Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Nutrition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AB 1264 would phase the most harmful ultra‑processed foods from school meals by 2032; bill draws broad health support and food‑industry concern over definitions
Summary
AB 1264 would define ‘‘ultra‑processed foods’’ in state law and require state scientists and UC experts to identify the subset deemed ‘‘particularly harmful’’ to be removed from school meals by 2032; physicians and nutrition groups supported the move, while food and ag trade groups warned the text as drafted could sweep in many common, healthy items.
Assemblymember Rebecca Gabriel introduced AB 1264, a bipartisan bill to define ‘‘ultra‑processed foods’’ (UPFs) in state law and to require state scientists, in cooperation with University of California experts, to identify a subcategory of ‘‘particularly harmful’’ UPFs to be phased out of public‑school meals by January 1, 2032.
Gabriel argued that growing evidence links UPFs to obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and behavioral issues in children and said public schools should not serve products that undermine student health. ‘‘Our public schools should not be serving students products that can harm their physical or mental health or interfere with their ability to learn,’’ Gabriel told the committee.
Public‑health supporters—including Scott Faber of Environmental Working Group and pediatrician Dr. Ravinder Khera—urged the committee to pass the bill. Dr. Khera cited research linking UPF consumption to higher risks of chronic disease and said schools reach many children and thus provide an opportunity to improve diets.
Food‑industry and agricultural groups warned the bill’s definition as drafted is overbroad and risks classifying staples as UPFs, pointing to corn tortillas, low‑fat yogurt and other minimally processed items that can be healthful. Consumer Brands and farm organizations argued the definition should incorporate nutritional standards (excess fat, added sugar or sodium) and asked that enforcement and labeling risks be clarified. Agricultural groups emphasized that California‑grown foods should not be categorized as UPFs.
The committee and author agreed to amendments that narrow some exemptions — for example excluding natural surface finishing agents such as waxes on fruit — and the author said she would continue negotiations with stakeholders to refine agency roles and implementation timing. The measure passed the committee as amended; opponents said they expect to continue technical negotiations on scope and language.
