California Bans Ultraprocessed Foods in Schools

By David Graham

A Landmark Law: The Real Food, Healthy Kids Act

Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1264, the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act. This law creates the first statutory definition of “ultraprocessed food” (UPF) in the United States and establishes a phased ban in California schools. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) must issue detailed regulations by June 2028. Schools will begin phasing out UPFs in 2029 and full compliance will be required by 2035.

In a recent Gardner Law alert, we noted FDA’s growing interest in defining ultraprocessed foods at the federal level. California has now moved beyond discussion by adopting a binding statutory framework. This shift highlights how quickly the regulatory landscape is evolving.

What Counts as Ultraprocessed Food

AB 1264, Article 3 sec. 104661 defines a UPF as any food that combines specific FDA listed additives such as stabilizers, emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, colors, or non-nutritive sweeteners with high levels of saturated fat, added sugar, or sodium. The statute also identifies individual sweeteners including sucralose, erythritol, and maltitol.

The law excludes USDA commodity foods, minimally processed agricultural products such as canned or pasteurized items, infant formula, and medical foods.

Compliance Timeline and Vendor Obligations

• February 1, 2028: Vendors must begin annual reporting to CDPH. Reports must include product quantities, ingredients, nutrition facts, and classification as UPFs or restricted foods.
• June 1, 2028: Final regulatory definitions of “UPFs of concern” and “restricted school foods” issued.
• July 1, 2029: Schools must begin phasing out affected products.
• July 1, 2032: Vendors prohibited from offering restricted foods or UPFs of concern to schools.
• July 1, 2035: Schools prohibited from serving UPFs of concern in reimbursable meals.

The law requires ongoing review every five years. If definitions expand, a three-year delayed effective date applies to give companies time to comply.

Litigation and Liability Trends

UPFs are drawing sustained legal scrutiny in the United States. The highest-profile test case to date, Bryce Martinez v. Kraft Heinz et al., was dismissed in 2025 because the plaintiff failed to link specific products to his conditions. Even so, it previewed plaintiff theories that mirror tobacco-style claims about engineering hyper-palatable foods for children.

Beyond UPF-as-UPF claims, recent outcomes show real risk under consumer-protection and false-advertising laws for processed foods:

• Kellogg cereal claims: Kellogg agreed to settlements over “healthy” and “lightly sweetened” cereal marketing, including a $20 million deal tied to sugar content representations. Courts also certified a class against Post Holdings over health claims for high-sugar cereals.
• General Mills labeling: General Mills removed “100% Natural” from Nature Valley packaging after litigation alleged trace glyphosate rendered the claim misleading. This shows how food additive and processing evidence can undermine broad “natural” claims.
• State investigations: Texas opened an investigation into WK Kellogg over “healthy” advertising, signaling that attorneys general may expand scrutiny that parallels private suits.
• Product safety and stimulants: The Panera Charged Lemonade wrongful-death suits led to discontinuation of the beverages and illustrate how ingredient-level disclosures, warnings, and product formulation can drive litigation risk and operational change.

AB 1264 creates binding definitions and requires vendors to report ingredients, nutrition facts, categories, and volumes. The availability of standardized definitions and reporting data will likely increase litigation risk, giving plaintiffs clearer evidence to support claims about additives, hyper-palatable formulations, and marketing to children. Proactive portfolio audits, reformulation planning, and marketing reviews are essential to reduce liability as these standards take hold. California’s new definitions will serve as a blueprint for plaintiffs (and possibly other state legislatures) making it far more difficult for companies to defend business-as-usual practices around ultraprocessed foods.

The California Effect: Why This Matters Beyond Schools

California’s regulatory actions often influence national markets, a phenomenon commonly known as the “California Effect.” Previous bans on synthetic food dyes, tighter pesticide restrictions, and more stringent auto emissions standards first instituted in California all became models for other states and sometimes for federal rules.

With AB 1264, manufacturers and suppliers should anticipate that other states or federal agencies may adopt similar standards. Reformulation, labeling changes, and supply chain adjustments are likely to become necessary across broader markets.

“California’s new ultraprocessed foods law starts the compliance clock ticking now, and history shows other states are likely to follow. Companies that wait risk being caught unprepared as the rules spread.”
David Graham, Senior Counsel, Gardner Law

How Gardner Law Can Help

Gardner Law advises FDA regulated food and beverage companies, suppliers, and investors on navigating evolving state and federal regulation. We can help your teams:

• Map product portfolios against California’s new statutory definitions and anticipated regulations.
• Participate in CDPH rulemaking to influence definitions, exemptions, and compliance frameworks.
• Guide reformulation, labeling, and marketing strategies to mitigate risk.
• Prepare supply chain documentation and vendor reporting systems.
• Monitor litigation trends and assess liability exposure tied to UPFs.

If your company manufactures, supplies, or markets food products that could be classified as ultraprocessed, now is the time to prepare. Contact Gardner Law to assess your risk, anticipate regulatory changes, and build a proactive compliance strategy.