California’s introduction of a certification program for non-ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) is prompting discussions among food scientists, regulators, and manufacturers regarding the implications of varied state certification protocols. With a focus on creating transparent labeling for consumers, the law raises questions about the role of states in establishing standards while a federal definition remains pending.
The California Certification Initiative
The state has already laid out criteria concerning ultraprocessed foods through legislation enacted in 2025, and the new Assembly Bill 2244 aims to provide a consumer-facing certification based on this framework. Concurrently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are in the process of formulating a cohesive federal definition for ultraprocessed foods, a priority noted for completion by 2026.
The establishment of California’s certification program underscores the need for a consistent, scientifically-driven regulatory framework as policies on ultraprocessed foods evolve. The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) has actively advocated for this science-based approach, expressing concerns over focusing solely on processing levels without considering nutritional quality. In feedback provided in response to a recent federal request for information on ultraprocessed foods, IFT cautioned against adopting existing classification systems for public policy decisions.
Many existing classification frameworks tend to prioritize processing intensity rather than the nutritional benefits of certain foods. For example, items like whole-grain bread and yogurt can be categorized as ultraprocessed despite their valuable contributions to nutrition. This distinction is significant, as a policy reliant primarily on processing criteria may inadvertently discourage foods that assist consumers in meeting their dietary needs and supporting public health goals.
Additionally, food processing has essential roles in enhancing safety, preservation, and nutrient delivery. Techniques such as fermentation and fortification have historically improved food safety and nutritional quality. Simplifying the relationship between food production and health based merely on processing raises concerns over overlooking important aspects of food’s nutritional value.
The evolution of certification and definitions surrounding ultraprocessed foods poses broader implications beyond labeling. As various states may adopt similar programs or definitions concurrently with the federal government’s efforts, a patchwork of standards could emerge. This development may create inconsistencies for manufacturers, retailers, and educators, highlighting the need for a well-grounded, cohesive definition that aligns with science and public health objectives.
As the regulatory landscape for ultraprocessed foods transitions from discussion to actionable regulation, critical considerations include the basis for classifications, scientific validation, consumer communication, and the depth of insights that processing levels provide regarding food healthfulness.
Why It Matters
The implications of California’s labeling initiative and the ongoing discussions surrounding ultraprocessed foods are significant for public health, nutrition assistance programs, and the future of dietary guidelines. Establishing a robust, science-based framework for UPF definitions will be crucial as the conversation escalates and various stakeholders navigate the evolving food landscape.
