In early April 2025, Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) made headlines—but not in a way that inspired confidence.

A Tale of Two Positions

The organization, one of the most prominent in the food‑allergy advocacy world, publicly opposed California’s Senate Bill 68 (the Allergen Disclosure for Dining Experiences Act, or ADDE). The bill, introduced by State Senator Caroline Menjivar and championed by 9-year-old Addie Lao, would require restaurants to clearly label the top nine food allergens—milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, peanuts, tree nuts, wheat, soy, and sesame—on menus starting July 1, 2026.

FARE’s stated concern? That requiring static menu labeling could create a false sense of security—lulling diners into thinking labels are enough protection, while ignoring cross-contact risk, frequent ingredient changes, and real-life complexities in restaurant kitchens.

Two months later, the situation dramatically changed. Following bill amendments made in collaboration with the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) and other advocates, FARE reversed course and announced support for the bill on July 18. It was a remarkable about-face—and one that opened a flood of questions, criticism, and opportunity.

Understanding the Positions

Why FARE Initially Opposed SB 68

From their April letter, FARE articulated several clear concerns:

• Static labeling falls short: FARE highlighted that menu labels can’t account for dynamic, real-world factors like ingredient substitutions or shared prep surfaces.
• Risk of exclusion: They worried that compliance burdens could push smaller restaurants to drop allergy accommodations altogether.
• Lack of collaboration: Even FARE’s leadership acknowledged they weren’t part of early stakeholder discussions. Their request for a collaborative amendment window was denied—or at least not received in time.
• Time crunch: With a July 2026 implementation deadline, FARE said the timeline was unrealistic—especially given training needs and operational changes.

It’s worth noting that FARE wasn’t alone in voicing concerns; the California Restaurant Association (CRA) joined them in opposing the bill, citing cost, logistical burdens, and liability reasons AP News.

The Case For SB 68

By contrast, SB 68 was backed by multiple major voices in the food allergy advocacy space—AAFA, ACAAI, FAACT, FANA, and others—as well as SnackSafely.com, which editorially supported the measure as “life‑saving”.

The arguments were simple and compelling:

• No existing federal or state regulation requires restaurants to list allergens, even though packaged foods must under FALCPA.
• Statistics are alarming: nearly half of fatal allergic reactions originate from restaurant or food-service meals.
• Dining out is a daily minefield—anything that adds clarity at the point of order offers real, incremental safety.
• And research suggests that allergy-aware restaurants can benefit commercially: customers with food allergies tend to be very loyal, with 36% reporting they always return to safe places, versus 17% of other diners,

What Shifted—and Why FARE Now Supports SB 68

In June, the ADDE bill moved forward through California’s Assembly Appropriations Committee, incorporating significant amendments that addressed many of FARE’s concerns:

• Digital labeling and allergen-specific menus: Added flexibility for restaurants to provide allergen info in printed or online forms.
• Stakeholder collaboration: The amendments were crafted with input from AAFA, Addie Lao’s family, restaurant owners, legislators, and FARE.
• More workable implementation: Adjustments eased burden and improved feasibility for both small and large operators while preserving safety intent.

As a result, FARE shifted to support the bill, with its CEO stating that “FARE has always supported the intent of the bill” but recognized that it needed to be strengthened to work in real-world settings.

Community Response: Disappointment and Frustration

The initial opposition by FARE sparked strong reactions:

“FARE… is actively working against a bill that would increase transparency and help people with allergies make safer, more informed choices.”
“Their reasoning? That allergen labeling might create a ‘false sense of security.’ … This is offensive and out of touch … a betrayal of the very people they claim to represent.”
Reddit

These sentiments, echoed in social media and community forums, reflect real fear and frustration. Families don’t need philosophical labeling debates—they need practical, tangible safety tools.

What This Means for the Food Allergy Community

Real-World Safety Wins

Menu labeling may not be perfect—but it’s a clear improvement over the status quo, where allergic diners are forced to ask, probe, and pray every time they order. Labels don’t replace conversation—but they reduce uncertainty at the moment most vulnerable.

Systemic Progress and Standards

If SB 68 passes, California would become the first state to mandate this level of transparency. That sets a powerful precedent, pushing us closer to national standards that protect all allergic diners.

Innovation and Dynamism

FARE’s concern about static labeling isn’t wrong—but shouldn’t be a reason to stall progress. Instead, this shift highlights the hybrid path forward: baseline labeling plus technology-enhanced updates, better training, digital tools, and proactive monitoring. Both approaches can coexist—and should.

Lessons in Advocacy

FARE’s reversal shows how powerful stakeholder engagement is. When adjusted collaboratively, a bill that felt exclusionary can become inclusive—and acceptable. It’s a reminder to stay involved, speak up, and push for better, not less.

Where the Bill Stands Now

• SB 68 cleared the Senate Health Committee unanimously, and moved forward with the updated, more flexible structure.
• It’s currently awaiting a scheduled hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where AYFA and other advocates continue to lobby.
• If passed, the law would go into effect on July 1, 2026, giving restaurants time to adapt.
• The legislative process continues; advocates remain vigilant to ensure language doesn’t weaken core protections.

Final Thoughts: Guarding Against Both Overconfidence and Inaction

FARE’s reversal underscores a difficult truth: we must balance ideal solutions with immediate safety gains.

• Yes, cross-contact risk remains—even in labeled menus—but labeling is one critical layer of protection, especially in emergencies.
• Yes, technology-enhanced systems and dynamic updates can be more accurate—but they’re not yet universal. While we build toward that, static menus offer something solid.
• Advocacy is never about choosing one right path—it’s about shaping the best possible path sooner.

Call to Action

If you’re part of our food-allergy community—students, parents, educators, friends—here’s how you can help:

1. Speak up now: Contact your California Assembly members and ask them to pass SB 68 in its strengthened form.
2. Amplify Addie’s message: Share her story—this isn’t just policy; it’s deeply personal.
3. Encourage innovation: Demand that labeling standards be paired with training, digital upgrades, and clear cross-contact protocols.
4. Stay engaged nationally: California’s progress paves the way for other states. Let’s use this moment to push for broader change.

In Summary

California’s SB 68 could be a landmark law—an overdue step toward restaurant accountability that many families need. FARE’s initial opposition shook us, but their support following amendments shows the power of reform over rupture.

Let’s keep pushing for food allergy safety—with clarity, collaboration, and compassion. Because labeling may not be perfect—but it’s an essential bridge toward a safer, more inclusive table for everyone.