Starting July 1, 2026, every covered food product manufactured in California must carry one of two standardized date labels: “BEST if Used by” for quality or “USE by” for safety. The familiar “sell by” stamp, long a source of confusion that drives consumers to throw out perfectly safe food, will be banned from consumer-facing packaging. The change, enacted through Assembly Bill 660, makes California one of the most aggressive states in the country on date-label reform and arrives as federal agencies are still debating whether to act at all.
How AB 660 replaces a patchwork of labels with two clear terms
The core problem is simple: shoppers see “sell by,” “best by,” “use by,” and “best before” on nearly identical products and have no reliable way to tell which dates signal a genuine safety risk and which merely reflect a manufacturer’s estimate of peak flavor. The FDA has estimated that confusion over date labeling accounts for roughly 20% of consumer food waste. California’s answer is to collapse the entire jumble into two phrases. “BEST if Used by” (or “BEST if Used or Frozen by”) tells shoppers the food may lose some taste or texture after that date but remains safe to eat. “USE by” (or “USE by or Freeze by”) is reserved strictly for foods that could pose a health risk after the printed date. For very small packages, the abbreviations “BB” and “UB” are permitted.
The statute, which adds Section 82001 to the Food and Agricultural Code and amends related Health and Safety Code sections, spells out these terms in detail and bars other consumer-facing language that could muddy the distinction. Under the new code provisions, “sell by,” “best before,” and similar phrases cannot appear where shoppers will see them, although manufacturers and retailers may still use separate internal codes for ordering and stocking.
The rules apply to covered foods manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, creating a clear transition date for industry. According to guidance from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the requirements cover most packaged foods intended for retail sale, with certain exemptions for infant formula and products already governed by distinct federal dating rules. The department’s food date labeling overview emphasizes that the goal is not to shorten shelf life but to make the meaning of every printed date obvious at a glance.
Food waste numbers that shaped the California legislature’s decision
California did not act in a vacuum. The state’s own waste data provided a stark justification. Organic materials, which include discarded food, account for nearly half of landfill disposal by weight, according to CalRecycle. That stream includes an estimated billions of meals’ worth of edible food every year. When that food decomposes in landfills, it generates methane, a greenhouse gas with far greater short-term warming power than carbon dioxide. Reducing the volume of safe food that gets tossed because a label confused a shopper is one of the most direct levers the state identified.
Lawmakers also framed AB 660 as a consumer-protection measure. When dates are unclear, many households err on the side of caution and throw food away days or weeks before it actually becomes risky to eat. In lower-income households, that lost value can strain already tight budgets. Standardized labels are meant to give families confidence to keep and use food past quality dates while still taking “USE by” deadlines seriously for safety-sensitive items like deli meats and prepared salads.
How the state’s approach fits into a national debate
Federal agencies have endorsed the same direction without mandating it. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service already recommends using a single quality phrase for meat and poultry to reduce confusion, and the FDA has encouraged voluntary adoption of “Best if Used By” on many packaged foods. But most product dating remains voluntary under federal law, with infant formula the sole exception subject to specific FDA rules. That patchwork has left states to decide whether to wait for national standards or move ahead on their own.
California’s choice to legislate rather than merely suggest best practices is likely to ripple beyond its borders. Because manufacturers rarely produce separate packaging runs for a single state, companies that sell into California may decide to adopt the same labels nationwide. Advocates hope that de facto national standardization will make it easier for federal regulators to follow with uniform rules, while critics worry about compliance costs for smaller producers and the risk of minor differences between state and federal terminology if Washington eventually acts.
What shoppers and businesses should expect next
For consumers, the most visible change will be the disappearance of “sell by” dates on retail shelves and the appearance of just two phrases on nearly all packaged foods. The state is encouraging retailers, food banks, and local governments to pair the rollout with public education campaigns so shoppers understand that “BEST if Used by” is about quality, not danger.
For manufacturers and retailers, the next year and a half will be spent redesigning packaging, updating printing equipment, and revising inventory systems to separate internal codes from consumer-facing dates. State officials have indicated that early outreach and technical assistance will focus on smaller producers that may not have in-house regulatory teams.
Supporters of AB 660 argue that once the transition is complete, everyone benefits: less food in landfills, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and fewer households throwing away groceries they could safely eat. The law does not solve every driver of food waste, but by making date labels finally say what they mean, California is betting that clearer words on packages can translate into measurable climate and economic gains.
