California Is Phasing Ultra-Processed Food Out of School Meals. The Hard Part Is Defining It.

Most food dye bans work like a checklist. Name the dyes, set a date, done. California just tried something harder. In October 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1264, the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, which orders the state to phase "ultra-processed foods of concern" out of school meals. Nobody had written that rule into law before.

The catch is that "ultra-processed" has no single legal definition. This post breaks down how California wrote one, what it leaves out, and what students in other states can borrow from it.

The definition has two parts

Under AB 1264, a food counts as ultra-processed if it contains at least one ingredient from a list of additive types and also hits a nutrition trigger. The additive list covers coloring materials, emulsifiers, flavoring agents, flavor enhancers, stabilizers and thickeners, and a few other categories.

The trigger is either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or the presence of a nonnutritive sweetener such as sucralose or steviol glycosides. So a food needs both the additive and the nutrition problem. That is a narrower net than "anything from a factory."

What the law leaves out on purpose

The exemptions matter as much as the definition. The law excludes raw agricultural products, minimally processed foods, salt and seasonings, Class 1 milk, USDA commodity foods, and natural color additives. Locally grown or raised unprocessed products are exempt too.

That last exemption quietly rewards farm to school sourcing. A district that buys whole produce from nearby farms is never going to land on this list.

"Of concern" is where the real decisions happen

Not every ultra-processed food gets removed. The law tells California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, working with the Department of Public Health, to identify the ones that are particularly harmful to children. Only those must leave school meals.

State scientists weigh factors like whether an additive is banned or carries a warning label elsewhere, links to cancer, heart disease, metabolic disease, or developmental harm, whether the food is engineered to be hard to stop eating, and whether it meets the FDA's definition of "healthy." The statute set a July 1, 2026 deadline for those regulations, so the list is exactly what to watch right now.

The clock runs until 2035

Schools have until July 1, 2035 to remove the identified foods from their meal programs. Ten years sounds slow, and it is. But it gives districts time to rework contracts, menus, and kitchen equipment, which is where most school food change gets stuck.

The bill came from Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel and was co-sponsored by Consumer Reports, the Environmental Working Group, and Eat Real. It builds on California's 2024 dye law, AB 2316, which bans Red 40, Yellow 5 and 6, Blue 1 and 2, and Green 3 from school meals starting December 31, 2027. Dyes were step one. A whole category is step two.

What you can borrow, even if you don't live in California

You don't need a state law to start. Pull your cafeteria's ingredient lists and flag any item that has a dye, emulsifier, or nonnutritive sweetener and is also high in sodium, sugar, or saturated fat. That is the AB 1264 test, run by a student with a phone camera.

Then bring the list to your food service director or school board. A concrete list of products beats a general complaint every time, and California just gave you a legal definition to point to.

Your move

California's law is imperfect, slow, and still being written. It is also proof that a state can define the problem and commit to fixing it. The next definition could come from your state, and the people pushing it are often students.

Ready to help clean up the lunch line? Join the Coalition at cleanlunchcoalition.org/join-us and let's make it happen.