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 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	blululu 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah. I'd agree. This is a pretty quick and easy law with very few downsides. There is also a "good house keeping" aspect to this. The habit of keeping a house clean and tidy makes it easier to do the bigger and more substantive improvements. I'm a bit surprised that New York Times is reporting on such a small law passed so far away or that there are such negative comments about such laws here, but such is life.

▲

darth_avocado an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t think it’s a nothing law. Not only does it help with reducing waste, but also a food safety thing. “Best by” or “best is used by” or “expiry dates” are pretty clear: use the product before the date.

In my own case, we have a brand of bread that does “sell by”. There is not uniform standard on how many days after the date, the bread is safe to consume. Internet wisdom gives you a wide range.