This is a pretty nothing law when you look into it.
All it does is standardize "sell by" labels to be more transparent. The extent of the ban is the explicit phrasing "Sell By" which is itself confusing since the manufacturer has some estimated consumption interval that is tacked onto their actual expiration date. Sell By gives the customer has no idea how much padding they are adding to their estimate and when the thing actually goes bad.
All this law really does is it standardizes the labels manufacturers can use to "BEST if Used by" for quality concerns or "USE by" for safety concerns. A lot of manufacturers already do this, so it is a pretty minimal law There are probably more pressing issues in Sacramento, but a small improvement is always welcome.
TulliusCicero 2 minutes ago [-]
To be fair, if we waited until there "no more pressing issues", then we'd never get any "quality of life" regulations passed like this.
Cider9986 34 minutes ago [-]
>With 395,608 regulatory restrictions, California is the most heavily regulated state in the nation, according to the report. On average, states have 135,000 regulatory restrictions in administrative rules, with California's regulations more than doubling the national average.
I wonder how many they've added in 5 years. Do all these laws improve peoples lives?
m4ck_ 13 minutes ago [-]
Well despite all that regulation, they're an economic powerhouse, they must be doing something right. CA is far from perfect but at least they occasionally aspire to do something for the benefit of their citizens - not something I can say for my 'least regulated' state that mostly just saps money from the federal government.
Whoppertime 1 minutes ago [-]
Despite all their problems, Detroit was an economic powerhouse. Motor city was a world class city, and they bid to host the Olympics eight times between 1944 and 1972. Detroit was far from perfect, but it seems like eventually their bad choices caught up with them. Detroit is no longer the world class city or economic powerhouse it once was.
lostmsu 10 minutes ago [-]
> they're an economic powerhouse
Could be inertia.
tikhonj 31 minutes ago [-]
Regulations aren't fungible, so this is not a particularly meaningful perspective.
mc32 30 minutes ago [-]
I hope they refactor and harmonize them at some point to reduce duplication, contradiction as well as proliferation.
vrganj 27 minutes ago [-]
All of them? No. Some of them? Yes.
Some examples:
* ARL / Automatic Renewal Law: If a company allows you to sign up for a subscription online, they also must provide an immediate, straightforward way to cancel it online.
* SB 478: No bullshit junk fees tacked on to prices. Any price displayed, be it for concerts, hotels, or whatever else, must be the full, out-the-door price.
* SB 244: Right to Repair: Electronics and appliance manufacturers must make diagnostic tools, manuals etc available for at least 7 years after manufacture.
WaxProlix 18 minutes ago [-]
Does SB478 apply to car dealerships? That would be a huge boon to consumers on its own.
luisln 15 minutes ago [-]
Car dealerships were exempt from SB 478.
However, California's CARS Act, which took effect July 1, 2025, prohibits misrepresentations about the costs or terms of purchasing, financing, or leasing a vehicle, including the availability of vehicles at an advertised price.
bofadeez 11 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
galleywest200 9 minutes ago [-]
> * Just look at the actual checkout price like everyone else
Why should I have to go through the entire process just to see the price? Have you ever been in a store that has the tax added onto the price tag? It is very nice to not have to do mental math.
morkalork 3 minutes ago [-]
What, you don't run through the checkout process on each of 100 different Airbnb listings and compile a spreadsheet of results to ascertain the true prices after fees and charges? That's gotta be the best part of vacation planning after buying plane tickets!
vrganj 5 minutes ago [-]
I'm not an American at all.
And all of these are definitely worse than just making the vendor behave properly...
zeroonetwothree 40 minutes ago [-]
I'm curious why food producers didn't do this on their own, since no one likes "sell by" anyway? Or was there an existing regulation that got changed?
In any case I think the new way is better.
6 minutes ago [-]
skybrian 4 minutes ago [-]
They don't want grocery stores to carry product that's too old because customers will try it and decide they don't like it. And a grocery store worker won't know when to get rid of it unless someone tells them.
m4ck_ 26 minutes ago [-]
I'm pretty sure food producers are the ones putting the "sell by" labels on stuff, with the hope that people will needlessly throw away food and buy more because of that label.
sega_sai 27 minutes ago [-]
Presumably food producers benefit if people throw things out earlier, as they will buy more ?
skybrian 8 minutes ago [-]
> Experts say the term “sell by” is generally for retailers to know when to rotate inventory, compared with labels like “best if used by” and “use by,” which indicate quality.
...
> Under the state’s bill, “sell by” dates can still be included on products as long as they are “coded” — information that is aimed at retailers rather than consumers.
This is about obfuscating "sell by" dates so customers don't get confused. They might not necessarily add another date you can read easily. Then if the grocery store forgets to replace old stock, you will never know.
But maybe someone can write an app to read the codes?
sega_sai 23 minutes ago [-]
In the end, standardization of this type of things can only be good even if the effect on waste is small. There is no need to create additional ways to confuse people.
yieldcrv 26 minutes ago [-]
can’t wait for a new Regulatory Liability fee to be added to checks here
irishcoffee 32 minutes ago [-]
It’s be pretty cool if they figured out their water problem instead of passing all these nebulous laws that don’t push the needle any.
lokar 29 minutes ago [-]
The only water problems are for farmers growing in a semi-arid valley. California has droughts, not water shortages.
I’m not sure what to focus on in that site, what did you have in mind?
Agg uses like 80% of consumer water. Almost all of this is land that has only been farmed since the Feds build a bunch of water projects starting in the 30s.
Most of the irrigated farm land is owned by big corporations and extremely wealthy families. They push a narrative of mismanagement and shortages to get urban areas to use less and less while they resist investing in better irrigation methods.
exabrial 1 hours ago [-]
We should ban the sale of band-aids, so that people stop injuring themselves.
cleaning 51 minutes ago [-]
"Sell by" is instead replaced with clearer, more standardized wording. Please at least read the (very short) article before posting.
jrussino 32 minutes ago [-]
To be fair, it's a bad title.
We should be able to skim the headlines and get an accurate impression of the news items of the moment.
This headline seems intentionally misleading. It should have been clear to the publisher that it would be interpreted this way. Intentionally inflammatory clickbait titles poison the information ecosystem.
(That being said - yes, commenting on something you have not read does as well!)
SilasX 25 minutes ago [-]
Agreed. In this case, a better title would be "California replaces 'Sell by' Labels with 'Use by', Hoping to Cut Food Waste"
Still a simplification, but doesn't horribly mislead you into thinking it's a reckless policy.
garciansmith 58 minutes ago [-]
Did you read what they are replacing it with? I.e., "best if used by" (indicating the time the item is at its best quality), "best if frozen by", and "use by" (indicating when the food is and isn't safe to eat). Because those seem much more clear and useful to me than the useless "sell by" date.
lokar 27 minutes ago [-]
The subtitle:
The law standardizes language around expiration dates, aiming to minimize confusion about when food is safe to eat. More than one-third of food sold nationwide is wasted, the U.S.D.A. says.
rdiddly 36 minutes ago [-]
The explanation is in the subtitle. Didn't even have to read the article on this one.
Rendered at 16:59:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
All it does is standardize "sell by" labels to be more transparent. The extent of the ban is the explicit phrasing "Sell By" which is itself confusing since the manufacturer has some estimated consumption interval that is tacked onto their actual expiration date. Sell By gives the customer has no idea how much padding they are adding to their estimate and when the thing actually goes bad.
All this law really does is it standardizes the labels manufacturers can use to "BEST if Used by" for quality concerns or "USE by" for safety concerns. A lot of manufacturers already do this, so it is a pretty minimal law There are probably more pressing issues in Sacramento, but a small improvement is always welcome.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-11-03/...
I wonder how many they've added in 5 years. Do all these laws improve peoples lives?
Could be inertia.
Some examples:
* ARL / Automatic Renewal Law: If a company allows you to sign up for a subscription online, they also must provide an immediate, straightforward way to cancel it online.
* SB 478: No bullshit junk fees tacked on to prices. Any price displayed, be it for concerts, hotels, or whatever else, must be the full, out-the-door price.
* SB 244: Right to Repair: Electronics and appliance manufacturers must make diagnostic tools, manuals etc available for at least 7 years after manufacture.
However, California's CARS Act, which took effect July 1, 2025, prohibits misrepresentations about the costs or terms of purchasing, financing, or leasing a vehicle, including the availability of vehicles at an advertised price.
Why should I have to go through the entire process just to see the price? Have you ever been in a store that has the tax added onto the price tag? It is very nice to not have to do mental math.
And all of these are definitely worse than just making the vendor behave properly...
In any case I think the new way is better.
...
> Under the state’s bill, “sell by” dates can still be included on products as long as they are “coded” — information that is aimed at retailers rather than consumers.
This is about obfuscating "sell by" dates so customers don't get confused. They might not necessarily add another date you can read easily. Then if the grocery store forgets to replace old stock, you will never know.
But maybe someone can write an app to read the codes?
Agg uses like 80% of consumer water. Almost all of this is land that has only been farmed since the Feds build a bunch of water projects starting in the 30s.
Most of the irrigated farm land is owned by big corporations and extremely wealthy families. They push a narrative of mismanagement and shortages to get urban areas to use less and less while they resist investing in better irrigation methods.
We should be able to skim the headlines and get an accurate impression of the news items of the moment.
This headline seems intentionally misleading. It should have been clear to the publisher that it would be interpreted this way. Intentionally inflammatory clickbait titles poison the information ecosystem.
(That being said - yes, commenting on something you have not read does as well!)
Still a simplification, but doesn't horribly mislead you into thinking it's a reckless policy.
The law standardizes language around expiration dates, aiming to minimize confusion about when food is safe to eat. More than one-third of food sold nationwide is wasted, the U.S.D.A. says.