HR-4987-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
Sponsored by Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
What it does
This bill would establish a uniform, nationwide system for food date labels. It would require that quality dates (indicating when food may decline in quality) use the phrase "BEST If Used By" or abbreviation "BB," and that discard dates (indicating when food should not be consumed) use the phrase "USE By" or abbreviation "UB." It would direct HHS and USDA to issue regulations implementing these standards and would preempt any differing state or local food date labeling requirements. Infant formula is excluded and remains subject to existing law.
Who benefits
Consumers broadly — particularly the estimated 80% of Americans who, according to USDA research, discard food prematurely due to confusion over date label meanings. Low-income households that may waste a disproportionate share of their food budgets due to label misunderstanding. Food banks and food rescue organizations that could more confidently redistribute food labeled with quality (not discard) dates. Large national food manufacturers and retailers who currently must navigate a patchwork of varying state labeling requirements. Environmental advocates concerned with food waste's contribution to landfill methane emissions.
Who is hurt
State and local governments that currently enforce their own date labeling rules would lose that authority under the bill's preemption provision. Smaller regional food producers who have built consumer trust around their existing label formats may face costs to redesign packaging. Consumers in states with stricter or more detailed labeling standards would lose those protections. Packaging and printing companies that serve regional producers may see short-term disruption during the transition to new label formats.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current system — where more than 50 different date label phrases are used across the country — creates widespread consumer confusion that drives an estimated $161 billion in annual food waste in the United States, according to USDA and ReFED data. They contend that a single, clear distinction between quality dates and safety dates would allow consumers to make informed decisions, reduce unnecessary food disposal, and lower household grocery costs, while simultaneously easing compliance burdens for food manufacturers operating across state lines.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's federal preemption of state labeling rules removes a layer of consumer protection that some states have deliberately strengthened, and that a one-size-fits-all label system may not account for the wide variation in how different food products deteriorate. They contend that delegating authority to HHS and USDA to specify "alternative" phrases through regulation creates broad, loosely defined agency discretion — and that post-Loper Bright, courts will independently scrutinize whether such open-ended delegation provides sufficient statutory guidance, potentially leaving the regulatory framework vulnerable to legal challenge.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate food labeling rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as food products move extensively in interstate commerce — well within the aggregation principle established in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The bill's preemption of state law is a standard exercise of federal supremacy in a domain Congress has long regulated. The delegation of rulemaking to HHS and USDA is routine, though post-Loper Bright (2024), courts will independently assess whether the statutory language gives agencies sufficiently clear direction, particularly regarding the authority to designate "alternative" label phrases.
Checks and balances
Congress sets the labeling standards; HHS and USDA gain rulemaking authority to implement and potentially modify those standards through regulation; courts retain independent review of agency rules under post-Loper Bright standards; state and local governments lose concurrent authority in this area under the bill's express preemption clause.
Historical precedent
The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 similarly established uniform federal nutrition labeling requirements and preempted conflicting state rules, and was upheld as a valid exercise of Commerce Clause authority.