Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Food Allergens topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly advances SB 68 to require restaurants to list top nine allergens on menus; industry seeks uniform model code and liability language
Summary
SB 68 would require chain restaurants and medium‑ or large‑scale restaurants to disclose the nine recognized allergens on menus (printed or digital). The Assembly Health Committee passed the bill as amended to Appropriations after widespread testimony from parents, nurses, allergy advocates and small‑restaurant owners; the California Restaurant
SACRAMENTO — The Assembly Health Committee on July 8 approved SB 68 by Senator María Elena Menjivar, a bill requiring restaurants of a certain size to provide written allergen information for the nine most common food allergens on menus or digital menus, and sent the measure to the Appropriations Committee.
Sen. Menjivar said the change brings California closer to the practice used in many European countries and is intended to reduce severe allergic reactions in diners. “When menus clearly show allergens, declare allergens, that number drops down,” Menjivar said, noting combined menu labeling and staff conversation substantially reduce reaction rates.
A nine‑year‑old witness, Addie, described living with multiple life‑threatening allergies and told the committee she often must “pack safe food” because restaurant staff frequently cannot confirm ingredients. “Please pass SB 68 ADDE so that restaurants will label the top 9 allergens on their menus. This will keep me safe,” Addie said.
Support came from the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, nurses, pediatric health centers, parent advocates and many small restaurateurs who either supported the bill or withdrew prior opposition after conversations with the author. The bill allows flexibility for smaller operators (fewer than six locations) to provide information in an alternative, practicable format.
Opposition centered on implementation details and liability. Matt Sutton of the California Restaurant Association said the association proposed a compromise based on the national model food code that would provide multiple acceptable disclosure methods — menus, brochures, allergen grids or digital displays — and urged consistent statewide standards rather than an on‑menu mandate in every circumstance. He also requested a limited liability protection sentence that was not included in the final Assembly Health Committee version.
The author said the committee adopted language to limit the expansion’s burden on small businesses while preserving readable, written information for diners. After committee discussion the measure passed as amended and was referred to the Appropriations Committee; the roll call recorded one no vote (Ellis) with the remaining members voting in favor.
Ending: Supporters said SB 68 will not eliminate every risk but will measurably lower the chance of severe reactions by combining written information with staff training and conversations. The bill moves to Appropriations for fiscal review.
