A compiled reference of 46 verified statistics on FDA Food Code adoption, taken from FDA's own 2024 annual adoption report and Program Standards enrollment listing: which of the 10 Food Code editions and which of the 3 adoption methods each of 64 state agencies uses, how the national picture has moved (or stalled) over nine years of FDA reporting, and a state-by-state amendment layer for seven states, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, Georgia and Washington, showing exactly how the certified food protection manager, bare-hand contact, employee health reporting, and date marking provisions diverge from the Food Code's own text once a state actually writes its rule.
Key statistics
7 highlights from this report
Key statistics
Key takeaways
Only 11 of 64 state agencies are on the current edition, and only 4 update automatically. Everything else about Food Code compliance, who has to be on site, what counts as bare-hand contact, who gets told when an employee is sick, changes at the state line even among states nominally running the same edition.
The Food Code is a model, not federal law. Oversight is state and local, and FDA scores adoption by effective date, not by when rulemaking finished.
Only 11 of 64 state agencies are on the 2022 edition; 46 of 64 are on one of the three most recent editions, and the rest, 18 agencies, run something older than 2013.
An edition stops drawing new adopters roughly seven years after publication, which is why 2013- and 2017-edition agencies outnumber 2022-edition agencies for years after a new edition ships.
Automatic short-form is rare: only Connecticut Public Health, both Mississippi agencies, and Pennsylvania Agriculture update the moment FDA publishes. Everyone else needs new rulemaking to move editions.
Twelve states split retail food oversight across two or three agencies, and Florida is the only state with three, which is why the same state can show two different edition numbers depending on which agency licenses the establishment.
State Program Standards enrollment (100% at the state level) is a different and often more favorable number than Food Code edition currency; a state can be fully enrolled and still run a 2005-edition code, as California and Alaska both do.
Adopting an edition and running its text are not the same thing. FDA's own report finds 38 of 62 adopting agencies weakened at least one area, and the seven states profiled here show exactly how differently the same four provisions can be rewritten.
How we built this report
Every figure was compiled in September 2026 from FDA's own annual Food Code adoption report and Program Standards enrollment listing, or from a state's own statute or administrative code, and verified against the original before publishing.
- FDA's own report as the adoption ground truth
Every edition, agency, adoption method and effective year comes from Table 7 of FDA's Food Code adoption annual report for 2024, the same table FDA itself uses to score states; national counts and percentages are FDA's own summary figures from the same report.
- Amendments read from the state's own rule, not a summary
The seven-state amendment layer is built entirely from each state's own statute or administrative code, read directly: California's Health and Safety Code, Texas's Administrative Code, Pennsylvania's Code, Ohio's Administrative Code, Massachusetts's 105 CMR, Georgia's Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, and Washington's Administrative Code.
- Gaps stated, not implied
Where this research did not check a state's rule on a specific provision, the amendment table says so explicitly ("Not checked in this research") instead of leaving the cell blank or implying no deviation exists.
- Arithmetic shown, never implied
Every computed card states its inputs and the division: the 84% figure is FDA's 16.06% subtracted from 100%, the automatic-update ratio is 4 divided by 64, and so on.
- California and New York flagged, not smoothed
California's FDA score (2005 edition) describes a model relationship, not a section-by-section adoption, since CalCode is a freestanding statute; the table footnotes this rather than presenting a plain edition number for a state that does not adopt Food Code sections at all.
- Independent review
Written by one co-founder, reviewed by the other before publishing.
Scope caveat: this reflects FDA's 2024 annual report snapshot (data collected in early 2025). Hawaii and Virginia both finished 2022-edition rulemaking after that collection date and are shown here on their 2024 status; check FDA's next annual report for the current picture. The seven-state amendment layer covers 4 provisions in 7 states, not all provisions in all states; it demonstrates the pattern, not a complete 50-state amendment survey. Related compilations: restaurant health inspection statistics and foodborne illness statistics.
All 64 state agencies, edition by edition
FDA's own Table 7, as reported in its 2024 annual adoption report| State | Agency | Edition adopted | Adoption method | Oversight | Effective year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Alabama Department of Public Health | 2013 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2016 |
| Alaska | AK Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Food Safety and Sanitation Program | 2005 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2005 |
| Arizona | Arizona Department of Health Services | 2017 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2020 |
| Arkansas | Arkansas Department of Health | 2013 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2019 |
| California | California Department of Public Health | 2005 | Manual Long-Form | Both* | 2007 |
| Colorado | Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment | 2022 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2024 |
| Connecticut | Connecticut Dept. of Consumer Protections | 2022 | Manual Short-Form | Retail Food Stores | 2023 |
| Connecticut | Connecticut Department of Public Health | 2022 | Automatic Short-Form | Both | 2023 |
| Delaware | Delaware Dept. of Health and Social Services | 2017 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2020 |
| District of Columbia | DC Department of Health | 2009 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2012 |
| Florida | FL Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services | 2017 | Manual Short-Form | Retail Food Stores | 2020 |
| Florida | FL Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation | 2017 | Manual Short-Form | Restaurants | 2019 |
| Florida | Florida Department of Health | 2013 | Manual Short-Form | Restaurants | 2018 |
| Georgia | Georgia Department of Agriculture | 2017 | Manual Long-Form | Retail Food Stores | 2019 |
| Georgia | Georgia Department of Public Health | 2013 | Manual Long-Form | Restaurants | 2015 |
| Hawaii | HI Dept. of Health, Sanitation Branch, Food Services | 2013 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2017 |
| Idaho | Idaho Department of Health and Welfare | 2013 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2016 |
| Illinois | Illinois Department of Public Health | 2022 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2024 |
| Indiana | Indiana State Department of Health | 2001 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2004 |
| Iowa | Iowa Dept. of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing | 2017 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2023 |
| Kansas | Kansas Department of Agriculture | 2017 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2023 |
| Kentucky | Kentucky Department for Public Health | 2013 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2019 |
| Louisiana | Louisiana Department of Health | 2001 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2002 |
| Maine | Maine Dept. of Health and Human Services | 2009 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Long-Form | Restaurants | 2013 |
| Maine | Maine Department of Agriculture | 2009 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Long-Form | Retail Food Stores | 2013 |
| Maryland | Maryland Department of Health | None | Not applicable | Both | Not applicable |
| Massachusetts | Massachusetts Department of Public Health | 2013 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2018 |
| Michigan | MI Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development | 2009 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2013 |
| Minnesota | Minnesota Department of Agriculture | 2013 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2019 |
| Minnesota | Minnesota Department of Health | 2013 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2019 |
| Mississippi | Mississippi Department of Health | 2022 (w/Suppl.) | Automatic Short-Form | Both | 2024 |
| Mississippi | MS Dept. of Agriculture and Commerce | 2022 (w/Suppl.) | Automatic Short-Form | Retail Food Stores | 2024 |
| Missouri | Missouri Dept. of Health and Senior Services | 2009 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2013 |
| Montana | Montana Dept. of Health and Human Services | 2013 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2015 |
| Nebraska | Nebraska Department of Agriculture | 2017 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2024 |
| Nevada | Nevada Dept. of Health and Human Services | 2009 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2013 |
| New Hampshire | NH Dept. of Health and Human Services | 2017 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2019 |
| New Jersey | New Jersey Department of Health | 2001 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2007 |
| New Mexico | New Mexico Environment Department | 2017 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2019 |
| New York | New York State Department of Health | None | Not applicable | Restaurants* | Not applicable |
| New York | New York State Department of Agriculture | 2001 | Manual Long-Form | Retail Food Stores | 2004 |
| North Carolina | NC Dept. of Health and Human Services | 2017 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2021 |
| North Dakota | ND Dept. of Health and Human Services | 2017 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2024 |
| Ohio | Ohio Department of Health | 2022 | Manual Long-Form | Restaurants | 2024 |
| Ohio | Ohio Department of Agriculture | 2022 | Manual Long-Form | Retail Food Stores | 2024 |
| Oklahoma | Oklahoma State Department of Health | 2017 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2022 |
| Oregon | Oregon Department of Agriculture | 2013 | Manual Long-Form | Retail Food Stores | 2014 |
| Oregon | Oregon Health Authority | 2013 | Manual Long-Form | Restaurants | 2014 |
| Pennsylvania | Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture | 2022 (w/Suppl.) | Automatic Short-Form | Both | 2024 |
| Rhode Island | Rhode Island Department of Health | 2017 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2021 |
| South Carolina | South Carolina Department of Agriculture | 2017 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2019 |
| South Dakota | South Dakota Department of Health | 1995 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 1997 |
| Tennessee | Tennessee Department of Health | 2009 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2013 |
| Tennessee | Tennessee Department of Agriculture | 2009 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Long-Form | Retail Food Stores | 2013 |
| Texas | Texas Dept. of State Health Services | 2017 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2021 |
| Utah | Utah Dept. of Agriculture and Food | 2022 | Manual Short-Form | Retail Food Stores | 2024 |
| Utah | Utah Dept. of Health and Human Services | 2022 | Manual Short-Form | Restaurants | 2024 |
| Vermont | Vermont Department of Health | 2001 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2003 |
| Virginia | VA Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services | 2017 | Manual Long-Form | Retail Food Stores | 2021 |
| Virginia | Virginia Department of Health | 2017 | Manual Long-Form | Restaurants | 2021 |
| Washington | Washington State Department of Health | 2017 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2022 |
| West Virginia | West Virginia Department of Health | 2013 | Manual Short-Form | Both | 2019 |
| Wisconsin | WI Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection | 2013 | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2020 |
| Wyoming | Wyoming Department of Agriculture | 2013 (w/Suppl.) | Manual Long-Form | Both | 2020 |
Twelve states split oversight between two or three agencies (Florida has three), so this table has 64 rows for 51 jurisdictions (50 states plus DC). "*" on California marks FDA's model-based score, not a section-by-section adoption: CalCode is a freestanding statute, so no Food Code section number exists in California law. "*" on New York marks that the New York State Department of Health has adopted no version of the Food Code at all; New York's Department of Agriculture, on the 2001 edition, covers retail food stores. Maryland is the only state with no Food Code adoption by either measure. This is FDA's 2024 snapshot: Hawaii and Virginia's health agencies both finished 2022-edition rulemaking in early 2025, after the report's cutoff, and are shown here on their 2024 status. The full table is also published as a spreadsheet: download the 64-row CSV.
Where the 64 agencies actually sit
Agency count by Food Code edition, as of FDA's 2024 annual reportThe 2022 edition, published in December 2022, has the fewest agencies of any edition except 1995 and 2005, because an edition takes years to accumulate adopters and this one is barely two years old. The 2017 and 2013 editions carry the most agencies precisely because they have had the longest to be adopted before the next edition arrived. Two agencies, both named Health departments, have adopted none at all.
How the 62 adopting agencies adopt
Adoption method, per FDA's own classificationHalf the adopting agencies wrote their own regulation from scratch using the Food Code as a model, which is also why editions can differ so much state to state even at the same nominal adoption method: a manual long-form state can keep, drop, or rewrite any provision it chooses.
The amendment layer no compilation had built: 7 states, 4 provisions
What each state changed from the FDA base text on certified managers, bare-hand contact, employee health and date marking| State | Certified manager (2-102.12) | Bare-hand contact (3-301.11) | Employee health (2-201.11) | Date marking (3-501.17) | Citation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | One certified employee per facility; expressly not required on site during hours of operation | "Minimize" bare-hand contact, not prohibited; bare-hand assembly allowed with handwashing | Named list of 7 infectious agents plus a catch-all; split duty between local health officer and person in charge | Not checked in this research | Cal. Health & Safety Code 113947.1, 113949.1, 113950, 113961 |
| Texas | Present during all hours of operation; original certificate posted for consumers to see | Runs FDA base text (not separately amended in this research) | Adds a required sign at every handwashing sink telling employees to report symptoms and diagnoses | Not checked in this research | 25 TAC 228.31, 228.32 |
| Pennsylvania | Present or immediately accessible at all hours of operation; certificate posted in public view | Runs FDA base text (not separately amended in this research) | Runs FDA base text (not separately amended in this research) | Not checked in this research | 7 Pa. Code 46.1201; 3 Pa.C.S. 6501-6510 |
| Ohio | Required only at risk level III and IV establishments; a knowledgeable person in charge must be present everywhere | Kept, plus a licensor prior-approval step; unavailable for highly susceptible populations | Tracks FDA base reporting structure, duty on license holder | Not checked in this research | OAC 3717-1-02.4, 3717-1-02.1, 3717-1-03.2 |
| Massachusetts | On-site, 18+, required at every establishment; 60-day (extendable) replacement window; two-strike exam variance | Struck entirely: no written-procedure or other path to bare-hand contact | 48-hour window lengthened to 72 hours in two places; standalone 72-hour norovirus exclusion rule added | Runs FDA base text (checked, no deviation found) | 105 CMR 590.002, 590.003 |
| Georgia | Restricted to one establishment; 60-day replacement grace period; 30-day notice if operating without one | Runs FDA base text (not separately amended in this research) | Adds affirmative duty to notify the county Health Authority for 5 named diagnoses, not just internal exclude/restrict | Runs FDA base text (checked, no deviation found) | GA Comp. R. & Regs. Ch. 511-6-1 |
| Washington | Hard statewide deadline of March 1, 2023 for every establishment to have one on staff; 60-day replacement window | Kept, plus a documented 90-day employee-illness log required before approval | Not checked in this research | Not checked in this research | WAC 246-215-02107, 246-215-03300 |
"Runs FDA base text (not separately amended in this research)" means this research did not find or did not check that state's rule for a deviation on that specific provision, not that no deviation exists. "Not checked in this research" is stated rather than left blank so the gap is visible instead of implied. An adopted edition number is not the operating rule: California and Ohio show the widest spread on bare-hand contact ("minimize" versus a kept prohibition with prior approval), and Georgia and Massachusetts are the only two states here where date marking was checked and found unchanged from the FDA base text.
Food Code adoption, by the numbers
All 46 figures, grouped by theme: 40 quoted from FDA's own adoption report, Program Standards listing, or a state's own statute or administrative code and independently verified, plus 6 RapidEye computations that name their inputs, 46 in all.
The gap between an edition and reality
The 6 figures below are RapidEye arithmetic on the verified counts that follow: how much of the country actually lives under a superseded Food Code, how many of the 64 agencies update automatically, how uneven Program Standards enrollment runs beneath the Food Code numbers, and how old the country's oldest active edition is. Each names its inputs and shows the division.
Statistic 1
Roughly 84% of the U.S. population is regulated under a Food Code edition FDA has already superseded. FDA states that the seven states on the 2022 edition cover 16.06% of the population; 100% minus 16.06% is 83.94%, rounded to 84%.
RapidEye Research, computed from FDA's own 16.06% figure (fda.gov)
Statistic 2
By agency count rather than population, 53 of the 64 state agencies (82.8%) are running a Food Code edition other than the current one. 64 minus 11 agencies on the 2022 edition is 53; 53 divided by 64 is 0.828.
RapidEye Research, computed from FDA's own 64-agency and 11-agency counts (fda.gov)
Statistic 3
Only 4 of the 64 state agencies FDA tracks, 6.25%, update automatically when a new Food Code is published. The other 60, 93.75%, are frozen at whatever edition they last actively adopted until their own legislature or agency acts again. 4 divided by 64 is 0.0625.
RapidEye Research, computed from FDA's own adoption-method breakdown (fda.gov)
Statistic 4
About 1 in 4 Americans, 26.93% of the population, live somewhere the state retail food agency is enrolled in FDA's Program Standards but the local agency is not. FDA reports 100% state-level enrollment against 73.07% local-level enrollment; 100% minus 73.07% is 26.93%.
RapidEye Research, computed from FDA's own Program Standards enrollment figures (fda.gov)
Statistic 5
South Dakota's Department of Health runs a Food Code edition published 31 years ago and adopted 29 years ago. The 1995 edition was published in 1995 and South Dakota's adoption took effect in 1997; measured to 2026, 2026 minus 1995 is 31 and 2026 minus 1997 is 29.
RapidEye Research, computed from FDA's Table 7 entry for South Dakota (fda.gov)
Statistic 6
46 of the 64 state agencies, 71.9%, are on one of the three most recent Food Code editions (2022, 2017 or 2013), meaning 18 agencies, 28.1%, are running something older than the 2013 edition. 46 divided by 64 is 0.719 and 64 minus 46 is 18.
RapidEye Research, computed from FDA's own edition counts (fda.gov)
What this means: Two numbers carry the page. Only 11 of 64 agencies are on the current edition, and only 4 of 64 update automatically, so being on an old edition is the default state for a Food Code agency, not the exception.
The Food Code is a model, not a law
According to the FDA Office of Retail Food Protection's Food Code adoption annual report for 2024 (fda.gov), restaurant and retail food store oversight in the United States is typically handled at the state and local level rather than the federal level, and FDA's own role is to promote adoption rather than mandate it. The report describes three adoption formats: automatic short-form, where a state's rule points at whatever the current Food Code is and updates itself the moment FDA publishes; manual short-form, adoption by reference with modifications; and manual long-form, where the state writes its own regulation using the Food Code as a model. FDA scores a state's adoption date as the effective date of the rule, not the date rulemaking was completed, and the office itself is new, created October 1, 2024 when the FDA Human Foods Program replaced CFSAN, the Office of Food Policy and Response, and parts of the Office of Regulatory Affairs.
Statistic 7
The 2022 Food Code is the 10th edition of the FDA Food Code and, as of December 31, 2024, the most recent full edition; it was published in December 2022.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024, introduction
Statistic 8
The FDA Food Code is a model, not federal law: restaurant and retail food store oversight in the United States is handled at the state and local level, and FDA's role is to encourage adoption.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024
Statistic 9
FDA counts three ways a state adopts the Food Code: automatic short-form (the rule points at "the current version", so the state updates the moment FDA publishes), manual short-form (adoption by reference with modifications), and manual long-form (the state writes its own regulation using the Food Code as a model).
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024
Statistic 10
FDA uses the effective date of adoption, not the date rulemaking was completed, when it scores a state.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024
Statistic 11
The Office of Retail Food Protection is new: it was created on October 1, 2024 when the FDA Human Foods Program replaced CFSAN, OFPR and parts of ORA.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024
What this means: The three-format distinction is the single most useful concept on this page. Only 4 of 64 agencies are automatic short-form, so the other 60 are frozen at whatever edition they last actively adopted, sometimes for decades, until their own legislature or agency writes a new rule.
The national numbers
According to FDA's Food Code adoption annual report for 2024 (fda.gov), 11 state agencies in 7 states have adopted the 2022 Food Code, covering 16.06% of the U.S. population, while 46 agencies in 36 states are on one of the three most recent editions, covering 64.64%. FDA has identified 64 state agencies responsible for oversight nationally; 62 of them (96.9%) have adopted some version of the Food Code and 2 never have. Of the 62 adopting agencies, 4 adopted automatic short-form, 26 manual short-form, and 32 manual long-form, and 38 of the 62 (61.3%) have at least one area less stringent than the edition they adopted, with demonstration of knowledge the single most common weakening. Twelve states split oversight between two or three agencies, and Florida is the only state with three. Adoption of the 2013 edition peaked at 29 agencies in 2019 and has had no new adopter since 2020; the 2009 edition got no new adopter after 2016, which FDA reads as roughly a seven-year window before an edition stops attracting new adoptions. One agency, South Dakota's Department of Health, has run the 1995 edition for all nine years FDA has published this report, and 98.14% of the population lives in a state where at least one agency has adopted some version of the Food Code. Of the 25 states that told FDA they have no plans to update in 2025, nine are already on the 2009 edition or older.
Statistic 12
11 state agencies in 7 states have adopted the 2022 Food Code, covering 16.06% of the U.S. population; 30 agencies in 24 states are on one of the two most recent editions (51.92% of population); 46 agencies in 36 states are on one of the three most recent (64.64%).
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024, key numbers
Statistic 13
FDA has identified 64 state agencies responsible for oversight of restaurants and/or retail food stores; 62 of them (96.9%) have adopted some version of the Food Code and 2 have never adopted any.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024
Statistic 14
12 states split retail food oversight between two or three agencies; 39 states have a single agency covering both restaurants and retail food stores. Florida is the only state with three.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024
Statistic 15
Adoption method breakdown of the 62 adopting agencies: 4 automatic short-form, 26 manual short-form, 32 manual long-form. Pennsylvania Agriculture, Connecticut Public Health, and both Mississippi agencies are the four.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024
Statistic 16
38 of 62 adopting agencies (61.3%) have at least one area less stringent than the Food Code edition they adopted; only 24 (38.7%) adopted with no less-stringent area. "Demonstration of knowledge" is the most common weakening.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024
Statistic 17
Nine agencies in six states completed Food Code rulemaking effective on or before December 31, 2024: Colorado (2013 w/Suppl. to 2022), Illinois (2017 to 2022), Ohio Health and Ohio Agriculture (both 2013 w/Suppl. to 2022), Utah Agriculture and Utah Health (both 2013 to 2022), plus Mississippi Health, Mississippi Agriculture and Pennsylvania Agriculture picking up the 2022 Supplement.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024, Table 3
Statistic 18
Adoption of the 2013 edition peaked at 29 agencies in 2019 and no agency has newly adopted it since 2020; the 2009 edition got no new adoptions after 2016. FDA's own read is that an edition stops being adopted about seven years after publication.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024, Table 4 and key observations
Statistic 19
One state agency has been on the 1995 Food Code for the entire nine years FDA has published this report: South Dakota's Department of Health, effective 1997.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024, Table 4 and Table 7
Statistic 20
98.14% of the U.S. population lives in a state where at least one state agency has adopted some version of the FDA Food Code.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024
Statistic 21
Of the 25 states that told FDA they have no plans to update in 2025, nine are on the 2009 edition or older.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024
Statistic 22
Two states finished 2022-edition rulemaking just after the report's cut-off: Hawaii effective March 2025 and Virginia effective February 2025.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024
What this means: Adoption is not decay-resistant. An edition draws new adopters for about seven years and then stops, which is why the map is dominated by 2013- and 2017-edition states rather than 2022, and why a 1995-edition agency can still exist in 2026 with nothing forcing a change.
Territories and tribal agencies
According to FDA's Food Code adoption annual report for 2024 (fda.gov), four of five territorial agencies have adopted a Food Code: Guam on the 2005 edition effective 2013, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands all on the 2022 edition, all automatic short-form; American Samoa has adopted none. Of six tribal agencies FDA tracks, three (the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, the Mohegan Tribe Health Department and the Oneida Nation) have adopted the 2022 Food Code directly, two contract their inspections out to an agency using the current edition, and one operates under a memorandum of understanding.
Statistic 23
Territories: four of five territorial agencies have adopted a Food Code, on either the 2022 or 2005 edition. Guam is on 2005 (effective 2013); CNMI, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are on 2022; American Samoa has adopted none.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024, Table 5
Statistic 24
Six tribal agencies are tracked; three (Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, Mohegan Tribe Health Department, Oneida Nation) have adopted the 2022 Food Code, two contract inspections out, and one works under a memorandum of understanding.
FDA Office of Retail Food Protection, Food Code adoption annual report for 2024, Table 6
What this means: The territories that update automatically are newer entrants without a legacy long-form regulation to unwind, which is likely why three of the four Food Code territories are on the current edition already, a higher share than any region of the 50 states.
Program Standards enrollment: a different yardstick
According to FDA's Retail Food Program Standards enrollment listing (fda.gov), 999 agencies were enrolled as of December 31, 2024, including all 63 eligible state agencies, so 100% of the U.S. population lives in a state with at least one enrolled state-level agency, but only 73.07% of the population lives in a locality whose local agency is also enrolled. Enrollment is wildly uneven: Massachusetts has 128 enrolled agencies, 124 of them city or town, and Texas has 89, while ten states, including Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana and Vermont, have exactly one enrolled agency, the state itself.
Statistic 25
999 agencies were enrolled in FDA's Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards as of December 31, 2024: 63 state agencies, 5 territorial, 559 county, 92 district, 144 city, 109 town, 10 tribal, 8 university, 6 federal and 3 village.
FDA, Retail Food Program Standards enrollment listing
Statistic 26
Every state's state-level retail food agency is enrolled in the Program Standards, but only 73.07% of the U.S. population lives in a locality whose local agency is enrolled.
FDA, Retail Food Program Standards enrollment listing
Statistic 27
Local enrollment is wildly uneven. Massachusetts has 128 enrolled agencies (124 of them city or town) and Texas 89, while ten states have exactly one enrolled agency, the state itself: Arkansas, Delaware, DC, Florida (4 counting three state agencies plus one other), Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Vermont.
FDA, Retail Food Program Standards enrollment listing, per-state table
What this means: Program Standards enrollment measures whether an agency has opted into a quality framework, not whether it runs the current Food Code edition. A state can be fully enrolled in the Program Standards and still be regulating restaurants under a 2005-edition Food Code, which is exactly Alaska's and California's position.
California, Texas and the automatic-update state
According to the California Retail Food Code (ca.gov), a facility needs one certified food-safety employee who expressly does not have to be on site during operating hours, and the bare-hand-contact rule is to "minimize" contact rather than the Food Code's outright prohibition, permitting bare-hand assembly of ready-to-eat food if hands are washed under a separate handwashing statute. Texas's rule, 25 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 228 (texas.gov), goes the opposite direction: a certified food protection manager must be present during all hours of operation, every other employee needs an accredited food handler course within 30 days of hire, and every handwashing sink needs a sign telling employees to report symptoms, none of which the base Food Code requires. Pennsylvania, one of only four automatic short-form agencies nationally, defines its adopted code as simply "the most current edition" published by FDA (pacodeandbulletin.gov), so its own certified-employee rule sits between the other two: present or immediately accessible at all hours, rather than required on site or exempted from presence entirely.
Statistic 28
California requires one food-safety-certified owner or employee per facility, and expressly does NOT require that person to be on site during operating hours; a certified person may not double as the certified person for a second facility. California is scored by FDA as having adopted the 2005 edition, but CalCode is its own freestanding statute (Health and Safety Code Part 7), not a Food Code section-by-section adoption, so no Food Code section number applies in California law.
California Retail Food Code, Health and Safety Code section 113947.1, Employee Knowledge article
Statistic 29
California's rule is "minimize" bare hand contact, not the Food Code's prohibition, and it permits bare-hand assembly of ready-to-eat food in an approved food preparation area if hands are washed per section 113953.3.
California Retail Food Code, Health and Safety Code section 113961, Handwashing article
Statistic 30
California puts the exclude/restrict decision on a named list of seven infectious agents plus a catch-all, and splits the duty between the local health officer (exclude or restrict on diagnosis) and the person in charge (exclude on diagnosis, restrict on symptoms of acute gastrointestinal illness).
California Retail Food Code, Health and Safety Code sections 113949.1 and 113950, Employee Health article
Statistic 31
Texas is stricter than the Food Code: a certified food protection manager must be present at the food establishment during all hours of operation, and the original certificate must be posted where consumers can see it.
25 Texas Administrative Code section 228.31, Texas Food Establishment Rules
Statistic 32
Texas requires every food employee other than the certified food protection manager to complete an accredited food handler course within 30 days of employment, and the establishment must keep each certificate of completion on premises.
25 Texas Administrative Code section 228.31
Statistic 33
Texas adds a posting requirement the Food Code does not have: a sign at every handwashing sink telling food employees to report symptoms and diagnoses.
25 Texas Administrative Code section 228.32, Reporting Symptoms and Diagnosis Signage
Statistic 34
Pennsylvania is one of only four state agencies nationally whose rule points at "the current edition" of the Food Code, so it moves to a new edition automatically. Its definition reads: "Model Food Code - The most current edition of the Food Code published by the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration."
7 Pa. Code Chapter 46, Food Code, sections 46.3 and 46.4
Statistic 35
Pennsylvania's Food Employee Certification Act requires a certified employee "present at the retail food facility or immediately accessible at all hours of operation" who is the person in charge when physically present and on duty, and the original certificate must be posted in public view.
7 Pa. Code section 46.1201, implementing 3 Pa.C.S. sections 6501-6510
What this means: Same nominal requirement, three different staffing consequences. California's certified employee can be off site; Texas's cannot leave the building; Pennsylvania's has to be reachable. An operator moving between these three states is not moving between paperwork differences, they are moving between different staffing models for the same job title.
Ohio: current edition, still its own rules
Ohio adopted the 2022 Food Code, but the Ohio Administrative Code (ohio.gov) still scopes and modifies it. The certified-manager mandate applies only to risk level III and IV establishments, exempting risk levels I and II, temporaries, mobiles and vending, though a person in charge with applicable knowledge must still be present at every establishment during all hours. Ohio lets that person demonstrate knowledge simply by having no critical violations on the current inspection and answering the inspector's questions correctly, which is the exact area FDA's own report names as the most commonly weakened nationally. Ohio keeps the Food Code's bare-hand-contact prohibition and its written-procedures exception, but adds a prior-approval step from the licensor and bars the exception where a highly susceptible population is served. Its employee-health rule otherwise tracks the Food Code's own reporting structure.
Statistic 36
Ohio ties the certified-manager requirement to risk level: only risk level III and IV operations must have a certified manager, while risk levels I and II, temporaries, mobiles and vending are exempt. Separately, a person in charge with applicable knowledge must be present during all hours of operation.
Ohio Administrative Code rule 3717-1-02.4, State of Ohio Uniform Food Safety Code, effective September 5, 2024
Statistic 37
Ohio lets the person in charge demonstrate knowledge by "having no critical violations during the current inspection" plus answering the inspector's questions correctly.
Ohio Administrative Code rule 3717-1-02.4
Statistic 38
Ohio keeps the Food Code prohibition on bare-hand contact with ready-to-eat food and keeps the written-procedures exception, but adds a prior-approval step: the license holder must obtain the licensor's approval before using bare hands, and the exception is unavailable to operations serving a highly susceptible population.
Ohio Administrative Code rule 3717-1-03.2(A), effective September 5, 2024
Statistic 39
Ohio's employee-health rule tracks the Food Code reporting structure, putting the duty on the license holder to ensure food employees and conditional employees report health information to the person in charge, including date of onset.
Ohio Administrative Code rule 3717-1-02.1, effective September 5, 2024
What this means: Being on the current edition does not mean running the Food Code's own text. Ohio adopted 2022 and still writes its own risk-tiered exemptions and its own demonstration-of-knowledge test, which is FDA's own finding (38 of 62 agencies weaken at least one area) made concrete in a single current-edition state.
Three more states that rewrote the same four provisions
Massachusetts, on the 2013 edition, requires an on-site, 18-or-older certified manager (105 CMR 590.002, mass.gov), gives a 60-day (extendable) window to replace one who leaves, and strikes the Food Code's bare-hand-contact exception entirely, so there is no path, written procedures or otherwise, for a Massachusetts food employee to touch ready-to-eat food with bare hands. It also lengthens the Food Code's 48-hour post-symptom exclusion window to 72 hours and adds a standalone norovirus rule. Georgia, on the 2017 edition, requires a Certified Food Safety Manager restricted to one establishment with a 60-day replacement grace period (Georgia Comprehensive Rules and Regulations Chapter 511-6-1, ga.gov), and turns the Food Code's internal exclude-or-restrict duty for certain diagnoses into an affirmative duty to notify the county Health Authority. Washington, on the 2017 edition, set a hard statewide deadline, March 1, 2023, by which every establishment needed a certified manager on staff (WAC 246-215-02107, wa.gov), and its version of the bare-hand-contact written-procedures exception requires a documented 90-day employee-illness log before the regulatory authority will approve it.
Statistic 40
Massachusetts requires every food establishment to employ at least one on-site, 18-or-older certified food protection manager (stricter than the Food Code's "person in charge" standard), gives a 60-day (extendable another 60) replacement window if that person leaves, and lets an establishment keep operating on a board-of-health variance if its person in charge fails the certification exam twice.
105 CMR 590.002, adopting the 2013 Food Code
Statistic 41
Massachusetts strikes the Food Code's bare-hand-contact exception outright, meaning there is no path (written procedures, prior approval, or otherwise) for Massachusetts food employees to touch ready-to-eat food with bare hands.
105 CMR 590.003, adopting the 2013 Food Code
Statistic 42
Massachusetts adds a state-specific reportable-diseases cross-reference to the Food Code's exclusion list, lengthens the post-symptom-resolution exclusion window from 48 to 72 hours in two places, and adds its own standalone norovirus rule requiring a 72-hour exclusion after symptoms resolve or after a positive specimen, whichever is later.
105 CMR 590.002, adopting the 2013 Food Code
Statistic 43
Georgia requires a Certified Food Safety Manager (CFSM) with supervisory authority over food prep and service, restricts each CFSM to a single establishment, gives a 60-day grace period to replace a departed CFSM, and separately requires the establishment to notify the Health Authority within 30 days if it is operating without one.
Georgia Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, Chapter 511-6-1, section on Certified Food Safety Manager, adopting the 2017 Food Code
Statistic 44
Georgia adds a duty the base Food Code does not have: the CFSM or person in charge must proactively notify the county Health Authority (not just internally exclude or restrict the employee) whenever a food employee is jaundiced or diagnosed with norovirus, Hepatitis A, Shigella, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, or typhoid fever.
Georgia Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, Chapter 511-6-1, adopting the 2017 Food Code
Statistic 45
Washington set a hard statewide deadline, March 1, 2023, by which every food establishment had to have at least one certified food protection manager on staff, with a valid certificate available on request and a 60-day window to replace one who leaves.
Washington Administrative Code 246-215-02107, adopting the 2017 Food Code
Statistic 46
Washington keeps the Food Code's bare-hand-contact prohibition and its written-procedures exception essentially verbatim, but its version of the exception requires a written employee-health policy on file, including a 90-day log of reportable employee illnesses, before the regulatory authority will approve bare-hand contact.
Washington Administrative Code 246-215-03300, adopting the 2017 Food Code
What this means: The same four Food Code provisions produce five different operating realities across California, Ohio, Massachusetts, Georgia and Washington: minimize versus prohibit versus strike-entirely on bare-hand contact, and internal log versus mandatory county notification on employee-health reporting. A single Food Code edition number tells an operator nothing about which of these regimes applies.
Cite this study
Academic or press use: copy a ready-made reference. RapidEye is the publisher.
Quick FAQ
Which states have adopted the current 2022 FDA Food Code?
As of FDA's 2024 annual adoption report, 11 state agencies in 7 states have adopted the 2022 Food Code: Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah, several of which split oversight across two agencies (Connecticut, Mississippi, Ohio and Utah each have two agencies on the 2022 edition). Those 7 states cover 16.06% of the U.S. population. Hawaii and Virginia both finished 2022-edition rulemaking shortly after the report's data collection, effective March 2025 and February 2025 respectively, and will show as 2022-edition states in FDA's next annual report.
Is Maryland the only state without a Food Code?
Maryland is the only state where no agency has adopted any version of the FDA Food Code, and its Department of Health covers both restaurants and retail food stores with no Food Code adoption at all. New York is a related but different case: the New York State Department of Health, which covers restaurants, has also adopted no version of the Food Code, but the New York State Department of Agriculture, which covers retail food stores, has adopted the 2001 edition, so New York as a state does show up in FDA's adoption count while Maryland does not.
What is the difference between automatic short-form, manual short-form and manual long-form adoption?
FDA classifies adoption into three formats. Automatic short-form means the state's rule points at whatever the Food Code's current edition is, so the state updates the moment FDA publishes a new one; only 4 of 64 agencies nationally work this way (Connecticut's Department of Public Health, both Mississippi agencies, and Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture). Manual short-form means the state adopts the Food Code by reference but with stated modifications and additions, requiring new rulemaking each time it wants to move editions; 26 agencies use this format. Manual long-form means the state writes its own freestanding regulation using the Food Code as a model or frame, which is how California's CalCode and Texas's Food Establishment Rules both work; 32 agencies use this format, the largest single group.
Do all states require a certified food protection manager the same way?
No. The Food Code's own text (2-102.12) requires only that the person in charge be a certified food protection manager, without specifying when that person must physically be present. States that have adopted the Food Code interpret and amend that requirement very differently: California requires one certified employee per facility but expressly says that person need not be present during all hours of operation; Texas requires the certified manager present during all hours of operation; Pennsylvania requires the certified employee present or immediately accessible at all hours; Ohio limits the mandate to its highest two risk tiers; Massachusetts and Georgia both require an on-site manager with a 60-day grace period to replace one who leaves; and Washington set a hard statewide compliance deadline of March 1, 2023 for every establishment to have one on staff.
Does adopting the current Food Code edition mean a state follows its exact rules?
Not necessarily. FDA's own report finds that 38 of the 62 state agencies that have adopted a Food Code edition, 61.3%, implemented rulemaking with at least one area less stringent than the provisions in that edition, and identifies demonstration of knowledge as the most commonly weakened area nationally. Ohio is a concrete example: it has adopted the current 2022 edition but still limits the certified-manager mandate to its highest risk tiers and lets a person in charge demonstrate knowledge simply by having no critical violations on the current inspection. An edition number describes which rulebook a state started from, not which provisions it kept, dropped, or rewrote.
Data sources
Every figure on this page traces to one of these publishers' own documents, each checked against the original before publishing. Sources are named at the publisher level and shown by root domain.