A new bill from California would seek to remove ultra-processed foods deemed “particularly harmful” to physical and mental health from school lunches by 2032, creating the first legal definition of ultra-processed foods in the U.S. and tasking state scientists and University of California experts with determining which additives pose the most risk in the process.
The bill is the first of its kind and marks a leveling up in government’s increasing scrutiny of ultra-processed foods, which currently have no legal or scientific definition but are broadly understood to refer to foods that are industrially produced and contain additives like artificial flavors, emulsifiers, preservatives, and synthetic dyes.
“Americans are among the world’s biggest consumers of ultra-processed foods, and we are paying the price for it, both in terms of our declining health and our rapidly rising health care costs,” said California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who authored the bill, at a press conference Wednesday. Gabriel also authored the state’s two recent landmark food safety laws, which banned four additives from all foods sold in California as well as banning a number of synthetic dyes from school meals.
The proposal comes amid a wave of state legislation across the U.S. on banning certain food additives and dyes, as well as rising public debate over the potential dangers of ultra-processed foods, which some research suggests may be addictive and linked to chronic disease issues like cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. That said, there is currently no scientific consensus over the definition of ultra-processed foods, and healthy foods like whole-grain bread can also fall under that category.
“The recent Dietary Guidelines scientific report reiterates concerns about studies on ultra-processed foods due to the lack of a clear definition of the term,” Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy at the industry trade group Consumer Brands Association, said in a statement. “Restricting access to shelf ready foods could exacerbate health disparities, limit choice and create consumer confusion.”
Though this is just the introduction of the bill, it has bipartisan support, Gabriel said. California has gained a reputation as a leading force on food and nutrition issues, with Gov. Gavin Newsom issuing an executive order focused on investigating the health effects of ultra-processed foods earlier this year. A failed Massachusetts bill also tried to limit the amount of ultra-processed foods that could be served in schools.
The move is indicative of how states are stepping into a perceived vacuum left by the federal government. The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates food additives, has faced frequent criticism for allowing the food and beverage industries to introduce ingredients without sufficient review via a legal loophole. And some champions for nutrition reform were disappointed to learn that the U.S. dietary guidelines will not address ultra-processed foods because an expert advisory panel said there was not yet enough evidence to shape their guidance.
Sorting through the more than 10,000 chemicals in the U.S. food supply to determine which pose health risks sounds like a lofty order, particularly at a time when the Trump administration is threatening, and in some cases enacting, cuts to university research funding. But Gabriel said he was hopeful the state would avoid those cuts, and added that scientists already have a lot of evidence on which additives may be harmful. “It’s not like we’re going to ask our state scientists to start from zero.”
Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, said “the simplest option” would be to ban foods with artificial colors or flavors. That would cover 98% of ultra-processed foods, according to his research.
Nutrition research has tended to focus on the risks associated with single ingredients like sugar, Michael Goran, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, said at the press conference. But people don’t consume single nutrients, they consume whole meals. He praised the proposal for addressing “the overall health of school meals in a holistic way.”
“School nutrition can seriously compromise healthy development,” he said. “Schools can and should be better partners with parents and caregivers who are seeking to support healthier nutrition at home.”
This story has been updated with additional comments.
STAT’s coverage of chronic health issues is supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies. Our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism.
