Pennsylvania, Maryland, and broader Mid‑Atlantic food and beverage manufacturers are operating in an increasingly complex compliance environment as states revisit food date labeling and court filings continue to scrutinize routine product, health and pricing claims. For businesses with regional or national distribution, these developments are a useful reminder to evaluate whether labeling, marketing language, and promotional pricing practices remain aligned across jurisdictions and supported by current documentation.

Date Labeling Developments
California’s AB 660 took effect for covered foods manufactured on or after July 1, 2026 and sold in California, requiring standardized date terminology and prohibiting consumer‑facing “sell by” dates on most covered food items. Under the law, quality dates must use “BEST if Used by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by,” while safety dates must use “USE by” or “USE by or Freeze by,” with limited abbreviations for small packages and certain beverages. AB 660 remains relevant to Mid‑Atlantic companies that distribute nationally or are watching similar legislative trends emerge closer to home.

New York’s AB A7291 would establish a closely comparable framework beginning July 1, 2027, including the same quality and safety terminology and a prohibition on the phrase “sell by” for covered products manufactured on or after that date. Maryland has likewise considered legislation to standardize food date-labeling terminology and consumer-facing date-label language, including SB 546 and HB 410, introduced in 2026. These proposals underscore that California-style food date labeling reforms are not limited to the West Coast and may eventually become part of the compliance landscape for businesses operating throughout the Mid-Atlantic region.

At the same time, Pennsylvania and Maryland still reflect more traditional product‑specific date labeling rules in some categories, especially dairy. Pennsylvania requires pasteurized milk to carry a “sell by” date, while Maryland requires Grade A fluid milk to be labeled with the words “Sell by” followed by a date designation. For food companies and retailers managing regional distribution, that creates a practical need to balance current state‑specific requirements with an emerging trend toward simplified consumer‑facing terminology.

While evolving date-label requirements present one regulatory challenge, manufacturers also continue to face scrutiny of broader product and pricing claims.

Marketing and Pricing Claims
Date labels are only one part of a wider compliance picture. There is a continuing focus on common front‑of‑pack and promotional claims, particularly claims tied to health, ingredient quality, and consumer value.

FDA’s revised rule governing the voluntary “healthy” nutrient content claim (2025) reflects a more current nutrition framework and requires qualifying products to contain meaningful amounts of food from recommended food groups while staying within specified limits for saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars. Even where a product may satisfy the technical criteria for the claim, companies still need to consider whether the overall label and marketing presentation imply a broader health message than the product can substantiate, giving rise to potential consumer liability.

“Natural,” “clean,” “wholesome,” and similar claims remain frequent litigation targets because there is no single federal definition that consistently resolves how a reasonable consumer would understand those terms in context. Courts often look to the full label, ingredient list, and level of processing, which means a claim that seems familiar from a marketing perspective can still carry meaningful litigation risk.

Pricing claims deserve similar attention. Former‑price comparisons, strike‑through prices, and “now” pricing are governed by longstanding deceptive‑pricing principles, and businesses should be able to show that the reference price was genuine and adequately supported. When premium product marketing language is paired with an unsupported savings claim, manufacturers risk a conclusion that the product story and the price representation are contradictory and misleading.

Practical Considerations
Food and beverage manufacturers doing business in the Mid-Atlantic region should evaluate date labeling, marketing language, and pricing claims together rather than treating them as separate issues.

A practical checklist includes:

• Confirm whether products sold in California, New York, Maryland, or other expanding markets use date terminology that may need to be updated.
• Review dairy and other product‑specific date requirements in Pennsylvania and Maryland before adopting any harmonized national approach.
• Reassess “healthy,” “natural,” and similar claims based on product composition, processing, and the overall context in which consumers encounter the claim.
• Test discount and former‑price representations against actual pricing history, promotional calendars, and retailer execution records.
• Align legal, regulatory, marketing, packaging, and sales teams so that claim support and pricing documentation are in place before launch.

Increasingly, compliance is less about any single label update and more about ensuring that product dating, marketing claims and pricing representations are accurate, substantiated and consistent across jurisdictions. Manufacturers are also increasingly faced with a patchwork of state-specific requirements that can complicate labeling, marketing and distribution strategies across regional and national markets.

Barley Snyder is actively monitoring developments in food labeling, marketing claims, and pricing practices at both the state and federal levels. For guidance on complying with California’s new date‑labeling requirements, tracking emerging date‑label legislation in New York and Maryland, evaluating “healthy” and “natural” claims, or strengthening pricing substantiation and documentation, please contact attorneys Jinnie Lee, Catherine Begley, Tim Dietrich, or any member of Barley Snyder’s Food & Agribusiness Industry Group.