Grocery shoppers in California will face a new set of rules on food packaging in less than three weeks. Starting July 1, 2026, any food product manufactured on or after that date that displays a quality or safety date must carry one of two standardized phrases: “BEST if Used by” or “USE by.” The mandate, created by AB 660, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and filed with the Secretary of State on Sept. 28, 2024. Eggs and infant formula are exempt. The law targets a specific problem: consumers tossing safe food because confusing labels make them think it has expired.
Why the July 1 label mandate changes the calculus for retailers
Until now, food manufacturers in California could stamp packages with a patchwork of phrases, including “sell by,” “enjoy by,” and dozens of other variations that carried no consistent legal meaning. That confusion has real consequences at the store level. When shoppers see an unfamiliar or ambiguous date, many default to throwing food away rather than risking illness. Retailers absorb the cost of unsold inventory pulled from shelves based on dates that never indicated safety in the first place.
AB 660 replaces that patchwork with a binary system. A “BEST if Used by” label signals quality, not safety, telling consumers the product may taste or perform best before that date but is not necessarily unsafe afterward. A “USE by” label, by contrast, flags a genuine safety deadline. The distinction matters because it gives both shoppers and store employees a clear, legally backed framework for deciding what stays on the shelf and what gets donated or discarded.
One testable prediction follows from this structure: retailers that adopt the new labels ahead of the deadline should see measurable drops in unsold-but-safe inventory within roughly 18 months, visible in store-level waste logs well before any statewide enforcement data becomes available. That outcome hinges on whether the simpler labels actually change consumer behavior at the point of purchase, a question no California-specific study has yet answered.
Federal guidance and state research behind AB 660
California did not design these label terms from scratch. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service has long recommended “Best if Used By” as the preferred quality-date phrase for products it regulates, explicitly to reduce consumer confusion and food waste. AB 660 effectively codifies that federal recommendation into state law and extends it beyond FSIS-regulated meat and poultry to most packaged food sold in California.
State-level research reinforced the case. A 2022 commission report published by CalRecycle recommended adopting standard terms like “BEST if Used by” and limiting “sell-by” style labels. That report framed label standardization as one practical lever for reducing the volume of edible food entering California landfills, alongside donation requirements and organics recycling mandates. Taken together, the federal guidance and state analysis gave lawmakers a ready-made vocabulary and a clear policy rationale: if consumers can quickly distinguish between quality and safety dates, fewer still-edible products should end up in the trash.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has since built an implementation page explaining how the law applies to manufacturers, retailers, and food banks, including a summary of the exempt product categories and the July 1, 2026 start date for covered items. That online guidance is now the primary reference point for businesses trying to align their packaging and inventory systems with the statute.
Gaps in enforcement and cost data after July 1
Several questions remain unanswered with the compliance deadline days away. Neither CDFA nor CalRecycle has published a detailed penalty schedule or inspection protocol specific to date-label violations. AB 660 itself amends state food and agricultural codes but leaves room for regulators to decide how aggressively to enforce the new language requirements and whether violations will trigger warnings, fines, product holds, or some combination of those tools.
That uncertainty matters for manufacturers and retailers that operate on thin margins. Reworking packaging artwork, updating printing plates, and revising inventory software to recognize only the two sanctioned phrases all carry upfront costs. Large national brands may be able to spread those expenses across multiple markets, but smaller producers selling primarily into California have less room to absorb missteps if enforcement turns out to be strict from day one.
There are also open questions about how quickly consumers will internalize the new terms. If shoppers treat “BEST if Used by” as an expiration date despite outreach campaigns, retailers may see little near-term reduction in waste. Conversely, if the public reads “USE by” as merely advisory, stores could face pressure to pull products earlier than the law requires to avoid reputational risk, even when the items remain safe through the printed date.
Data gaps will complicate early evaluations. Existing waste-tracking systems at many chains do not distinguish between products discarded for safety reasons and those pulled for cosmetic or marketing reasons. Without more granular logs, it will be difficult to attribute any decline in shrink directly to AB 660 rather than to broader efforts to manage inventory or expand donations.
What businesses should do now
In the absence of detailed enforcement rules, food companies are treating the statute’s text and agency guidance as their primary roadmap. The legislative record spells out the core labeling requirements and exemptions, while CDFA’s food date labeling page offers practical explanations and examples. Legal and compliance teams are using those documents to audit current labels, phase out nonstandard phrases, and coordinate with co-packers and distributors.
Retailers, meanwhile, are updating planograms and training materials so that employees understand the difference between the two phrases and can explain it to customers. Some chains are pairing the transition with in-store signage or app notifications that define the new terms in plain language. Others are focusing first on private-label products, where they have the most direct control over packaging, before pushing national brands to conform.
How quickly the law’s promised benefits show up-in less food waste, lower shrink, and clearer choices for shoppers-will depend on those implementation details as much as on the statutory language itself. Over the next few years, store-level data and consumer surveys will test whether a simple two-phrase system can meaningfully change what Californians do when they reach for a product nearing its date stamp.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
