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.
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.
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?
I feel like the quality of life is similar between the two. I don't feel like I was getting anything for the 13%+ extra taxes I was paying in California.
Nearly every California program has a huge amount of wastage. Take:
- High speed rail - 10x the cost of comparable European programs, still haven't built anything. Deadlocked by regulation, lawsuits, and poor planning.
- Or all the fraud in the hospice program, unchecked for years until some YouTuber just... went up to one and made a video.
- Or spending over $1M/homeless on housing the homeless and not being able to do so.
California is a lot of talk (regulations, state programs, taxes) coupled with extremely poor execution.
But that doesn't tell us much about the relationship between that thing and their regulations. The regulations might be supporting the thing, or the thing might be so successful that the damage being done by the regulations becomes tolerable. It's entirely plausible that if other states attempted that level of regulation they'd crumple like tissue paper because they don't have the economic power of California's IT sector to balance out the excess demands being placed on businesses.
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.
In any case I think the new way is better.
And from a grocery store's point of view, product that's on the shelf too long isn't selling. It's taking up space that could be used for something else.
...
> 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?
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!)
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.
Still a simplification, but doesn't horribly mislead you into thinking it's a reckless policy.
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.
And just like you describe, it would've been ok if all of the tax money went to the people it was meant to be, but unfortunately CA is built upon n number of middle man companies who each take something off the top.
Some people might argue that it's not meant to be about what you personally get back. Social contract and all that...
I get your other points but this part was phrased in an unfortunate way.
For example, I would be happy paying those 13% taxes in Switzerland, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore! (Some even have lower taxes.) But I felt that money was being totally wasted in California.
I genuinely think CA is something like <10% as efficient with tax money as these countries, and it's largely because certain groups take it as a personal attack when you imply tax inefficiency is a problem.
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.