An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 35.1-14.01, relating to restaurants; food allergy awareness notice required.
HB373 adds a new section to the Virginia Code requiring restaurants to provide food allergy awareness notices. The Department of Health, through the Commissioner, must make a standardized notice available on its website in English and in the top six non-English languages spoken in Virginia, based on Census data. The notice must explain restaurant staff procedures for handling a customer’s food allergy, preventing cross-contact, and responding to an allergic reaction, including when to call emergency medical services.
The bill also requires every permitted restaurant to post the notice in a conspicuous location accessible to employees involved in food preparation or service, in at least one language spoken by each employee where translations are available. In addition, restaurants must display the statement, “If you have a food allergy, please notify us,” on menus or on a conspicuous sign in the restaurant, and include translated versions where available. Restaurants that provide menus online must also include a food allergy notification and a way for customers to indicate allergies.
The bill creates a new regulatory requirement for permitted restaurants under Title 35.1 by mandating allergy-awareness postings and menu notices. It affects restaurant operators, employees, and customers, and it also assigns the Department of Health responsibility for preparing and publishing the required multilingual notice. The practical effect is to standardize allergy communication practices in restaurants and to encourage safer food handling and emergency response procedures for patrons with food allergies.
The available record shows the bill was enacted as Chapter 124, indicating it received sufficient legislative support to become law. Although no committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, the substance of the bill suggests a generally protective, public-health-oriented approach focused on consumer safety and accessibility. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials limits any deeper assessment of debate, but the final enactment indicates the measure was broadly acceptable to lawmakers.
No committee discussion or vote details are included, so specific objections cannot be identified from the record provided. Potential points of contention in a bill like this would typically involve compliance burdens for restaurants, the cost of multilingual postings and website updates, and how broadly the notice requirements should apply. Another possible issue is whether the state should prescribe operational procedures for allergy response versus leaving those decisions to individual businesses.