BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM

California is once again leading the way in school food policy. Known for pioneering free school meals for all students in 2022 and for banning synthetic food dyes last year, the state is now poised to become the first in the nation to define and ban ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in school meals.

The legislation, backed by Assembly Member Jesse Gabriel, has passed both legislative chambers and awaits Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature. If signed, it will mark the first time any government globally has defined UPFs by statute. Gabriel described the policy formula as “bipartisan, common sense, science-based.”

What are ultra-processed foods?

UPFs are factory-formulated foods high in fats, sugars, starches, and additives. They include everyday items like soda, chips, sweetened yogurts, and even packaged breads. These foods now make up about 73 percent of the U.S. food supply.

Though public awareness of UPFs has grown in part due to high-profile figures like Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., California has been working on food safety reforms well before the federal government took any steps. In 2023, California became the first state to ban four food additives already prohibited in Europe and other countries. That effort has since inspired over 20 other states to consider similar bans.

“It really blew my mind how out of step the United States is with the rest of the world when it comes to food safety,” Gabriel said. “We don’t love our kids any less than they do in Sweden or Saudi Arabia, so why aren’t we taking stronger measures to protect them?”

Defining the undefined

Until now, defining what constitutes a UPF has been murky. The Nova classification system, commonly used by researchers, bases its definition on the degree of processing and the inclusion of habit-forming ingredients, rather than specific additives. That vagueness has made legislation tricky.

According to Lindsey Smith Taillie, professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, states have taken three distinct approaches: focusing on a dozen or so food dyes and emulsifiers, expanding that list to about 40 additives, or using more rigorous science-based criteria.

California stands out for its comprehensive approach. The proposed definition targets any food or beverage containing stabilizers, thickeners, flavor enhancers, nonnutritive sweeteners, and other processing agents, especially if the product also contains high levels of sugar, sodium, or saturated fat.

“California is the state that is coming the closest to trying to actually take action on this concept of UPFs as it has been defined in the literature,” said Smith Taillie. “That’s where the evidence of health harm is.”

States across the spectrum follow suit

California isn’t alone in rethinking school meal standards. In 2025 alone, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Utah, and West Virginia passed legislation banning select additives in school meals. In total, lawmakers in at least 18 states have proposed more than 40 bills on this issue.

“There’s something so interesting about California and West Virginia bookending the country both physically and ideologically around food safety,” said Bernadette del Chiaro of the Environmental Working Group.

Still, not all approaches are created equal. While some states opt for narrow bans on food dyes, experts argue that California’s science-based strategy may offer a more meaningful health impact.

California’s ripple effect

Del Chiaro believes the state’s sheer size and influence could shift national norms: “Shifting the purchasing decisions of the fourth-largest economy in the world will have a positive effect on the buying options that other school districts have.”

The so-called “California effect,” where national industries conform to the state’s stricter standards to avoid duplicative production systems, has previously driven national changes in vehicle emissions and plastic bans. A similar effect may soon shape school meals nationwide.

Addressing cost concerns and implementation

Replacing UPFs isn’t as simple as rewriting procurement policies. It also requires more cooking and staff time, noted Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition and food policy at New York University. “USDA reimbursements must cover not only the food, but staff salaries, equipment, and supplies,” she said.

Still, Gabriel says cost doesn’t have to be a barrier. “There are a number of districts in California that have already moved in this direction,” he said, citing testimony from school food service directors. “Not only had it not cost them more, in many cases they had actually saved money.”

For instance, switching from a synthetic syrup loaded with high-fructose corn syrup and emulsifiers to real maple syrup proved to be a cost-neutral move in some districts.

Del Chiaro agrees. “This bill isn’t mandating that everybody buy organic $6-a-carton blueberries. All we’re doing is getting rid of the particularly harmful ultra-processed foods on the lunch tray.”