California, under the leadership of Gov. Gavin Newsom, is set to gradually eliminate certain ultraprocessed foods from school menus within the coming decade, as part of pioneering legislation signed on Wednesday. This marks the first instance of such a directive in the United States.
The newly enacted law aims to specifically identify ultraprocessed foods, which are typically highly palatable and loaded with sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats. It mandates California’s Department of Public Health to establish definitions for “ultraprocessed foods of concern” and “restricted school foods” by mid-2028.
Implementation will require schools to begin reducing these foods by July 2029. By July 2035, the sale of such items for breakfast or lunch in schools will be prohibited. Furthermore, vendors will be restricted from supplying “foods of concern” to schools starting in 2032.
Newsom, flanked by first partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom and state lawmakers, signed the measure at a middle school in Los Angeles.
“California has never waited for Washington or anyone else to lead on kids’ health — we’ve been out front for years, removing harmful additives and improving school nutrition,” stated Newsom. “This pioneering law enhances our efforts to provide California’s students with nutritious, delicious meal options that promote their well-being.”
This initiative follows an executive order from Newsom earlier this year, instructing the Department of Public Health to propose strategies by April for mitigating the adverse effects of ultraprocessed foods. In 2023, the Democratic governor also approved a ban on certain synthetic food dyes in school diets.
Across the United States, legislatures have introduced over 100 bills in recent months, aiming to ban or mandate labeling of chemicals frequently found in ultraprocessed foods, including artificial dyes and disputed additives.
Americans get more than half their calories from ultraprocessed foods, which have been linked to a host of health problems, including obesity, diabetes and heart disease. However, studies haven’t been able to prove that the foods directly cause those chronic health problems.
Defining ultraprocessed foods
Defining ultraprocessed foods has been tricky. The most common definition is based on the four-tier Nova system developed by Brazilian researchers that classifies foods according to the amount of processing they undergo.
Researchers often describe ultraprocessed foods as the types of products that contain industrially made ingredients that you won’t find in a home kitchen.
But some highly processed foods –— think tofu, certain types of whole-grain bread and infant formula – can be healthful. And it’s not clear whether it’s the processing of the foods or the combination of nutrients such as sugar, fat and salt that leads to poor health outcomes.
U.S. health officials recently launched an effort to come up with a federal definition of ultraprocessed foods, saying there are concerns over whether current definitions “accurately capture” the range of foods that may affect health.
Some say California’s ban goes too far
Some critics of the ban say it is too broad and could unintentionally limit access to nutritious foods.
“For foods served in schools, food and beverage manufacturers meet the rigorous unique safety and nutrition standards set by the USDA and state agencies,” John Hewitt with the Consumer Brands Association said in a statement. He added the brands the association represents are committed to “providing safe, nutritious and convenient” products.
The California School Boards Association is concerned about the cost for districts to phase out these foods in the next few years. There is no extra money attached to the bill.
“You’re borrowing money from other areas of need to pay for this new mandate,” spokesperson Troy Flint said.
The law could raise costs for school districts by an unknown amount by potentially making them purchase more expensive options, according to an analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Some districts already overhauling school menus
Some school districts in California are already phasing out foods the law seeks to ban.
Michael Jochner spent years working as a chef before taking over as director of student nutrition at the Morgan Hill Unified School District about eight years ago. He fully supports the ban.
“It was really during COVID that I started to think about where we were purchasing our produce from and going to those farmers who were also struggling,” he said.
Now they don’t serve any ultraprocessed foods, and all their items are organic and sourced within about 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the district, Jochner said. They removed sugary cereals, fruit juices and flavored milks, and deep-fried foods such as chicken nuggets and tater tots from their menus, he said.
Many of their dishes are made from scratch or semi-homemade, including an item that has long been a staple in U.S. school cafeterias: pizza.
Pizza is also a popular option for students in the Western Placer Unified district northeast of Sacramento, where Director of Food Services Christina Lawson has spent the past few years introducing more meals made from scratch to their school menus.
She estimates up to 60% of school menus in the district are made up of dishes made from scratch, up from about 5% three years ago. They also purchase more foods locally to prepare a wide variety of items, including buffalo chicken quesadillas using tortillas made in nearby Nevada City.
“I’m really excited about this new law because it will just make it where there’s even more options and even more variety and even better products that we can offer our students,” Lawson said. “Because variety is the number one thing our students are looking for.”
Dr. Ravinder Khaira, a pediatrician in Sacramento who supports the law, said at a legislative hearing that the ban will help respond to a surge of chronic conditions in children fueled by poor nutrition.
“Children deserve real access to food that is nutritious and supports their physical, emotional and cognitive development,” Khaira said. “Schools should be safe havens, not a source of chronic disease.”
—-
Associated Press health writer JoNel Aleccia in Temecula, California, contributed.
