On October 8, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law another first-of-its-kind, California state-law attempt at promoting healthier nutrition.
The Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, otherwise known as A.B. [Assembly Bill] 1264, defines by statute – for the first time by any governmental authority in the U.S. – Ultra-Processed Foods” (UPFs), and, by 2035, completely bans “UPFs of concern” and “restricted school foods” in California K – 12 school meals. This new statutory definition of UPFs includes any food or beverage containing both:
- additives such as surface-active agents, stabilizers and thickeners, propellants, flavoring agents, emulsifiers, (not natural spices); or
- non-nutritive sweeteners (including sucralose, erythritol, and maltitol); or
- color additives and coloring adjuncts;
PLUS
- defined minimum levels of saturated fat, added sugars, or sodium considered to be “high.”
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is tasked with developing regulations to define “UPFs of concern” and “restricted school foods” by considering:
- substances banned by other state, federal or international law due to concerns about adverse health consequences;
- substances required by other state, federal or international law to bear a warning due to adverse health consequences; and
- whether “reputable peer-reviewed scientific evidence” links these certain substances to health harms or adverse health consequences, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, developmental or behavioral issues, obesity, or Type 2 diabetes.
Thus, while this new law provides a general definition of UPFs, only UPFs that are “of concern” as determined by CDPH via regulation will be banned. In addition, there seems to be room for CDPH to expand the definition of UPFs by specifying additional additives, non-nutritive sweeteners and color additives. The law does not provide a specific definition of “restricted school foods,” but rather states that the definition will include one of the additives, non-nutritive sweeteners or colors additive substances listed above, that CDPH determines should be banned based on the same criteria as “UPFs of concern.”
It is perhaps not wholly coincidental that this law came quickly on the heels of a July 25, 2025 public request by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for information to formulate a uniform definition of UPFs as part of its larger Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative 90 Fed. Reg. 45229 (Jul. 25, 2025) (the submission period closed October 23, 2025). The FDA’s public request cited to researchers who are believed by FDA to have found links between consumption of these foods and “negative health outcomes,” including cardiovascular disease, obesity, and certain cancers.” The new California law expressed similar concerns and used similar language, but wasted no time in providing a definition in broad brushstrokes.
Why This Matters for Companies
This new California law and ultimately regulatory definitions should be of interest in general to all links in the food supply chain, not just vendors into the California school system. It does not require a great deal of imagination to think that after the CDPH does its work, California could move to ban or restrict “UPFs of concern” in all food available for purchase and consumption in California, to protect Californians’ health. Moreover, California food laws seem to presage or encourage passage of similar laws at the federal level or in other states.
For example, on October 7, 2023, California A.B. 418 was passed to ban one food dye and three food additives that for years were permitted by FDA: brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and FD&C Red Dye #3. On January 15, 2025, FDA itself issued a ban on Red Dye #3. In addition, at writing, nine states (including California) have passed bills banning or requiring warnings on various food and/or color additives (and more are pending in six other states), contributing to a patchwork of state regulation with which regional and national distributors of food must contend.
What To Do
What is a stakeholder do? Comply with the most stringent state-law requirements? That may or may not work, depending on the warning required and whether a company can maintain a steady supply of food products currently preferred by consumers with so many bans that could affect flavor or texture. At writing, fourteen states other than California are considering legislative definitions of UPF’s for school meals, sometimes with competing definitions.
Stakeholders can participate in the CDPH notice and comment process to promote a California state-law definition of UPFs that is broadly workable for the food industry selling in and into California. California is, after all, the biggest food market and getting a workable definition in California could go a long way in promoting sensible regulation in other markets. It is also possible to lobby for a federal statutory or regulatory definition of UPFs that would preempt state laws to the contrary.
At a minimum, companies should consult with counsel and be prepared for future regulatory developments. These are likely only to increase and further restrict or regulate the U.S. food supply. Experienced food-law counsel can also assist in advising on risks from consumer litigation that has started, but also is likely to increase, as more research and government attention are spent on UPFs.
