California’s sweeping food label ban takes effect July 1, forcing changes at Walmart, Costco, and Trader Joe’s

Ginny Waterman – Starting July 1, every food product on the shelves at Walmart, Costco, Trader Joe’s, and thousands of smaller grocers across California must comply with a new state law that bans most of the date-label language American shoppers have relied on for decades. Assembly Bill 660 restricts manufacturers to just four approved phrases, and outlaws familiar terms like “Sell By,” “Freshest Before,” and “Please Enjoy By.”

The law, first detailed by The Sun, represents Sacramento’s latest attempt to regulate its way out of a problem, in this case, food waste, by telling producers and consumers exactly which words may appear on a package. Whether it reduces waste or simply adds another layer of compliance cost to the nation’s most expensive grocery market is a question the law’s backers seem uninterested in answering.

What AB 660 actually requires

The new law divides all food date labels into two categories: “quality” dates and “safety” dates. Manufacturers selling in California may only use the following phrases:

♦ Quality dates: “Best If Used By” or “Best If Frozen By”
♦ Safety dates: “Use By” or “Use or Freeze By”

Everything else is banned. That means the “Sell By” stamp that has guided grocery store inventory management, and consumer purchasing habits, for generations will vanish from California shelves. So will “Freshest Before,” “Please Enjoy By,” and any other creative phrasing a brand might print next to a date.

The rationale, according to the law’s co-sponsor Californians Against Waste, is that the current system is too confusing. A University of Maryland report found more than 50 distinct food date labels currently in use across the United States. Californians Against Waste argued that the patchwork creates real consequences.

“Each of these phrases can be used to communicate different things by different brands, while some date labels contain no phrase next to them at all.”

The group also claimed that “the result is a confusing data labeling system and a staggering amount of food waste.”

The food waste argument, and what it leaves out

Supporters of AB 660 lean heavily on waste statistics. Research shared by Californians Against Waste claims that 20 percent of all “avoidable” food waste stems from consumer confusion over expiration-date wording. A separate study cited in the reporting found that 91 percent of consumers at least “occasionally” threw away food past its “Sell By” date, and 25 percent said they always did.

California generates nearly six million tons of food waste each year, according to figures promoted by the law’s backers. The advocacy group tied the issue to a sweeping list of priorities, stating that “preventing food waste is essential to slowing climate change, promoting resource conservation, increasing food security, and saving Californians money.”

That last claim, saving Californians money, deserves scrutiny. The law imposes compliance costs on every food manufacturer that sells products in the state. Retooling packaging, updating labeling systems, and managing state-specific print runs all cost money. Those costs do not vanish. They get passed along to the consumer, likely through higher shelf prices in a state where groceries already strain household budgets.

And the reporting leaves key questions unanswered. What penalties apply to manufacturers or retailers who fail to comply by July 1? Does the law cover products already sitting on shelves, or only newly packaged goods? Are any food categories exempt? The legislation’s text, linked through LegiScan, may clarify some of these points, but the public-facing coverage has not.

Sacramento’s growing appetite for retail regulation

AB 660 does not exist in a vacuum. California has steadily expanded its regulatory reach into the daily operations of retailers, and the burden falls hardest on the largest chains, the same ones that serve the most customers.

Walmart, the country’s largest grocer, has already been navigating California’s separate packaging law, which threatens fines of up to $50,000 a day for noncompliance. Now the same retailer must ensure that every food product on its California shelves carries only state-approved date language, a mandate that doesn’t apply in the other 49 states.

The pattern is familiar. State legislatures and city councils impose bans, mandates, and labeling requirements, and the cost and complexity flow downstream to shoppers and store operators. Walmart shoppers in Illinois recently faced a new checkout fee after Elgin’s plastic bag ban took effect, adding yet another small cost to the weekly grocery run.

Not every jurisdiction has followed California’s lead. Massachusetts legislators recently stripped a plastic bag ban from a climate bill, handing retailers a win on affordability and acknowledging that regulatory mandates carry real costs for working families.

Who bears the burden

The people most affected by AB 660 are not Sacramento lawmakers or advocacy groups. They are the Californians who buy groceries every week, the families already dealing with some of the highest food prices in the country.

Manufacturers who sell nationally will face a choice: create California-specific packaging or change labels nationwide to match the state’s requirements. Either path costs money. The first option adds logistical complexity. The second lets one state’s legislature dictate terms for the entire country.

That dynamic is not new, but it accelerates with every mandate California passes. And the state’s regulatory posture has consequences beyond the grocery aisle. Walmart has also been adjusting its own internal policies, recently tightening coupon rules with a blanket ban on digital-device manufacturer coupons, as it manages competing pressures from regulators, advocacy groups, and consumers.

Meanwhile, Costco, Trader Joe’s, and locally owned food markets across California must all navigate the same compliance maze. Small grocers, with thinner margins and fewer resources, will feel the squeeze most acutely.

The climate framing

Californians Against Waste explicitly tied AB 660 to climate policy, calling food waste prevention “essential to slowing climate change.” That framing is worth noting. A law about what words appear next to a date on a yogurt container is now, in Sacramento’s telling, a front in the fight against global warming.

The connection is not self-evident. Reducing food waste is a worthy goal. But mandating four approved phrases on packaging, while banning dozens of others, is a bureaucratic solution to what is fundamentally a consumer education problem. If 91 percent of shoppers occasionally toss food past its “Sell By” date, the issue may be less about the label and more about whether anyone has explained what “Sell By” actually means.

Sacramento chose regulation over education. That choice carries costs, financial, logistical, and, for the small producers and retailers who must comply, potentially existential.

What remains unanswered

The reporting on AB 660 leaves significant gaps. No individual legislator is named as the bill’s author or sponsor. The enforcement mechanism, fines, injunctions, or something else, is not described. Whether the law applies retroactively to products already on shelves is unclear. And the studies cited for the waste statistics are not fully identified, making it difficult to evaluate their methodology or scope.

These are not minor details. A law that takes effect in weeks, affecting every grocer in the nation’s most populous state, ought to come with clear answers about how it will be enforced and what happens to businesses that fall short. The absence of those answers suggests the law was designed more for headlines than for practical implementation.

California has a habit of passing sweeping mandates and leaving the details, and the costs, for someone else to sort out. The people sorting them out are never the ones who voted yes.

SF Source Capital Digest Jun 2026