The California ADDE Act, explained for restaurants

California Senate Bill 68, titled the Allergen Disclosure for Dining Experiences Act (ADDE Act), was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2025. The bill passed the state Senate 39-0 and the Assembly 66-1. That near-unanimous margin is not incidental: the legislation had been building for years, driven by federal momentum from the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA, enacted 2004) and the FASTER Act of 2021, plus a documented rise in allergen-related hospitalizations and a growing body of plaintiff's bar activity against restaurant chains.

The bill was introduced by Senator Caroline Menjivar (D-San Fernando Valley) and co-sponsored by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. Support was extensive: nearly 70 state and national organizations, more than 500 healthcare professionals, and over a thousand California residents submitted letters or testified in favor. The opposition was minimal. Multiple legal commentators, including ArentFox Schiff and the FDA Law Blog, have characterized SB 68 as the first state law in the country to mandate chain-restaurant allergen menu disclosure.

Enforcement begins July 1, 2026. That is not a grace period start date; it is the date penalties can first be assessed. County health departments conduct inspections under the California Retail Food Code, with the California Department of Public Health holding state-level oversight authority. Inspectors use visual verification of menus and other reasonable methods to confirm compliance under Health and Safety Code Section 114093.5(c). In Los Angeles County, that means the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Environmental Health Division; in San Francisco, the Department of Public Health Environmental Health Branch; in San Diego, the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health and Quality. Each county runs its own inspection program, though all operate under the same statutory standard.

The gap between ADDE and its federal counterparts is worth understanding clearly. FALCPA requires allergen disclosure on packaged food labels, not on restaurant menus. The FDA has long enforced labeling for manufactured food products, but it has no jurisdiction over what a restaurant prints on a menu. State law is the only mechanism that can close that gap, and prior to SB 68, California had no statute that did so for chain restaurants. The ADDE Act changes that by placing the same category of affirmative per-item disclosure obligation on covered menus that FALCPA places on packaged food manufacturers.

The distinction from California point-of-sale disclosure requirements more broadly is also relevant. Some prior California health code provisions required certain consumer information at point of sale, but none specifically mandated per-item allergen disclosure across all menu formats for chain restaurants. SB 68 fills that gap with specific, enforceable requirements starting in eight months.

The ADDE Act incorporates the federal definition of major food allergens by reference, through Health and Safety Code Section 113820.5. That definition, last updated by the FASTER Act in 2023, sets out nine covered allergens. Every menu item at a covered restaurant must disclose the presence of any of the following:

Milk. This includes all dairy derivatives. Butter, cream, ghee, cheese, whey, casein, and lactose all count. Hidden milk sources on restaurant menus include Caesar dressing (often contains Parmesan and anchovy paste mixed with dairy-based emulsifiers), compound butters used to finish steaks and seafood, and creamy sauces on pasta dishes where the cream may not appear in the item description.

Eggs. Whole eggs, egg whites, egg yolks, and products containing albumin are all covered. Egg shows up in more places than most operators expect: hollandaise and béarnaise sauces, pasta dough (fresh pasta vs. dried matters here), fried foods where egg wash is used before breading, and salad dressings including Caesar and ranch.

Fish. The statute covers all species of finfish, and the disclosure must name the specific species. "Contains fish" is insufficient; "contains fish (salmon, anchovies)" is the required format. Anchovies are the most common hidden fish source in restaurant kitchens. Worcestershire sauce contains anchovies. Caesar dressing, if made classically, contains anchovies. Any dish finished with Worcestershire carries a fish disclosure obligation.

Shellfish. Under the federal definition incorporated by SB 68, crustacean shellfish is the covered category: shrimp, crab, lobster, and crayfish. Mollusks (clams, oysters, scallops, mussels) are not covered under either the shellfish or the fish category in the federal major-allergen framework, so SB 68 does not require their disclosure. Operators with high mollusk volume often disclose them voluntarily, but it is not a statutory obligation. Shellfish stock used as a base in sauces, risottos, and bisques triggers disclosure even when no whole shellfish appears in the finished dish.

Tree nuts. Almonds, cashews, walnuts, pecans, pistachios, hazelnuts, macadamia nuts, Brazil nuts, and chestnuts all qualify. Species must be named in the disclosure. Tree nuts appear in pesto (pine nuts themselves are seeds and not a covered tree nut under FALCPA, but many restaurant pestos substitute or blend in cashews or walnuts), dessert sauces, salad toppings, and flavored butters.

Peanuts. A legume, not a tree nut, and listed separately because the severity and prevalence of peanut allergy reactions differ from tree nut reactions. Satay sauces, Thai dishes with peanut bases, certain barbecue sauces, and some dessert toppings commonly contain peanuts without prominent menu disclosure.

Wheat. All wheat varieties are covered. The disclosure is for wheat, not gluten, so a gluten-free certification does not automatically satisfy the wheat disclosure requirement. Panko breadcrumbs, flour tortillas, soy sauce (most conventional soy sauces contain wheat), and pasta dough all trigger wheat disclosure. Tamari is wheat-free; standard soy sauce is not.

Soybeans. Soy flour, soy protein, soy lecithin, edamame, miso, tempeh, tofu, and conventional soy sauce are all covered. The interaction between soy and wheat in soy sauce means many dishes carry both allergens through a single ingredient.

Sesame. Sesame became the ninth major allergen through the FASTER Act, effective January 1, 2023. SB 68 incorporates sesame because it adopts the current federal allergen definition. Sesame oil, tahini, sesame seeds used as garnish, and hummus (which contains tahini) all trigger disclosure. The FDA estimates roughly 1.6 million Americans have sesame allergies. Sesame is the covered allergen most commonly missing from restaurant menus, partly because many operators updated their disclosures for the original FALCPA eight and did not revisit menus after the 2023 FASTER Act change.

Menu language that satisfies disclosure: "Contains: Wheat (panko), Soy (soy sauce), Eggs (egg wash)." Menu language that does not satisfy disclosure: "May contain allergens. Ask your server." The statute requires affirmative disclosure of known ingredients, not a blanket advisory that invites the customer to investigate.

Health and Safety Code Section 114093.5 requires a food facility to "provide written notification of the major food allergens contained as an ingredient in each menu item." The operative phrase is "written notification" at "the point at which the consumer places the order." The statute does not define "visibly" in precise typographic terms, but the plain-language meaning, combined with existing food code standards for consumer information, sets a practical floor.

"Written notification" means text legible to a customer standing at the counter or seated at a table during the ordering process. Placement matters. Allergen information buried at the back of a folded menu booklet, printed in 6-point type in a color indistinguishable from the background, does not constitute notification visible at the point of ordering. California health inspectors, during pre-enforcement guidance discussions, have treated disclosure as visible when it appears in reasonably close proximity to the dish name and is readable without the customer having to request a separate document or ask staff.

"Point of sale" in SB 68 is broader than the physical counter. The statute covers every format through which a consumer places an order. That means:

• ·Physical in-restaurant menus, whether laminated table cards, printed booklets, or chalkboards. If it is the document a customer consults to decide what to order, allergen information must be on it or immediately adjacent to it.
• ·Menu boards, including digital display boards. Static images without allergen information do not satisfy the requirement.
• ·Online ordering pages, whether on the restaurant's own website or through a third-party platform such as DoorDash or Uber Eats. Allergen information must appear on the ordering interface, not only on a separate page the customer might never visit.
• ·In-store kiosks and brand apps. The same standard applies. If the customer is placing an order through the interface, allergen disclosure must be present on that interface.
• ·QR code destinations, provided the digital page itself contains allergen information and a printed alternative is available on-site for customers without device access.

The third-party delivery menu situation deserves extra attention. The statute places the disclosure obligation on the food facility, not on the platform. An operator cannot satisfy the requirement by arguing that DoorDash or Grubhub controls the menu page. The practical answer is to push allergen data into the platform's menu management system. Most major delivery platforms now have allergen fields in their partner portals, specifically in anticipation of state-level requirements like SB 68. If those fields are not populated, the disclosure gap belongs to the operator.

What "the point at which the consumer places the order" excludes: receipt printing, post-order confirmation screens, or allergen information available only on a sign near the exit. Those may be useful for other purposes, but they do not count for ADDE purposes because the customer has already made the ordering decision.

The California point-of-sale disclosure requirements guide covers the practical typography and placement standards in more detail, including examples from pre-enforcement guidance issued by county health departments.

Section 114093.5 permits several formats. None is required exclusively, and operators often combine them. Here is how each format works in practice, and where each one tends to fail under inspection.

1. In-line text alongside the dish description. This is the most common format and the most defensible. The allergen disclosure appears immediately after or below the dish description, in a consistent location across every item. A passing example: "Grilled salmon over farro with lemon-caper butter. Contains: Fish (salmon), Milk (butter)." The disclosure is tied directly to the item; there is no ambiguity about which dish carries which allergen. The weakness is maintenance: every menu update that changes an ingredient requires a corresponding update to the allergen text, and those two updates often happen at different times and by different people.

2. Allergen icons next to each dish. A grid of symbols (a milk carton, a wheat stalk, and so on) appears next to each menu item. This format is popular in high-volume QSR and fast-casual settings because it saves space. Its vulnerability is the legend. If the icon key appears only on the back cover of the menu or at the bottom of a long menu board, a customer who cannot see the key cannot interpret the icons. Inspectors have flagged icon-only disclosures where the legend was not visible from the ordering position. If you use icons, the legend must be visible at the ordering point, not just somewhere on the premises.

3. Separate allergen poster or chart at the order point. A printed matrix or table, one row per dish, one column per allergen, posted at the counter or available as a handout. This works for counter-service operations where customers can consult the poster while in line. Its weakness is completeness: the chart must include every dish on the current menu, including seasonal items, limited-time offers, and daily specials. Inspectors check whether the chart matches what is actually being sold that day. A chart missing three LTOs that went live last week is non-compliant for those three items. The chart format also struggles with delivery and online ordering, where the physical poster at the counter is irrelevant to the customer placing an order at home.

4. QR menu with full ingredient breakdown. A QR code on the table card, receipt, or counter sign links to a digital page with per-item allergen information. The statute explicitly permits this format, but with a condition: an alternative written format must be available on-site for customers who cannot or will not use a smartphone. The written alternative does not have to be a full reprinting of the digital menu, but it must enable a customer to get allergen information for any dish without a phone. A printed allergen chart behind the counter, available on request, satisfies this requirement. The QR format offers the easiest path to accurate real-time data, because the underlying database can be updated and the QR destination reflects the change immediately without reprinting menus. It also offers the weakest in-the-moment disclosure experience, because it requires the customer to actively scan and search rather than seeing the disclosure automatically.

In terms of inspection defensibility, the ranking is approximately: in-line text (clearest per-item tie) then allergen chart (clear but update-intensive) then QR with written backup then icons (requires co-located legend). The right format for any given operation depends on menu complexity, update frequency, and the ordering channels in use.

The ADDE Act applies specifically to chain restaurants meeting the 20-location threshold. Several categories of food service operation fall outside its scope, though the line between covered and exempt is not always obvious.

Compact mobile food operations. Health and Safety Code Section 113831 defines compact mobile food operations as small-scale mobile units typically operating without a commissary connection. The ADDE Act explicitly exempts these under the same section. A food truck operating as part of a 20-unit chain is a different question: the 20-location threshold applies to the operator, not the format. If a chain operates 15 brick-and-mortar locations and 6 food trucks under the same brand offering substantially the same menu, the count is 21. All 21 locations, including the trucks, are covered.

Nonpermanent food facilities. Health and Safety Code Section 113839 covers temporary event booths, farmers market stalls, and similar nonpermanent setups. These are exempt. A restaurant chain that operates a booth at a farmers market under its main brand is likely still covered for its permanent locations, but the farmers market booth itself may qualify for the nonpermanent exemption. Each situation requires its own analysis.

Catering and event-only operators. The statute's 20-location threshold is based on food facilities, meaning permanent or semi-permanent food service establishments. A pure catering company that operates no physical food facility open to the public likely falls outside the definition of a covered restaurant. A restaurant chain that also does catering is covered for its physical locations but may have more flexibility for catering events that are not conducted at a food facility. This is an area where the statutory language is less than perfectly clear, and operators in this position should verify with California counsel.

Cottage food producers. California's Homemade Food Operations Act (AB 626) covers individuals producing food at home for direct sale. These are distinct from food facilities under the Retail Food Code. Cottage food producers are not covered by SB 68.

Schools and childcare facilities. School cafeterias operated by school districts are generally not covered by SB 68, because they do not meet the definition of a chain restaurant operating under a commercial brand. However, a contracted food service company operating cafeterias in more than 20 school districts under the same brand could meet the threshold. This is an edge case that has not yet been tested by enforcement, and the California Department of Public Health has not issued specific guidance on it.

Independent restaurants with fewer than 20 locations. Not covered by SB 68 today. However, the legislative history of the bill includes explicit discussion of expanding coverage to smaller operators in future sessions. New York's proposed companion legislation uses a 15-location threshold. Operators at 12 to 19 locations who want to stay ahead of the regulatory trend have every reason to implement ADDE-compliant disclosures now.

One exception the statute does not contain: prepackaged items sold by covered restaurants. If a covered chain sells a branded packaged item at the counter, that item is already subject to FALCPA and must carry a compliant packaged-food allergen label. The ADDE Act does not duplicate that requirement; it applies to prepared menu items.

SB 68 enforcement begins July 1, 2026, so there is no SB 68 violation record yet. But pre-enforcement inspections conducted under county health department guidance programs, along with the pattern of allergen-mislabeling cases in other jurisdictions, make the likely violation categories fairly predictable. These examples are drawn from common allergen-labeling failures observed across restaurant menus, not from any named operator.

Caesar dressing without egg disclosure. This is the most common failure. Classic Caesar dressing contains egg yolk as an emulsifier, anchovies, Parmesan (milk), and sometimes Worcestershire (which also contains anchovies). A menu item described as "Romaine, Caesar dressing, shaved Parmesan, house croutons" may disclose wheat (croutons) and milk (Parmesan) but omit eggs (dressing) and fish (anchovies in dressing and Worcestershire). The inspection finding: multiple uncovered allergens on a single high-frequency item. The fix: add "Contains: Milk, Eggs, Fish (anchovies), Wheat" to the dish description, not just to the dressing description in small print elsewhere on the menu.

Soy glazes that hide wheat. A "teriyaki glaze" or "soy-honey sauce" typically contains conventional soy sauce, which is brewed with wheat. A menu describing an item as "Contains: Soy" misses the wheat content in the soy sauce. The allergen disclosure is technically correct but incomplete. Inspectors reviewing the supplier spec sheet for the soy sauce find wheat in the ingredients, and the violation is failure to disclose wheat even though the operator believed soy was the only allergen present. The fix is to pull the ingredient list for every sauce, dressing, and base from the supplier, not just to reason about what allergens you expect to find.

Dark chocolate cross-contact with tree nuts. Many dark chocolates are manufactured on shared equipment with hazelnuts, almonds, or other tree nuts. A dessert listed as containing milk and soy (from the chocolate) may actually also carry tree nut cross-contact. The ADDE Act does not require cross-contact disclosure, but it does require disclosure of allergens that are "intentionally included." If a kitchen uses a dark chocolate that itself lists hazelnuts in its ingredient statement (not just as a shared-facility advisory), that hazelnut disclosure belongs on the finished menu item. The inspection failure comes from operators who review only their prep recipes without pulling ingredient labels for every purchased component.

Panko-coated items without wheat disclosure. Panko is made from wheat. It is used as a coating on fried chicken, seafood, and vegetables across a wide range of cuisines. Menu items described as "crispy," "breaded," or "lightly coated" frequently contain panko without an explicit wheat disclosure. The inspection finding is straightforward: the item contains wheat, the menu does not say so. The fix is to audit every item that uses a coating, crust, or batter and confirm that the wheat disclosure is in the menu text, not just in the kitchen's prep sheet.

Sesame in finishing oils and garnishes. A finished dish gets a few drops of toasted sesame oil for aroma, or a scatter of sesame seeds as garnish. Neither ingredient is prominent enough to appear in the menu description, and neither was in the original recipe that the operator used when initially populating their allergen chart. The sesame oil was a kitchen shortcut that became a standing practice; the sesame seeds were added at the line cook's discretion. The inspection finds sesame present in the dish, the menu discloses nothing. This is the most operationally awkward violation category, because it stems from kitchen practices drifting away from documented recipes rather than from a failure to read an ingredient label.

The audit process is not complicated. It is thorough. There is a difference.

Step 1: Pull every dish. Every item on every current menu, including seasonal dishes, limited-time offers, and any daily specials that have become recurring. If a dish is on the menu in any format (printed, digital, third-party delivery, kiosk), it needs to be in the audit.

Step 2: Pull every ingredient, including sub-ingredients in purchased components. For each dish, list every ingredient in the recipe. Then, for any ingredient that is a manufactured or purchased product (a sauce, a dressing, a spice blend, a chocolate, a bread product), pull the supplier spec sheet or the product's ingredient label and list what is in that product. This step is where most manual audits fail. An operator who knows their teriyaki glaze contains soy may not know their teriyaki glaze also contains wheat until they read the label on the soy sauce they use in it.

Step 3: Cross-check against the 9 allergens. For each dish, mark which of the 9 covered allergens are present anywhere in the full ingredient tree. Milk, eggs, fish (name the species), shellfish (name the species), tree nuts (name the species), peanuts, wheat, soybeans, sesame.

Step 4: Verify each disclosure is visible to customers at the point of ordering. For each allergen present in a dish, confirm that the disclosure appears in the menu text for that dish, in a location a customer would see while ordering. Check every format: print menu, website, delivery platform, kiosk. They do not all update at the same time automatically.

Step 5: Document what you found and when you checked it. A dated record showing the menu version you audited, the dishes you reviewed, and the allergen findings for each dish is not legally required by SB 68, but it is the difference between an auditable compliance position and a vague assertion that you checked everything once.

Where manual audits break down: large menus with more than 80 to 100 items, operations where seasonal or daily specials change frequently, multi-location chains where different locations run different variations of the same dish, and kitchens where ingredient substitutions happen at the cook level without a formal recipe update process. At that point, the labor cost and error rate of manual auditing become significant problems.

A structured tool matters most when your menu velocity exceeds what a single person can track accurately by hand. Running a Caesar salad through a manual check once takes five minutes. Running 300 menu items through the same check every time any ingredient changes takes hours per update cycle, and humans skip steps under time pressure. Automated allergen auditing flags the same categories an inspector would flag: missing disclosures, ingredient label discrepancies, and dishes where the menu text does not match the allergen profile of the documented recipe. The first free audit in MenuRegistry takes under 60 seconds. What it surfaces is the same list a county health inspector would check, but before the inspection happens rather than during it.