California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed off on a bill establishing a voluntary label certification for qualifying non-ultra-processed foods.<\/p>\n
The legislation mandates the state’s public health department to appoint accredited agents to certify food items eligible to carry the “non-ultra-processed certified” seal on front of packs.<\/p>\n
The state has set an implementation deadline of 1 June 2029.<\/p>\n
Eligibility relies on California’s 2025 standard, which flags products containing additives or elevated thresholds of sodium, saturated fat, and added sugars.<\/p>\n
The certification will be reviewed and renewed every three years.<\/p>\n
Signed into law on 28 September, Assembly Bill 2244 was passed by<\/a> California legislators earlier this month and builds on the state’s move last year to phase out<\/a> UPFs from school meals.<\/p>\n The legislation creates the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund to support the application of the non-UPF certified labels.<\/p>\n Californian grocers with annual gross revenues of above $10m are required to showcase at least three qualifying products if they stock more than 25 certified non-UPF offerings.<\/p>\n Additionally, the law introduces a public database of certified products and establishes penalties for fraudulent use of the seal.<\/p>\n Describing the law as a “first-in-the-nation”, Newsom said it is “focused on making whole, healthy foods as accessible as possible’.<\/p>\n However, the move has drawn scrutiny from the food science community.<\/p>\n The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) has cautioned that individual state policies could generate fragmented standards before federal regulators establish a unified definition for ultra-processed foods.<\/p>\n In a blog post, Anna Rosales, the vice president of science and policy at IFT, advocated for a “consistent, science-based framework”.<\/p>\n Rosales also called for prioritising the nutritional quality of foods instead of only focusing on the processing element as existing systems often classify staples like whole-grain bread and yogurt as UPFs.<\/p>\n She urged regulators to ensure guidelines remain “rooted in sound science” and “flexible enough to evolve as evidence emerges”.<\/p>\n She added in a reactionary statement: “If other states adopt similar certification programmes or develop their own definitions of ultra-processed foods while a uniform federal definition is still taking shape, manufacturers, retailers, schools, and consumers could eventually face different interpretations of what qualifies as an ultra-processed food.<\/p>\n “We do not yet know whether that will happen. But the possibility of multiple state-level approaches highlights the importance of developing a consistent, science-based framework as UPF policies become more widespread.”<\/p>\n