CA Update: Food Date Labeling Change
In September of 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 660. This law took effect last month, on July 1, 2026, for food companies across the state. It requires food companies that sell any food item (except eggs, beer, and baby formula) to no longer use “sell by dates” on consumer-facing packaging and instead either provide labels for quality (such as “best if used by”) or safety (such as “use by”). This helps narrow the nearly 50 differently phrased food labels down to just 2 options in California. It is also important to mention that this new law does not require all foods to be labeled with dates, but instead requires food companies to abide by certain guidelines if they choose to add dates to their packages.
This law was promoted by public health experts and food waste reduction advocates alike. Specifically, these groups (such as the NRDC and Californians Against Waste) tout the law as a great step to reduce consumer confusion and cut back on food waste. By narrowing the categories to ones solely based on quality or safety, advocates hope that these new labels encourage consumers to keep food longer and not be scared off by misleading labels. Grocers also generally support the change as it can make the shopping experience easier for their customers. Additionally, advocates suggest that the law may also result in cost savings for consumers as they will save food for longer, reducing grocery store hauls. Overall, it is very likely that this law will serve as a bedrock for other states to follow, and maybe even the federal government. Regardless, the result of this change provides a great step for consumers and is likely to be studied as a test case for years to come.
CA Update: Allergen Labeling Law Takes Effect
In October of last year, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 68 (also known as the Allergen Disclosure for Dinner Experiences (ADDE) Act). The law was passed by a 39-0 CA Senate vote and a 66-1 CA Assembly vote. The law has now gone into effect as of July 1, 2026. This law requires food service chains that operate 20 or more locations nationally under the same name to provide written disclosures of the Top 9 allergens (which include milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, wheat, soy, sesame) on their menus. Restaurants are allowed to provide the information in a digital format in addition to the written format, and restaurants are not required to provide “shared facility” or “may contain” information.
The law was championed by a California 10-year-old and supported by state and national consumer advocacy organizations, children’s advocates, and over 500 health care professionals as a way to make the dining out experience safer for people with allergies and provide consumers with more awareness as to what their food contains. Additionally, while advocates are excited for the prospect of the law making food decisions safer, and companies have begun robust campaigns assisting with the new requirements, advocates are also aware of the many hurdles still in place in achieving a truly safe dining experience. As such, they are now promoting bills in other states and federally to adopt a similar framework, such as New Jersey’s S3394, and intend on one day getting the CA law to cover more restaurants and more allergens. But until then, all California diners can expect to see more transparent labeling on menus across the state and will have more information about what their food contains thanks to the efforts of a very motivated 10-year-old and invested allergy advocates.
Federal Update: Federal Courts Order USDA to Restore Grants
Last month, a U.S. District Court judge granted a preliminary injunction forcing the USDA to restore $127 million of funding to the 24 organizations involved in the lawsuit who had their grant agreements under the USDA’s Increasing Land Capital and Market Access Program terminated. The case has centered around the Trump Administration’s DOGE efforts targeting what it deems to be climate action and DEI efforts. The grant program was founded upon helping small and local farmers access capital. However, the administration targeted the program under its waste, fraud, and abuse initiatives and terminated most of the grants, many of which supported farmers of color. Thus, this ruling, although only a first step, provided a massive win for the organizations involved and emphasizes a trend of courts standing up to the administration’s attempts to undermine the USDA’s grant programs.
In addition, another U.S. District Court judge ruled a few weeks ago that the USDA cannot continue to terminate grant contracts just because of new agency priorities when contracts have already been put in place under a previous agency/administration. While this ruling does not restore funding to those programs that have already been canceled, it does protect current contracts from cancellation without a contract-based justification. Additionally, these cases have brought to light the chaos within the USDA, as many extension requests were needed and delays have run throughout the agency. Finally, it should be noted that these lawsuits are not the only ones to have emerged from the administration's gamesmanship of the USDA’s grant authority. For example, 5 organizations recently sued the USDA in Seattle over USDA grant terms that may violate free speech laws. Therefore, lawsuits against the USDA and the Trump administration regarding grant funding and DEI requirements are only just heating up, and it will be a very important space to keep an eye on as more suits are filed and rulings come down.
Federal Update: New Senate Bill on Front-of-Package Labeling
Recently, Senators Richard Blumenthal and Cory Booker introduced the Food Labeling Modernization Act (FLMA) to the U.S. Senate, which is a counterpart to H.R. 8385 introduced back in April to the U.S. House. These bills are designed to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (currently RFK Jr.) to “establish a single, standard front-of-package nutrition labeling system in a timely manner for all food products required to bear nutrition labeling.” This would include required definitions for terms like UPFs and non-UPFs, an obvious nod to the fact that the American public is still waiting for the long-promised definition of UPFs by RFK Jr., who has claimed that it is a top priority and will be coming soon. Additionally, the bill contemplates updating serving size requirements, allergen labeling, and other nutrition labeling measures both online and in physical retail establishments. Ultimately, these bills are still in their infancy and will be subject to significant markups and revisions as they make their way through committee and the legislative process. Nevertheless, they pose an important first step at potentially standardizing front-of-package labeling nationwide, which can help increase consumer awareness and assist in fighting the nation’s obesity epidemic.
Federal Update: SNAP Updates
Lastly, but perhaps most consequentially, there has been a lot of movement recently regarding SNAP.
First off, because there has been a small gap between my most recent update and this one, I wanted to provide some updates regarding SNAP in general. Ever since the work requirements and new immigration requirements under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act went into effect, we have seen a sizable decline in participation in SNAP. Some states have also been hit harder than others, with Arizona seeing its SNAP population cut by more than half. While different groups have presented different reasons for the decline, such as administrative backlog, fewer people needing the program due to a better economy, or lack of proper documentation, it remains the case that enrollment in the program is on the decline.
Beyond this reality, though, it is important to be aware of the more drastic changes that are on the horizon, which threaten to disrupt the program even further. The largest of which, starting in October of 2027, is that the federal government will be requiring states to pay to help cover the cost of food benefits for the program if their error rates, the “percentage of SNAP benefits paid either above or below what people should have received,” are above 6%. As of 2025, only 9 states fell under that rate, meaning that the 41 others would have needed to pitch in some portion of state funds to keep the program alive. For certain states, this may mean narrowing the program further or cutting it entirely to avoid the high burdens (in the billions of dollars) that payments would place on state budgets. For context, on average, states will likely need to spend nearly two to three times more on SNAP to keep it running. Therefore, this large impediment to SNAP looms, making it ever more important for states to prepare their coffers and strategize solutions to this impending reality.
Additionally, there has been a recent development regarding SNAP within the context of the Farm Bill, which is currently making its way through the amendments process. The Senate Agriculture Committee is set to vote on an amendment allowing SNAP participants to buy hot rotisserie chicken with their benefits. The provision has bipartisan support, and the House has already added such a provision to its farm bill, so it is likely to go through. Despite this, it opens up a larger debate about including hot foods whatsoever in SNAP benefits, as they have been historically excluded, as the program was designed around grocery purchases.
Finally, earlier this month, a group of 21 democratic Attorneys General, including California, have filed suit in U.S. District Court against the USDA, claiming that the agency’s new policy requiring immigrants to have been in the country for at least 5 years to receive SNAP benefits is illegal. In essence, the lawsuit alleges that the USDA has wrongfully declared several groups, such as lawful permanent residents and refugees, ineligible for food assistance under SNAP. The states contend that they are being placed in an impossible position as they will either be subject to catastrophic fines or be forced to kick off tens of thousands from the program, deepening hardships across the states. Therefore, they are seeking the court to block the USDA’s implementation as illegal. Overall, in light of the various recent successful outcomes for lawsuits against the USDA as described above, this lawsuit may see success. Nevertheless, it will be important to see how courts wrestle with an ever-more combative USDA and federal administration against the states in this context and beyond. This will definitely be a lawsuit to keep an eye on.
That’s all the updates I have for you for now. However, please feel free to stay in touch and expect to see more from me in the coming months as I return for my third and final year at UCLA Law! Also, if there is anything you are curious about and would like me to cover, feel free to reach out to the LAFPC team, and I will try to incorporate what I can! Enjoy the rest of your summer, wash your lettuce, and stay tuned for more as things develop!
Daniel Schettini (he/him) is a third-year law student at the UCLA School of Law. Originally from Long Beach, CA, Daniel attended UCLA as an undergraduate, where he obtained a Bachelor of Arts and Science (BASc) in physiological science and political science. In law school, Daniel is a Managing Editor of the UCLA Law Review, the Vice-President of the Law School’s Student Government, and Vice President of External Outreach for the Moot Court Honors Board. He has also previously served as the Treasurer of the Student Government, Vice-Chair of the Food Law Society, the Vice President of the Health Law Society, and the Education Chair of OUTLaw. His legal studies are predominantly focused on the intersection between food policy, the environment, and human health. After graduation, Daniel plans on working in the healthcare law sector while continuing to explore his interests in food and environmental law.
We reside, work, and cultivate food
on unceded Indigenous homelands.
We acknowledge and honor the descendants of the Tongva, Kizh, and Gabrieleño peoples as the traditional land caretakers of Tovaangar (the Los Angeles Basin and the Southern Channel Islands). We pay our respects to the Honuukvetam (Ancestors), ‘Ahiihirom (Elders) and ‘Eyoohiinkem (our relatives/relations) past, present and emerging.
As part of a greater foodshed, we would also like to pay respect to and honor the Chumash, Tataviam, Serrano, Kitanemuk, ʔíviĨuqaletem, Acjachemen, Payómkawichum, and any other tribal group possibly not mentioned. As a Food Policy Council for Los Angeles we recognize this land acknowledgment is limited and engagement is an ongoing process of learning and accountability. To learn more about these First Nations, visit here.