California Standardizes Food Date Labels: The First Statewide Mandate and What's Next

Beginning July 1, 2026, California became the first state in the nation to require standardized consumer-facing food date labels. Under Assembly Bill 660 ("AB 660"), food products sold in California that bear quality- or safety-based date labels must use prescribed terminology intended to distinguish between food quality and food safety.

Although the law applies only to products sold in California, its significance extends well beyond the state. California's action comes at a time when there is growing support at the state and federal levels to address consumer confusion and unnecessary food waste. With New York advancing similar legislation and Congress still considering a national framework, food manufacturers may witness a broader shift in how food date labels are regulated across the United States.

Why Food Date Labels Have Become a Regulatory Priority

For decades, food manufacturers have used a wide variety of date-labeling phrases, including "Best Before," "Best By," "Freshest By," "Enjoy By," "Sell By," and "Use By." Supporters of AB 660 claim that over 50 distinct date-labeling phrases have appeared on food products sold in the United States.

The lack of consistency has created widespread consumer confusion regarding whether a particular date relates to product quality, peak freshness, retailer inventory management, or food safety. Studies cited by lawmakers suggest that consumers often interpret date labels as expiration dates, prematurely discarding food that is safe to eat.

As policymakers increasingly focus on food waste reduction and sustainability initiatives, date-label reform has emerged as a mechanism for improving consumer understanding while potentially reducing avoidable food waste.

The Existing Federal Framework

Currently, there are no federal or state regulations around food-date labeling. As a result, food date labeling has historically evolved through a combination of manufacturer discretion, industry practice, retailer requirements, and state laws.

Exceptions apply to some product categories, such as infant formula and meat, poultry, and egg goods with date labels that are regulated by the USDA. Outside of these limited circumstances, however, manufacturers have generally retained significant flexibility in determining whether to use date labels and what terminology.

Recognizing the consumer confusion caused by this patchwork approach, industry groups and federal agencies began to promote voluntary standardization. In 2017, the Food Marketing Institute and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (now the Consumer Brands Association) launched an industry initiative recommending "Best if Used By" for quality-based dates and "Use By" for safety-based dates.

Federal lawmakers also sought to establish a national framework through the bipartisan Food Date Labeling Act, which remains pending in Congress. The act would create standardized terminology distinguishing quality-based dates from safety-based dates on food products sold throughout the United States.

Against this backdrop, California's AB 660 and New York's pending legislation represent a significant shift from voluntary guidance toward mandatory standardization. These states largely build upon nearly a decade of industry and federal efforts to address consumer confusion, reduce food waste, and promote greater consistency in food labeling.

California Leads the Way

AB 660 builds upon these prior federal and industry efforts by converting what had been a voluntary best practice into a legal requirement.

Beginning July 1, 2026, food products manufactured for sale in California with quality- or safety-based date labels must use standardized terminology.

The law also generally prohibits consumer-facing "sell by" dates. Historically, "sell by" dates were primarily used by retailers to manage their inventory rather than as indicators of product quality or safety. Legislators concluded that continued consumer exposure to such dates contributed to confusion and unnecessary food waste.

To be clear, AB 660 does not require manufacturers to add date labels where none previously existed; rather, it clarifies which labels can be used if they are chosen.

New York May Not Be Far Behind

California is not alone in pursuing date-label reform.

In 2025, the New York Legislature passed legislation that would similarly standardize food date-label terminology. At the time of writing, the bill awaits action by Governor Kathy Hochul.

The New York proposal, like California's law, seeks to distinguish between quality-based and safety-based dates using standardized language. However, New York's approach has several notable features that may indicate the direction of future regulation.

Among other provisions, the legislation would require a) food businesses to keep documentation supporting their date determinations, and b) state agencies to conduct consumer education on food safety and waste. These requirements indicate a greater emphasis not only on label terminology, but also on the scientific basis for shelf-life determinations.

If enacted, New York would become the second state to adopt standardized date-label requirements, potentially increasing pressure on national brands to harmonize labeling practices across jurisdictions.

What Food Companies Should Be Watching

Companies should therefore consider:

• Whether existing labels use terminology that is incompatible with California's framework
• Whether date determinations are supported by adequate shelf-life or stability data
• Whether nationwide adoption of standardized terminology would simplify compliance and packaging operations
• Whether future state or federal legislation would require broader label revisions.

Looking Ahead

California's AB 660 is the first mandatory state-level standardization of consumer-facing food date labels in the United States. It's unlikely to be the last. Taken together, California's new law, New York's pending legislation, and ongoing congressional efforts point to a growing consensus that consumers benefit from clearer distinctions between food quality and safety.