A new bill introduced in Sacramento at the California State Assembly would require restaurants across the state to clearly post common food allergens on their menus—a first-of-its-kind mandate in the U.S.
The legislation, aimed at protecting millions of Californians with life-threatening allergies, has sparked a fierce debate between public health advocates and the restaurant industry.
If passed, California Senate Bill 68 would make the state the first in the nation to require restaurants to clearly disclose the presence of major food allergens on their menus.
The proposal, authored by Democratic Sen. Caroline Menjivar of the San Fernando Valley, is nearing a vote in the Legislature, and the debate around it has grown louder — especially from the restaurant industry, which argues the legislation could create serious logistical and financial burdens.
The bill would require food establishments to identify any of the nine most common allergens—milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, sesame, and soybeans—on menus or printed materials.
Businesses could opt to display this information through physical menus, wall charts, allergen-specific menus, or QR codes leading to digital menus. However, food trucks and carts would be exempt.
Menjivar said the idea came to her while traveling in Europe, where allergen disclosure laws have been in place since 2014. As someone who suffers from severe allergies herself, the issue was personal.
“I’ve been hospitalized multiple times from anaphylaxis after unknowingly consuming food I was allergic to,” Menjivar said. “This legislation was born out of necessity—not just for me, but for the millions of Californians living with life-threatening food allergies.”
The urgency behind SB 68 has been amplified by public advocates like 9-year-old Addie Lao, who has testified before lawmakers and participated in media campaigns supporting the bill. “I want to be able to eat out with my friends and family like everyone else,” she told state senators earlier this year.
Supporters of the bill argue that allergen disclosures could prevent life-threatening incidents and reduce pressure on diners to ask detailed questions about ingredients.
Public health groups, allergy researchers, and several families affected by food allergies have lined up behind the proposal, including Brian Hom, whose son died on his 18th birthday after a fatal reaction to peanuts at a resort.
“This legislation is going to save lives,” Hom said. “I don’t want to see anybody suffer what my wife and I are suffering.”
But the restaurant industry has sounded the alarm over what it sees as another regulation in a long line of operational burdens. The California Restaurant Association (CRA) has strongly opposed the bill in its current form, citing high costs, operational impracticalities, and increased legal liability.
“You get into a situation where the menu becomes unwieldy and it becomes incredibly impractical and expensive to be constantly converting menus out with each ingredient shift that may occur and the need to do a new allergy notification,” said Matthew Sutton, senior vice president at the CRA.
Sutton added that many small, independent restaurants don’t have the staffing or technological capacity to constantly update menus every time an ingredient changes. “The flexibility just isn’t there for every operator,” Sutton noted. “Some already do this voluntarily but mandating it across the board is a different level of impact.”
According to Sutton, the CRA has asked for more scalable options and stronger liability protections for restaurants. “If a restaurant discloses the allergens as required and something still goes wrong due to cross-contact or a supplier mistake, there needs to be clarity on who holds responsibility,” he continued.
Menjivar acknowledged the concerns but said safety must come first. “This bill doesn’t require restaurants to change their recipes, just to be transparent about what’s in their food,” Menjivar detailed. “That’s a small adjustment for a potentially life-saving outcome.”
Sutton, however, said the cumulative impact of regulations like this could be devastating for already struggling restaurants. “Restaurants are still facing inflation on food prices, workforce shortages, and wavering consumer demand,” he outlined. “Add in frequent menu redesigns, staff retraining, and the legal risks, and it becomes a breaking point for many.”
Some major restaurant chains, such as Red Robin and Chipotle, already provide allergen information on their websites and menus. But for smaller operators, the legislation may require investments in new menu systems, digital infrastructure, and food handling protocols.
Even if SB 68 doesn’t solve every issue for diners with food allergies, advocates say it’s a foundational step toward creating a safer and more inclusive dining experience. “It’s about normalizing these conversations in the hospitality space,” Menjivar added.
“Transparency isn’t a threat to hospitality,” Menjivar concluded. “It’s an extension of it.”
