On June 3, the California State Assembly passed Assembly Bill 1264, mandating the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to define and gradually eliminate “particularly harmful ultra-processed foods” from public school meals within the next ten years. With co-authors from both the Democratic and Republican parties and strong bipartisan support, this measure is among the few California bills this year to achieve such cross-party collaboration, according to CalMatters.
AB 1264 had unanimous approval by the Senate Education Committee and is currently under review in the Appropriations Committee. The bill is part of a resurgence of national health awareness, particularly for children. This idea also aligns with U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” campaign and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s January executive order directing the state to limit harm from UPFs.
UPFs qualified as “particularly harmful” will be identified based on scientific evidence linking them to long-term adverse health effects or addiction potential. The NOVA system is a classification system which categorizes food into four groups on a scale of “unprocessed” to “ultra-processed.”
According to the Global Food Research Program, UPFs are a food class composed of substances not found in home kitchens, and whose formulaic structures have been heavily modified to be convenient, cheap and flavourful. As well as lacking fiber, important nutrients and protein, these products typically contain high levels of saturated fat, sugar and salt. They also include artificial colors, flavours, emulsifiers and additives in order to enhance their taste and longevity.
While these foods — such as mayonnaise, packaged snacks and processed meats — may be heavily anticipated items in a cafeteria, a 2021 study by the National Institutes of Health found excessive UPF intake linked to increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, adolescent asthma and depression. The study also determined that UPF consumption constituted 80% of the total caloric intake in the U.S. and Canada, with the most consumed items being confectionery and sugar-sweetened beverages.
The bill is not without its opponents. On June 10, a coalition of 22 economic, agricultural and civil justice groups — including the California League of Producers and the California Farm Bureau — submitted a letter to the Senate Education Committee opposing AB 1264 unless it is amended. In the letter, the coalition argues that the bill’s “unscientific and arbitrary categorization and stigmatization” of UPFs is overly broad, an oversight which could lead to the removal of numerous safe, affordable and nutritious foods such as almond butters, citrus-based snacks and fruit blends.
Concern has arisen about the unintended economic consequences of the bill on small businesses and rural economies. Several organizations in California’s agricultural sector could be threatened, especially those that depend on food processing and distribution contracts from schools. In a Capitol Weekly article published in June, President and CEO of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce Julian Canete criticized the bill for giving broad authority to the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment.
“This responsibility should fall under the Department of Public Health’s Food and Drug Branch, not the agency best known for managing chemical warning labels like Prop 65,” he wrote.
In the Gunn student community, improving nutrition has been a focus. Senior Chloe Mota-Judges, who co-led an Advanced Authentic Research project about nutrition costs and accessibility, noted the bill’s potential to benefit students who rely on school meals as a consistent food source.
“(AB 1264) is a really important step forward in making school meals healthier and more focused on real, whole foods especially because cost is a huge barrier to healthy eating,” she said. “For a lot of students, I know school meals may be their only reliable sources of food, so making those meals nutritious really matters.”
However, Mota-Judges also recognizes that instead of ensuring nutritional health, some of the guidelines suggested by the bill may have a counterproductive effect on students’ relationship with food.
“While I understand the need for standards, I think that some of the calorie-focused limits like ‘not more than 400 calories per entrée’ could unintentionally encourage diet culture or disordered eating, especially since kids are really impressionable,” she said.
