‘Bipartisan, common sense, science-based’: California leads the way in banning ultra-processed school meals | California

California has long opened the way to school meals. In 2022, it became the first state of the country to make school meals free for all students, whatever the income. Many districts have implemented farm programs at school to provide local food to the cafeteria. And last year, months before the movement “Make America Healthy Again” went to the White House, it became the first state of the nation to prohibit six synthetic food colors for school meals.

This week, she adopted legislation that will put him in mind on school meals in another way – prohibiting ultra -adjustment food. On Friday, California legislators adopted a bill that will define, and then prohibit ultra-transformed food for school meals. The legislation, which must now be signed by the Governor, Gavin Newsom, includes the first statutory definition of ultra-adjustment food in the world.

“So far we have found a formula which, in our view, works and can help guide the national conversation on these questions,” said Jesse Gabriel, member of the California State Assembly, who sponsored the bill. This formula, he said, is “bipartite, common sense, based on science”.

Ultra transformed, or UPFS foods, are industrial products that are often rich in fats, starchs, sugars and additives and now represents 73% of the American food supply. Think of fast food, microwave dinners, sodas, fries and even wrapped bread and sweet yogurts.

Although nutritionists have been talking about the UPFS for more than a decade, the Secretary in the United States of Health Robert F Kennedy Jr – a long -standing supporter of pseudoscience – has made it a household term thanks to its coalition “Make America Healthy Again”. Although the federal government has not yet taken significant measures to slow down the UPF – Kennedy’s rhetoric and growing concerns concerning food supply security have prompted more states to start assessing the means of limiting UPF.

But a large part of this work started in California. In 2023, the Legislative Assembly adopted a first -rate law, also sponsored by Gabriel, to prohibit four chemicals already prohibited in the European Union and other nations.

“It really fled to what extent the United States is out of measure that the United States is with the rest of the world in food security,” said Gabriel. “We do not like our children here in the United States less than they like their children in Sweden or Saudi Arabia or South Korea. So why do they take stronger measures to protect their children than us? “

More than 20 other states have copied California’s ban on these four chemicals, or its similar ban on six synthetic food dyes in school meals.

Although this is the first state to define UPFS, California is far from being the only one to consider the means to remove them from school meals and the wider food supply. According to researchers from the Gillings School of Global School of Global School of Global, the legislators of the University of North Carolina, in at least 18 states, have introduced more than 40 laws that would limit the sale of food with certain additives. This year, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Utah and Virginia-Western have all adopted laws that prohibit food containing certain coloring and additives from school meals.

“There is something so interesting about California and Virginia-Western to read the country both physically, but also with this issue around food security,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, main vice-president for California to the environmental working group, a research and advocacy group focused on environmental and agricultural policy, which supported California law.

Although Kennedy spoke against the UPFS of his post in the Republican Administration of Donald Trump, democratic states and legislators have also raised concerns about food security. But red and blue states have adopted different approaches to define the UPFs they seek to ban.

“It is really difficult to define an ultra -processed food,” said Del Chiaro. “We all know what junk food when we see it, but put this definition in writing which has the right of law behind it” is more difficult.

Food policy experts have generally followed a system called the NOVA classification to define UPF, but even nutritionists sometimes do not agree on what matters as an UPF. The Nova classification classifies a product as “ultra-attitty” if it is formulated industrially to be “edible, pleasant to taste and form habits”. But because this definition is based on transformation, not specific ingredients, it may be difficult to agree exactly foods in the category.

Lindsey Smith Taillie, nutrition professor and co -director of the World Food Research Program at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said that she and her colleagues noted that three different approaches that the projected states come to define the UPFs they were looking to prohibit.

The most common definition of the UPFS is foods that include a dozen additives, “mainly artificial dietary colors, then some emulsifiers or paste conditioners,” said Smith Taillie. A handful of other states, such as Texas and Louisiana, used a definition that includes around 40 additives, she said, although there is no line through Claire to explain why these additives were chosen, because they include some who have already been prohibited in the United States by Food and Drug Administration. California, she said, is distinguished by “the most rigorous approach to assess science”.

“California is the state that has so far been closer to trying to take measures on this concept of upfs as it has been defined in literature, which, I think, is important because this is where the proofs of health damage,” said Smith Taillie. “When we look at what many of these states do with a super radial definition of the additive, there is really no evidence that suggests that it will have an impact on health.”

The text of the new California law defines an UPF as any food or drink which contains stabilizers, thickness, propellants, colors, emulsifiers, flavored agents, flavors of flavors, non -nutritious sweeteners or surface agents – and has high quantities of saturated fat, sodium sugar or sugar Added, or non -nutritious praise.

Del Chiaro, of the environmental working group, hopes that the definition of California could open the way to other academic states and districts.

“The displacement of the purchasing decisions of the fourth economy in the world and the most populous state in the country, I think I will have an absolute and positive effect on the purchase options of other school districts,” she said. “I think there will be a snowball effect here that will help children across America.”

Dating from the 1970s, researchers described a “Californian effect” in which other jurisdictions or industries adopt the regulatory standards established by a region – often California – because it is more effective to apply the same standards everywhere. The first of these regulations forced car manufacturers to respect state -owned air policies, and the most recent have aimed to eliminate single -use plastics.

But the implementation of a ban on the UPFS in California school meals will take more work than the simple definition of the UPF, according to experts in food policy.

The alternatives to upfs “would, by definition, require more cooking,” said Smith Taillie. “The only way to do it would be, you should increase labor costs.”

Marion Nestlé, professor of nutrition and food policy at New York University, agrees.

“Getting out of dishes at university means providing children with whole food, not food. These must be prepared or cooked on the spot, “she said in an email. “USDA reimbursements must cover not only food; They must also cover the wages, equipment and supplies of the staff. ”

“Schools are turning to upfs because they are cheaper and save staff time,” she added. “The release of school UPFS must be coupled at higher reimbursement rates or this will not work.”

In the process of adopting this bill, Gabriel said that many legislators had the same concern about the cost. But what they have found is that it is often cheaper to eliminate UPF. “What was very useful to us, there are a number of districts in California who have already evolved in this direction. And therefore we have made directors of food services and testify,” he said. “Not only did it cost them more, but in many districts, they had really saved money by moving to healthier alternatives.”

He shares an example of the service of a syrup with pancakes which contains corn syrup with strong fructose, cellulose gum, the color of caramel and other hard ingredients to pronounce to that which contains only maple syrup. In many cases, it is not a change that “will necessarily cost more,” he said.

Del Chiaro of the environmental working group should that the omission of UPFS does not have to be expensive and “cannot have a massive impact of any kind whatsoever on school budgets”.

“This bill does not impose that everyone buys biological blueberries of $ 6 in cardboard,” she said. “All we do is get rid of particularly harmful ultra-transformed foods on the lunch set.”