Food Date Labeling Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 13, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to reduce food waste and consumer confusion by standardizing voluntary food date labels nationwide, while balancing federal uniformity with state food safety authority.
What it actually does
This bill establishes uniform national standards for food date labels, requiring specific phrases like "BEST If Used By" for quality dates and "USE By" for discard dates, if manufacturers choose to include them. It preempts state laws that differ from these standards or prohibit the sale/donation of food based on quality dates, while preserving state authority over discard date-based prohibitions. The bill also mandates consumer education and integrates these new labeling requirements into existing misbranding laws.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that inconsistent and confusing date labels significantly contribute to food waste, as consumers often discard perfectly safe food due to misunderstanding "best by" or "sell by" dates. Standardizing these labels with clear "BEST If Used By" for quality and "USE By" for safety will empower consumers to make informed decisions, reduce unnecessary waste, and improve food security by allowing safe food to be donated.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that federal preemption limits states' abilities to set stricter food safety standards or to innovate with labeling requirements. Some might also contend that a voluntary system, even with standardized phrases, may not fully address the underlying issues of food waste if manufacturers choose not to adopt the labels or if consumer education is insufficient. Concerns could also be raised about the administrative burden on federal agencies to coordinate and enforce these new standards.
The bill is short and relatively easy to read, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions.
Section 1
Short Title: "Food Date Labeling Act of 2025"
This section establishes the official short title of the bill as the "Food Date Labeling Act of 2025," which is how the legislation will be commonly referred to in public discourse and legislative tracking. This provides a concise and recognizable name for the Act.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and concise short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill's purpose easily identifiable and facilitating discussion.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, as they are standard legislative practice.
Section 2
Key Definitions for Date Labeling
This section defines critical terms used throughout the Act, including "administering Secretaries" (USDA and HHS), "discard date phrase" (signifying the end of estimated shelf life after which consumption is not advised), and "quality date phrase" (indicating when product quality may begin to deteriorate but remains wholesome). These definitions are foundational for the bill's labeling requirements and ensure consistent interpretation.
Section 3(a) and 3(b)
Standardization of Voluntary Quality and Discard Date Labels
This provision mandates that if a food producer chooses to include a quality date on a food package, it must be preceded by the uniform phrase "BEST If Used By" (or "BB" if space is limited). Similarly, if a discard date is used, it must be preceded by "USE By" (or "UB"). The decision to include these dates remains voluntary for the entity responsible for the food label, but the specific phrasing is standardized.
Section 3(c)
Requirements for Date Label Display and Technology Use
This section specifies that quality and discard dates must be presented in a single, easy-to-read type style and prominently located on the package. Dates must be in month and year or month, day, and year format. Abbreviations ("BB", "UB") are only allowed if the package is too small for the full phrase. Crucially, it explicitly permits the use of modern technologies like QR codes or smart labels in addition to, or even in lieu of, the uniform phrases.
Section 3(d)
Federal Consumer Education and Outreach
This provision mandates that the administering Secretaries (USDA and HHS), acting in coordination, must provide consumer education and outreach on the meaning of quality date phrases and discard date phrases within two years of the Act's enactment. This is intended to ensure public understanding of the new standardized labels.
Section 3(e)
State Authority and Federal Preemption
This section clarifies that the Act does not prohibit states from regulating the sale or donation of foods based on discard dates, nor does it affect infant formula regulations. However, it preempts state laws that establish different or additional requirements for quality or discard date phrases or prohibit sale/donation based on quality dates. It also includes a savings provision for state and federal common law rights and remedies.
Section 4
Enforcement through Misbranding Provisions
This section amends existing federal laws—the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act—to classify food products with date labels that do not comply with the new requirements of the Food Date Labeling Act of 2025 as "misbranded." This provides the legal basis for federal enforcement by the FDA and USDA.
Section 5
Promulgation of Final Regulations
This section requires the administering Secretaries (USDA and HHS) to promulgate final regulations for carrying out the Act within two years of its enactment. This regulatory process will detail the specifics of implementation and enforcement, translating the legislative intent into practical, actionable rules for the food industry.
Section 6
Delayed Effective Date for Compliance
This section stipulates that the Act and its amendments will only apply to food products that are labeled on or after two years from the date of enactment. This provides a crucial grace period for the food industry to adjust its labeling practices and for federal agencies to finalize regulations and conduct consumer education before enforcement begins.
Prohibits any State or political subdivision from establishing or continuing in effect any requirement that prohibits the sale or donation of foods based on the passage of the quality date.
Section 3(e)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for preemption clauses, often placed in a general provisions section. It is not necessarily evasive but requires careful reading of the preemption details to understand its full scope.
Case for: Proponents argue this is crucial for reducing food waste, as perfectly safe food is often discarded due to quality dates, not safety concerns. It facilitates food donation to those in need and aligns with efforts to maximize food utilization.
Case against: Critics might argue it limits states' ability to set their own consumer protection standards, even if related to quality rather than immediate safety, potentially overriding local preferences or concerns.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant reduction in food waste and increased availability of food for donation across states, by removing a common barrier to donation.
States that the labeling required under this subsection may utilize time-temperature indicator labels, QR codes, smart labels, or similar technology, in addition to any uniform quality/discard date label phrase. Crucially, it adds: "Nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this Act prohibits or restricts the use of such technology or labeling in lieu of any uniform quality date label phrase under subsection (a)(2) or uniform discard date label phrase under subsection (b)(2)."
Section 3(c)(4)
Why it matters:This could be seen as a way to provide flexibility for future innovation and adapt to evolving technology in food labeling. However, it also potentially undermines the goal of universal, immediately visible uniform phrases if manufacturers opt for technology-only solutions, which might be less accessible to all consumers.
Case for: Proponents argue this promotes innovation in food labeling, allowing for more dynamic and detailed information to consumers, potentially beyond what a static phrase can convey. It future-proofs the legislation against rapid technological advancements.
Case against: Critics might argue that allowing technology "in lieu of" the uniform phrases could defeat the primary purpose of standardization and immediate clarity, as not all consumers have access to or choose to use such technologies. This could create a digital divide in food information access.
Estimated impact: Could lead to a dual system where some products have clear physical phrases and others rely solely on digital access, potentially impacting consumer understanding and equity in accessing critical date information.