
California acts to eliminate ultraprocessed foods in schools, beating MAHA to the punch
Food & healthFacebookTweetLink
Follow
Move over, MAHA. California has just overtaken President Donald Trump's 'Make America Healthy Again' Commission in the quest to identify which ultraprocessed foods are the most harmful for human health.
Numerous studies have linked an additional serving a day of ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, to a greater risk of developing or dying from dozens of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and various mental health conditions.
Which of the thousands of ultraprocessed foods on grocery shelves could be most responsible for such ill health? To date, answers are elusive. Research is in its infancy. Expert advocates and food manufacturers disagree on harms and definitions, while lobbyists battle behind the scenes.
California, however, intends to offer a solution in just over a year.
On Tuesday, a bipartisan coalition of the California State Assembly voted to pass AB 1264, which lays out a plan to remove 'particularly harmful' ultraprocessed foods from the state's school meals. The bill's passage is expected to be finalized Tuesday night.
The legislation requires that the first step, defining which ultraprocessed foods are most detrimental to human health, be completed by July 1, 2026.
Once passed by the California Senate and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, AB 1264 would be the first such legislation in the nation, said Jesse Gabriel, the Democratic California assemblymember who introduced the bill.
'Our understanding is that this would actually be the first statutory definition in the world, not just in the United States,' said Gabriel, who represents California's 46th Assembly District.
Focusing on school lunches will have a significant impact on children's health, he said.
'The busiest restaurant in California is our school cafeterias,' Gabriel said. 'We'll serve over a billion school breakfasts, lunches and dinners in 2025 alone. If you want to improve the nutritional health of young people, starting with school lunches is a really powerful way to do it.'
The MAHA Commission, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is also trying to address children's nutrition.
In mid-May, the commission released a Trump-mandated report recommending federal agencies reassess the impact of ultraprocessed foods (as well as vaccines, lifestyle, pollutants and the overprescribing of drugs) on the 'childhood chronic disease crisis.'
The document was quickly criticized for errors and citing studies that don't exist, as first reported by NOTUS, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news site. The administration discounted the errors as 'formatting issues,' but some experts who previously spoke with CNN said the mistakes suggest the report was likely created using artificial intelligence.
Regardless, the MAHA Commission is expected to identify more specific actions on ultraprocessed foods and its additional concerns by August 12.
By then, AB 1264 should be close to a signature if all goes well, Gabriel said.
'We hope to have this bill on the Governor's desk for a signature in late August or early September,' Gabriel said. 'We are really targeting the worst of the worst UPFs, where there is really strong science and research and data. If federal regulators were doing their job as intended, there wouldn't be a need for states to do this.'
In response, the Consumer Brands Association, a national advocacy group that represents food and beverage manufacturers, told CNN the new California bill would create an unnecessary duplicate regulatory framework.
'AB1264's attempt to classify certain proven-safe ingredients as unhealthy is so broad that it could limit access to certain nutrient-dense foods, such as fruits, salads and soups, cause consumer confusion, and lead to higher prices for Californians,' said John Hewitt, CBA's senior vice president of state affairs, in an email.
In response, Gabriel told CNN that suggesting AB 1264 would ban healthy foods or drive up prices is 'ridiculous.'
'On the contrary, the bill would phase out foods with dangerous chemical additives linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other serious diseases from our schools,' Gabriel said via email. 'That's why AB 1264 has received broad bipartisan support.'
If passed, AB 1264 will go in effect on January 1, 2026. Then the clock starts ticking. By July 1, a mere six months later, experts from the University of California and the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment must establish a subcategory of 'particularly harmful' ultraprocessed foods. Because research on UPFs is exploding, the bill requires that definition to be updated every two years.
Experts deciding how to identify an ultraprocessed food as 'particularly harmful' should use the following criteria, according to the bill:
• Are any of the ingredients linked by established science to cancer, obesity, metabolic or cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, or developmental or reproductive harm?
• Does the food contain additives that have been banned, restricted or required to carry a warning by other local, state, federal or international jurisdictions? (The European Union has banned various UPF additives over health concerns.)
• Has the food been modified to include high levels of sugar, salt or fat? (That's a key way manufacturers design ultraprocessed foods to meet the 'bliss point' human taste buds yearn for.)
• Can any ingredient contribute to food addiction by being hyperpalatable, or extremely difficult to resist? (The Bert Lahr potato chip commercial from the 1960s said it all: 'Betcha can't eat just one.')
Foods may also be considered ultraprocessed, the bill says, if they contain additives such as emulsifiers, stabilizers and thickeners, flavor enhancers and non-nutritive sweeteners that aren't on the US Food and Drug Administration's radar. (Manufacturers are constantly inventing new ways to make food delicious, and not all of those are reported to the FDA.)
Once the 'harmful' ultraprocessed food definition is established, the bill moves on to implementation. Beginning on February 1, 2027, vendors selling food to California schools will be required to submit an annual report listing any UPFs that fall under the new definition.
Because school districts often create menus up to three years in advance, the bill gives school nutritionists a bit of breathing room — using the information provided by vendors, they must begin phasing out all particularly harmful ultraprocessed foods by January 1, 2028.
The bill's momentum then slows. Six years after the bill goes into effect, by January 1, 2032, vendors may no longer offer harmful ultraprocessed foods to school district nutritionists to be included in their menus. Three years later, by January 1, 2035, school districts will no longer be able to provide children any meals containing particularly harmful UPFs. (That restriction, however, does not apply to school fundraising events.)
'While the timeline may appear long, we think that change is going to happen right away. We're already seeing schools take action, and this bill is going to help put pedal to the metal on getting schools to make that shift way ahead of 2032,' said Bernadette Del Chiaro, the senior vice president for California at the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a health advocacy organization based in Washington, DC, that cosponsored AB 1264.
'I can tell you that farmers are really excited about it — nothing would please them more than to be able to deliver food directly to California's kids and schools,' Del Chiaro said.
'And we have strong bipartisan support — a left and right grassroots movement of people saying, 'Let's correct this. Let's get our schools to be healthy.' So there's all of these really great win-win-win elements to this bill.'
Success stories already exist. One school district in Santa Clara County, California, is now feeding over 8,000 students with grass-fed beef, organic milk, and antibiotic-free chicken and pork from local farmers and ranchers.
However, what the Morgan Hill United School District did to remove added sugars was truly startling, said Nora LaTorre, CEO of Eat Real, a national nonprofit that provides K-12 schools around the country with free tools to transform their menus.
'Morgan Hill removed 34 pounds of sugar per student per year by removing foods with hidden added sugar, such as sauces, dressings and condiments,' said LaTorre, who gave the school district an Eat Real certification in 2024. 'Now the children are served items with less than 6 grams of added sugar.'
Replacing ultraprocessed foods with real food is not only possible, but easy, said LaTorre, who has testified in support of AB 1264. One example: a makeover of a school-purchased high-sugar yogurt cup with 13 grams of added sugar and flavors.
'The children are now served parfaits out of plain Greek yogurt, which can be purchased through USDA commodities,' she said. 'The parfaits are topped with fresh fruit or house-made fruit compote with zero added sugar.
'It really doesn't take that long to make a significant change in children's school nutrition,' LaTorre said. 'Eat Real is on track to reach 1 million kids in schools across some 20 states. Our average time from initial assessment of a school to certification is about 23 months.'
Get inspired by a weekly roundup on living well, made simple. Sign up for CNN's Life, But Better newsletter for information and tools designed to improve your well-being.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
27 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bankruptcy Was Good for 23andMe
Sometimes a public company has a controlling shareholder who wants to take it private by buying out all of the other shareholders, and that's always messy. 1 The controlling shareholder will to some extent be negotiating with herself: She will want to buy the company for a low price, but the company's shareholders will want to get a high price, but she's the controlling shareholder and can vote for the low price. There are standard solutions to the problem, but they are only partial solutions: In the past few months, I have written a few times about 23andMe Holding Co. as an illustration of these problems. 23andMe is a publicly traded genetic testing company that was once worth about $6 billion, but it has now fallen on hard times. Its founder, Anne Wojcicki, owns about 49% of the voting power of the stock, making her effectively a controlling shareholder. She offered to buy all the stock she didn't own, to take the company private and fix its problems 'outside of the short term pressures of the public markets.' But the board of directors, whose job was to find an 'actionable proposal that is in the best interests of the non-affiliated shareholders,' didn't think her offer was good enough.


New York Times
28 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump-Musk Alliance Dissolves as They Hurl Personal Attacks
Pinned President Trump and Elon Musk's alliance dissolved into open acrimony on Thursday, as the two men hurled personal attacks at each other after the billionaire had unleashed broadsides against the president's signature domestic policy bill. While meeting with Friedrich Merz, Germany's new chancellor, in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump broke days of uncharacteristic silence and unloaded on Mr. Musk, who until last week was a top presidential adviser. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon,' Mr. Trump said. 'I've helped Elon a lot.' As the president criticized Mr. Musk, the billionaire responded in real time on X, the social media platform he owns. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Mr. Musk wrote. 'Such ingratitude,' he added, taking credit for Mr. Trump's election in a way that he never has before. Mr. Musk had been careful in recent days to train his ire on Republicans in Congress, not Mr. Trump himself. But he discarded that caution on Thursday, ridiculing the president in a pattern familiar to the many previous Trump advisers who have fallen by the wayside. What started as simply a fight over the domestic policy bill sharply escalated in just a few hours. Within minutes of one another, Mr. Trump was making fun of Mr. Musk's unwillingness to wear makeup to cover a recent black eye, and Mr. Musk was raising questions about Mr. Trump's competency as president. The public break comes after a remarkable partnership between the two men. Mr. Musk deployed hundreds of millions of dollars to support Mr. Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. After Mr. Trump won, he gave Mr. Musk free rein to slash the federal work force. And just last week, Mr. Trump gave Mr. Musk a personal send-off in the Oval Office. The president praised Mr. Musk as 'one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced' and gave him a golden key emblazoned with the White House insignia. Mr. Musk promised to remain a 'friend and adviser to the president.' But now Mr. Musk, who has left his temporary role, has turned into the most prominent critic of a top presidential priority. Mr. Musk has lashed out against the far-reaching policy bill in numerous posts on X. He has called it a 'disgusting abomination,' argued that the bill would undo all the work he did to cut government spending and hinted that he would target Republican members of Congress who backed the legislation in next year's midterm elections. Mr. Trump on Thursday said Mr. Musk's criticism of the bill was entirely self-interested, saying he only opposed the legislation after Republicans took out the electric vehicle mandate, which would benefit Tesla, Mr. Musk's electric vehicle company. (Mr. Musk has previously called for an end to those subsidies.) The president also downplayed Mr. Musk's financial support for him during the campaign, arguing he would have won Pennsylvania without Mr. Musk, who poured much of his money and time into the critical battleground state. Mr. Musk also on Thursday rebutted Mr. Trump's statement that Mr. Musk 'knew the inner workings of the bill better than anybody sitting here.' 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Mr. Musk wrote, sharing a video of Mr. Trump saying he was disappointed in Mr. Musk.


Vogue
29 minutes ago
- Vogue
Dance Aerobics is So Deeply Uncool…And That's Why I Love It
There are people out there who will tell you that you should never do any form of physical activity that you don't enjoy. While I respect and admire their commitment to approaching exercise with zeal, I have to ask: how? I genuinely love various forms of exercise (which, at the moment, include mat Pilates, swimming laps, going for long walks with my dog, and weeding crabgrass at the community garden), but I've come to think of them as a kind of deposit in my future-happiness account; I know movement will eventually make me feel great, especially now that I'm no longer working out in a constant quest to lose weight, but in the actual moment of moving—and, even more so, the moment before a workout class when I have to squeeze myself into a sports bra and actually get out the door—I'm often full of dread. This was true, at least, until I attended my first 'fiercely noncompetitive dance aerobics' class at Pony Sweat, a studio based in my hometown of L.A.'s Frogtown neighborhood that describes its practice as feeling like 'dancing in your bedroom to music from a favorite mixtape.' Terrible dancer that I am (unless I've had two to four martinis, in which case all bets are off), I felt nervous and typically dread-filled even stepping through the door of the Pony Sweat studio, but the moment the lights dimmed and the music started, something weird happened: I forgot to feel stupid. I don't know exactly what it was about Pony Sweat that got me out of my shell and happily dancing around to combinations I'd never seen or tried before, but I'm guessing it was a combination of the gloriously retro '80s soundtrack, the unbridled enthusiasm of the dancers around me (many of whom, like me, weren't perfectly on-beat and didn't seem to have any prior familiarity with the workout), and the instructor, Emilia, shouting what I'm now turning into a kind of exercise mantra: 'Fuck the moves.' I ended the hour-long class with sore calves and an exhausted glow, driving home as fast as I could to gush about Pony Sweat to my boyfriend and pre-book my best friend to attend the next week's class with me—and although I might have expected to feel good after the class, what really surprised me was how much fun I had during and how little clock-watching I did as I bopped around. There are definitely workouts I've enjoyed in which knowing exactly what you're doing matters—weight lifting, for instance, sort of depends on your ability to listen to instructions and not accidentally injure yourself with something heavy—but the loosey-goosey, 'do what feels fun' approach of Pony Sweat really speaks to me right now as a 31-year-old doing my best to get comfortable being bad at things. I've always resented the aspects of life that are hard for me (math, cleaning, driving, the list goes on), but exercise is a low-key, low-stakes way to lean into the question of what my time and my life would look like if I reframed my idea of perfection and focused instead on trying to have genuine fun while also meeting my bodily movement goals.