California's New Law Bans 'Sell By' Dates, Standardizing Food Labels to Cut Consumer Waste

Starting this month, California grocery shoppers are noticing a subtle but significant shift on supermarket shelves: the disappearance of the traditional "sell by" date. Following the implementation of Assembly Bill 660 on July 1, 2026, the state has become the first in the nation to mandate standardized date language on packaged foods.[1]

The legislation, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2024, aims to eliminate a major source of consumer confusion that has historically led to massive amounts of unintentional food waste. For decades, Americans have navigated a chaotic landscape of more than 50 differently phrased date labels, ranging from "expires on" and "freshest by" to "enjoy by."[2]

The core issue was the "sell by" label itself. Originally designed as a business-to-business communication tool to help store clerks with inventory management and stock rotation, the phrase was widely misinterpreted by the public. Consumers frequently treated "sell by" as a strict expiration deadline, throwing away perfectly safe, nutritious food simply because the date had passed.[1]

To resolve this ambiguity, AB 660 restricts food manufacturers to a strict two-tier labeling system that clearly separates food quality from food safety. The law does not require all foods to carry date labels, but it heavily regulates the wording for companies that choose—or are otherwise required—to include them.[1][3]

The first category addresses peak freshness. For products where the date merely indicates a decline in taste or optimal texture, manufacturers must now use the phrases "BEST if Used by" or "BEST if Used or Frozen by." If the packaging is too small to accommodate the full phrase, companies are permitted to use the abbreviation "BB."[1][3]

Crucially, food that has passed a "BEST if Used by" date is not automatically unsafe to eat. While consumers should still evaluate the item for signs of spoilage or improper storage, the label serves as a quality guarantee from the manufacturer rather than a health warning.[2]

The second category is strictly reserved for safety concerns. For highly perishable items that carry an increased risk of foodborne illness over time—such as certain deli meats, unpasteurized cheeses, or prepared meals—the law mandates the phrases "USE by" or "USE by or Freeze by." The approved abbreviation for small packages in this category is "UB."[1][3]

Food marked with a "USE by" date should be handled with strict caution and discarded once the date has passed, as the risk of bacterial growth becomes a genuine health hazard. By bifurcating the labels into these two distinct categories, state regulators hope to give consumers the confidence to keep safe food in their refrigerators longer.[1][2]

The environmental and economic stakes driving the legislation are immense. The California Department of Food and Agriculture estimates that nearly 2.5 billion meals' worth of edible food is discarded annually in the state. This wasted food comprises nearly half of all organic material sent to California landfills, where it decomposes and releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas.[2]

Waste reduction advocates, including the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council and Californians Against Waste, point to data showing that 20% of all avoidable food waste in the United States is directly caused by consumer confusion over expiration dates. By clarifying the language, the new law is projected to ease pressure on household grocery budgets while significantly reducing the state's environmental footprint.[1]

For the food industry, the July 1 deadline represents a massive logistical shift. The prohibition on consumer-facing "sell by" dates applies to all covered products manufactured on or after that date. However, older inventory already in the supply chain is permitted to remain on shelves during a standard sell-through period, meaning shoppers will still see a mix of old and new labels for several months.[1]

Retailers are not entirely stripped of their inventory management tools. The law includes a narrow exception allowing the continued use of "sell by" dates, provided they are presented in a coded format that is not easily readable by consumers. This compromise allows grocery stores to maintain their internal stock rotation practices without misleading the public.[3]

The ripple effects of California's mandate are expected to reach far beyond the state's borders. Because of the sheer size of the West Coast market, national food manufacturers are highly unlikely to operate two separate packaging lines—one for California and one for the rest of the country. Industry experts predict that AB 660 will effectively become the de facto national standard as companies update their labels to avoid the costs of dual compliance.[1][4]

Legal exposure is also driving rapid corporate adoption. Companies that fail to transition their packaging face potential enforcement actions from California authorities and the looming threat of litigation from private plaintiffs. Consequently, supply chain managers and packaging designers have spent the past year overhauling their printing operations to meet the summer deadline.[3][4]

Despite California's decisive action, a uniform federal standard remains elusive. The United States is currently one of the only developed nations without a comprehensive federal roadmap for food date labeling. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) requested industry input on a national system in December 2024, formal federal regulations have yet to materialize.[2]

Many food manufacturers actively support federal standardization, preferring a single, consistent rule over the threat of a patchwork of different requirements across 50 states. The FDA has indicated that January 2028 will serve as the uniform compliance date for future labeling regulations, but what specific date requirements will be included remains uncertain.[2][4]

In the meantime, international observers are watching California's rollout closely. In Canada, where "best before" dates have also drawn scrutiny for causing unnecessary waste, parliamentary committees have urged their own government to study the elimination of confusing labels. As awareness of the global food waste crisis grows, California's two-phrase system offers a practical, tested template for legislative reform.[4]