California bans sell-by dates

Overview of the Law

• California will standardize date labels on most foods:
  • “Best if Used By” = quality / peak freshness.
  • “Use By” = safety-related.
• “Sell by” and other consumer-facing phrases are effectively removed; internal codes for inventory can still exist.
• Exemptions include infant formula, eggs, beer, and malt beverages, in part due to separate regulatory regimes or specific spoilage patterns.

Consumer Confusion & Behavior

• Many people currently treat any printed date as a hard expiration and throw out edible food.
• Others use “sell by” only to choose the freshest item on the shelf.
• Some commenters want three dates (sell by, best by, expires), others think that’s too complex.
• Several note that people often ignore the wording and focus only on the date; concern that new language may not change behavior much.

Food Waste, Retailers, and Supply Chain

• Experiences vary: some vendors take back expired stock; others leave the loss to retailers.
• Grocery stores throw away large amounts of food; some donate near-expired items to food banks or sell to farmers as animal feed, others landfill it.
• Debate over whether consumers should “help the system” by buying older stock vs prioritizing their own freshness.
• One commenter notes states like Montana use short sell-by dates to protect local dairy, showing labels can be used protectionistically.

International & Comparative Practices

• UK and some EU countries have reduced or changed visible dates; mixed reports:
  • Some see more rotten produce on shelves.
  • Others note “best before” equivalents plus extra wording like “often good after” and charity collection of past-date food.
• Brazil and some European countries use both a manufacture/pack date and a safety date.

Food Safety vs Quality

• Thread repeatedly distinguishes:
  • Quality loss (stale, off flavor) vs.
  • Safety risks (pathogens, toxins like botulism).
• Some argue for clearer, more explicit wording like “expires on” or “do not consume after” for safety-critical items.
• Others rely mainly on smell/appearance/taste, while caution is urged for canned foods and certain high-risk categories.

Skepticism & Critiques

• Some see the law as minor “wordsmithing” oversold as a major anti-waste measure; projected waste reductions (e.g., 0.6%) are questioned.
• Concerns about relabeling costs and reduced product availability in California.
• Others argue standardization is simple, consumer-friendly, and likely to spread nationally due to manufacturers avoiding state-specific packaging.