeling regulations. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) §109875 et seq., §110380]
2. Defines “food,” in the Sherman Act, as any article used or intended for use for food, drink, confection, condiment, or chewing gum by man or other animal, including any article used or intended for use as a component of any of these items. [HSC §109935]
3. Requires raw shucked shellfish to bear a label that includes a “sell by” date or a “best if used by” date for packages with a capacity of less than one-half gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of one-half gallon or more. [HSC §114039]
4. Requires eggs that are packed for human consumption to be labeled with the words “sell-by” immediately followed by the month and day in bold type, and prohibits the sell-by date from exceeding 30 days from the date on which the eggs were packed. [Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) §27644]
5. Requires milk, cream, or milk products to have a date appear on the package or container that is the date upon which, in order insure quality, the product is normally removed from the shelf or similar location from which the product is offered for sale to the consumer. [FAC §36004]

This bill:

1. Requires food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use one of the following uniform terms on the date label:
   1. “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality of a food item, or BB if the food item is too small for the full term or if the food item is a beverage; and,
   2. “Use by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of a food item, or UB if the food item is too small for the full term.
2. Prohibits, beginning July 1, 2026, the sale of a food item for human consumption that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with 1) above.
3. Prohibits, beginning July 1, 2026, the sale of a food item for human consumption that is labeled with the phrase “sell by.” Permits, however, the use of “sell by” dates that are presented in a coded format that are not easily readable by consumers and that do not use the phrase “sell by.”
4. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit, and cannot be construed to discourage, the sale, donation, or use of food after the food’s quality date in 1) a) above has passed. Permits a food facility to donate a food item for human consumption that is not labeled in accordance with this bill.
5. Prohibits anything in this bill from being construed to require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, unless otherwise required by law.
6. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption.
7. Permits a grocery store to display a label with the phrase “packed on” on a prepared food item if the prepared food item also displays a quality or safety date label in accordance with 1) above.
8. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a person from displaying on wine or a distilled spirit, or a wine- or distilled spirit-based product, bottled or packaged after July 1, 2026, a label with a statement that communicates the date on which the wine or distilled spirit was produced, manufactured, bottled, or packaged.
9. Specifies that this bill does not apply to the following:
   1. infant formula;
   2. eggs or pasteurized in-shell eggs; or,
   3. beer and other malt beverages.
10. Exempts shellfish from the provisions of this bill to the extent there is any other law governing the labeling of shellfish that conflicts with, or is inconsistent with the provisions of this bill.
11. Revises a provision of law governing the use of a reduced-oxygen packing method where Clostridium botulinum is identified as a microbiological hazard in the final prepackaged form so that beginning July 1, 2026, the limit on the refrigerated shelf life of the product is limited to a specific time frame or the original safety date that is consistent with 1) b) above, rather than the original manufacturer’s “sell by” date.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, “food products often feature phrases next to dates such as “Best By,” “Expires On,” “Enjoy By,” “Best Before,” and “Sell By,” among countless other variations. The meaning of these phrases can be unclear to average consumers as they can indicate a product’s peak freshness, when a product is no longer safe for consumption, or, in the case of “Sell By” dates, act as a guide for when retailers should pull products from the shelf. These phrases are often all referred to as “expiration dates,” which can lead to consumer confusion. With the exception of baby formula, date labels on packaged food are not federally regulated. Furthermore, state rules can be widely inconsistent and only apply to certain product groups. This confusion ultimately leads to food being unnecessarily wasted, grocery budgets strained, and increased methane emissions from rotting food contributing to climate change. This bill addresses this problem by prohibiting the use of misleading food product date labels. This bill would require the use of two standard terms for food products that choose to use a date label – “Best if used by” to indicate the quality date of food, or “Use by” to indicate the safety of food.”
2. Background on federal labeling requirements and recommendations. The United States Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the Department of Agriculture, in an explainer on food product dating on their website, states that except for infant formula which requires a “Use By” date, product dating is not required by federal regulations. According to FSIS, for meat, poultry and egg products, dates may be voluntarily applied, provided they are labeled in a manner that is truthful and not misleading. To comply, a calendar date must express both the month and day of the month, and in the case of shelf-stable and frozen products, the year must also be displayed. Additionally, immediately adjacent to the date must be a phrase explaining the meaning of that date, such as “Best if Used By.” FSIS states that manufacturers provide dating to help consumers and retailers decide when food is of best quality, and that except for infant formula, dates are not an indicator of the product’s safety and are not required by federal law. To reduce confusion and wasted food, FSIS recommends that food manufacturers and retailers that apply product dating use a “Best if Used By” date. Research shows that this phrase conveys to consumers that the product will be of best quality if used by the calendar date shown. Foods not exhibiting signs of spoilage should be wholesome and may be sold, purchased, donated and consumed beyond the labeled “Best if Used By” date.
3. The problem of food waste. There have been numerous reports and studies looking at the abundance of food produced in the U.S. and the amount of safe food that ends up in landfills. The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a report in March of this year, entitled Don’t Waste, Donate: Enhancing Food Donations Through Federal Policy. According to this report, 40% of the U.S. food supply goes uneaten, resulting in at least 62.5 million tons of wasted food each year, and uneaten food is the single largest contributor of solid waste in our nation’s landfills. This report states that despite the large amount of discarded food, 12.7% of U.S. households were food insecure in 2015, meaning that at some point in the year they lacked access to a sufficient amount of food. The Food Waste Reduction Alliance, which is a joint project of the Food Marketing Institute, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the National Restaurant Association, conducts a survey every two years to collect data from food manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers and restaurants in order to understand the current state of food waste. Their most recent survey, published in the Fall of 2016, found that donated food made up only 3.3% of total unsaleable food, and that transportation constraints was the most often cited barrier to donating and recycling. The survey found, however, that 58% of respondents are investing in increasing food donation for those in need, making it the most often cited investment area. The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic issued a report in October of 2016, entitled “Keeping Food Out of the Landfill: Policy Ideas for States and Localities.” This report states that in recent years, state and local governments have sought to increase food recovery by providing state tax incentives to food donors, allocating funding to support food recovery infrastructure, re-evaluating how schools handle food waste, and passing laws that ban organic waste from landfills. With regard to liability protections, the report said states can improve liability protections by clarifying and expanding the federal Emerson Act, including extending protection to organization that sell or otherwise charge for food, when donors donate directly to end-users, and when donors donate past-date foods. Additionally, the report stated that for liability protections to lead to increased food recovery, potential food donors need to know that such protections exist, and states can increase food donation by making potential food donors aware of the federal and state liability protections available.
4. Report on date labeling of food. The National Resources Defense Council and the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic published a report in September of 2013, entitled The Dating Game: How Confusing Food Date Labels Lead to Food Waste in America. According to this report, the lack of coordinated action at the federal level increases the complexity of the food labeling regime by causing a regulatory void that states and localities have attempted to fill in various ways, resulting in a tremendously varied set of state and local laws regarding the use of date labels. The report notes that industry has also attempted to provide direction, with some food trade associations creating voluntary guidance on date labeling practices for specific commodities that don’t necessarily help to improve public health. The report made several recommendations, including that “sell by” dates should be made invisible to the consumer as they are intended for stock control by retailers, and that the consumer-facing dating system be standardized to better inform consumers of the meaning of different dates and clearly delineate between safety-based and quality-based dates.
5. Industry report on progress toward “Best if Used By.” In 2019, the Consumer Brands Association, which represents a large number of grocery manufacturers, released a report entitled “Best if Clearly Labeled.” Subtitled, “How the Consumer Packaged Goods Industry is Reducing Confusion and Food Waste,” this report stated that the Consumer Brands Association along with the Food Marketing Institute brought together 25 consumer packaged goods and grocery retail companies to simplify and streamline the number of labels and bring much-needed clarity to consumers. They narrowed date labeling down to the two labels proposed by this bill, and that since launching in February 2017, 87% of products have adopted the streamlined phrases, according to a survey conducted by Consumer Brands Association in December 2018. Their survey found that 32,093 products carried the new labels, and that 85% of Americans say that the streamlined date labels are helpful to them. They expected complete adoption by January 2020.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/24)

Californians Against Waste (co-source)

Natural Resources Defense Council (co-source)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Active San Gabriel Valley

Alameda County Community Food Bank
California Compost Coalition
California Environmental Voters
California Product Stewardship Council
California Resource Recovery Association
California Public Interest Research Group

Catholic Charities of Stockton

City of Berkeley
Climate Action California
Community Action Partnership of Orange County
Dr. Bronner's
Elders Climate Action NorCal Chapter
Elders Climate Action SoCal Chapter
Environmental Working Group
Food Empowerment Project
Food for People
Food Share

Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic
Imperial Valley Food Bank
Inika Small Earth
Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles Regional Food Bank

Lutheran Office of Public Policy – California

Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority

National Stewardship Action Council

Northern California Recycling Association
Pesticide Action Network
Plastic Free Future
ReThinkWaste
San Francisco-Marin Food Bank
Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission
Save Our Shores
Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley
Second Harvest of The Greater Valley

Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

StopWaste
Zero Waste Sonoma

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/24)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: An extensive coalition of environmental and other organizations are supporting this bill, led by the bill’s sponsors, Californians Against Waste and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Supporters state that minimizing food waste, and organics waste at large, is integral to the success of meeting existing greenhouse gas reduction goals, and that such actions will limit needless consumer food waste and the stream of organic waste being landfilled. Food and other organic waste decomposing in landfills accounts for 41% of the state’s point-source methane emissions. Supporters state that in 2017, the Legislature adopted the U.S. FDA-supported phrases “Use By” and “Best if Used By,” set forth in AB 954, which outlined voluntary date label standards. Supporters point to the Consumer Brands Association 2018 report that 87% of its member’s companies were in compliance in 2018, and anticipated 100% by 2020. However, supporters state that a consumer fridge study showed an estimated 43% compliance with the voluntary standard, and a related 2019 shelf study found only 36% of products displayed these recommended labels. Supporters state that given recent federal and brand support towards streamlining labels, state action to reduce food waste, methane emissions, and save consumers money is crucial.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-16, 5/30/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NOES: Alanis, Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis

NO VOTE RECORDED: Waldron

Prepared by: Vincent D. Marchand / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111

8/22/24 16:10:18

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 660

Author: Irwin (D), et al.

Amended: 8/15/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/21/23

AYES: Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Limón, Menjivar, Roth, Rubio, Wahab, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Grove, Hurtado

SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/18/24

AYES: Hurtado, Grove, Alvarado-Gil, Cortese, Padilla

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NOES: Jones

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-16, 5/30/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Food and beverage products: labeling: quality dates, safety dates, and sell-by dates

SOURCE: Californians Against Waste

Natural Resources Defense Council

DIGEST:

This bill requires food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food items, beginning July 1, 2026, to use “BEST if Used by” to indicate quality, and “Use by” to indicate safety of a food item, and prohibits the use of the term “sell by.”

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

Establishes, through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), various requirements for food labels under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which includes the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act and the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act. These include requiring specified nutrition information, a listing of all ingredients, and whether a produce contains any of eight major food allergens, such as milk, eggs, shellfish, tree nuts, etc. [21 CFR §101 et seq.]

Existing state law:

1. Enacts the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, enforced by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), which provides broad authority for CDPH to enforce food safety requirements, including that food is not adulterated, misbranded, or falsely advertised. Food labeling requirements generally adopt federal food labeling laws as the state requirement, including nutrition labeling and allergen labeling, but CDPH is permitted, by regulation, to adopt additional food labeling regulations. [HSC §109875 et seq., §110380]
2. Defines “food,” in the Sherman Act, as any article used or intended for use for food, drink, confection, condiment, or chewing gum by man or other animal, including any article used or intended for use as a component of any of these items. [HSC §109935]
3. Requires raw shucked shellfish to bear a label that includes a “sell by” date or a “best if used by” date for packages with a capacity of less than one-half gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of one-half gallon or more. [HSC §114039]
4. Requires eggs that are packed for human consumption to be labeled with the words “sell-by” immediately followed by the month and day in bold type, and prohibits the sell-by date from exceeding 30 days from the date on which the eggs were packed. [FAC §27644]
5. Requires milk, cream, or milk products to have a date appear on the package or container that is the date upon which, in order insure quality, the product is normally removed from the shelf or similar location from which the product is offered for sale to the consumer. [FAC §36004]

This bill:

1. Requires food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use one of the following uniform terms on the date label:
   1. “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality of a food item, or BB if the food item is too small for the full term; and,
   2. “Use by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of a food item, or UB if the food item is too small for the full term.
2. Prohibits, beginning July 1, 2026, the sale of a food item for human consumption that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with 1) above.
3. Prohibits, beginning July 1, 2026, the sale of a food item for human consumption that is labeled with the phrase “sell by.” Permits, however, the use of “sell by” dates that are presented in a coded format that are not easily readable by consumers and that do not use the phrase “sell by.”
4. Requires CDPH to update its regulations involved with the California Retail Food Code consistent with this bill.
5. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit, and cannot be construed to discourage, the sale, donation, or use of food after the food’s quality date in 1) a) above has passed. Permits a food facility to donate a food item for human consumption that is not labeled in accordance with this bill.
6. Prohibits anything in this bill from being construed to require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, unless otherwise required by law.
7. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption.
8. Permits a grocery store to display a label with the phrase “packed on” on a prepared food item if the prepared food item also displays a quality or safety date label in accordance with 1) above.
9. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a person from displaying on wine or a distilled spirit bottled or packaged after July 1, 2026, a label with a statement that communicates the date on which the wine or distilled spirit was produced, manufactured, bottled, or packaged.
10. Specifies that this bill does not apply to the following:
    1. infant formula;
    2. eggs or pasteurized in-shell eggs; or,
    3. beer and other malt beverages.
11. Revises a provision of law that currently requires raw shucked shellfish to have a “sell by” or “best if used by” dates on labels so that beginning on July 1, 2026, this bill would require raw shucked shellfish to comply with the labeling requirements in 1) above.
12. Revises a provision of law governing the use of a reduced-oxygen packing method where Clostridium botulinum is identified as a microbiological hazard in the final prepackaged form so that beginning July 1, 2026, the limit on the refrigerated shelf life of the product is limited to a specific time frame or the original safety date that is consistent with 1) b) above, rather than the original manufacturer’s “sell by” date.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, “food products often feature phrases next to dates such as “Best By,” “Expires On,” “Enjoy By,” “Best Before,” and “Sell By,” among countless other variations. The meaning of these phrases can be unclear to average consumers as they can indicate a product’s peak freshness, when a product is no longer safe for consumption, or, in the case of “Sell By” dates, act as a guide for when retailers should pull products from the shelf. These phrases are often all referred to as “expiration dates,” which can lead to consumer confusion. With the exception of baby formula, date labels on packaged food are not federally regulated. Furthermore, state rules can be widely inconsistent and only apply to certain product groups. This confusion ultimately leads to food being unnecessarily wasted, grocery budgets strained, and increased methane emissions from rotting food contributing to climate change. This bill addresses this problem by prohibiting the use of misleading food product date labels. This bill would require the use of two standard terms for food products that choose to use a date label – “Best if used by” to indicate the quality date of food, or “Use by” to indicate the safety of food.”
2. Background on federal labeling requirements and recommendations. The United States Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the Department of Agriculture, in an explainer on food product dating on their website, states that except for infant formula which requires a “Use By” date, product dating is not required by federal regulations. According to FSIS, for meat, poultry and egg products, dates may be voluntarily applied, provided they are labeled in a manner that is truthful and not misleading. To comply, a calendar date must express both the month and day of the month, and in the case of shelf-stable and frozen products, the year must also be displayed. Additionally, immediately adjacent to the date must be a phrase explaining the meaning of that date, such as “Best if Used By.” FSIS states that manufacturers provide dating to help consumers and retailers decide when food is of best quality, and that except for infant formula, dates are not an indicator of the product’s safety and are not required by federal law. To reduce confusion and wasted food, FSIS recommends that food manufacturers and retailers that apply product dating use a “Best if Used By” date. Research shows that this phrase conveys to consumers that the product will be of best quality if used by the calendar date shown. Foods not exhibiting signs of spoilage should be wholesome and may be sold, purchased, donated and consumed beyond the labeled “Best if Used By” date.
3. The problem of food waste. There have been numerous reports and studies looking at the abundance of food produced in the U.S. and the amount of safe food that ends up in landfills. The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a report in March of this year, entitled Don’t Waste, Donate: Enhancing Food Donations Through Federal Policy. According to this report, 40% of the U.S. food supply goes uneaten, resulting in at least 62.5 million tons of wasted food each year, and uneaten food is the single largest contributor of solid waste in our nation’s landfills. This report states that despite the large amount of discarded food, 12.7% of U.S. households were food insecure in 2015, meaning that at some point in the year they lacked access to a sufficient amount of food. The Food Waste Reduction Alliance, which is a joint project of the Food Marketing Institute, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the National Restaurant Association, conducts a survey every two years to collect data from food manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers and restaurants in order to understand the current state of food waste. Their most recent survey, published in the Fall of 2016, found that donated food made up only 3.3% of total unsaleable food, and that transportation constraints was the most often cited barrier to donating and recycling. The survey found, however, that 58% of respondents are investing in increasing food donation for those in need, making it the most often cited investment area. The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic issued a report in October of 2016, entitled “Keeping Food Out of the Landfill: Policy Ideas for States and Localities.” This report states that in recent years, state and local governments have sought to increase food recovery by providing state tax incentives to food donors, allocating funding to support food recovery infrastructure, re-evaluating how schools handle food waste, and passing laws that ban organic waste from landfills. With regard to liability protections, the report said states can improve liability protections by clarifying and expanding the federal Emerson Act, including extending protection to organization that sell or otherwise charge for food, when donors donate directly to end-users, and when donors donate past-date foods. Additionally, the report stated that for liability protections to lead to increased food recovery, potential food donors need to know that such protections exist, and states can increase food donation by making potential food donors aware of the federal and state liability protections available.
4. Report on date labeling of food. The National Resources Defense Council and the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic published a report in September of 2013, entitled The Dating Game: How Confusing Food Date Labels Lead to Food Waste in America. According to this report, the lack of coordinated action at the federal level increases the complexity of the food labeling regime by causing a regulatory void that states and localities have attempted to fill in various ways, resulting in a tremendously varied set of state and local laws regarding the use of date labels. The report notes that industry has also attempted to provide direction, with some food trade associations creating voluntary guidance on date labeling practices for specific commodities that don’t necessarily help to improve public health. The report made several recommendations, including that “sell by” dates should be made invisible to the consumer as they are intended for stock control by retailers, and that the consumer-facing dating system be standardized to better inform consumers of the meaning of different dates and clearly delineate between safety-based and quality-based dates.
5. Industry report on progress toward “Best if Used By.” In 2019, the Consumer Brands Association, which represents a large number of grocery manufacturers, released a report entitled “Best if Clearly Labeled.” Subtitled, “How the Consumer Packaged Goods Industry is Reducing Confusion and Food Waste,” this report stated that the Consumer Brands Association along with the Food Marketing Institute brought together 25 consumer packaged goods and grocery retail companies to simplify and streamline the number of labels and bring much-needed clarity to consumers. They narrowed date labeling down to the two labels proposed by this bill, and that since launching in February 2017, 87% of products have adopted the streamlined phrases, according to a survey conducted by Consumer Brands Association in December 2018. Their survey found that 32,093 products carried the new labels, and that 85% of Americans say that the streamlined date labels are helpful to them. They expected complete adoption by January 2020.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Unknown ongoing General Fund costs, likely hundreds of thousands, for CDPH for state administration; and unknown costs for the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) for state administration.
• Costs to local health agencies for administration would be potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/24)

Californians Against Waste (co-source)

Natural Resources Defense Council (co-source)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Active San Gabriel Valley

Alameda County Community Food Bank
California Compost Coalition
California Environmental Voters
California Product Stewardship Council
California Resource Recovery Association
California Public Interest Research Group

Catholic Charities of Stockton

City of Berkeley
Climate Action California
Community Action Partnership of Orange County
Dr. Bronner's
Elders Climate Action NorCal Chapter
Elders Climate Action SoCal Chapter
Environmental Working Group
Food Empowerment Project
Food for People
Food Share

Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic
Imperial Valley Food Bank
Inika Small Earth
Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles Regional Food Bank

Lutheran Office of Public Policy – California

Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority

National Stewardship Action Council

Northern California Recycling Association
Pesticide Action Network
Plastic Free Future
ReThinkWaste
San Francisco-Marin Food Bank
Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission
Save Our Shores
Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley
Second Harvest of The Greater Valley

Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

StopWaste
Zero Waste Sonoma

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/24)

None received.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: An extensive coalition of environmental and other organizations are supporting this bill, led by the bill’s sponsors, Californians Against Waste and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Supporters state that minimizing food waste, and organics waste at large, is integral to the success of meeting existing greenhouse gas reduction goals, and that such actions will limit needless consumer food waste and the stream of organic waste being landfilled. Food and other organic waste decomposing in landfills accounts for 41% of the state’s point-source methane emissions. Supporters state that in 2017, the Legislature adopted the U.S. FDA-supported phrases “Use By” and “Best if Used By,” set forth in AB 954, which outlined voluntary date label standards. Supporters point to the Consumer Brands Association 2018 report that 87% of its member’s companies were in compliance in 2018, and anticipated 100% by 2020. However, supporters state that a consumer fridge study showed an estimated 43% compliance with the voluntary standard, and a related 2019 shelf study found only 36% of products displayed these recommended labels. Supporters state that given recent federal and brand support towards streamlining labels, state action to reduce food waste, methane emissions, and save consumers money is crucial.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 63-16, 5/30/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NOES: Alanis, Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis

NO VOTE RECORDED: Waldron

Prepared by: Vincent D. Marchand / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111

8/19/24 12:46:38

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 660 (Irwin) - Food and beverage products: labeling: quality dates, safety dates, and sell-by dates

Bill Summary:

AB 660 would require, on and after July 1, 2026, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use one of the specified terms on the date label, as provided.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 15, 2024

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown ongoing General Fund costs, likely hundreds of thousands, for the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) for state administration; and unknown costs for the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) for state administration.
• Costs to local health agencies for administration would be potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.

Author Amendments:

Revise the date labels for market milk and market cream; allow a label on a wine or a distilled spirit that communicates the date on which the wine or distilled spirit was produced, manufactured, bottled, or packaged; and exempt beer and other malt beverages from the bill’s provisions.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 660 (Irwin) - Food and beverage products: labeling: quality dates, safety dates, and sell-by dates

Bill Summary:

AB 660 would require, on and after July 1, 2026, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use one of the specified terms on the date label, as provided.

Fiscal Impact:

• The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) estimates ongoing General Fund costs of approximately $390,000 starting in 2026-27 for state administration.
• The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) indicates costs would be absorbable.
• Costs to local health agencies for administration would be potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.

Background:

The United States Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the Department of Agriculture, in an explainer on food product dating on their website, states that except for infant formula which requires a “Use By” date, product dating is not required by federal regulations. According to FSIS, for meat, poultry and egg products, dates may be voluntarily applied, provided they are labeled in a manner that is truthful and not misleading. To comply, a calendar date must express both the month and day of the month, and in the case of shelf-stable and frozen products, the year must also be displayed. Additionally, immediately adjacent to the date must be a phrase explaining the meaning of that date, such as “Best if Used By.” FSIS states that manufacturers provide dating to help consumers and retailers decide when food is of best quality, and that except for infant formula, dates are not an indicator of the product’s safety and are not required by federal law. To reduce confusion and wasted food, FSIS recommends that food manufacturers and retailers that apply product dating use a “Best if Used By” date. Research shows that this phrase conveys to consumers that the product will be of best quality if used by the calendar date shown. Foods not exhibiting signs of spoilage should be wholesome and may be sold, purchased, donated and consumed beyond the labeled “Best if Used By” date.

Current state law requires CDFA in consultation with CDPH, to publish information that encourages food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified "best by" and "use by" labels that communicate quality and safety dates, respectively. Current law also requires CDFA to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing “sell by” dates.

Current law establishes the California Retail Food Code, administered by the CDPH, to provide for the regulation of retail food facilities. Health and sanitation standards are established at the state level, while enforcement is charged to local health agencies.

Proposed Law:

Specific provisions of the bill would:

• Require, on and after July 1, 2026, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses, or is otherwise required by law, to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use one of the specified terms on the date label, as provided.
• Exempt infant formula, eggs or pasteurized in-shell eggs from these provisions.
• Prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with the bill’s provisions.
• Prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that is labeled with the phrase “sell by,” as specified.
• Require CDPH to update its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as specified.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

Senator Melissa Hurtado, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 660 Hearing Date: 6/18/24

Subject: Food and beverage products: labeling: quality dates, safety dates, and sell-by dates

SUMMARY

:

This bill would require, on and after July 1, 2026, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use one of the specified terms on the date label, as provided. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with these terms. The bill would prohibit a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that is labeled with the phrase “sell by,” as specified. The bill would also require the State Department of Public Health to make certain updates to its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as provided. The bill would specify that, unless otherwise required by law, these provisions do not require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption. The bill would authorize a grocery store, on and after July 1, 2026, to display a label with the phrase “packed on” on a prepared food item and to sell or offer for sale in the state the prepared food item with that label, if the prepared food item also displays a quality or safety date label in accordance with the above-described provisions. The bill exempts infant formula, eggs, and pasteurized in-shell eggs from these provisions.

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

:

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law to regulate the packaging, labeling, and advertising of food, including dietary supplements, cosmetics, drugs, and medical devices in California (Health and Safety Code Section 109875- 110040).
2. Requires eggs being sold for human consumption to be labeled with all of the following (Food and Agricultural Code Section 27644):
   1. The words “Sell-by” immediately followed by the month and day in bold type.
   2. The “Sell-by” date shall not exceed 30 days from the date on which the eggs were packed, excluding the date of packing.
3. Requires milk and cream, at the time of sale to the consumer by a retail store, to have on the container a date established by the processor as the date upon which, in order to ensure consumer quality, the product is normally removed from the shelf or similar location from which the product is offered for sale to the consumer (Food and Agricultural Code Section 36004).
4. Requires raw shucked shellfish to bear a label that includes a “Sell by” date or a “Best if used by” date for packages with a capacity of less than one-half gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of one-half gallon or more (Health and Safety Code Section 114039).
5. Limits the refrigerated shelf life of packages of food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method where Clostridium botulinum is identified as a microbiological hazard to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturer’s “Sell by” or “Use by” date, whichever occurs first (Health and Safety Code - 114057.1).

Existing federal law:

1. Establishes the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that provides quality standards and labeling standards for food, drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics manufactured and sold in the United States (21 CFR 101 et seq.).

PROPOSED LAW

:

This bill:

1. Requires, on and after July 1, 2026, a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption that chooses to display a date label to communicate a quality or safety date on a food item manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, to use one of the specified terms on the date label, as provided.
2. Prohibits a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that displays a quality or safety date label that is not labeled in accordance with these terms.
3. Prohibits a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, that is labeled with the phrase “sell by,” as specified.
4. Requires the State Department of Public Health to make certain updates to its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as provided.
5. Specifies that, unless otherwise required by law, these provisions do not require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, and would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption.
6. Authorizes a grocery store, on and after July 1, 2026, to display a label with the phrase “packed on” on a prepared food item and to sell or offer for sale in the state the prepared food item with that label, if the prepared food item also displays a quality or safety date label in accordance with the above-described provisions.
7. Exempts infant formula, eggs, and pasteurized in-shell eggs from these provisions.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

“Food products often feature phrases next to dates such as “Best By”, “Expires On”, “Enjoy By”, “Best Before”, and “Sell By”, among countless other variations. The meaning of these phrases can be unclear to average consumers as they can indicate a product’s peak freshness, when a product is no longer safe for consumption, or, in the case of “Sell By” dates, act as a guide for when retailers should pull products from the shelf. These phrases are often all referred to as “expiration dates”, which can lead to consumer confusion. With the exception of baby formula, date labels on packaged food are not federally regulated. Furthermore, state rules can be widely inconsistent and only apply to certain product groups. This confusion ultimately leads to food being unnecessarily wasted, grocery budgets strained, and increased methane emissions from rotting food contributing to climate change.

“AB 660 addresses this problem by prohibiting the use of misleading food product date labels. The bill would require the use of two standard terms for food products that choose to use a date label – “Best if used by” to indicate the quality date of food, or “Use by” to indicate the safety of food.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

None received.

COMMENTS

:

The author’s office has worked with opposition to last year’s version of this bill and, as a result, some opposition has been removed.

PRIOR ACTIONS

:

SUPPORT

:

Californians Against Waste (Co-Sponsor)

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (Co-Sponsor)

350 Humboldt

350 Sacramento

Active San Gabriel Valley

Alameda County Community Food Bank

California Compost Coalition

California Environmental Voters

California Food and Farming Network

California Product Stewardship Council

California Resource Recovery Association

CALPIRG, California Public Interest Research Group

Careit

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Stockton

Climate Action California

Community Action Partnership of Orange County

Dr. Bronner's

Elder's Climate Action Norcal

Elders Climate Action Socal Chapter

Environmental Working Group

Food Empowerment Project

Food for People

Food Share

Glendale Environmental Coalition

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)

Greater Conejo Chamber of Commerce

Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic

Imperial Valley Food Bank

Inika Small Earth, INC.

League of Women Voters of California

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy

Los Angeles Regional Food Bank

Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California

Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority

Northern California Recycling Association

Pesticide Action Network

Plastic Free Future

Replate

Rethinkwaste

San Francisco-Marin Food Bank

Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission

Santa Cruz Climate Action Network

Save Our Shores

Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County

Second Harvest of Silicon Valley

Second Harvest of the Greater Valley

Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce

Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

Stopwaste

Zero Waste Sonoma

OPPOSITION

:

None received.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

Senator Melissa Hurtado, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 660 Hearing Date: 7/3/23

Subject: Food labeling: quality dates, safety dates, and sell by dates

SUMMARY

:

This bill would require on and after January 1, 2025 a food manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption to use “BEST if Used by” to indicate quality, and “Use by” to indicate safety of a product, and prohibits the use of “Sell by.”

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

:

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law to regulate the packaging, labeling, and advertising of food, including dietary supplements, cosmetics, drugs, and medical devices in California (Health and Safety Code Section 109875- 110040).
2. Requires eggs being sold for human consumption to be labeled with all of the following (Food and Agricultural Code Section 27644) :
   1. The words “Sell-by” immediately followed by the month and day in bold type.
   2. The “Sell-by” date shall not exceed 30 days from the date on which the eggs were packed, excluding the date of packing.
3. Requires milk and cream, at the time of sale to the consumer by a retail store, to have on the container a date established by the processor as the date upon which, in order to ensure consumer quality, the product is normally removed from the shelf or similar location from which the product is offered for sale to the consumer (Food and Agricultural Code Section 36004).
4. Requires raw shucked shellfish to bear a label that includes a “Sell by” date or a “Best if used by” date for packages with a capacity of less than one-half gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of one-half gallon or more (Health and Safety Code Section 114039).
5. Limits the refrigerated shelf life of packages of food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method where Clostridium botulinum is identified as a microbiological hazard to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturer’s “Sell by” or “Use by” date, whichever occurs first (Health and Safety Code - 114057.1).

Existing federal law:

1. Establishes the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that provides quality standards and labeling standards for food, drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics manufactured and sold in the United States (21 CFR 101 et seq.).

PROPOSED LAW

:

This bill:

1. Requires, after January 1, 2025, a manufacturer, processor, or retailer responsible for the labeling of food items for human consumption to display the following terms on food product labels to indicate quality and safety dates:
   1. “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality of a product;
   2. “Use by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of a product.
   3. “BB” to indicate the quality date of the food item if the food item is too small to include the uniform term described in a.
   4. “UB” to indicate the safety of the food item if the food item is too small to include the uniform term described in b.
2. Beginning January 1, 2025, prohibits the sale of a food item for human consumption manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, that displays a quality or safety date label that does not comply with labeling requirements outlined in according to 1).
3. Beginning January 1, 2025, prohibits the sale of a food item for human consumption that is labeled with the phrase “Sell by.”
   1. This does not prohibit the use of “Sell by” dates presented in a coded format that are not easily readable by consumers and that do not use the phrase “Sell by.”
4. Requires the California Department of Public Health to update its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code (Part 7 (commencing with Section 113700) of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code).
5. States the bill does not discourage the sale, donation, or use of food after the food’s quality date has passed (see 1) a. and c.). A retail food facility may donate a food item for human consumption that is not labeled in accordance to this bill.
6. Specifies nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the use or display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label.
7. States nothing in this bill prohibits a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption.
8. States infant formula is exempt from this bill.
9. States raw shucked shellfish packaging, by January 1, 2025, shall be labeled consistent with the requirements in 1) above.
10. States eggs packed for human consumption, by January 1, 2025, shall be labeled consistent with the requirements in 1) above.
11. States, beginning January 1, 2025, a food product packaged using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum is identified as a microbiological hazard in the final prepackaged form, shall be limited to a specific time frame or the original safety date that is consistent with 1) b above, instead of the original manufacturer’s “Sell by” date.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to the author:

“Food products often feature phrases next to dates such as ‘Best By,’ ‘Expires On,’ ‘Enjoy By,’ ‘Best Before,’ and ‘Sell By,’ among countless other variations. The meaning of these phrases can be unclear to average consumers as they can indicate a product’s peak freshness, when a product is no longer safe for consumption, or, in the case of ‘Sell By’ dates, act as a guide for when retailers should pull products from the shelf. These phrases are often all referred to as ‘expiration dates,’ which can lead to consumer confusion. With the exception of baby formula, date labels on packaged food are not federally regulated. Furthermore, state rules can be widely inconsistent and only apply to certain product groups. This confusion ultimately leads to food being unnecessarily wasted, grocery budgets strained, and increased methane emissions from rotting food contributing to climate change.

“AB 660 addresses this problem by prohibiting the use of misleading food product date labels. The bill would require the use of two standard terms for food products that choose to use a date label – ‘Best if used by’ to indicate the quality date of food, or ‘Use by’ to indicate the safety of food.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the NRDC Action Fund wrote in support of the bill arguing standardizing date labels on food and requiring manufacturers to use a consistent format for quality and safety dates will help reduce consumer confusion and prevent food that is still safe to eat from being unnecessarily wasted.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

The California Farm Bureau, the California Grocers Association, the Pacific Egg & Poultry Association, and the Dairy Institute of California wrote in opposition to the bill. The coalition letter states that, while they appreciate the author’s intention with the bill, they have concerns with the language and the potential implementation of the bill. They state:

“The mandates in this bill will likely result in several unintended consequences, including:

• In early conversations with the author and staff, the measure’s focus was on food only. Beverages were not intended to be included in the legislation. It should be clarified that the focus of the bill be food, removing beverages from the bill’s authority. A proposed method would be to remove beverages subject to the California Redemption Value program, which already governs packaging and has labeling regulations.
• The sale and labeling of eggs are governed by a complex system of regulations promulgated by the United State Department of Agriculture and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Current law includes a system in California that provides 30 days before the eggs are to be sold. Altering this system could impact both safety and quality and if lengthened, California will likely become the destination of expired eggs from other states. We encourage the sections governing eggs in this legislation to be removed.
• Like eggs, dairy products, poultry, and meat are subject to extensive regulations from the United States Department of Agriculture, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Department of Health, and local County Health Departments. They regulate the entire chain of commerce, including handling, packaging, labeling, and often preparation. The bill should exempt products subject to the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Meat Products Inspection Act, and fluid milk.
• This bill negatively impacts small international food producers and processors that serve cultural and ethnic markets. Trying to meet one state-specific requirement will be a challenge, and many may opt to forego California, prohibiting consumers from enjoying their culturally traditional food items.
• Mandates bring with them liability. If a manufacturer and/or retailer inadvertently offers a product labeled for the other 49 states but not meeting these California-only mandates, there could be liability through unfair business practices statutes in California.
• If federal legislation that provides a similar national standard is successfully passed, the bill should contain a provision that the requirements in this legislation are void.
• Finally, the legislation must contain a provision allowing products packaged before the date of enactment of this bill to be sold without violating these provisions. This is commonly referred to as a ‘sell-through’ provision. Including this will reduce food waste by allowing retailers and manufacturers to move these products into commerce.”

COMMENTS

:

Food Product Dating: According to the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), manufacturers provide product label dating to help consumers and retailers decide when food is of best quality. Except for infant formula, which is federally required to provide a “Use by” date, dates are not an indicator of the product’s safety.

FSIS identifies 2 types of product dating that may be shown on a product label. “Open dating” (found on most foods including meat, poultry, egg, and dairy products) is a calendar date applied to a food product by the manufacturer or retailer. This calendar date provides consumers with information on the estimated period of time for which the product will be of best quality and to help the store determine how long to display the product for sale. “Closed dating” (found on shelf-stable products such as cans and boxes of food) is a code that consists of a series of letters and/or numbers applied by manufacturers to identify the date and time of production.

For meat, poultry, and egg products under the jurisdiction of the FSIS, dates may be voluntarily applied provided they are labeled in a manner that is truthful and not misleading and in compliance with FSIS regulations. To comply, a calendar date must express both the month and day of the month. In the case of shelf-stable and frozen products, the year must also be displayed. Additionally, immediately adjacent to the date there must be a phrase explaining the meaning of that date such as "Best if Used By."

Infant formula. In 1985 the FDA established the only federally mandated food expiration date. The “Use by” date on infant formulas is a date selected by the manufacturer based on tests and other information, to inform retailers and consumers about the quality of the infant formula. Generally, manufacturers do not recommend using the formula after the 30 days of opening because the nutrients start to degrade.

Will standardized date labels help or hurt food donations? The USDA estimates that 30% of the food supply is lost or wasted at the retail and consumer levels. One source of food waste comes from consumers or retailers throwing away food because of confusion about the meaning of dates displayed on the label. To reduce confusion, FSIS recommends that food manufacturers and retailers that apply product dating use a “Best if Used By” date. Research shows that this phrase conveys to consumers that the product will be of best quality if used by the calendar date shown. Foods not exhibiting signs of spoilage should be wholesome and may be sold, purchased, donated, and consumed beyond the labeled “Best if Used By” date.

38 foodbanks have written in support of the bill. They state consumer confusion happens surrounding “the right time to dispose of food [which] stems from lack of clarity with phrases such as ‘Sell by,’ ‘Expires on,’ and ‘Best if Used by.’”

Should milk and dairy products be exempt? The date labeling of milk and dairy products are governed by the USDA, the CDFA, and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and local county health departments. According to the opposition, “These entities regulate the entire chain of commerce including handling, packaging, labeling, and often preparation. For example, milk is required by California regulations to include dates in consumer readable formats and terminology to signify the date by which products should be sold.”

Amendments. The author’s office has agreed to take amendments to exempt eggs and beer from the bill. The author may wish to consider the following amendments:

1. Page 5, lines 17-18, strike in its entirety
2. Page 9, after line 29, insert, “(g) This section does not apply to beer.”

RELATED LEGISLATION

:

AB 954 (Chapter 787, Statutes of 2017): Requires the CDFA, in consultation with the CDPH, to publish information by July 1, 2018 that encourages food manufacturers, processors, and retailers to voluntarily use “Best if Used By” and “Use By” labels for quality and safety of the product.

PRIOR ACTIONS

:

SUPPORT

:

A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alameda County Community Food Bank
California Compost Coalition
California Environmental Voters
California Product Stewardship Council
California Resource Recovery Association
Californians Against Waste (Co-Sponsor)
CAPIRG, California Public Interest Research Group
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Stockton
Climate Action California
Community Action Partnership of Orange County
Dr. Bronner's
Elders Climate Action NorCal Chapter
Elders Climate Action SoCal Chapter
Environmental Working Group
Food Empowerment Project
Food for People
Food Share
Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic
Imperial Valley Food Bank
Inika Small Earth, INC.
LAANE (Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy)
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles Regional Food Bank
Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California
Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority
National Stewardship Action Council
Natural Resources Defense Council (Co-Sponsor)
Pesticide Action Network
Plastic Free Future
RethinkWaste
San Francisco-Marin Food Bank
Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission
Save Our Shores
Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley
Second Harvest of The Greater Valley
Solana Center for Environmental Innovation
StopWaste
Zero Waste Sonoma

OPPOSITION

:

Oppose Unless Amended

Association of California Egg Farmers

California Farm Bureau

California Grocers Association

Consumer Brands Association

Dairy Institute of California

Pacific Egg & Poultry Association

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Senator Dr. Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair

BILL NO: AB 660

SUBJECT: Food labeling: quality dates, safety dates, and sell by dates

SUMMARY:

Requires food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products, beginning January 1, 2025, to use “BEST if Used by” to indicate quality, and “Use by” to indicate safety of a product, and prohibits the use of the term “sell by.”

Existing law:

1. Enacts the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, enforced by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), which provides broad authority for CDPH to enforce food safety requirements, including that food is not adulterated, misbranded, or falsely advertised. Food labeling requirements generally adopt federal food labeling laws as the state requirement, including nutrition labeling and allergen labeling, but CDPH is permitted, by regulation, to adopt additional food labeling regulations. [HSC §109875 et seq., §110380]
2. Defines “food,” in the Sherman Act, as any article used or intended for use for food, drink, confection, condiment, or chewing gum by man or other animal, including any article used or intended for use as a component of any of these items. [HSC §109935]
3. Requires raw shucked shellfish to bear a label that includes a “sell by” date or a “best if used by” date for packages with a capacity of less than one-half gallon, or the date shucked for packages with a capacity of one-half gallon or more. [HSC §114039]
4. Requires eggs that are packed for human consumption to be labeled with the words “sell-by” immediately followed by the month and day in bold type, and prohibits the sell-by date from exceeding 30 days from the date on which the eggs were packed. [FAC §27644]
5. Requires milk, cream, or milk products to have a date appear on the package or container that is the date upon which, in order insure quality, the product is normally removed from the shelf or similar location from which the product is offered for sale to the consumer. [FAC §36004]

Existing federal law: Establishes, through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), various requirements for food labels under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which includes the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act and the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act. These include requiring specified nutrition information, a listing of all ingredients, and whether a produce contains any of eight major food allergens, such as milk, eggs, shellfish, tree nuts, etc. [21 CFR §101 et seq.]

This bill:

1. Requires food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products, beginning January 1, 2025, to use the following uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates and safety dates:
   1. “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality of a product; and,
   2. “Use by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of a product.
2. Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, the sale of a food item for human consumption that displays a food product date label that is not labeled in accordance with 1) above.
3. Prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, the sale of a food item for human consumption that is labeled with the phrase “sell by.” Permits, however, the use of “sell by” dates that are presented in a coded format that are not easily readable by consumers and that do not use the phrase “sell by.”
4. Requires CDPH to update its regulations involved with the California Retail Food Code consistent with this bill.
5. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit, and cannot be construed to discourage, the sale, donation, or use of food after the food’s quality date in 1) a) above has passed. Permits a food facility to donate a food item for human consumption that is not labeled in accordance with this bill.
6. Prohibits anything in this bill from being construed to require the use of display of a date label on a food item for human consumption unless the food item displays a date label, unless otherwise required by law.
7. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item for human consumption.
8. Specifies that this bill does not apply to infant formula.
9. Revises various provisions of law that currently require “sell by” or “best if used by” dates on labels so that beginning on January 1, 2025, this bill would require the following food product labels to comply with the labeling requirements in 1) above:
   1. Eggs, including pasteurized in-shell eggs, packed for human consumption; and,
   2. Raw shucked shellfish.
10. Revises a provision of law governing the use of a reduced-oxygen packing method where Clostridium botulinum is identified as a microbiological hazard in the final prepackaged form so that beginning January 1, 2025, the limit on the refrigerated shelf life of the product is limited to a specific time frame or the original safety date that is consistent with 1) b) above, rather than the original manufacturer’s “sell by” date.

FISCAL EFFECT:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, CDPH estimates annual costs of approximately $526,000 in fiscal years (FY) 2024-25, 2025-26, and 2026-27 (General Fund), which includes two ongoing positions as well as limited-term funding over three years to develop and promulgate regulations to ensure the California Retail Food Code prohibits the sale of food items that do not meet the requirements of this bill. CDPH estimates annual costs of approximately $377,000 in FY 2027-28 and ongoing to conduct inspections, respond to complaints, assist with regulatory matters, respond to industry questions, generate information and educational materials, and aid field staff and local environmental health department staff in need of technical assistance on affected food commodities.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) estimates ongoing annual costs of approximately $258,000 (Agriculture Fund) to update its regulations related to milk, milk products, and eggs to reflect the requirements of this bill and to evaluate egg and dairy label dates submitted to CDFA on an ongoing basis. CDFA notes the cost of updating the website it has been using to fulfill the requirements of AB 954 (Chiu, Chapter 787, Statutes of 2017), to assist food manufacturers, processors, and retailers to use uniform terms on food labels would be absorbable within existing resources. Finally, CDFA notes that if the author’s intent is to expand CDFA’s role to enforce the requirements in this bill for all food products (beyond milk, milk products, and eggs) and to assist food manufacturers, processors, and others to verify truth in labeling for product labels, the costs to CDFA would be in the several millions of dollars.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Agriculture Committee 7-0

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, food products often feature phrases next to dates such as “Best By,” “Expires On,” “Enjoy By,” “Best Before,” and “Sell By,” among countless other variations. The meaning of these phrases can be unclear to average consumers as they can indicate a product’s peak freshness, when a product is no longer safe for consumption, or, in the case of “Sell By” dates, act as a guide for when retailers should pull products from the shelf. These phrases are often all referred to as “expiration dates,” which can lead to consumer confusion. With the exception of baby formula, date labels on packaged food are not federally regulated. Furthermore, state rules can be widely inconsistent and only apply to certain product groups. This confusion ultimately leads to food being unnecessarily wasted, grocery budgets strained, and increased methane emissions from rotting food contributing to climate change. This bill addresses this problem by prohibiting the use of misleading food product date labels. This bill would require the use of two standard terms for food products that choose to use a date label – “Best if used by” to indicate the quality date of food, or “Use by” to indicate the safety of food.
2. Background on federal labeling requirements and recommendations. The United States Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the Department of Agriculture, in an explainer on food product dating on their website, states that except for infant formula which requires a “Use By” date, product dating is not required by federal regulations. According to FSIS, for meat, poultry and egg products, dates may be voluntarily applied, provided they are labeled in a manner that is truthful and not misleading. To comply, a calendar date must express both the month and day of the month, and in the case of shelf-stable and frozen products, the year must also be displayed. Additionally, immediately adjacent to the date must be a phrase explaining the meaning of that date, such as “Best if Used By.” FSIS states that manufacturers provide dating to help consumers and retailers decide when food is of best quality, and that except for infant formula, dates are not an indicator of the product’s safety and are not required by federal law. To reduce confusion and wasted food, FSIS recommends that food manufacturers and retailers that apply product dating use a “Best if Used By” date. Research shows that this phrase conveys to consumers that the product will be of best quality if used by the calendar date shown. Foods not exhibiting signs of spoilage should be wholesome and may be sold, purchased, donated and consumed beyond the labeled “Best if Used By” date.
3. The problem of food waste. There have been numerous reports and studies looking at the abundance of food produced in the U.S. and the amount of safe food that ends up in landfills. The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a report in March of this year, entitled Don’t Waste, Donate: Enhancing Food Donations Through Federal Policy. According to this report, 40% of the U.S. food supply goes uneaten, resulting in at least 62.5 million tons of wasted food each year, and uneaten food is the single largest contributor of solid waste in our nation’s landfills. This report states that despite the large amount of discarded food, 12.7% of U.S. households were food insecure in 2015, meaning that at some point in the year they lacked access to a sufficient amount of food. The Food Waste Reduction Alliance, which is a joint project of the Food Marketing Institute, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the National Restaurant Association, conducts a survey every two years to collect data from food manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers and restaurants in order to understand the current state of food waste. Their most recent survey, published in the Fall of 2016, found that donated food made up only 3.3% of total unsaleable food, and that transportation constraints was the most often cited barrier to donating and recycling. The survey found, however, that 58% of respondents are investing in increasing food donation for those in need, making it the most often cited investment area. The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic issued a report in October of 2016, entitled “Keeping Food Out of the Landfill: Policy Ideas for States and Localities.” This report states that in recent years, state and local governments have sought to increase food recovery by providing state tax incentives to food donors, allocating funding to support food recovery infrastructure, re-evaluating how schools handle food waste, and passing laws that ban organic waste from landfills. With regard to liability protections, the report said states can improve liability protections by clarifying and expanding the federal Emerson Act, including extending protection to organization that sell or otherwise charge for food, when donors donate directly to end-users, and when donors donate past-date foods. Additionally, the report stated that for liability protections to lead to increased food recovery, potential food donors need to know that such protections exist, and states can increase food donation by making potential food donors aware of the federal and state liability protections available.
4. Report on date labeling of food. The National Resources Defense Council and the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic published a report in September of 2013, entitled The Dating Game: How Confusing Food Date Labels Lead to Food Waste in America. According to this report, the lack of coordinated action at the federal level increases the complexity of the food labeling regime by causing a regulatory void that states and localities have attempted to fill in various ways, resulting in a tremendously varied set of state and local laws regarding the use of date labels. The report notes that industry has also attempted to provide direction, with some food trade associations creating voluntary guidance on date labeling practices for specific commodities that don’t necessarily help to improve public health. The report made several recommendations, including that “sell by” dates should be made invisible to the consumer as they are intended for stock control by retailers, and that the consumer-facing dating system be standardized to better inform consumers of the meaning of different dates and clearly delineate between safety-based and quality-based dates.
5. Industry report on progress toward “Best if Used By.” In 2019, the Consumer Brands Association, which represents a large number of grocery manufacturers, released a report entitled “Best if Clearly Labeled.” Subtitled, “How the Consumer Packaged Goods Industry is Reducing Confusion and Food Waste,” this report stated that the Consumer Brands Association along with the Food Marketing Institute brought together 25 consumer packaged goods and grocery retail companies to simplify and streamline the number of labels and bring much-needed clarity to consumers. They narrowed date labeling down to the two labels proposed by this bill, and that since launching in February 2017, 87% of products have adopted the streamlined phrases, according to a survey conducted by Consumer Brands Association in December 2018. Their survey found that 32,093 products carried the new labels, and that 85% of Americans say that the streamlined date labels are helpful to them. They expected complete adoption by January 2020.
6. Double referral. This bill is doubled referred. Should it pass this committee, it will be referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture.
7. Prior legislation. AB 954 (Chiu, Chapter 787, Statutes of 2017) requires CDFA, in consultation with CDPH, to publish guidelines that encourage the voluntary use of uniform quality and safety dates on food products.
   
   AB 1219 (Eggman, Chapter 619, Statutes of 2017) enacted the California Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which strengthens immunity protections for the donation of food, extends this immunity protection to any entity that donates food, rather than just food facilities, and requires local food facility enforcement officers to promote the recovery of food fit for human consumption during their routine inspections with handouts describing the immunity provisions association with the donation of food.
   
   SB 557 (Hernandez, Chapter 285, Statutes of 2017) permits a local educational agency to provide sharing tables where faculty, staff and students can place prepackaged, non-potentially hazardous food items, or unpeeled fruit, that can be donated to a food bank or other nonprofit charitable organization.

AB 2725 (Chiu of 2016) would have required a food manufacturer using a quality or elevated risk date to use the phrases “best if used by” or “expires on,” as specified. AB 2725 failed passage in the Assembly Health Committee.

AB 234 (Gordon, Chapter 616, Statutes of 2015) revised provisions of law governing community food producers or gleaners by allowing them to sell whole uncut fruits or vegetables, or unrefrigerated shell eggs, directly to a permitted food facility, not just a restaurant, and limited the ability of a local environmental health officer to require community food producers or gleaners to register with the local enforcement entity only if the food producers or gleaners do not meet certain conditions.

1. Support. An extensive coalition of environmental and other organizations are supporting this bill, led by the bill’s sponsors, Californians Against Waste and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Supporters state that minimizing food waste, and organics waste at large, is integral to the success of meeting existing greenhouse gas reduction goals, and that such actions will limit needless consumer food waste and the stream of organic waste being landfilled. Food and other organic waste decomposing in landfills accounts for 41% of the state’s point-source methane emissions. Supporters state that in 2017, the Legislature adopted the U.S. FDA-supported phrases “Use By” and “Best if Used By,” set forth in AB 954, which outlined voluntary date label standards. Supporters point to the Consumer Brands Association 2018 report that 87% of its member’s companies were in compliance in 2018, and anticipated 100% by 2020. However, supporters state that a consumer fridge study showed an estimated 43% compliance with the voluntary standard, and a related 2019 shelf study found only 36% of products displayed these recommended labels. Supporters state that given recent federal and brand support towards streamlining labels, state action to reduce food waste, methane emissions, and save consumers money is crucial.
2. Oppose unless amended. A coalition of organizations, including the Consumer Brands Association, the California Farm Bureau, the Association of California Egg Farmers, the California Grocers Association, the Dairy Institute of California, and the Pacific Egg and Poultry Association, submitted a joint letter of opposition, unless the bill is amended. The coalition letter notes since 2017, food industry stakeholders have worked with 25 of the largest grocery manufacturers to reduce the number of product date labels down “Best if Used By” and “Use By,” in line with a December 2016 recommendation from the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. They did outreach and public information announcements, and most indications are this effort is making progress. However, the coalition identifies a number of concerns, including that the sale and labeling of eggs are governed by a complex system of regulations and that altering this system could impact both safety and quality and if lengthened, could result in California becoming the destination of expired eggs in other states. Similarly, opponents also argue that milk, poultry and meat are also subject to extensive regulations and should be exempt from this bill. Opponents also are requesting beverages subject to the California Redemption Value Program be removed, a provision specifying that if a national standard is passed that the requirements in this bill are void, and permitting products packaged before the date of enactment to be permitted to be sold without violating the bill.
3. Amendments. According to the author, they have been working to address some of the concerns raised by opponents, and plan to offer amendments in committee that would do the following:
   1. Clarify that the use of a date label is voluntary unless otherwise required by law;
   2. Permit the initials “BB” to be used in place of BEST if Used By, and “UB” in place of USE By,” when the food item is too small to include the complete phrase; and,
   3. Permit the sale of food items that were manufactured prior to January 1, 2025 and do not have the required date label phrases (known as a “sell-through” provision).

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support: Californians Against Waste (co-sponsor)

Natural Resources Defense Council (co-sponsor)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Active San Gabriel Valley

Alameda County Community Food Bank
California Compost Coalition
California Environmental Voters
California Product Stewardship Council
California Resource Recovery Association
California Public Interest Research Group

Catholic Charities of Stockton
Climate Action California
Community Action Partnership of Orange County
Dr. Bronner's
Elders Climate Action NorCal Chapter
Elders Climate Action SoCal Chapter
Environmental Working Group
Food Empowerment Project
Food for People
Food Share
Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic
Imperial Valley Food Bank
Inika Small Earth
Los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles Regional Food Bank

Lutheran Office of Public Policy – California

Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority

National Resources Defense Council
Pesticide Action Network
Plastic Free Future
ReThinkWaste
San Francisco-Marin Food Bank
Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission
Save Our Shores
Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley
Second Harvest of The Greater Valley
Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

StopWaste
Zero Waste Sonoma

Oppose: Association of California Egg Farmers (unless amended)

California Farm Bureau (unless amended)

California Grocers Association (unless amended)

Consumer Brands Association (unless amended)

Dairy Institute of California (unless amended)

Pacific Egg and Poultry Association (unless amended)

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 660

Author:(Irwin)

As Amended Ver:May 18, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires, on and after January 1, 2025, food manufacturers, processors, and retailers to label food products with the following quality and safety dates: "BEST if Used by" or "Best if Used or Frozen By" to indicate the quality date of a product; and/or "Use by" or "Use by or Freeze" to indicate the safety date of a product.

Major Provisions

1. Requires before January 1, 2025, food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to use the following terms on food product labels: (a) "BEST if Used by" or "BEST if Used or Frozen by" to indicate the quality date of a product and (b) "USE by" or "USE by or Freeze by" to indicate the safety date of a product.
2. Requires the labels on eggs, on and after January 1, 2025, to include labels consistent with 1), above.
3. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2025, a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption that displays a food product date label that is not labeled consistent with 1), above.
4. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2025, a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item that is labeled with the phrase "sell by," except as specified.
5. Requires DPH to update specified regulations consistent with this bill.
6. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit, and cannot be construed to discourage the sale, donation, or use of food after the food quality date under 1)(a), above, has passed. Permits a retail food facility to donate a food item for human consumption that is not labeled consistent with this bill.
7. Specifies that this bill does not apply to infant formula.

COMMENTS

There is no standardized date on food labels. Moreover, there are no federal, state, or local regulations on the dates, with the exception of baby formula. Instead, labels come in a variety of forms including "use by," "best before," "sell by," and "enjoy by" dates, and these simple markers are both poorly understood and surprisingly under-regulated. AB 954 (Ting), Chapter 787, Statutes of 2017, requires the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and the Department of Public Health (DPH) to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified "best by" and "use by" labels that communicate quality and safety dates.

Food labels have been used for decades to estimate peak freshness. Unlike "use by" labels, which are found on perishable foods like meat and dairy, "best before" labels are not related to safety and may encourage consumers to throw away food that is perfectly fine to eat.

The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that 30 to 40% of food is lost or wasted at the retail and consumer level. Each year, Americans are discarding approximately 133 billion pounds of food worth $161 billion. In California, CDFA estimates that Californians throw away approximately 6 million tons of food waste annually. CalRecycle points out on its internet website that Californians send 11.2 billion pounds of food to landfills each year, some of which was still fresh enough to have been recovered to feed people in need.

According to the Author

Food products often feature phrases next to dates such as "Best By", "Expires On", "Enjoy By", "Best Before", and "Sell By", among countless other variations. The meaning of these phrases can be unclear to average consumers as they can indicate a product’s peak freshness, when a product is no longer safe for consumption, or, in the case of "Sell By" dates, act as a guide for when retailers should pull products from the shelf. These phrases are often all referred to as "expiration dates", which can lead to consumer confusion. This confusion ultimately leads to food being unnecessarily wasted, grocery budgets strained, and increased methane emissions from rotting food contributing to climate change. Up to 20% of avoidable food waste can be attributed to this flawed system. AB 660 addresses this problem by prohibiting the use of misleading food product date labels. The bill would require one of two standard terms to be used "Best if used by" to indicate the quality date of food, or "Use by" to indicate the safety of food.

Arguments in Support

Data collected from a 2018 consumer fridge study showed an estimated 43% compliance with the voluntary labeling standards endorsed by the Association, and a related 2019 store shelf study found only 36% of products displayed these recommended labels. Given recent federal and brand support towards streamlining labels, state action to reduce food waste, methane emissions, and save consumers money is crucial.

Arguments in Opposition

The CBA, California Food Products, California Farm Bureau, Association of Egg Farmers, and the Pacific Egg and Poultry Association have concerns about this bill. The specific concerns area s follow: The language likely prevents "smart labels" where consumers can use their smart phone to not only learn about the date on the package, the bill negatively impacts small international food producers and processors that serve cultural and ethnic markets, mandates bring with them liability. And, the sale and labeling of eggs is governed by a complex system of regulations promulgated by both the USDA and the CDFA and encourage the sections governing eggs in this legislation be removed.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. CDPH estimates annual costs of approximately $526,000 in fiscal years (FY) 2024-25, 2025-26, and 2026-27 (General Fund), which includes two ongoing positions as well as limited-term funding over three years to develop and promulgate regulations to ensure the California Retail Food Code prohibits the sale of food items that do not meet the requirements of this bill. CDPH estimates annual costs of approximately $377,000 in FY 2027-28 and ongoing costs to conduct inspections, respond to complaints, assist with regulatory matters, respond to industry questions, generate information and educational materials, and aid field staff and local environmental health department staff in need of technical assistance on affected food commodities.
2. CDFA estimates ongoing annual costs of approximately $258,000 (Agriculture Fund) to update its regulations related to milk, milk products, and eggs to reflect the requirements of this bill and to evaluate egg and dairy label dates submitted to CDFA on an ongoing basis.

VOTES

ASM AGRICULTURE: 7-0-4

YES: Mathis, Aguiar-Curry, Connolly, Irwin, Soria, Villapudua, Wood

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Flora, Jones-Sawyer, Robert Rivas

ASM HEALTH: 11-3-1

YES: Wood, Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Boerner, Wendy Carrillo, Maienschein, McCarty, Rodriguez, Santiago, Villapudua, Weber

NO: Flora, Vince Fong, Joe Patterson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: May 18, 2023

CONSULTANT: Victor Francovich / AGRI. / (916) 319-2084 FN: 0000587

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 660

Author:(Irwin) – As Amended Ver:May 1, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires, on and after January 1, 2025, food manufacturers, processors, and retailers to label food products for human consumption with specified quality and safety dates.

Specifically, this bill, among other things:

1. Requires the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), in consultation with the Department of Public Health (DPH), before January 1, 2025, to publish information to assist food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to use the following terms on food product labels: (a) “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality date of a product and (b) “USE by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of a product.
2. Requires the labels on eggs, on and after January 1, 2025, to include labels consistent with 1).
3. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2025, a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item for human consumption that displays a food product date label that is not labeled consistent with 1).
4. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2025, a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item that is labeled with the phrase “sell by,” except as specified.
5. Requires DPH to update specified regulations consistent with this bill.
6. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit, and cannot be construed to discourage the sale, donation, or use of food after the food quality date under 1) (a) above has passed. Permits a retail food facility to donate a food item for human consumption that is not labeled consistent with this bill.
7. Specifies that this bill does not apply to infant formula.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1) CDPH estimates annual costs of approximately $526,000 in fiscal years (FY) 2024-25, 2025-26, and 2026-27 (General Fund), which includes two ongoing positions as well as limited-term funding over three years to develop and promulgate regulations to ensure the California Retail Food Code prohibits the sale of food items that do not meet the requirements of this bill. CDPH estimates annual costs of approximately $377,000 in FY 2027-28 and ongoing to conduct inspections, respond to complaints, assist with regulatory matters, respond to industry questions, generate information and educational materials, and aid field staff and local environmental health department staff in need of technical assistance on affected food commodities.

2) CDFA estimates ongoing annual costs of approximately $258,000 (Agriculture Fund) to update its regulations related to milk, milk products, and eggs to reflect the requirements of this bill and to evaluate egg and dairy label dates submitted to CDFA on an ongoing basis. CDFA notes the cost of updating the website it has been using to fulfill the requirements of AB 954 (Chiu), Chapter 787, Statutes of 2017, to assist food manufacturers, processors, and retailers to use uniform terms on food labels would be absorbable within existing resources. Finally, CDFA notes that if the author’s intent is to expand CDFA’s role to enforce the requirements in this bill for all food products (beyond milk, milk products, and eggs) and to assist food manufacturers, processors, and others to verify truth in labeling for product labels, the costs to CDFA would be in the several millions of dollars.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author:

Food products often feature phrases next to dates such as “Best By”, “Expires On”, “Enjoy By”, “Best Before”, and “Sell By”, among countless other variations. The meaning of these phrases can be unclear to average consumers as they can indicate a product’s peak freshness, when a product is no longer safe for consumption, or, in the case of “Sell By” dates, act as a guide for when retailers should pull products from the shelf. These phrases are often all referred to as “expiration dates”, which can lead to consumer confusion. This confusion ultimately leads to food being unnecessarily wasted, grocery budgets strained, and increased methane emissions from rotting food contributing to climate change. Up to 20% of avoidable food waste can be attributed to this flawed system. AB 660 addresses this problem by prohibiting the use of misleading food product date labels. The bill would require one of two standard terms to be used – “Best if used by” to indicate the quality date of food, or “Use by” to indicate the safety of food.

2) Background. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) estimates that Californians throw away nearly six million tons of food waste annually. This represents about 18% of all the material that goes to landfills. The average American loses about $1,300 to discarded food each year. With the exception of infant formula, product date labeling is completely voluntary. Date labels are highly inconsistent and confusing, not science-based, and vary widely across jurisdictions, brands, and food products, leading the majority of Americans to prematurely throw away food. In 2017, in an effort to address confusing food date labels and reduce food waste, the Legislature passed AB 954, which required CDFA, in consultation with DPH, to publish information that encourages food manufacturers, processors, and retailers to voluntarily use specified “best by” and “use by” labels that communicate quality and safety, respectively. However, supporters of this bill note that data collected from a 2019 store shelf study found only 36% of products displayed these recommended labels. Writing in support of this bill, a coalition of organization states:

Defining a standard for producer- and consumer-targeted labels provides clarity on when food is at recommended quality for consumption versus unsafe to eat. In addition, by prohibiting consumer-facing “Sell By” dates, which inform retailers’ stock rotation, consumers will be less likely to confuse these with quality or safety dates. Implementing coded “Sell By” dates retains this information for retailers while preventing consumers from rejecting or prematurely disposing of products. Minimizing food waste, and organics waste at large, is also integral to the success of meeting existing greenhouse gas reduction goals established in SB 1383. Such actions will limit needless consumer food waste and the stream of organic waste being landfilled. Food and other organic waste decomposing in landfills accounts for 41% of the state’s point-source methane emissions.

A coalition of organizations representing food manufacturers, processors and retailers have submitted a letter of concern, which, among other things, contends this bill will likely prevent the use of “smart labels” that are helpful for consumers, negatively impact small international food producers and processors that serve cultural and ethnic markets that may find it challenging to meet one-state-specific requirements, increase liability, and impact the safety and quality of eggs, the sale and labeling of which is governed by a complex system of regulations.

Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 25, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Jim Wood, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 660

Author:((Irwin) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2023

SUBJECT: Food labeling: quality dates, safety dates, and sell by dates.

SUMMARY: Requires, on and after January 1, 2025, food manufacturers, processors, and retailers to label food products with the following quality and safety dates: “BEST if Used by” or “Best if Used or Frozen By” to indicate the quality date of a product; and/or “Use by” or “Use by or Freeze” to indicate the safety date of a product. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), in consultation with the Department of Public Health (DPH), before January 1, 2025, to publish information to assist food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to use the following terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates and safety dates:
   1. BEST if Used by” or “BEST of Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality date of a product; or,
   2. “USE by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of a product.
2. Requires the labels on eggs, both pasteurized and unpasteurized, on and after January 1, 2025, to include labels consistent with 1) above.
3. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2025, a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item that displays a food product date label that is not labeled consistent with 1) above.
4. Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2025, a person from selling or offering for sale in the state a food item that is labeled with the phrase “sell by.” Permits the use of “sell by” dates that are presented in a coded format that are not easily readable by consumers and that do not use the phrase “sell by.”
5. Requires DPH to update its regulations involving the California Retail Food Code (CRFC) consistent with this bill.
6. Specifies that this bill does not prohibit, and cannot be construed to discourage the sale, donation, or use of food after the food quality date under 1) a) above has passed. Permits a retail food facility to donate a food item that is not labeled consistent with this bill.
7. Specifies that this bill does not require the use of a date label on a food item; and does not prohibit a label that allows consumers to view online information about a food item.
8. Requires on and after January 1, 2025 the package of raw shucked shellfish to be labeled consistent with 1) above.
9. Requires an approved Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan of a food facility that packages food using reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum is identified as a microbiological hazard in the final prepackaged form to, on and after January 1, 2025, limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time the product is maintained frozen, or the original safety date is consistent with 1) b) above.
10. Makes other clarifying and conforming changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires CDFA, in consultation with DPH, on or before July 1, 2018, to publish information that encourages food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use the following uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates and safety dates:
   
   1. “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality date of a product; and,
      
   2. “USE by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of a product. [Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) § 82001]
      
2. Requires CDFA to promote the consistent use of the terms specified in 1) above in the course of its interactions with food manufacturers, processors, and retailers. Requires CDFA to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing “sell by” dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. [Id.]
   
3. Defines the following terms for purposes of 1) above:
   1. “Quality date” means a date on a label affixed to the packaging or a container of food that communicates to consumers the date after which the food quality may begin to deteriorate but the food may still be acceptable for consumption.
      
   2. “Safety date” means a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that communicates to consumers that the food should be consumed or frozen, if appropriate, by the date listed on the package that applies to perishable products with potential safety implications over time.
      
   3. “‘Sell by’ date” means a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. [Id.]
      
4. Provides that it is unlawful for an egg handler to sell, offer for sale, or expose for sale certain eggs that are packed for human consumption unless each container intended for sale to the ultimate consumer is labeled with certain information, including, among other information, the words “sell-by” immediately followed by the month and day in bold type, as specified. [FAC §27644, § 24644.5]
   
5. Requires repackaged eggs to be labeled with the original sell by date. [FAC § 27687]
   
6. Authorizes the Director of CDFA to enforce requirements relating to egg products [FAC § 27501-27690]
7. Establishes the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetics Law (Sherman Law), administered by DPH, which regulates the packaging, labeling, and advertising of food, drugs and devices, including dietary supplements. [Health & Safety Code (HSC) § 109875-111929.4]
8. Defines food as:
   1. Any article used or intended for use for food, drink, confection, condiment, or chewing gum by man or other animal;
   2. Any article used or intended for use as a component of any article designated in a) above. [HSC § 109935].
9. Defines label to mean a display of written, printed, or graphic matter upon a food, drug, device, or cosmetic or upon its immediate container. [HSC § 109955]
10. Defines labeling to mean any label or other written, printed, or graphic matter upon a food, drug, device, or cosmetic or upon its container or wrapper, or that accompanies any food, drug, device, or cosmetic. [HSC § 109960]
11. Gives DPH the authority to enforce the Sherman Law. Permits DPH to assess a penalty in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day unless the penalty is for a violation 12) below, in which case the penalty may be in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per day. [HSC § 111855]
12. Prohibits a retail food facility from selling or offering for sale after the “use by” date, infant formula or baby food that is required to have this date on its packaging pursuant to federal law [HSC § 114094.5]
13. States that a person who violates a provision of the Sherman Law, if convicted, is subject to imprisonment for not more than one year in a county jail or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both the imprisonment and fine. [HSC § 111825]
14. Establishes the CRFC to provide for the regulation of retail food facilities. Establishes health and sanitation standards at the state level through the CRFC, while enforcement is charged to local agencies, carried out by the 58 county environmental health departments, and four city environmental health departments (Berkeley, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Vernon). [HSC § 113700 et. seq.]
15. Defines a food facility to mean an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or provides food for human consumption at the retail level, as specified. Includes in the definition of food facility private and public school cafeterias, commissaries, mobile food facilities, temporary food facilities, vending machines, catering operation, fishermen’s market, and host facility. [HSC § 113789]
16. Requires a raw shucked shellfish to include a “sell by” date or a “best if used by” date, as specified. [HSC § 114039.1]
17. Requires potentially hazardous food that are packed by the food facility in a reduced-oxygen packaging or have been partially cooked and sealed in any container to be plainly date coded and the date coding to state “Use by,” followed by the appropriate month, day and year. [HSC § 114057]
18. Requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum that is identified as a microbiological hazard to have an approved HACCP plan that meets specified requirements, including a requirement that limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the manufacturer’s “sell by” or “use by” date, whichever occurs first. [HSC §114057.1]
19. Defines HACCP Plan that delineates the formal procedures for following the HACCP principles for food safety, as specified. [HSC §113801]
20. Requires local enforcement agencies to enforce the CRFC. Specifies various enforcement tools, and makes a violation of the CRFC a misdemeanor, with each offense punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $1,000 or by imprisonment, as specified. [HSC §114390-114399]

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has not yet been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

1. PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, food products often feature phrases next to dates such as “Best By,” “Expires On,” “Use By,” “Enjoy By,” “Best Before,” and “Sell By,” among countless other variations. The meaning of these phrases can be unclear to average consumers as they can indicate a product’s peak freshness, when a product is no longer safe for consumption, or, in the case of “Sell By” dates, act as a guide for when retailers should pull products from the shelf. These phrases are often all referred to as “expiration dates,” which can lead to consumer confusion. With the exception of baby formula, date labels on packaged food are not federally regulated. Furthermore, state rules can be widely inconsistent and only apply to certain product groups. This confusion ultimately leads to food being unnecessarily wasted, grocery budgets strained, and increased methane emissions from rotting food contributing to climate change. The author concludes this bill addresses this problem by prohibiting the use of misleading food product date labels. The bill would require the use of two standard terms – “Best if used by” to indicate the quality date of food, or “Use by” to indicate the safety of food.
2. BACKGROUND.
   1. Food Waste. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, food waste refers to the decrease in the quantity or quality of food resulting from decisions and actions by retailers, food service providers and consumers. Food waste burdens waste management systems, exacerbates food insecurity and is a major contributor of climate change and pollution. Globally, the United Nations Environment Programme 2021 Food Waste Index Report estimates that 931 million tons of food waste was generated in 2019, 61% of which came from households, 26% from food service and 13% from retail. This suggests that 17% of total global food production may be wasted. The Food Waste Index Report also found that household per capita food waste generation is found to be broadly similar across country income groups, suggesting that action on food waste is equally relevant in high, upper‑middle and lower‑middle income countries. This diverges from earlier narratives concentrating consumer food waste in developed countries, and food production, storage and transportation losses in developing countries.
      
      In the United States, the Department of Agriculture estimates that 30 to 40% of food is lost or wasted at the retail and consumer level. Each year, Americans are discarding approximately 133 billion pounds of food worth $161 billion. In California, CDFA estimates that Californians throw away approximately 6 million tons of food waste annually. CalRecycle points out on its internet website that Californians send 11.2 billion pounds of food to landfills each year, some of which was still fresh enough to have been recovered to feed people in need.
      
      According to a 2022 study published on the Journal of Agriculture and Research entitled “Understanding and Addressing Food Waste From Confusion in Date Labeling Using a Stakeholder’s Survey” (2022 study), the lack of uniformity of food date labels and lack of regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has widely lead to confusion among consumer, which is a significant contributor of food waste amounting to 20% total consumer food waste. Date labels such as “Best Before,” “Best By,” “Use By,” are highly inconsistent, are not science-based and vary widely across jurisdictions, brands, and food products. The article claims that more than 90% of Americans may be prematurely throwing food because of label misinterpretation.
   2. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Voluntary Quality and Safety Date Labels. With the exception of infant formula, product dating is completely voluntary. In 2016, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) updated its guidance on food product labeling, including guidance aimed at reducing food waste. FSIS at that time recommended the use of Best If Used By because research shows that this phrase is easily understood by consumers as an indicator of quality, rather than safety. Examples of commonly used date labeling are:
      1. A "Best if Used By/Before" date indicates when a product will be of best flavor or quality. It is not a purchase or safety date;
      2. A "Sell-By" date tells the store how long to display the product for sale for inventory management. It is not a safety date;
      3. A “Use-By" date is the last date recommended for the use of the product while at peak quality. It is not a safety date except for when used on infant formula as described below; and,
      4. A “Freeze-By” date indicates when a product should be frozen to maintain peak quality. It is not a purchase or safety date.
   3. California’s Voluntary Date Labelling Efforts. In 2017, in an effort to lessen the confusion on food labelling and reduce food waste, AB 954 (Chiu), Chapter 787, Statutes of 2017, was signed into law. AB 954 required CDFA, in consultation with DPH, to publish information by July 1, 2018 that encourages food manufacturers, processors, and retailers to voluntarily use specified “best by” and “use by” labels that communicate quality and safety dates, respectively. However, this voluntary system has not mitigated the amount of food waste. This bill deletes the voluntary system and effective January 1, 2025, food manufacturers, processors and retailers who label food products are required to use Best if Used by, Best if Used or Frozen by to indicate the quality date of a product and/or Use by or Use by or Freeze by to indicate the safety date of a product.
   4. Other States. Massachusetts has one of the strictest date labeling requirements. All packaged foods must be labeled in accordance with Massachusetts and federal labeling regulations, including all foods intended for retail sale that are manufactured in licensed residential kitchens. To comply with the Massachusetts open-dating labeling regulation, a “sell-by” or “best-if-used-by” date is required if the product has a recommended shelf life of fewer than 90 days. Foods exempt from this requirement include: fresh meat, poultry, fish, fruits, and vegetables offered for sale unpackaged or in containers permitting sensory examination, and food products pre-packaged for retail sale with a net weight of less than 1½ ounces. Foods may be sold after the open-date if the following conditions are met: It is wholesome and good quality; the product is segregated from food products that are not “past date,” and the product is clearly marked as being “past date.”
   5. Mandatory Organic Waste Collection. SB 1383 (Lara), Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016, among various provisions, establishes a target of 50% reduction in the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75% reduction by 2025, and requires CalRecycle and the Air Resources Board to adopt regulations to achieve the organic waste reduction targets. SB 1383 also requires jurisdictions to provide organic waste collection services to all single-family and multifamily residences of all sizes and businesses that generate organic waste beginning January 1, 2022. Organic waste includes food, green material, landscape and pruning waste, organic textiles and carpets, lumber, wood, paper products, printing and writing paper, manure, biosolids, digestate, and sludges. Lastly, another provision of SB 1383 is the requirement for jurisdictions to establish food recovery programs aimed at reducing food waste and help address food insecurity.
3. SUPPORT. A broad coalition of supporters that includes Californians Against Waste and Natural Resources Defense Council, both sponsors of this bill, points out that consumer confusion when it comes to the right time to dispose of food stems from lack of clarity with phrases such as “Sell By”, “Expires On”, “Use By”, and “Best if Used By”. Defining a standard for producer- and consumer-targeted labels provides clarity on when food is at recommended quality for consumption versus unsafe to eat. In addition, by prohibiting consumer-facing “Sell By” dates, which inform retailers’ stock rotation, consumers will be less likely to confuse these with quality or safety dates. Implementing coded “Sell By” dates retains this information for retailers while preventing consumers from rejecting or prematurely disposing of products. The sponsors note that the Consumer Brands Association (CBA), which represents 74 companies and an estimated 2,000 brands, reported 87% implementation in 2018, and anticipated 100% implementation by 2020. However, data collected from a 2018 consumer fridge study showed an estimated 43% compliance with the voluntary labeling standards endorsed by CBA, and a related 2019 store shelf study found only 36% of products displayed these recommended labels. Given recent federal and brand support toward streamlining labels, state action to reduce food waste, methane emissions, and save consumers money is crucial.
4. CONCERNS. The CBA, California Food Products, California Farm Bureau, Association of Egg Farmers, and the Pacific Egg and Poultry Association have concerns about this bill and state:
   1. The language likely prevents “smart labels” where consumers can use their smart phone to not only learn about the date on the package, but also suggested storage and use information from the manufacturer. Furthermore, these often link to cooking tips to reduce waste and other tools that will help consumers get the most out of the food they have purchased;
   2. This bill negatively impacts small international food producers and processors that serve cultural and ethnic markets. Trying to meet one state specific requirements will be a challenge and many may opt to forego California, prohibiting consumers from enjoying their traditional food items;
   3. Mandates bring with them liability. If a manufacturer and/or retailer inadvertently offers product labeled for the other 49 states but not meeting these California only mandates there could be liability through unfair business practices statues in California; and,
   4. The sale and labeling of eggs is governed by a complex system of regulations promulgated by both the USDA and the CDFA. The “Julian Date” system in California provides 30 days before the eggs are to be sold. Altering this system could have impacts on both safety and quality, and if lengthened, California will likely become the destination of expired eggs from other states. We encourage the sections governing eggs in this legislation be removed.
5. DOUBLE REFERRAL. This bill is double referred; it pass the Assembly Committee on Agriculture with a vote of 7-0 on March 15, 2023.
6. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS.
   1. As drafted, this bill applies to a food item that displays a food product date label. Currently, the definition of food in the Sherman Law applies to any article used or intended for use for food, drink, confection, condiment, or chewing gum by man or other animal. The author has agreed to amend this bill to state that the requirement only applies to food for human consumption.
   2. Existing federal and state law has strict regulatory requirements for the labeling of infant formula. The Committee recommends exempting infant formula from the provisions of this bill.
   3. To clarify that this bill does not require the use or display of date labels unless a food item currently displays a date label.
7. POLICY COMMENTS.
   1. Sherman Law and implementation concerns. As noted in Existing Law above, the Sherman Law regulates the packaging, labeling, and advertising of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics in California. The labeling requirements in this bill are codified in the FAC but this bill applies broadly to food items. Since the Sherman Law broadly governs the regulation and labeling of food in California, as this bill moves forward, the author may wish to engage with DPH to determine if these labeling requirements need to be codified in Sherman Law and determine which state entity has regulatory authority over this bill’s requirements.
   2. Enforcement. This bill makes changes to the FAC, the CRFC, and potentially the Sherman Law. Each of these code sections have their own enforcement provisions. As this bill moves forward, the author may wish to evaluate the fines and penalties, if any, that are associated with a violation of each of these statutes and determine if there should be a different penalty for a violation of the labeling requirements in this bill.
   3. Implementation date. Currently, this bill requires food items that display a food product label to comply with the required labeling on or after January 1, 2025 but it is not clear how food products that are already in the market before this bill’s implementation would be treated. As this bill moves forward, the author may wish to consider whether food products that are already in the market prior to this bill’s implementation should be grandfathered.
8. PREVIOUS LEGISLATION. AB 954 (Chiu), Chapter 787, Statutes of 2017, requires CDFA, in consultation with DPH, to publish information by July 1, 2018 that encourages food manufacturers, processors, and retailers to voluntarily use specified “best by” and “use by” labels that communicate quality and safety dates.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Californians Against Waste (cosponsor)

Natural Resources Defense Council (cosponsor)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy

Active San Gabriel Valley

California Compost Coalition

California Environmental Voters

California Product Stewardship Council

California Resource Recovery Association

CALPIRG, California Public Interest Research Group

City and County of San Francisco

Climate Action California

Community Action Partnership of Orange County

Dr. Bronner's

Elders Climate Action, NorCal and SoCal Chapters

Environmental Working Group

Food Empowerment Project

Food for People

Food Share

Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic

Imperial Valley Food Bank

Inika Small Earth, INC.

LAANE (los Angeles Alliance for A New Economy)

Los Angeles Regional Food Bank

Pesticide Action Network

Plastic Free Future

ReThinkwaste

San Francisco Environment Department

San Francisco-Marin Food Bank

Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission

Save Our Shores

Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County

Second Harvest of Silicon Valley

Second Harvest of the Greater Valley

Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

Zero Waste Sonoma

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Rosielyn Pulmano / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097

Date of Hearing: March 15, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

Robert Rivas, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 660

Author:(Irwin) – As Introduced Ver:February 9, 2023

SUBJECT: Food labeling: quality dates, safety dates, and sell by dates

SUMMARY: This bill changes the use of sell-by and use-by date of food products from a voluntary system to a requirement for food products sold in California, starting January 1, 2025. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires eggs, both pasteurized and unpasteurized, sell-by label to include “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by” to indicate the quality date of a product (Best if used by) and/or “USE by” or “USE by or Freeze by” to indicate the safety date of a product (Use by) starting by January 1, 2025.
   
2. Requires the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), in consolation with the California Department of Public Health (DPH), starting January 1, 2025 to assist food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to use “Best if used by” and/or “USE by”.
   
3. Requires, starting January 1, 2025, that no person can sell or offer for sale food items not labeled with a “Best if used by” and/or “USE by” label.
   
4. Requires, starting January 1, 2025, that no person can sell or offer for sale food items with a “sell by” label.
   
5. Allows the use of the “sell by” date, if it is presented in a coded format that are not easily readable by consumers and that do not use the phrase “sell by.”
   
6. Requires DPH to update regulations involving the California Retail Food Code, as specified.
   
   1. Allows for the donation of food after the “Best if used by” date has passed.
      
7. Requires shellfish sell-by label to include “Best if used by” and/or “Use by” to indicate the safety date of a product (Use by) starting January 1, 2025.
   
8. Requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to, before January 1, 2025, limit the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, or the original manufacturer’s “sell by” or “use by” date, whichever occurs first.
   
   1. Requires that after January 1, 2025, limits the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption or Use by date, depending on which date occurs first.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires CDFA in consultation with DPH, to publish information that encourages food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified "best by" and "use by" labels that communicate quality and safety dates, respectively. Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) 82001
   
2. Requires CDFA to encourage food distributors and retailers to develop alternatives to consumer-facing “sell by” dates, defined to mean a date on a label affixed to the packaging or container of food that is intended to communicate primarily to a distributor or retailer for purposes of stock rotation and that is not a quality date or a safety date. FAC 82001
   
3. Provides that it is unlawful for an egg handler to sell, offer for sale, or expose for sale certain eggs that are packed for human consumption unless each container intended for sale to the ultimate consumer is labeled with certain information, including, among other information, the words “sell-by” immediately followed by the month and day in bold type, as specified. FAC 27644, 24644.5
   
4. Requires repackaged eggs to be labeled with the original sell by date. FAC 27687
   
5. Requires a food facility that packages food using a reduced-oxygen packaging method and Clostridium botulinum to have an approved plan limiting the refrigerated shelf life to no more than 30 calendar days from packaging to consumption, except the time product is maintained frozen, or the original manufacturer’s “sell by” or “use by” date, whichever occurs first. Health and Safety Code (HSC) 114057.1
   
6. Requires raw shucked shellfish to be obtained in nonreturnable packages that bear a legible “sell by” date or a “best if used by” date for packages, as specified. HSC 114039

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: There is no standardized date on food labels. Moreover, there are no federal, state, or local regulations on the dates, with the exception of baby formula. Instead, labels come in a variety of forms including "use by," "best before," "sell by," and "enjoy by" dates, and these simple markers are both poorly understood and surprisingly under-regulated. AB 954 (Ting) Chapter 787, Statutes of 2017 requires CDFA and DPH to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use specified "best by" and "use by" labels that communicate quality and safety dates.

Food labels have been used for decades to estimate peak freshness. Unlike “use by” labels, which are found on perishable foods like meat and dairy, “best before” labels are not related to safety and may encourage consumers to throw away food that is perfectly fine to eat.

Major United Kingdom grocery stores have removed “best before” labels from prepackaged fruit and vegetables. The European Union is expected to announce a revamp to its labeling laws by the end of this year; it is considering abolishing “best before” labels altogether. There is growing momentum in the United States to standardize the language on date labels to help educate buyers about food waste. Other states have introduced bills streamlining date labels, including Colorado HB20-1226 (2020), Massachusetts H2327 (2021), and New Jersey S418 (2022).

The US Department of Agriculture estimates that almost one third of the American food supply is uneaten and wasted. Quantifying these losses at the household level, the average consumer spends about $1,300 annually on food that is later discarded. Moreover, product prices have remained high due to pandemic-induced inflation, further prioritizing the need for families to make the most of their groceries.

Many Californians, especially our underserved and marginalized communities, struggle with food insecurity. These communities are harmed by unclear food labels, which lead them to throw away nutritious and quality food. Additionally many of these communities rely on food banks, pantries, and other charitable sources of food. While these charitable organizations regularly accept and distribute donated food with expired dates that may indicate that they should already be sold or past peak quality, but remain safe, it often results in recipients misunderstanding that they are being given spoiled food. This is an unnecessary scenario that could be remedied by simply using the safety dates required by this bill.

The author states that while AB 954 directed CDFA and DPH to develop voluntary standards for food manufacturers, processors, and retailers to use in labeling food products, and those standards were published and promoted, Californians have continued to see a variety of labels that use phrases other than ones selected by CDFA and DPH across a range of food products. The presence of other phrases have hampered efforts to educate consumers on the quality and safety messages meant by the uniform terms.

Supporter’s state data collected from a 2018 consumer fridge study showed an estimated 43% compliance with the voluntary labeling standards endorsed by the Association, and a related 2019 store shelf study found only 36% of products displayed these recommended labels. Given recent federal and brand support towards streamlining labels, state action to reduce food waste, methane emissions, and save consumers money is crucial.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Californians Against Waste (Sponsor)

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (Sponsor)

Active San Gabriel Valley

California Environmental Voters

California Product Stewardship Council

CALPIRG, California Public Interest Research Group

Environmental Working Group

Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic

Plastic Free Future

Save Our Shores

Solana Center for Environmental Innovation

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Victor Francovich / AGRI. / (916) 319-2084