The Food Date Labeling Act of 2025 mandates uniform wording and formatting whenever manufacturers voluntarily print quality or discard dates on food packages. It does not force companies to add dates, but when they do the bill requires specific phrases—“BEST If Used By” (or “BB”) for quality and “USE By” (or “UB”) for discard—clear type, and calendar date formats; the USDA and HHS (FDA) must coordinate rulemaking and outreach.
This matters because the bill replaces a patchwork of state label phrases with a single federal standard, amends misbranding provisions across federal food laws to make noncompliant labels actionable, and creates both compliance costs (relabeling, recordkeeping) and potential operational benefits (uniform labels for multi-state distribution). It also preserves certain state abilities—most notably allowing states to bar sale or donation tied to discard dates—and excludes infant formula from the statute’s scope.
At a Glance
What It Does
When a manufacturer chooses to include a quality or discard date, the label must use a uniform phrase—“BEST If Used By”/“BB” for quality and “USE By”/“UB” for discard—followed by a calendar date in month/year or month/day/year format, printed in readable type and placed prominently. The USDA and HHS will jointly issue final regulations and consumer education within two years, and enforcement is folded into existing misbranding authorities.
Who It Affects
Food manufacturers, packagers, and private-label retailers that voluntarily print date information; food distributors and multi-state retailers who currently navigate varying state label conventions; federal regulators (FDA and USDA) charged with coordination and enforcement; and technology vendors supplying QR, smart, or time-temperature labels. Small-format packaging and artisanal producers may be disproportionately affected by space and compliance constraints.
Why It Matters
The bill aims to cut consumer confusion and reduce food waste by creating a single vocabulary for on-package dates, while also centralizing enforcement and standard-setting. It also preempts state rules that would require different or additional date phrases, shifting authority to federal agencies and narrowing state label divergence.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill does not compel food makers to add dates, but when they do it tells them exactly how to do it. Quality dates—intended to signal when product quality may begin to decline—must be preceded by the phrase “BEST If Used By” (or the abbreviation “BB” if package space is too small).
Discard dates—intended to indicate when a product should no longer be consumed—must be preceded by “USE By” (or “UB” in the same narrow size exception). Both phrases must be followed by a calendar date stated as month and year or month, day, and year, printed in a single easy-to-read type style and placed conspicuously on the label.
The law assigns enforcement and implementation across existing agencies: the Secretary of Agriculture handles poultry, meat, and egg products, while the Secretary of Health and Human Services handles other foods; the two Secretaries must coordinate final regulations and a consumer education campaign within two years of enactment. The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and parallel statutes governing meat, poultry, and egg products so that failure to comply with the new date-label requirements becomes a misbranding violation under those statutes.The statute permits modern labeling techniques—QR codes, smart labels, time-temperature indicators—so long as they don’t replace the required visible phrase when space permits; it also allows an optional “or freeze by” qualifier after the phrase.
There are explicit carve-outs: infant formula is excluded from coverage, and the law will only apply to products labeled on or after the date two years after enactment. The preemption rules bar States from requiring different or extra date phrases or from outlawing sale/donation based on quality dates, but States may still prohibit sale or donation based on discard dates and retain other food-safety authorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes use of “BEST If Used By” (quality) and “USE By” (discard) the default national phrases and allows “BB”/“UB” only when package size prevents full text.
The USDA (for meat/poultry/eggs) and HHS/FDA (for other foods) must promulgate final regulations and coordinate consumer education within two years of enactment; applicability to products is delayed until two years after enactment.
Failure to follow the Act’s phrase, format, prominence, or date-format rules is added to FDA misbranding authority and to analogous misbranding provisions in the meat, poultry, and egg statutes.
Manufacturers retain discretion to include or omit quality/discard dates; the law governs only how voluntarily-declared dates must appear, not which products must be dated.
States are preempted from requiring different or additional quality/discard phrases or from banning sale/donation based on quality dates, but may still prohibit sale/donation based on discard dates and state common-law remedies survive.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the Food Date Labeling Act of 2025. This is the statutory header; it creates no regulatory obligations but signals the bill’s policy focus for downstream rulemaking and enforcement cross-references.
Definitions and agency assignments
Defines key terms—‘administering Secretaries’ (USDA and HHS/FDA), ‘quality date phrase,’ and ‘discard date phrase’—and ties product jurisdiction to existing statutory categories (meat/poultry/eggs under USDA; other foods under FDA). That assignment determines which agency enforces label compliance for a given product and is the basis for the coordinated rulemaking mandate.
Required label phrases, format, and placement
Sets the core labeling rules: if a quality or discard date appears it must be preceded by the uniform phrases (“BEST If Used By” / “USE By”) or by standard two-letter abbreviations when space is constrained; dates must use calendar formats and be printed prominently in readable type. The section expressly permits supplemental technologies (QR codes, smart labels, time-temperature indicators) and allows an optional ‘or freeze by’ qualifier. It also leaves the decision to include dates to the label owner, making the statute a formatting mandate rather than a dating mandate.
Misbranding and legal consequences
Adds noncompliant date labeling to the misbranding provisions of the FD&C Act and inserts equivalent violations into the Poultry Products Inspection Act, Federal Meat Inspection Act, and Egg Products Inspection Act. Practically, that ties enforcement to existing inspection and enforcement processes and opens labeling errors to the same administrative and judicial remedies available for other misbranding violations.
Rulemaking, education, timing, and preemption
Directs the administering Secretaries to issue final regulations within two years and to carry out coordinated consumer outreach within the same period, with the statute only applying to products labeled on or after two years post-enactment. Contains preemption language: States cannot mandate different or additional date phrases or bar sale/donation based on a quality date, but they retain authority to restrict sale/donation based on discard dates and state common-law claims remain available. The bill also tasks the administering Secretaries, in consultation with the FTC, with standardizing the phrases across food products.
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
- Consumers who struggle with inconsistent date terms: they gain a single, federal vocabulary for ‘quality’ and ‘discard’ dates intended to reduce confusion and help decide edible vs. non-edible products.
- Multi‑state manufacturers and national retailers: they obtain a clear, uniform federal standard that reduces the need to manage state-by-state phrase variation and simplifies labeling runs and inventory management.
- Food-technology and labeling vendors: companies offering QR codes, time‑temperature indicators, and smart labels can integrate with the federal standard and supply a recognized mechanism to convey additional date or handling data beyond the printed phrase.
Who Bears the Cost
- Food manufacturers, especially small or artisanal producers: relabeling, changing artwork, and implementing new quality-control records will create upfront costs and potential SKU disruption.
- Federal agencies (FDA and USDA): the statute creates a coordinated rulemaking, enforcement, and consumer-education burden that will require staff time and likely new guidance resources.
- Retailers and food service operators that rely on private‑label or small-format packaging: complying with prominence, legibility, and date-format rules on constrained package real estate may force redesigns or limit on-pack marketing space.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is uniformity versus flexibility: a single federal standard reduces consumer confusion and compliance complexity for national firms, but it constrains states’ ability to tailor date labeling to local public‑health judgment and forces all producers—large and small—to meet a one-size-fits-all formatting regime that may impose significant costs or clash with limited-package designs.
The bill trades state-by-state variability for a single federal vocabulary, but it leaves several operational questions open. ‘Conspicuous and prominent’ and ‘single easy-to-read type style’ are inherently subjective standards that will require detailed regulatory guidance; without that specificity manufacturers may face uneven enforcement across product categories. The statute allows technology (QR codes, smart labels) but does not resolve whether a QR code alone—where the human-readable phrase could be omitted for small packages—meets the visibility requirement when space is claimed to be limited.
Preemption is asymmetric and could produce unintended outcomes: States retain the ability to bar sale or donation based on discard dates but cannot act on quality dates, which preserves local public-health responses to spoilage but limits state-level efforts to use label language as a tool to reduce waste. The law also makes voluntary label use subject to misbranding penalties; firms that add dates to help consumers therefore take on legal exposure if their dating methodology is later deemed noncompliant.
Finally, the administrative burden of coordinated rulemaking, outreach, and enforcement across USDA, FDA, and FTC—within the two-year windows the bill sets—creates real timing and resource stress that may shape the contours of the final regulations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.