SB 68 amends California's Retail Food Code to add sesame to the statutory list of "major food allergens" and requires food facilities subject to the federal menu calorie/nutrient disclosure rule (the chain-restaurant rule) to provide written notification of major food allergens contained in each menu item starting July 1, 2026. Facilities can put allergen information directly on printed menus or deliver it digitally (for example via QR code) but digital-only posting must be paired with an alternative written method for customers who cannot access the digital content.
The change is procedural but meaningful: it expands the list of regulated allergens, clarifies what counts as an allergen ingredient, prescribes acceptable disclosure formats (common names or pictograms), and creates new compliance and enforcement responsibilities for local health agencies. Practically, covered restaurants and their suppliers face menu edits, training changes, and potential enforcement risk; consumers with sesame allergies gain clearer, standardized disclosure at participating locations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds sesame to the statutory definition of major food allergens and inserts a new section (114093.5) requiring food facilities subject to 21 U.S.C. §343(q)(5)(H) to disclose, in writing, the major allergens they know or reasonably should know are ingredients in each menu item, either on the menu or in a digital format with a non-digital alternative.
Who It Affects
The primary targets are chain food facilities that meet the federal disclosure threshold (commonly chains with 20 or more locations under the same name offering substantially similar menus), local health enforcement agencies, menu/digital providers, and training organizations that certify food handlers.
Why It Matters
By elevating sesame to statutory status and mandating per-item disclosures, the bill forces operational changes (menu copy, ingredient tracking, staff training) and gives local agencies a clear compliance standard to enforce — shifting some business practices and enforcement costs at the local level.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 68 does two linked things. First, it revises the statutory definition of "major food allergen" in Section 113820.5 to add sesame to the list and to confirm that ingredients containing protein derived from any listed food are included; it also preserves established federal carve-outs (for example, highly refined oils and certain exempted ingredients).
Second, it creates Section 114093.5, which compels food facilities that are already subject to the federal chain disclosure rule to provide a written statement of the major allergens they know or should reasonably know are in each menu item.
The disclosure requirement gives operators two paths: place the allergen information directly on the printed menu adjacent to each item, or provide the information digitally (QR code or other digital menu). If a facility chooses the digital route it must also make the same information available through an alternative written format (separate allergen menu, chart, booklet, etc.) for customers who cannot access the digital version.
The law permits either plain-language names ("peanuts," "sesame") or standardized pictograms to communicate presence of allergens.For enforcement, the bill authorizes local agencies to verify compliance visually (checking printed or digital menus and the alternative written materials) or by other reasonable methods consistent with the section's intent. The statute explicitly excludes prepackaged foods covered by federal labeling, compact mobile food operations, and nonpermanent food facilities.
It also reiterates that the new section does not alter existing legal duties food facilities have to ensure patron safety, leaving open traditional obligations around cross-contact and staff communication.Operationally this produces a short compliance runway: the requirement takes effect July 1, 2026, so covered facilities must update menus, digital assets, and training by that date. Because California's Retail Food Code treats violations as enforceable by local health agencies, businesses should expect inspection-level checks for visible allergen disclosures and to document the basis for "reasonably should know" determinations about ingredients supplied by vendors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 68 inserts sesame into Section 113820.5 as a listed major food allergen and explicitly includes any ingredient that contains protein derived from listed allergens.
The new disclosure rule (Section 114093.5) applies only to food facilities subject to 21 U.S.C. §343(q)(5)(H) — the federal chain-nutrient-disclosure provision typically applying to chains with 20+ locations operating under the same name with substantially similar menus.
If a facility uses a digital menu (e.g.
QR code) to list allergens, the bill requires an alternative written method (allergen-specific menu, chart, grid, booklet, or other written material) for customers unable to access the digital format.
The statute allows disclosure using common/usual names or standardized pictograms and authorizes local enforcement agencies to verify compliance by visual inspection or other reasonable methods.
Exemptions include prepackaged foods subject to federal labeling, compact mobile food operations, and nonpermanent food facilities; the law preserves federal carve-outs like highly refined oils and ingredients exempt under federal FALCPA processes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds sesame to the statutory list of major food allergens
This amendment formally inserts sesame into the Retail Food Code list of major food allergens and clarifies that any ingredient containing protein derived from listed foods is itself a major allergen. It preserves two federal exceptions: highly refined oils derived from listed foods and ingredients that are federally exempt under FALCPA. For compliance teams, the immediate consequence is that sesame must now be treated like peanuts or tree nuts in ingredient tracking, vendor specifications, and staff training.
Requires per-item written allergen notices on menus or digital equivalents
This new section requires covered food facilities to provide written notification of major allergens that the operator knows or reasonably should know are ingredients in each menu item. Operators can print the statement adjacent to menu items or use digital menus, but digital postings must be accompanied by a non-digital alternative. The provision sets the disclosure modalities but does not prescribe the exact wording beyond allowing common names or pictograms, giving businesses some flexibility while standardizing the expectation across the regulated population.
Enforcement methods, definitions, and exclusions
Enforcement agencies may verify compliance by visually checking menus, digital menus, or alternative written materials, or by other reasonable methods consistent with the law's intent. The section references federal definitions for "menu" and cross-references the amended major allergen definition. It also exempts prepackaged foods covered by federal labeling rules, compact mobile food operations, and nonpermanent facilities, narrowing the universe of regulated actors but leaving traditional safety duties intact.
Mandate and reimbursement language
The bill declares that no state reimbursement is required under California Constitution Article XIII B for costs that stem from creating or changing crimes or infractions, while preserving the Commission on State Mandates process for other potential local costs. Practically, this flags a likely state-mandated local program question — enforcement agencies should anticipate additional inspection and training burdens and check whether any costs will be reimbursed through the standard claims process.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People with sesame allergies — gain statutory-level disclosure and clearer, itemized allergen information at covered chain restaurants, reducing the likelihood of unexpected exposures.
- Allergy advocacy groups and clinicians — receive a standardized disclosure framework that supports public education and safer dining recommendations for patients.
- Local public health enforcement agencies — obtain a specific, inspectable standard to evaluate allergen disclosure compliance rather than relying solely on broader food-safety statutes.
- Menu and digital-platform providers — stand to gain business helping restaurants implement compliant menu language, pictograms, QR code setups, and alternate printed materials.
Who Bears the Cost
- Covered chain food facilities (commonly 20+ location chains) — must update printed and digital menus, change supplier/vendor specs where necessary, and retrain staff on ingredient knowledge and disclosure practices.
- Local health departments — face increased inspection and enforcement duties (visual verifications, follow-ups) that could require staff time and administrative resources, potentially without dedicated funding.
- Food service procurement and operations teams — will need to establish or tighten ingredient traceability systems to support "knows or reasonably should know" judgments and respond to inspection queries.
- Food handler training providers and certification programs — must update curricula and exams to reflect the expanded allergen list and any new disclosure expectations, creating short-term development costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting people with food allergies (now including sesame) by standardizing menu disclosures while avoiding a compliance regime that becomes a checkbox exercise: the bill reduces informational gaps but places the operational and enforcement burdens on businesses and local agencies, and it risks substituting written disclosure for robust ingredient control and on-the-floor communication that actually prevent allergic reactions.
The bill settles the label "sesame" into California statute, but it leaves several implementation questions open. The statutory trigger ties disclosure obligations to the federal chain-disclosure provision, which helps target the rule at larger operators but can be confusing in edge cases (franchises, regional chains, or multi-concept groups). "Knows or reasonably should know" is a low-evidence standard that will shift the burden onto operators to document ingredient knowledge and onto inspectors to assess reasonableness; expect disputes about vendor statements, ingredient substitutions, and complex manufactured items.
The digital-plus-alternative requirement improves accessibility in theory but raises practical issues. Operators relying primarily on digital menus must create, maintain, and make available accurate alternative printed materials; inspectors will need guidance on what constitutes sufficient alternatives and how to test digital access.
The law permits pictograms, which aids quick recognition, but without mandated standardization regulators and businesses may adopt inconsistent icons that confuse customers rather than help them. Finally, the statute does not directly address cross-contact risks — a primary cause of allergic reactions — so compliant menu language could create a paper-compliance illusion while underlying food-preparation practices remain unchanged.
That tension heightens the risk that a technical compliance check will not equate to true safety for highly sensitive patrons.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.