This month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1264 into law. This legislation creates the first statutory definition of ultra-processed foods (UPF) and makes California the first state in the nation to ban certain UPFs from being served in schools. This is particularly noteworthy because there is no universally accepted definition of UPF, whether in law or in science. AB 1264’s enactment is also important because it follows recent announcements from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the federal agencies are collaborating to create a definition for UPFs.
California’s AB 1264
With a goal of making school meals healthier, California enacted AB 1264. This law, along with creating a legal definition for UPFs, prohibits certain foods meeting the definition from being served in California’s public schools. Specifically, the law bans “restricted school foods” and “UPFs of concern” from being served in elementary, middle, or high schools after July 1, 2035. The classification of foods as being “restricted school foods” or “UPFs of concern” depends on whether the foods meet the definition of UPFs laid out in the California law.
Under the law, UPFs are defined as food or beverages that contain:
- A substance available in FDA’s Substances Added to Food database that has a FDA-defined technical effect, and
- Either 1) high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or 2) a non-nutritive sweetener
FDA’s Substances Added to Food is a searchable database that includes FDA regulated ingredients such as food additives, color additives, and Generally Recognized as Safe substances that are listed in FDA regulations. California’s new UPF definition applies to substances that can be found in the database and are designed with certain technical effects, such as stabilizers and thickeners or colors and coloring adjuncts. The definitions of these technical effects can be found in 21 CFR § 170.3(o).
To meet the UPF definition, a food or beverage must contain one of the substances with a defined technical effect and contain either 1) high amounts of saturated fats, sodium, or added sugar or 2) a nonnutritive sweeter. Specifically, the law defines a product with a high amount of saturated fat as a food or beverage deriving 10 percent or greater of its total energy from saturated fat. Similarly, high sodium food or beverages contain a ratio equal to or greater than 1:1 milligrams of sodium to calories. Finally, added sugar products meeting the definition include food or beverages with at least 10 percent of total energy derived from added sugars. Thus, under California’s UPF definition, a food containing a substance with a defined technical effect that derives 12 percent of its total energy from added sugars would be a UPF.
Further, California’s definition would also include a food that contains 1) a substance with a defined technical effect and 2) a non-nutritive sweetener. A non-nutritive sweetener is defined as a substance with less than 2 percent of the caloric value of sucrose per equivalent unit of sweetening capacity. 21 CFR § 170.3(o)(19). California lists several examples of a non-nutritive sweetener including sucralose, steviol glycosides, and lactitol.
Prohibiting specific UPFs from schools
Along with creating a definition for UPFs, the California law also prohibits “restricted school foods” and “UPFs of concern” from being served in schools. UPFs of concern include food that 1) meets the law’s outlined UPF definition and 2) is classified as “of concern” through regulations adopted by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Restricted school foods are defined very broadly by the law as a food or beverage that contains one or more of the listed substances with a defined technical effect and is also restricted from service or sale in schools via CDPH regulations. The law directs the CDPH to define both UPFs of concern and restricted school foods after considering several factors. CDPH’s consideration of the listed factors must be completed by June 1, 2028. By July 1, 2029 schools must begin to phase out both restricted school foods and UPFs of concern, and by July 1, 2032 a vendor shall not offer restricted school foods or UPFs of concern to a school.
Significance of California’s UPF definition
The timing of the enactment of AB 1264 is significant because the USDA and FDA are currently collaborating to establish a definition of UPFs. On July 23, 2025, the agencies published a press release announcing a joint Request for Information to “gather information and data to help establish a federally recognized uniform definition for UPFs.” The agencies have not indicated that they plan to prohibit UPFs in school meals, as California has done, but they have stated a uniform definition will “allow for consistency in research and policy.” California’s law might influence the definition USDA and FDA create. Further, as other state legislatures begin their 2026 sessions in the upcoming months, they might model California’s law in their own UPF definitional attempts. To read more about the California UPF definition, click here to read NALC article ‘MAHA’ Movement: Defining Ultra-processed Foods.
