From Confusion to Clarity: California Labeling Reform Targets Food Waste and Misinformation at Its Source

Written by Jordan Tyler

In 2022, grocery stores were responsible for nearly five million tons of surplus food, of which 35% ended up in landfills , according to national nonprofit ReFED. This coincides with the United Nations’ estimation that, globally, 931 million tons of food waste comes from households, retail establishments, and the food service industry.

Food loss and waste are monumental environmental problems, but a recent California bill aims to address them, starting in stores. In late September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed what the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) described as “the nation’s first mandatory food date labeling reform bill.”?

According to the bill—Assembly Bill 660 , written by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin and co-sponsored by the NRDC and Californians Against Waste, more than 50 versions of date labels are currently in use for packaged food. The wide variety of these labels can be confusing for grocery store workers and consumers alike, as there are distinct nuances behind each.

In short, the California bill calls for standardization of these messages on products to make it easier for store workers and shoppers to decipher nomenclature around food freshness and quality. Effective July 1, 2026 , food products sold in California must use the “BEST if Used By” label to indicate peak quality, while “Use By” labels are reserved to communicate product safety. Most notably, the bill prohibits the use of “Sell By” date codes in an effort to reduce the confusion around the meaning of this code and how it should be interpreted.

So… What Do These Labels Really Mean?

“Best if Used By” or “Best Before” date codes are intended to communicate peak flavor or quality but do not necessarily indicate safety or spoilage, according to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) . “Sell-By” date codes are intended strictly for use by store workers to inform how long a product should be displayed for sale, but they don’t necessarily indicate safety or spoilage, either.?

The USDA-FSIS states, “Foods not exhibiting signs of spoilage should be wholesome and may be sold, purchased, donated and consumed beyond the labeled ‘Best if Used By’ date.”

Now, read that statement again. See how this could be confusing?

This system creates “an impossible-to-navigate system for consumers,” commented Erica Parker , a Policy Associate with Californians Against Waste. “The result is a staggering amount of food waste—Californians throw away six million tons of food waste each year—and confusion over date labels is a leading cause,” she said.

It’s imperative that we alleviate this confusion through consumer education—and, in this case, legislation—to reduce undue grocery waste and lessen environmental impacts from the global food chain.

We’ve Seen This Movie Before

This brings to mind other common consumer misconceptions in the grocery store and beyond. Think back to Kim Szukaitis’s recent article on the Chasing Arrows recycling symbol . The symbol was originally intended to raise awareness around environmental issues and promote recycling, and has since become a beacon of environmental friendliness for consumers. Unfortunately, the evolution of this symbol has transpired like a game of telephone, and the true meaning behind it is no longer exactly what consumers think it is.

“Many consumers assume the symbol guarantees that the packaging is recyclable, but that’s not always the case,” Kim wrote in the article. “In fact, American households generate about 51 million tons of plastic waste each year, but only around 5%, or 2.4 million tons, gets recycled. The rest ends up in landfills, incinerators, or in the environment. These numbers highlight the challenges our recycling system faces, from the difficulty of processing certain plastics to contamination issues that prevent effective recycling.?

The lesson here: Not all symbols on product packaging should be taken at face value. There is a real opportunity for the food industry at large to better educate consumers about modern best practices for recycling, including how to interpret sustainability messaging on the label.

Not only does this sentiment extend to expiration date codes on food products, as highlighted by this California bill, but it also applies to pet product claims in general. Misleading claims on pet food or supplement packaging can have similarly frustrating results—a pet could reject the product, or worse. Misleading marketing could cause unexpected health issues and lead to overall pet owner dissatisfaction.

This makes it all the more important for brands to back up their claims, and for retailers to understand the product, who is buying it and why, and recognize when more education is needed.

But Wait, What Does This Bill Mean for Upcycling?

It would be remiss to ignore the potential impact of this California legislation on the upcycled ingredient movement. Reflecting on Dr. Bradley Quest’s previous article, in which he expounds on the value of upcycled and other alternative ingredient sources for the pet food market, some upcycled ingredient companies depend on grocery waste as a primary source of raw material. While reducing grocery waste is ultimately a good thing, it could prove to be a challenge for companies that rely on this waste to create upcycled ingredient options, forcing them to source elsewhere.

Across the pet industry and most other sectors, sustainability is becoming table stakes, but specific initiatives to achieve this end exist largely in silos. Priorities, action plans, and goals will vary from company to company, and because these efforts are disjointed, steps forward in one area may actually be steps backward in another. This doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable to pursue a variety of tactics toward environmental sustainability; we must be mindful of how these varying initiatives influence each other.

Setting expectations at the state or federal level, as seen through this recent California bill, could result in more streamlined efforts to combat issues like food waste and loss. Will other states follow suit, or will California revel in its reputation as one of the country’s most sustainable states ?

With changes to pet food labeling on the horizon and other proposed legislation poised to disrupt the way pet food products are regulated, keeping the consumer at the forefront will be key to developing solutions that truly address and solve these issues of consumer confusion and mistrust, rather than those that serve more as band-aid fixes.

However, it’s important to note that the upcycling movement and this recent legislation are both steps in the right direction for reducing food waste and loss in grocery stores, and taking a multi-pronged approach to sustainability is certainly a net positive for our communities and the environment.

Overall, transparency in labeling is a crucial opportunity for food industry decision-makers and environmental advocates to steer consumers toward truly sustainable products and away from misleading marketing and greenwashing, as well as help them decode confusing claims.

Consumer education is a core capability at BSM Partners. We see this type of education as crucial to benefiting our planet and our pets. Reach out to us today to learn how our arsenal of consulting expertise can help you navigate complex regulatory environments, changing consumer sentiments, and supply chain shake-ups and guide your brand toward sustainability success.

About the author: Jordan Tyler is the Director of Media at BSM Partners. She has more than five years of experience reporting on trends, best practices and developments in the North American pet nutrition industry. Jordan resides in Bentonville, Arkansas, with her husband and their four furry family members.