As the HHS was publishing its MAHA report finding ultra-processed foods to be a key factor in root cause of childhood chronic disease, and calling for further research, California was going a step further to propose a bipartisan bill to ban “particularly harmful ultra-processed food” in public schools. On June 3, the bill AB 1264, passed the California State Assembly and was ordered to the Senate. If passed by the Senate and signed by the Governor, any foods deemed to be particularly harmful ultra-processed would be phased out of schools by 2035.
With the definition of “Ultra-processed food” or “UPF” based on substances in FDA’s Substances Added to Food database with specific technical effects (AB 1264 SEC. 8.), the bill requires that the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (EHHA) adopt regulations by July 1, 2026, to define “particularly harmful ultra-processed food” (PH UPF) based on factors such as reputable peer-reviewed scientific evidence that a substance or group of substances are linked to health harms or adverse health consequences.
If passed, the regulation would require public schools (K-12) to begin phasing out the particularly harmful ultra-processed foods (PH UPFs) by January 1, 2028; ban vendors from offering PH UPFs to schools as of January 1, 2032; and prohibit the inclusion of PH UPFs in school meals or selling them in schools effective July 1, 2035. Fundraisers selling PH UPFs could still take place, but only if away from school premises or at least ½ hour after the end of the school day.
The regulation would also impact beverages, allowing the sale of only fruit or vegetable-based drinks of at least 50% juice with no added sweetener; plain still or carbonated water; or one percent unflavored milk, nonfat flavored or unflavored milk, and nondairy milk (e.g., soy, oat, almond), with serving sizes of no more than 8 ounces for elementary and 12 ounces for middle and high school. High schools may also sell flavored waters and electrolyte replacement beverages. But in no schools would soft drinks (pop, soda, cola, etc.) or caffeinated drinks be allowed, and no foods or beverages in any school could contain the dyes Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6.
To enable compliance with the regulation, vendors would have to report information on all UPFs and PH UPFs annually to the EEAH Office, which would then analyze the reports and make recommendations for state and local legislation to reduce these.
In the final reading of the bill prior to its passage, an amendment was added to section one to state that the bill is also intended to prioritize California-grown products in school meals, adding that these “are among the healthiest and most nutritious available, meeting the highest standards for quality, safety, and sustainability.”
While other states have passed bills to ban certain food additives in schools, the passage of this bill would make California the first state to specify “ultra-processed foods” and ban “particularly harmful” UPFs in schools. And if a school or vendor is debating compliance with the pending regulation, it specifically states that “violation of these provisions would be a crime,” so a state-mandated local program would be imposed.
One can see that reaching consensus that has scientific merit on what defines a “particularly harmful” UPF will not be fast or easy. Since even the definition of a UPF has not been agreed, taking it to the next level will be a challenge. Yet with both federal and state governments concentrating on additives and ultra-processed foods, and California set to define “particularly harmful” UPFs – which focuses primarily on additives, it behooves food businesses to evaluate their products as the focus on UPF’s continues to assess any potential level of exposure and how to manage it into the future.
All written content in TAG articles, newsletters, and webpages is developed and written by TAG experts, not AI. We focus on the realities and the science to bring you the most current, exacting information possible.
