This month California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1264 into law. This landmark legislation creates a statutory definition of ultra-processed foods (UPF) and makes California the first state in the nation to ban certain UPFs from being served in schools. AB 1264’s enactment follows recent announcements from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the federal agencies are collaborating to create a definition for UPFs. This article will discuss both the California law and compare it with another popular food classification system.
Background of UPFs and NOVA
The new California enactment is the first time UPFs have been officially defined by law. This is noteworthy because there is no otherwise universally accepted definition of UPF, whether in law or in science. However, there are several food classification systems that attempt to define it. The system most applied in scientific literature is called Nova, the Portuguese translation for the word “new.” Nova was created by researchers at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil in the format of a 2010 publication titled, “A new classification of foods based on the extent and purpose of their processing.” It expanded on work published the year before by Brazilian epidemiologist Carlos Monteiro, a collaborator on the Nova publication, in which Monteiro first termed the phrase UPF. The 2010 publication extended the concept of UPFs into the Nova system and further classified foods into three categories based on “the extent and purpose of the industrial processing applied to them.”
In 2019, Monteiro further expanded Nova in a publication for the UN Decade of Nutrition. Now, Nova recognizes four categories of food. The categories include unprocessed or minimally processed; processed culinary ingredients; processed foods; and UPFs. Unprocessed or minimally processed includes edible parts of plants or animals, fungi, algae and water. Food can be still be classified in this category if it underwent minimal processing such as roasting, boiling, non-alcoholic fermentation, or pasteurization. Processed culinary ingredients include oils, butter, lard, sugar, and salt. These are substances that are derived from group 1 foods or else from nature by processes like pressing, refining, grinding, milling, and drying. Processed foods are foods that are made by adding a group 2 substance to a group 1 food and are generally recognized as modified versions of the group 1 food. This could include canned vegetables, tinned fish preserved in oil, whole fruit preserved in syrup, and most freshly baked breads. Under the Nova system, UPFs are defined as “formulations made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, with little if any intact group 1 food.” Examples of UPF food under the Nova system include soft drinks, sweet or savory packaged snacks, and pre-prepared frozen dishes.
As mentioned before, Nova is not the only food classification system that defines UPFs, but it was the first and is the most applied in scientific literature. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ publication titled “Ultra-processed foods, diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system” contains a helpful chart in Annex 1 that outlines some of the different systems.
California’s AB 1264
With a goal of making school meals healthier, California enacted AB 1264. This law, along with creating a legal definition for UPFs, prohibits certain foods meeting the definition from being served in California’s public schools. This is the first time a state has both sought to statutorily define UPFs and ban their use in schools. However, this is not the first time California has passed landmark legislation related to the ingredients of food served in schools. In 2024, California was the first state to prohibit the sale of food and beverages containing synthetic color additives in schools. In 2025, several states passed similar legislation, many of whom did so under the mantle of “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA). Though the California initiatives were not enacted under the “MAHA” mantle, AB 1264, in a way similar to the synthetic dye ban, might serve as a model for how other states attempt to define UPFs. To learn more about California’s school synthetic dye prohibition, click here to read NALC article “State Food Laws Enacted in 2024.” To lean more about other state “MAHA” actions, click here to read NALC article, “’MAHA’ Movement: New Texas and Louisiana Laws.”
Definition of UPFs
Along with defining UPFs, AB 1264 bans certain foods that meet that definition from being served in school meals. Specifically, the law bans “restricted school foods” and “UPFs of concern” from being served in elementary, middle, or high schools after July 1, 2035. The classification of foods as being “restricted school foods” or “UPFs of concern” depends on whether the foods meet the definition of UPFs laid out in the California law. Thus, to understand which foods are prohibited, this article will first discuss California’s definition of UPFs.
AB 1264 will codify the following definition of UPFs at Cal. Health & Safety Code § 104661. UPFs are food or beverages that contain:
- A substance available in FDA’s Substances Added to Food database that has a FDA-defined technical effect, and
- Either 1) high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or 2) a non-nutritive sweetener
FDA’s Substances Added to Food is a searchable database that includes many of the types of ingredients regulated by the FDA. For example, the database includes food additives, color additives, and Generally Recognized as Safe substances that are listed in FDA regulations. California’s new UPF definition applies to a substance found in the database that is designed to have any of the following technical effects, surface-active agents; stabilizers and thickeners; propellants, aerating agents, and gases; colors and coloring adjuncts; emulsifiers and emulsifier salts; flavoring agents and adjuvants (excluding spices and other natural seasonings and flavorings); flavor enhancers (excluding spices and other natural seasonings and flavorings); and nonnutritive sweeteners. The definitions of these technical effects can be found in 21 CFR § 170.3(o).
To meet the UPF definition, a food or beverage must contain one of the substances with a defined technical effect and contain either 1) high amounts of saturated fats, sodium, or added sugar or 2) a nonnutritive sweeter. Specifically, the law defines a product with a high amount of saturated fat as a food or beverage deriving 10 percent or greater of its total energy from saturated fat. Similarly, high sodium food or beverages contain a ratio equal to or greater than 1:1 milligrams of sodium to calories. Finally, added sugar products meeting the definition include food or beverages with at least 10 percent of total energy derived from added sugars. Thus, under California’s UPF definition, a food containing a substance with a defined technical effect that derives 12 percent of its total energy from added sugars would be a UPF.
Further, California’s definition would also include a food that contains 1) a substance with a defined technical effect and 2) a non-nutritive sweetener. A non-nutritive sweetener is defined as a substance with less than 2 percent of the caloric value of sucrose per equivalent unit of sweetening capacity. 21 CFR § 170.3(o)(19). California lists several examples of a non-nutritive sweetener including sucralose, steviol glycosides, and lactitol.
The law clarifies that raw agricultural commodities, unprocessed locally grown or raised agricultural products, minimally processed prepared foods, class 1 milk, alcoholic beverages, medical foods, infant formula, and commodity foods specifically made available by the USDA do not qualify as UPFs. Additionally, the law explains that salt, sodium chloride, spices or other natural seasonings or flavorings, nor natural color additives “shall not by themselves cause a food or beverage to be categorized as a UPF.”
“Minimally processed prepared foods” is defined in Cal. Food & Agri. Code § 49015(a)(4) as food that prepared using 1) traditional processes to make food edible, to preserve it, or to make it safe for human consumption, or 2) physical processes that do not fundamentally alter the raw product or that only separate a whole, intact food into component parts. Traditional processes could include smoking, roasting, freezing, drying, and fermenting. Physical processes could include grinding meat, separating eggs, and pressing fruits to produce juice. Thus, under California law, foods that undergo these processes do not meet the standard of “ultra-processed.”
Examples of UPFs
Using California’s definition, this article will evaluate the following foods and beverages to determine if they would classify as UPFs.
- Goldfish – Pepperidge Farm’s Goldfish backed snack crackers would be considered a UPF because the product contains 1) Riboflavin, a database substance that functions as a color or coloring adjunct and flavor enhancer, and 2) has a 250mg of sodium and 140 calories – a ration greater than 1:1.
- Dino Nuggets – Tyson Foods’ Frozen (chicken) Dino Nuggets would be considered a UPF under the California standard because the product contains food starch, a stabilizer or thickener, a high amount of sodium with 430mg of sodium and 210 calories.
- Mac & Cheese – Based on the nutrition facts of Kraft’s Original Mac & Cheese Macaroni and Cheese Dinner, it would qualify as an UPF. The ingredient list contains Sodium Triphosphate, a substance designed as an emulsifier or emulsifier salt, and contains greater than a 1:1 sodium to calorie ratio with 530mg of sodium and 220 calories in a serving.
- Corn Dogs – Based on the nutrition facts of State Fair’s Classic Corn Dogs, this food would qualify as an UPF. The product contains Sodium Diacetate which is a substance designed as a flavoring agent and adjuvant, and the product contains more than 10% of total energy from saturated fat.
- Gatorade – The lemon-lime flavor of Gatorade would qualify as a UPF because it contains 1) FD&C Yellow 5, a substance designed to function as a color or coloring adjunct, and 2) more than 10% of its total energy from added sugars.
- Apple Juice – Mott’s 100% Original Apple Juice would not meet the California definition of a UPF because as juice produced from the pressing of a fruit, it falls under the “minimally processed prepared food” exception. However, regardless of the exception, it would still not be a UPF because it does not meet the definition’s two-part test. While the apple juice contains ascorbic acid, a substance designed to function as a stabilizer or thickener, it has 0 percent added sugars and saturated fats, has a sodium to calorie ratio under 1:1, and does not contain a non-nutritive sweetener.
Prohibiting specific UPFs from schools
Along with creating a definition for UPFs, the California law also prohibits “restricted school foods” and “UPFs of concern” from being served in schools. UPFs of concern include food that 1) meets the law’s outlined UPF definition and 2) is classified as “of concern” through regulations adopted by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Restricted school foods are defined very broadly by the law as a food or beverage that contains one or more of the listed substances with a defined technical effect and is also restricted from service or sale in schools via CDPH regulations.
The law directs the CDPH to define both UPFs of concern and restricted school foods after considering several factors. Seven factors are listed in the law and include questions like, “whether the substance or group of substances are banned or restricted in other state, federal, or international jurisdictions due to concerns about adverse health consequences,” “whether the food has been modified to be high in saturated fat, added sugar, or salt,” and “whether the food meets the requirements of [FDA’s] final rule . . . titled ‘Food Labeling: Nutrient Content Claims; Definition of Healthy.’” CDPH’s consideration of the listed factors must be “guided by a rigorous examination of available reputable peer-reviewed scientific evidence” and must be completed by June 1, 2028. By July 1, 2029 schools must begin to phase out both restricted school foods and UPFs of concern, and by July 1, 2032 a vendor shall not offer restricted school foods or UPFs of concern to a school.
CDPH is required to review the regulations and update definitions every five years. Additionally, the law creates reporting requirements for vendors of food products sold to a school. The vendor reporting requirements will go into place on February 1, 2028 and must be submitted yearly until February 1, 2032.
CA vs Nova
California’s definition of UPFs is different from the standard created in Nova because it outlines tangible characteristics that a food must possess to be classified as a UPF. For instance, California’s definition classifies food as an UPF is it contains a specific substance with a defined technical effect or if it contains a certain amount of added sugars. Conversely, Nova categorizes food based on a broad spectrum of the type and extent of processing it underwent. However, Nova is vague about what level of processing crosses into the UPF threshold. For example, in the UN Decade of Nutrition article UPFs are classified as those with “additives that imitate or enhance the sensory qualities of foods.” However, the article also blurs the line between UPFs and processed foods by stating that “additives in UPFs include some also used in processed foods, such as preservatives, antioxidants and stabilizers.” While Nova is a helpful tool in categorizing foods into four groups, it is not a nuanced definition like the California law.
Federal Agencies Seek to Define UPFs
The timing of the enactment of AB 1264 is significant because the USDA and FDA are currently collaborating to establish a definition of UPFs. On July 23, 2025, the agencies published a press release announcing a joint Request for Information to “gather information and data to help establish a federally recognized uniform definition for UPFs.” This initiative follows statements in the Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment, published by the Make America Healthy Again Commission, that UPF overconsumption is one of the driving factors of what the assessment calls the “childhood chronic disease crisis.” The agencies have not indicated that they plan to prohibit UPFs in school meals, as California has done, but they have stated a uniform definition will “allow for consistency in research and policy.” The RFI is publicly available for comments until Oct. 23, 2025.
Though California’s law and the state’s initiative is not categorized under the mantle of “MAHA,” its enactment might have an effect on the definition USDA and FDA create. Further, as other state legislatures begin their 2026 sessions in the upcoming months, they might model California’s law in their own UPF definitional attempts.
To learn more about the FDA’s Final “Healthy” Rule, click here to read NALC article “FDA Releases Final ‘Healthy’ Rule.”