Existing law defines, for certain school-related purposes, ultraprocessed food as any food or beverage that contains a specified substance and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance, as specified. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations, on or before June 1, 2028, to define ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, as specified, and requires the department, when defining ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, to consider specified factors, including, among others, whether the substance or group of substances are banned or restricted in other state, federal, or international jurisdictions due to concerns about adverse health consequences.

This bill would require the department, no later than June 1, 2029, to accredit certification agents that can certify food products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified. The bill would prohibit an accredited certification agent from certifying a food product as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified if it is an ultraprocessed food, ultraprocessed food of concern, or a restricted school food, as defined. The bill would require the department to create a specified standardized Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would authorize a food product to bear the seal only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. The bill would require an accredited certification agent to, among other things, register with the department and provide specified information to the department for each food product certified by the accredited certification agent. The bill would require any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to the department to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.

This bill would require an accredited certification agent to immediately make specified records available to the department for inspection, as specified, and would authorize the department to audit the accredited certification agents certification procedures and records at any time. The bill would require any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by the department. The bill would require the department to maintain a public internet webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.

This bill would make it unlawful for a person to certify products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed in registration as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed to an accredited certification agent, and for a person to use the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal on a product that does not meet the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize the department, among others, to enjoin a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal.

This bill would create the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund for the purposes of supporting the implementation of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified label requirements and educating the public and stakeholders about the label requirements, food products, and nutrition. The bill would authorize the department to establish fees for the registration and renewal of accredited certification agents and certification of food at levels not exceeding the reasonable costs of administering and enforcing these provisions. The bill would require the fees to be deposited in the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, the bill would make moneys in the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund available to the department for expenditure.

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code (Code), establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities, as defined, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce these provisions. Existing law provides that a violation of the code is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine. Existing law defines a grocery store as a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food, dry goods, fresh fruits and vegetables, and fresh meats, fish, and poultry and any area that is not separately owned within the store where food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and meat and seafood counter.

This bill, upon the creation of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal described above, would require a grocery store with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to make clearly identifiable, as defined, at least 3 or more Non-Ultraprocessed Certified items if the grocery store offers for sale more than 25 certified items. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor, as specified, to enjoin a grocery store that fails to meet these requirements. The bill would exempt a violation of these provisions from criminal liability under the California Retail Food Code. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2040. By imposing a higher level of service on local enforcement agencies required to enforce these provisions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law defines, for certain school-related purposes, ultraprocessed food as any food or beverage that contains a specified substance and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance, as specified. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations, on or before June 1, 2028, to define ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, as specified, and requires the department, when defining ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, to consider specified factors, including, among others, whether the substance or group of substances are banned or restricted in other state, federal, or international jurisdictions due to concerns about adverse health consequences.

This bill would require the department, no later than June 1, 2029, to accredit certification agents that can certify food products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified. The bill would prohibit an accredited certification agent from certifying a food product as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified if it is an ultraprocessed food, ultraprocessed food of concern, or a restricted school food, as defined. The bill would require the department to create a specified standardized Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would authorize a food product to bear the seal only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. The bill would require an accredited certification agent to, among other things, register with the department and provide specified information to the department for each food product certified by the accredited certification agent. The bill would require any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to the department to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.

This bill would require an accredited certification agent to immediately make specified records available to the department for inspection, as specified, and would authorize the department to audit the accredited certification agents certification procedures and records at any time. The bill would require any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by the department. The bill would require the department to maintain a public internet webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.

This bill would make it unlawful for a person to certify products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed in registration as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed to an accredited certification agent, and for a person to use the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal on a product that does not meet the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize the department, among others, to enjoin a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal.

This bill would create the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund for the purposes of supporting the implementation of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified label requirements and educating the public and stakeholders about the label requirements, food products, and nutrition. The bill would authorize the department to establish fees for the registration and renewal of accredited certification agents and certification of food at levels not exceeding the reasonable costs of administering and enforcing these provisions. The bill would require the fees to be deposited in the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, the bill would make moneys in the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund available to the department for expenditure.

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code (Code), establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities, as defined, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce these provisions. Existing law provides that a violation of the code is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine. Existing law defines a grocery store as a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food, dry goods, fresh fruits and vegetables, and fresh meats, fish, and poultry and any area that is not separately owned within the store where food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and meat and seafood counter.

This bill, upon the creation of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal described above, would require a grocery store with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to make clearly identifiable, as defined, at least 3 or more Non-Ultraprocessed Certified items if the grocery store offers for sale more than 25 certified items. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor, as specified, to enjoin a grocery store that fails to meet these requirements. The bill would exempt a violation of these provisions from criminal liability under the California Retail Food Code. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2040. By imposing a higher level of service on local enforcement agencies required to enforce these provisions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law defines, for certain school-related purposes, ultraprocessed food as any food or beverage that contains a specified substance and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance, as specified. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations, on or before June 1, 2028, to define ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, as specified, and requires the department, when defining ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, to consider specified factors, including, among others, whether the substance or group of substances are banned or restricted in other state, federal, or international jurisdictions due to concerns about adverse health consequences.

This bill would require the department, no later than June 1, 2028, 2029, to accredit certification agents that can certify food products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified. The bill would prohibit an accredited certification agent from certifying a food product as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified if it is classified as an ultraprocessed food, ultraprocessed food of concern, or a restricted school food, as defined. The bill would require the department to create a specified standardized Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would authorize a person to use the seal on a product food product to bear the seal only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. The bill would require an accredited certification agent to, among other things, register with the department and provide a list to the department of all the products specified information to the department for each food product certified by the accredited certification agent. The bill would require any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to the department to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.

This bill would require an accredited certification agent to immediately make specified records available to the department for inspection, as specified, and would authorize the department to audit the accredited certification agents certification procedures and records at any time. The bill would require any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by the department. The bill would require the department to maintain a public internet webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.

This bill would make it unlawful for a person to certify products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed in registration as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed to an accredited certification agent, and for a person to use the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal on a product that does not meet the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize the department, among others, to enjoin a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is not subject to the enforcement provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal.

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code (Code), establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities, as defined, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce these provisions. Existing law provides that a violation of the code is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine. Existing law defines a grocery store as a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food, dry goods, fresh fruits and vegetables, and fresh meats, fish, and poultry and any area that is not separately owned within the store where food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and meat and seafood counter.

This bill, upon the creation of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal described above, would require a grocery store with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to make clearly identifiable, as defined, at least 3 or more Non-Ultraprocessed Certified items if the grocery store offers for sale more than 25 certified items. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor, as specified, to enjoin a grocery store that fails to meet these requirements. The bill would exempt a violation of these provisions from criminal liability under the California Retail Food Code. The bill would make these provisions inoperative upon the exhaustion of funds appropriated for these provisions or on January 1, 2040, whichever is sooner, and would repeal them thereafter, as specified. repeal these provisions on January 1, 2040. By imposing a higher level of service on local enforcement agencies required to enforce these provisions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (law), under the administration and enforcement of the State Department of Public Health, provides for the regulation of various subjects relating to the manufacturing, processing, labeling, advertising, and sale of food, drugs, and cosmetics. Existing law provides that a violation of the law is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine, and authorizes the department to assess a civil penalty against a person who violates any provision of the law.

Existing law defines, for certain school-related purposes, ultraprocessed food as any food or beverage that contains a specified substance and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance, as specified. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations, on or before June 1, 2028, to define ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, as specified, and requires the department, when defining ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, to consider specified factors, including, among others, whether the substance or group of substances are banned or restricted in other state, federal, or international jurisdictions due to concerns about adverse health consequences.

This bill would require the department, no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified. The bill would prohibit an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified if it is classified as an ultraprocessed food, ultraprocessed food of concern, or a restricted school food, as defined. The bill would require the department to create a specified standardized Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would authorize a person to use the seal on a product only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. The bill would require an accredited certification agent to, among other things, register with the department and provide a list to the department of all the products certified by the accredited certification agent. The bill would require any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to the department to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.

This bill would require an accredited certification agent to immediately make specified records available to the department for inspection, as specified, and would authorize the department to audit the accredited certification agents certification procedures and records at any time. The bill would require any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by the department. The bill would require the department to maintain a public internet webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.

This bill would make it unlawful for a person to certify products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed in registration as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed to an accredited certification agent, and for a person to use the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal on a product that does not meet the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize the department, among others, to enjoin a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is not subject to the enforcement provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law.

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code (Code), establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities, as defined, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce these provisions. Existing law provides that a violation of the code is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine. Existing law defines a grocery store as a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food, dry goods, fresh fruits and vegetables, and fresh meats, fish, and poultry and any area that is not separately owned within the store where food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and meat and seafood counter.

This bill, upon the creation of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal described above, would require a grocery store with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to make clearly identifiable, as defined, at least 3 or more Non-Ultraprocessed Certified items if the grocery store offers for sale more than 25 certified items. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor, as specified, to enjoin a grocery store that fails to meet these requirements. The bill would exempt a violation of these provisions from criminal liability under the California Retail Food Code. The bill would repeal make these provisions inoperative upon the exhaustion of funds appropriated for these provisions or on January 1, 2040. 2040, whichever is sooner, and would repeal them thereafter, as specified. By imposing a higher level of service on local enforcement agencies required to enforce these provisions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (law), under the administration and enforcement of the State Department of Public Health, provides for the regulation of various subjects relating to the manufacturing, processing, labeling, advertising, and sale of food, drugs, and cosmetics. Existing law provides that a violation of the law is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine, and authorizes the department to assess a civil penalty against a person who violates any provision of the law.

Existing law defines, for certain school-related purposes, ultraprocessed food as any food or beverage that contains a specified substance and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance, as specified. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations, on or before June 1, 2028, to define ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, as specified, and requires the department, when defining ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, to consider specified factors, including, among others, whether the substance or group of substances are banned or restricted in other state, federal, or international jurisdictions due to concerns about adverse health consequences.

This bill would require the department, no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified. The bill would prohibit an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified if it is classified as an ultraprocessed food, ultraprocessed food of concern, or a restricted school food, as defined. The bill would require the department to create a specified standardized Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would authorize a person to use the seal on a product only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. The bill would require an accredited certification agent to, among other things, register with the department and provide a list to the department of all the products certified by the accredited certification agent. The bill would require any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to the department to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.

This bill would require an accredited certification agent to immediately make specified records available to the department for inspection, as specified, and would authorize the department to audit the accredited certification agents certification procedures and records at any time. The bill would require any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by the department. The bill would require the department to maintain a public internet webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.

This bill would make it unlawful for a person to certify products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed in registration as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed to an accredited certification agent, and for a person to use the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal on a product that does not meet the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize the department, among others, to enjoin a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is not subject to the enforcement provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law.

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code (Code), establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities, as defined, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce these provisions. Existing law provides that a violation of the code is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine. Existing law defines a food facility as an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption at the retail level, including, but not limited to, an operation where food is consumed on or off the premises, regardless of whether there is a charge for the food. grocery store as a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food, dry goods, fresh fruits and vegetables, and fresh meats, fish, and poultry and any area that is not separately owned within the store where food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and meat and seafood counter.

This bill, upon the creation of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal described above, would require a food facility, except as specified, grocery store with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to make clearly identifiable, as defined, at least 3 or more Non-Ultraprocessed Certified items if the food facility grocery store offers for sale more than 25 certified items. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor, as specified, to enjoin a food facility grocery store that fails to meet these requirements. The bill would exempt a violation of these provisions from criminal liability under the California Retail Food Code. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2040. By imposing a higher level of service on local enforcement agencies required to enforce these provisions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (law), under the administration and enforcement of the State Department of Public Health, provides for the regulation of various subjects relating to the manufacturing, processing, labeling, advertising, and sale of food, drugs, and cosmetics. Existing law provides that a violation of the law is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine, and authorizes the department to assess a civil penalty against a person who violates any provision of the law.

Existing law defines, for certain school-related purposes, ultraprocessed food as any food or beverage that contains a specified substance and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance, as specified. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations, on or before June 1, 2028, to define ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, as specified, and requires the department, when defining ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, to consider specified factors, including, among others, whether the substance or group of substances are banned or restricted in other state, federal, or international jurisdictions due to concerns about adverse health consequences.

This bill would require the department, no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified. The bill would prohibit an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified if it is classified as an ultraprocessed food, ultraprocessed food of concern, or a restricted school food, as defined. The bill would require the department to create a specified standardized Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would authorize a person to use the seal on a product only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. The bill would require an accredited certification agent to, among other things, register with the department and provide a list to the department of all the products certified by the accredited certification agent. The bill would require any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to the department to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.

This bill would require an accredited certification agent to immediately make specified records available to the department for inspection, as specified, and would authorize the department to audit the accredited certification agents certification procedures and records at any time. The bill would require any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by the department. The bill would require the department to maintain a public internet webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.

This bill would make it unlawful for a person to certify products as Non-Ultraprocessed Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed in registration as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed to an accredited certification agent, and for a person to use the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal on a product that does not meet the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize the department, among others, to enjoin a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is not subject to the enforcement provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law.

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code (Code), establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities, as defined, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce these provisions. Existing law provides that a violation of the code is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine. Existing law defines a food facility as an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption at the retail level, including, but not limited to, an operation where food is consumed on or off the premises, regardless of whether there is a charge for the food.

This bill bill, upon the creation of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal described above, would require a food facility, except as specified, with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to prominently display, make clearly identifiable, as defined, at least 3 or more Non-Ultraprocessed Certified items if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 certified items. The bill would authorize the department, among others, Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor, as specified, to enjoin a food facility that fails to meet these requirements. The bill would exempt a violation of these provisions from criminal liability under the California Retail Food Code. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2040. By imposing a higher level of service on local enforcement agencies required to enforce these provisions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (law), under the administration and enforcement of the State Department of Public Health, provides for the regulation of various subjects relating to the manufacturing, processing, labeling, advertising, and sale of food, drugs, and cosmetics. Existing law provides that a violation of the law is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine, and authorizes the department to assess a civil penalty against a person who violates any provision of the law.

Existing law defines, for certain school-related purposes, ultraprocessed food as any food or beverage that contains a specified substance and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance, as specified. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations, on or before June 1, 2028, to define ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, as specified, and requires the department, when defining ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, to consider specified factors, including, among others, whether the substance or group of substances are banned or restricted in other state, federal, or international jurisdictions due to concerns about adverse health consequences.

This bill would require the department, no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as California Non-Ultraprocessed Certified. The bill would prohibit an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as California Non-Ultraprocessed Certified if it is classified as an ultraprocessed food, ultraprocessed food of concern, or a restricted school food, as defined. The bill would require the department to create a specified standardized California Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would authorize a person to use the seal on a product only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. The bill would require an accredited certification agent to, among other things, register with the department and provide a list to the department of all the products certified by the accredited certification agent. The bill would require any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to the department to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.

This bill would require an accredited certification agent to immediately make specified records available to the department for inspection, as specified, and would authorize the department to audit the accredited certification agents certification procedures and records at any time. The bill would require any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by the department. The bill would require the department to maintain a public internet webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as California Non-Ultraprocessed Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.

This bill would make it unlawful for a person to certify products as California Non-Ultraprocessed Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed in registration as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed to an accredited certification agent, and for a person to use the California Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal on a product that does not meet the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize the department, among others, to enjoin a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the California Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is not subject to the enforcement provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law.

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code (Code), establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities, as defined, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce these provisions. Existing law provides that a violation of the code is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine. Existing law defines a food facility as an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption at the retail level, including, but not limited to, an operation where food is consumed on or off the premises, regardless of whether there is a charge for the food.

This bill would require a food facility food facility, except as specified, with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to prominently display, as defined, at least 3 or more California Non-Ultraprocessed Certified items if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 certified items. The bill would authorize the department, among others, to enjoin a food facility that fails to meet these requirements. The bill would exempt a violation of these provisions from criminal liability under the California Retail Food Code. By imposing a higher level of service on local enforcement agencies required to enforce these provisions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (law), under the administration and enforcement of the State Department of Public Health, provides for the regulation of various subjects relating to the manufacturing, processing, labeling, advertising, and sale of food, drugs, and cosmetics. Existing law provides that a violation of the law is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine, and authorizes the department to assess a civil penalty against a person who violates any provision of the law.

Existing law defines, for certain school-related purposes, ultraprocessed food as any food or beverage that contains a specified substance and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar or a nonnutritive sweetener or other substance, as specified. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations, on or before June 1, 2028, to define ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, as specified, and requires the department, when defining ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, to consider specified factors, including, among others, whether the substance or group of substances are banned or restricted in other state, federal, or international jurisdictions due to concerns about adverse health consequences.

This bill would require the department, no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as California Certified. The bill would prohibit an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as California Certified if it is classified as an ultraprocessed food, ultraprocessed food of concern, or a restricted school food, as defined. The bill would require the department to create a specified standardized California Certified seal. The bill would authorize a person to use the seal on a product only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. The bill would require an accredited certification agent to, among other things, register with the department and provide a list to the department of all the products certified by the accredited certification agent. The bill would require any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to the department to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.

This bill would require an accredited certification agent to immediately make specified records available to the department for inspection, as specified, and would authorize the department to audit the accredited certification agents certification procedures and records at any time. The bill would require any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by the department. The bill would require the department to maintain a public internet webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as California Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.

This bill would make it unlawful for a person to certify products as California Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed in registration as an accredited certification agent, for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed to an accredited certification agent, and for a person to use the California Certified seal on a product that does not meet the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize the department, among others, to enjoin a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the California Certified seal. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is not subject to the enforcement provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law.

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code (Code), establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities, as defined, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce these provisions. Existing law provides that a violation of the code is punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine. Existing law defines a food facility as an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption at the retail level, including, but not limited to, an operation where food is consumed on or off the premises, regardless of whether there is a charge for the food.

This bill would require a food facility with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to prominently display, as defined, at least 3 or more California Certified items if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 certified items. The bill would authorize the department, among others, to enjoin a food facility that fails to meet these requirements. The bill would provide that exempt a violation of these provisions are not subject to the enforcement provisions of from criminal liability under the California Retail Food Code. By imposing a higher level of service on local enforcement agencies required to enforce these provisions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law, the California Food Sanitation Act, requires a food processing establishment, as defined, to satisfy prescribed sanitation requirements for the purpose of food safety. Existing law, the Frozen Food Locker Plant Act of 1951, requires a person to obtain a license from the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to operate a frozen food locker plant. Existing law prohibits low acid foods that are frozen and packaged in hermetically sealed metal containers from being cooked in the containers before freezing.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that prohibition.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2244

Author:(Gabriel)

As Amended Ver:August 24, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the State Department of Public Health (DPH), no later than June 1, 2029, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.″ Prohibits an accredited certification agent from certifying a food product as ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified″ if it is classified as an ultraprocessed food (UPF), ultraprocessed food of concern (UPF of concern), or a restricted school food. Requires DPH to create a specified standardized ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified″ seal. Authorizes a food product to bear the seal only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. Authorizes DPH, among other parties, including public attorneys and private entities, as specified, to enjoin a person who engages, has engages, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the seal. Requires a grocery store with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to make clearly identifiable, as defined, at least three or more ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified″ items if the grocery store offers for sale more than 25 certified items. Requires a grocery store to be deemed in compliance with this bill if it demonstrates that it has made a good faith effort to comply, as specified. Repeals the provisions of this bill on January 1, 2040.

Senate Amendments

1. Replace the reference to "food facility" with "grocery store", defined in existing law as a store (excluding gas stations and convenience stores) primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food, dry goods, fresh fruits and vegetables, and fresh meats, fish, and poultry and any area that is not separately owned within the store where food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and meat and seafood counter.
2. Establish the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund for the purposes of supporting the implementation of the "Non-Ultraprocessed Certified" label requirements and educating the public and stakeholders about the label requirements, food products, and nutrition. Authorize DPH to establish fees for the registration and renewal of accredited certification agents and certification of food at levels not exceeding the reasonable costs of administering and enforcing these provisions.
3. Repeal the provisions of this bill on January 1, 2040.

COMMENTS

Ultra Processed Foods (UPF). A 2024 article published in the scientific journal Foods titled ″UPF Intake and Increased Risk of Obesity: A Narrative Review″ notes that UPF consumption correlates with adverse health outcomes, including but not limited to overweight, obesity, and hypertension and insulin resistance. The article further states that UPFs, prevalent in modern diets, contribute to nutritional deficiencies and excessive caloric intake, exacerbating obesity rates. Lifestyle factors such as busy schedules and quick meal management further drive UPF consumption, disrupting hunger regulation and promoting overeating.

AB 1264 (Gabriel), Chapter 467, Statutes of 2025 defined UPFs, UPFs of concern, and restricted school foods as specified in existing law and further required DPH to promulgate regulations to define these terms considering specified factors by June 1, 2028.

Consumers and UPFs. The Environmental Working Group, the sponsors of this bill cite a 2025 report from the Food Integrity Collective and Linkage Research titled, ″Disconnected: Understanding the Gaps Between Consumer Intentions and Actions on Ultra-Processed Foods (2025),″ which found that 72% of Americans are trying to reduce their UPF intake, yet fewer than half could correctly identify common ultra-processed products.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic Label. According to the author, this bill is modeled after the USDA Organic Label. The USDA Organic label indicates that a product meets federal standards for organic farming and processing, including agricultural production practices that foster resource cycling, promote ecological balance, maintain and improve soil and water quality, minimize the use of synthetic materials, and conserve biodiversity. Organic product labels are required to be reviewed and approved by a USDA-accredited certifying agent before being used in the marketplace.

Impact of Nutrition Labels on Retail Costs. An article published on the University of Georgia′s website titled ″Impact of food nutrition labels on retail pricing and consumer purchasing,″ highlighted research on sales of yogurt sold by stores who had adopted NuVal labels (which assigned scores describing the healthfulness of a product) and found that retailers increased prices for healthier products (products with higher NuVal scores).

What does this bill do? This bill does two key things. First, this bill establishes a process overseen by DPH where food manufacturers could apply to accredited certification agents to use a not ultra-processed label on their packaging, thereby indicating that a product is not a UPF as defined in state law. Second, this bill requires grocery stores in California to make products with the non-ultraprocessed seal clearly identifiable, allowing a reasonable consumer to readily distinguish the products from other products including through physical separation, signage, or other physical cues. The enforcement mechanism for both of these provisions is to allow specified entities to pursue injunctive relief through the courts. Entities who can enjoin those who misuse the seal include DPH, the Attorney General (AG), county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California; and, a consumer, business entity, or non-profit organization. Entities who can enjoin grocery stores who fail to comply with this bill's requirements to make products clearly identifiable, as specified, include the AG, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California.

Please see the Assembly Committee on Health analysis for additional background.

According to the Author

This bill would establish a ″Not Ultraprocessed″ seal that food manufacturers could place on products that meet clear standards for not being ultra-processed. Modeled after the ″USDA Organic″ label, the seal would provide consumers with a simple, trustworthy way to identify healthier options with a quick glance. The author further notes that this bill would require grocery stores in California to feature products bearing the seal in a prominent, high-traffic area of the store, thereby making it easier for busy families to locate healthier foods quickly and conveniently. The author concludes that ultimately, parents shouldn′t need a Ph.D. to understand what they′re feeding their kids, and this bill will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to find foods that are free from harmful additives.

Arguments in Support

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is the sponsor of this bill and states in support that right now, consumers in California have no practical way to identify UPFs at the grocery store, even when they are actively trying to avoid them. EWG argues that consumers want to make better choices, but the information they need is not available to them at the point of purchase. EWG continues that this bill builds on AB 1264′s first-in-the-nation UPF definition and creates a voluntary seal administered through DPH-accredited third-party agents, backed by a public product registry, and enforceable by the Attorney General. EWG highlights that under this bill, no manufacturer is required to participate, and the preferred placement requirement applies only to large retailers already carrying more than 25 certified items. EWG asserts that unlike existing private certification programs, which operate without government oversight, this seal carries the force of state law and the accountability of a government-backed standard. EWG concludes that the seal is the trusted, reliable signal that consumers need.

Arguments in Opposition

The Consumer Brands Association (CBA) opposes this bill and argues that this bill is premature, would create consumer confusion, and would distort the marketplace. CBA asserts that two programs already certify non-ultraprocessed foods nationwide without a state or geographic designation and offer additional consumer-facing tools such as product scanning and education for consumers and health care providers. CBA states that consumers also already encounter a wide range of certifications and claims in the marketplace, including California Grown, organic, non-GMO, Fair Trade, and regenerative agriculture standards, many of them administered by nonprofit or independent third parties. CBA maintains that this bill is premature by stating that certification turns in part on whether a product is classified as an "UPF of concern" or a "restricted school food," which DPH is not required to define by regulation until June 1, 2028, the same date by which this bill directs the DPH to accredit certification agents. Finally, CBA notes that the Food and Drug Administration and USDA are actively developing a federal definition of "ultraprocessed," and no single, universally accepted definition exists today and that anchoring a California seal to a state-specific definition would require legislative action to realign — a slow, cumbersome process that risks a regulatory patchwork and repeated reformulation and recertification burdens on manufacturers.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Unknown ongoing General Fund costs, potentially hundreds of thousands, for DPH for state administration.
2. The California Department of Justice anticipates a minor fiscal impact. Unknown potential costs to local enforcement agencies related to requirements on grocery stores. Costs could be potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.
3. Unknown, potential workload costs to the courts to adjudicate cases seeking injunctive relief (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to increase the amount appropriated for trial court operations.

VOTES:

ASM HEALTH: 16-0-0

YES: Bonta, Chen, Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Caloza, Carrillo, Mark González, Johnson, Patel, Patterson, Rogers, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Stefani

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-2-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta

NO: Dixon, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0-6

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Castillo, Hadwick, Lackey, Macedo, Celeste Rodriguez, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: August 24, 2026

CONSULTANT: Lara Flynn / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0004141

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2244

Author: Gabriel (D), et al.

Amended: 8/24/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/24/26

AYES: Weber Pierson, Valladares, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grove, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 12-1, 6/30/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Caballero

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/27/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Non-Ultraprocessed Certified food standard

SOURCE: Environmental Working Group

DIGEST:

This bill establishes a process for the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to accredit certification agents that can certify food products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” (Non-UPF Certified), and requires CDPH to create a standardized seal for these certified food products. Requires grocery stores with more than $10 million in gross annual sales to make at least three or more items that are Non-UPF Certified clearly identifiable, with regard to their display in the grocery store, if the grocery store sells more than 25 Non-UPF Certified items.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/24/26 incorporate technical assistance from the CDPH to address implementation concerns and to permit CDPH to establish fees for accreditation agents and certification of food products, clarify what is eligible for the Non-UPF label, and clarify that minimarts, including gas station food marts, are not considered grocery stores for purposes of this bill.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines “ultraprocessed food (UPF),” for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as any food or beverage that contains a substance that has one of eight FDA-defined technical effects, as specified, and that has either higher amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or contains a nonnutritive sweetener or other sugar substitute, as specified. Excludes certain food products from this definition, including Class 1 milk, alcoholic beverages, medical foods, and infant formula. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) §104661]
2. Defines “UPFs of concern,” for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as a food product that is a UPF, and that is determined by regulations adopted by CDPH to be of concern, based on specified factors, including whether it contains a substance linked to health harms or adverse health consequences. Requires these regulations to be adopted by June 1, 2028. [HSC §104662(a)(2)]
3. Defines “restricted school foods,” for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as a food or beverage that contains a substance that has one of the eight United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-defined technical effects but does not meet the definition of a UPF because it is not high in fat, sodium, or added sugar, but is restricted from being sold in schools because the it has been determined by regulations adopted by CDPH to be of concern. Requires these regulations to be adopted by June 1, 2028. [HSC §104662(a)(1)]
4. Requires, no later than July 1, 2029, schools to begin to phase out UPFs of concern and restricted school foods, and by July 1, 2032, prohibits a vendor from offering UPFs of concern or restricted school foods to a school. [HSC §104664]

This bill:

1. Requires CDPH, no later than June 1, 2029, to accredit certification agents that can certify food products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” (Non-UPF Certified) pursuant to this bill.
2. Prohibits an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as Non-UPF Certified if the food product is any of the following:
   1. Meets the additive criteria for UPF, as defined in existing law;
   2. Classified as a UPF of concern, as defined in existing law; or,
   3. Classified as a restricted school food, as defined in existing law.
3. Requires a product to be recertified as Non-UPF Certified at least every three years.
4. Requires a manufacturer, if a product using the Non-UPF Certified seal is reformulated, to seek recertification prior to using the seal on the reformulated product.
5. Requires CDPH to maintain a data system for Non-UPF food products.
6. Requires CDPH to create a standardized seal that is permitted to incorporate both of the following:
   1. The phrase “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified Food Standard” or Non-UPF Certified” and,
   2. Images and themes association with California and health, nutritious whole foods.
7. Restricts the use of the Non-UPF Certified seal on a product to only those products that have been certified by an accredited certification agent.
8. Permits the Non-UPF Certified seal to be placed on the principal display panel, the information panel, or elsewhere on the package, provided that the seal does not obscure other required information, such as the nutrition facts panel or the statement of identity.
9. Requires an accredited certification agent to do all of the following:
   1. Register with CDPH on a form provided by CDPH;
   2. Complete CDPH required accreditation certification agency training;
   3. Annually renew the accreditation agent status, unless the certification agent is no longer engaged in certifying products under this bill; and,
   4. Provide a list to CDPH of all the products certified by the accredited certification agent.
10. Requires any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to CDPH to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.
11. Requires an accredited certification agent to report all of the following information to CDPH for each food product certified as Non-UPF: food product name, food product ingredients, food product nutrition facts, food product manufacturer and brand, Global Trade Item Number and Universal Product Code, date certified, and other information required by CDPH.
12. Requires an accredited certification agent that certifies Non-UPF Certified products to immediately make the following records available for inspection by CDPH, or provide copies within three business days of a request by CDPH, or within a reasonable time exceeding three business days as determined by CDPH:
    1. Records obtained for certification of a food product; and,
    2. Records created by the accredited certification agent regarding applications for certification of a product.
13. Permits CDPH to audit the accredited certification agent’s certification procedures and records at any time, but requires any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by CDPH.
14. Requires CDPH to maintain a webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as Non-UPF Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.
15. Permits CDPH to adopt any regulations as are reasonably necessary to assist in the implementation of, or to make more specific, the provisions of this bill related to the certification of Non-UPF foods.
16. Permits CDPH to establish fees for the registration and renewal of accredited certification agents and certification of food products. Establishes the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund for purposes of implementing this bill, and requires fees to be deposited in this account, which is subject to appropriation by the Legislature.
17. Deems the following actions as unlawful:
    1. For a person to certify products as Non-UPF Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent;
    2. For a person to willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed, in registration as an accredited certification agent;
    3. For a person to willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclose to an accredited certification agent; and,
    4. For a person to use the Non-UPF Certified seal on a product that does not meet the requirements of this bill.
18. Permits a person who engages in the misuse of the Non-UPF Certified seal to be enjoined in a court by any of the following:
    1. CDPH;
    2. The Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor; or,
    3. A consumer, business entity, or non-profit organization.
19. Specifies that a violation of the above provisions is not subject to existing criminal penalties for violations of the Sherman Law.
20. Requires a grocery store, as defined in existing law, with gross annual store sales of more than $10 million dollars, to make clearly identifiable at least three or more items that are Non-UPF Certified if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 Non-UPF Certified items.
21. Defines “clearly identifiable,” for purposes of the requirement in 17) above, as a manner of offering a product for sale on a display unit or within a retail setting that allows a reasonable consumer to readily distinguish the product from other products, including through physical separation, signage, or other visual cues.
22. Permits a grocery store that fails to meet the requirement in 17) above to be enjoined in court by the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor. Specifies that this violation is not subject to existing criminal penalties for violations of the California Retail Food Code.
23. Deems a grocery store to be in compliance with the requirement in 17) above if it demonstrates that it has made a good faith effort to comply and has implemented reasonable policies, procedures, or employee training designed to achieve compliance. Prohibits de minimis or isolated instances of noncompliance that occur despite good faith efforts, from constituting a violation of the requirement.
24. Exclude the following from being considered a “grocery store” for purposes of this bill: an establishment primarily engaged in retailing a limited line of groceries such as a convenience store or food mart, including an establishment operating fuel pumps.
25. Sunsets the provisions of this bill relating to grocery stores making certified products “clearly identifiable” on January 1, 2040.

Background

The NOVA classification system and the definition of UPF. The NOVA classification, also referred to as Nova, comes from the Portuguese title of the article that was originally published in 2009 by a researcher in Brazil: “A new classification of foods.” As it has evolved since originally formulated, NOVA classifies foods into four groups:

• • Group 1: unprocessed or minimally processed foods. Minimally processed foods are natural foods (from plants, or from animals, including muscle, eggs, and milk) that are altered by processes that include removal of inedible or unwanted parts; and drying, crushing, grinding, fractioning, filtering, roasting, boiling, non-alcoholic fermentation, pasteurization, refrigeration, chilling, freezing, placing in containers, and vacuum packaging. These processes are designed to preserve natural foods, make them suitable for storing, or make them safe or edible or more pleasant to the consumer.
  • Group 2: processed culinary ingredients. Processed culinary ingredients such as oils, butter, sugar and salt, are substances derived from Group 1 foods or from nature by processes that include pressing, refining, grinding, milling, and drying. The purpose of such processes is to make durable products that are suitable for use in home and restaurant kitchens to prepare, season, and cook Group 1 foods. They are not meant to be consumed by themselves, and are normally used in combination with Group 1 foods to make freshly prepared drinks, dishes and meals.
  • Group 3: processed foods. Processed foods, such as bottled vegetables, canned fish, fruits in syrup, cheeses, and freshly made breads, are made by adding salt, oil, sugar, or other substances from Group 2 to Group 1 foods. Processes include various preservation or cooking methods, and, in the case of breads and cheese, non-alcoholic fermentation. Most processed foods have two or three ingredients, and are recognizable as modified versions of Group 1 foods. They are edible by themselves, or more usually, in combination with other foods.
  • Group 4: UPFs. UPFs, such as soft drinks, sweet or savory packaged snacks, reconstituted meat products, and pre-prepared frozen dishes, are not modified foods but formulations made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, with little, if any, intact Group 1 food. Ingredients of these formulations usually includes those also used in processed foods, such as sugars, oils, fats, or salt, but also include other sources of energy and nutrients not normally used in culinary preparations. Some of these are directly extracted from foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten. Many are derived from further processing of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar, and high-fructose corn syrup. Additives in UPF include some used in processed foods, such as preservatives, antioxidants and stabilizers. Classes of additives found only in UPF products include those used to imitate or enhance the sensory qualities of foods or to disguise unpalatable aspects of the final product. These additives include dyes and other colors, color stabilizers, flavors, flavor enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as carbonating, firming, bulking, and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents, emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.

AB 1264 (Gabriel, Chapter 467, Statutes of 2025) establishes a multi-pronged definition to categorize whether foods intended to be sold or served in schools are UPF. First, it uses the FDA’s Substances Added to Food database (which was previously known as Everything Added to Foods in the United States, or EAFUS). This is a database of additives, including color additives, flavoring substances, and other ingredients added to food to achieve certain “technical effects.” Federal regulations list 32 different physical or technical effects that a food ingredient or additive can have, including antioxidants or antimicrobial agents used to preserve food, drying agents to maintain an environment of low moisture, enzymes to improve food processing, leavening agents, lubricants and release agents to prevent food from sticking to food contact surfaces, etc. The definition of UPF includes eight of these technical effects that are considered by the proponents of AB 1264 and this bill as associated with UPF – technical effects that are for flavoring or coloring effects, for example, or emulsifiers and thickeners.

If a food product meets the first test of having an additive with one of the eight technical effects, it moves on to the second prong: whether it is either high in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or it contains a nonnutritive sweetener or one of eleven other substances that are used as sugar replacements. These eleven substances, such as xylitol, D-sorbitol, and isomalt, are sugar alcohols or other substances that do not meet the definition of nonnutritive sweeteners because they still contain some calories, but are used as sugar substitutes.

Restricted school foods will be determined at a later date by a regulatory process. In addition to foods designated as UPF, this bill also prohibits products from being Non-UPF Certified if they are “restricted school foods.” (This bill also prohibits certification of “UPFs of concern” from AB 1264, but UPFs of concern already come from the universe of UPFs.) Restricted school foods were included in AB 1264 last year to capture foods that have one or more of the additives in the first prong of the definition of UPF, but do not meet the “high-in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar” of the second prong of the definition, and do not have a nonnutritive sweetener or other sugar substitute. The purpose of adding the category of “restricted school foods” was to give CDPH the ability to restrict a food that has all the characteristics of a UPF of concern, including a risk of adverse health consequences, etc., but was not high in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar. Unlike the definition of UPF, which is a statutory definition, the list of restricted school foods will be determined pursuant to regulations adopted by CDPH, just like the “UPFs of concern” targeted by AB 1264.

Because the definition of UPF is statutory, the Non-UPF certification process can start without waiting for regulations. However, it is possible a product could be approved as “Non-UPF Certified,” and then later lose this eligibility as a result of the product being included in the list of restricted school foods.

Based on certified organic program. The author states that this bill is modeled on the California Organic program. Under the California Organic Food and Farming Act, any certification agency that certifies products in California sold as organic is required to register with the Department of Agriculture, including paying an annual registration fee. Similar to this bill, a certification agency that certifies organic products is required to make records available for inspection. All products sold as organic in California are required to be certified by an accredited certifying agent.

Other Non-UPF programs. There are at least two existing programs that provide seals for food products to indicate that the product is “non-UPF:” Non-UPF Verified, which is a project under the umbrella of the Non-GMO Project and its Food Integrity Collective; and, WISEcode Non-UPF Shield.

Non-UPF Verified. The Non-GMO Project started in 2007, and in 2025 launched the Non-UPF Verified program. They published their Non-UPF Standard on January 21, 2026, which is a 30 page document detailing standard criteria and requirements for verification as Non-UPF Verified. This standard includes processing methods, which is something that the definition of UPF in California law used by this bill does not cover. There is some overlap in the list of ingredients that would exclude a product from being considered Non-UPF, such as non-nutrititive sweeteners, and thickeners and texturizers, but also some prohibited products not captured by this bill, such as certain refined oils.

WISEcode. On May 4, 2026, WISEcode launched “Non-UPF Shield,” a verification program for brands, and a redesigned WISE Code UPF Detector mobile app. Both are powered by an artificial intelligence classification system that relies on an ingredient database and a proprietary automated review system.

Comments

According to the author of this bill:

This bill would establish a Non-UPF seal that food manufacturers could place on products that meet clear standards for not being ultra-processed. Modeled after the “USDA Organic” label, the seal would provide consumers with a simple, trustworthy way to identify healthier options with a quick glance. Additionally, the bill would require grocery stores in California to feature products bearing the seal in a display, thereby making it easier for busy families to locate healthier foods quickly and conveniently. Ultimately, parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. to understand what they’re feeding their kids, and this new law will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to find foods that are free from harmful additives.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1264 (Gabriel, Chapter 467, Statutes of 2025) enacts the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act to reduce the consumption of UPFs by California children by: defining UPFs intended to be sold or served in schools; establishing a regulatory process for CDPH to determine which UPFs are of concern by June 1, 2028; and, requiring these UPFs of concern to be phased out of schools until they are prohibited from being offered to schools by vendors as of July 1, 2032, and prohibited from being served or sold in schools by July 1, 2035.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, unknown ongoing General Fund costs, potentially hundreds of thousands, for CDPH for state administration.

The California Department of Justice anticipates a minor fiscal impact to the department.

Unknown potential costs to local enforcement agencies related to requirements on grocery stores. Costs could be potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.

Unknown, potential workload costs to the courts to adjudicate cases seeking injunctive relief (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to increase the amount appropriated for trial court operations.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/21/26)

Environmental Working Group (source)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy

Active San Gabriel Valley

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

American Academy of Pediatrics, California

American Diabetes Association

American Heart Association

American Nurses Association/California

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology

California Democratic Party

California Grocers Association

California Medical Association

California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice

California Podiatric Medical Association

Center for Ecoliteracy

Center for Environmental Health

Chef Ann Foundation

Children Now

Clean Earth 4 Kids

Consumer Federation of America

Consumer Reports

Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation

Democrats of Rossmoor

Eat Real

Ecology Center

Educate. Advocate.

End Chronic Disease

Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety

Farm Fatales

Food & Water Watch

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Indivisible Marin

Mamavation - Non-toxic Products for Healthy Families

San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility

San Francisco Marin Medical Society

The Office of Kat Taylor

United Nurses Associations of California/union of Health Care Professionals

Wellness in the Schools, Inc.

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/21/26)

American Beverage Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Democratic Party

California League of Food Producers

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

Calorie Control Council

Civil Justice Association of California

Competere

Consumer Brands Association

Dairy Institute of California

Food Ingredient Safety Coalition

Non-GMO Project

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the Environmental Working Group, and is joined in support by a large coalition. Supporters state that this bill builds on California’s first-in-the-nation definition of UPFs and creates a voluntary Non-UPF Certified seal that gives consumers a clear, trusted way to identify healthier food options for their families. According to supporters, UPFs now make up more than half of all calories consumed by adults in the U.S., and nearly two-thirds of the calories consumed by children. Consumers want to make better choices, but they do not have practical information at the point of purchase. Supporters point to a 2025 national survey that found that 72% of Americans are trying to reduce their UPF intake, yet fewer than half could correctly identify common UPF products. A separate study of more than 50,000 products at Walmart, Target, and Whole Foods found that most offerings across all three stores fell in the UPF category. This bill creates a voluntary certification program administered through CDPH-accredited third-party agents, backed by a public product registry and enforceable by the Attorney General. No manufacturer is required to participate, and a requirement that the product display is clearly identifiable only applies to large retailers that carry more than 25 certified items. Unlike private certification programs that operate without government oversight, this bill establishes a clear, accountable, state-backed standard.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Consumer Brands Association, the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, the Food Ingredient Safety Coalition, and the Calorie Control Council submitted a joint letter of opposition, stating that this bill is premature, would create consumer confusion, and would distort the marketplace. This group notes this bill creates a state-backed Non-UPF Certified seal at a time when private certification already serves this purpose, pointing to the Non-UPF Program and WISEcode, which already certify Non-UPF foods nationwide. Consumers already encounter a wide range of certifications and claims in the marketplace, including California Grown, organic, non-GMO, and Fair Trade, many administered by nonprofit or independent third parties. California should not single out one processing-based standard, attach a California-branded seal to it, and imply a unique level of state endorsement. This group states that certification under this bill turns in part on whether a product is classified as a UPF of concern or a restricted school foods, terms that CDPH is not required to define by regulation until June 1, 2028, and has not even begun the rulemaking. These opponents also note that the definition this bill relies on were enacted for school nutrition, a narrow context never intended for the general food supply. Because that definition excluded alcoholic beverages from the definition of UPF, a spirit or flavored malt beverage could carry the states Non-UPF Certified seal, while a low-fat, low-calorie yogurt sweetened with a nonnutritive sweetener, or a packaged salad whose dressing pairs a common emulsifier with added sugar, could be denied it. The opponents state that this bill authorizes anyone to seek an injunction over an alleged misuse of the seal, and given the close similarity between this seal and the existing national Non-UPF seal, there is a meaningful risk of litigation arising from consumer confusion between the two. Finally, according to the opponents, the FDA and United States Department of Agriculture are actively developing a federal definition of UPF, and no single, universally accepted definition exists today. Because private programs are not codified in statue, they can adapt as federal guidance evolves. By contrast, anchoring a California seal to a state-specific definition would require legislative action to realign.

The California League of Food Producers, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Dairy Institute of California also jointly wrote in opposition, making similar arguments. The broad definition of UPF risks capturing foods that are widely regarded as healthy and nutritious, and states the part of the definition tying in foods that have high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugars could impact foods like cheeses, even though it is widely recognized as a healthy source of protein, calcium, and other essential nutrients.

The Non-GMO Project states in opposition that they are a California nonprofit corporation with more than 20 years of experience in food certification and the operator of Non-UPF Verified, the nation’s leading independent certification for non-UPF foods. The Non-GMO project notes that they are not observers of this issue, they are one of its practitioners, and have serious concerns about this bill. The Non-GMO Projects core concerns include that it duplicates an existing nonprofit certification (Non-UPF Verified); it requires certification before definitions are finalized; it introduces litigation exposure and consumer confusion; and it establishes a non-UPF certification framework without requiring evaluation of actual processing methods.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/27/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Castillo, Hadwick, Lackey, Macedo, Celeste Rodriguez, Tangipa

Prepared by: Vincent D. Marchand / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111

8/25/26 21:20:31

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2244

Author: Gabriel (D), et al.

Amended: 8/13/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/24/26

AYES: Weber Pierson, Valladares, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grove, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 12-1, 6/30/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Caballero

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/27/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Non-Ultraprocessed Certified food standard

SOURCE: Environmental Working Group

DIGEST:

This bill establishes a process for the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to accredit certification agents that can certify food products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” (Non-UPF Certified), and requires CDPH to create a standardized seal for these certified food products. Requires grocery stores with more than $10 million in gross annual sales to make at least three or more items that are Non-UPF Certified clearly identifiable, with regard to their display in the grocery store, if the grocery store sells more than 25 Non-UPF Certified items.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines “ultraprocessed food (UPF),” for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as any food or beverage that contains a substance that has one of eight FDA-defined technical effects, as specified, and that has either higher amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or contains a nonnutritive sweetener or other sugar substitute, as specified. Excludes certain food products from this definition, including Class 1 milk, alcoholic beverages, medical foods, and infant formula. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) §104661]
2. Defines “UPFs of concern,” for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as a food product that is a UPF, and that is determined by regulations adopted by CDPH to be of concern, based on specified factors, including whether it contains a substance linked to health harms or adverse health consequences. Requires these regulations to be adopted by June 1, 2028. [HSC §104662(a)(2)]
3. Defines “restricted school foods,” for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as a food or beverage that contains a substance that has one of the eight FDA-defined technical effects but does not meet the definition of a UPF because it is not high in fat, sodium, or added sugar, but is restricted from being sold in schools because the it has been determined by regulations adopted by CDPH to be of concern. Requires these regulations to be adopted by June 1, 2028. [HSC §104662(a)(1)]
4. Requires, no later than July 1, 2029, schools to begin to phase out UPFs of concern and restricted school foods, and by July 1, 2032, prohibits a vendor from offering UPFs of concern or restricted school foods to a school. [HSC §104664]

This bill:

1. Requires CDPH, no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” (“Non-UPF Certified) pursuant to this bill.
2. Prohibits an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as Non-UPF Certified if it is classified as any of the following:
   1. A UPF, as defined in existing law;
   2. A UPF of concern, as defined in existing law; or,
   3. A restricted school food, as defined in existing law.
3. Requires a product to be recertified as Non-UPF Certified at least every three years.
4. Requires an applicant for certification, if a product using the Non-UPF Certified seal is reformulated, to submit an application to the accredited certification agent within 30 days for recertification of the reformulated product.
5. Requires CDPH to create a standardized seal that is permitted to incorporate both of the following:
   1. The phrase “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified Food Standard;” and,
   2. Images and themes association with California and health, nutritious whole foods.
6. Restricts the use of the Non-UPF Certified seal on a product to only those products that have been certified by an accredited certification agent.
7. Permits the Non-UPF Certified seal to be placed on the principal display panel, the information panel, or elsewhere on the package, provided that the seal does not obscure other required information, such as the nutrition facts panel or the statement of identity.
8. Requires an accredited certification agent to do all of the following:
   1. Register with CDPH on a form provided by CDPH;
   2. Annually renew the registration, unless the certification agency is no longer engaged in certifying products under this bill; and,
   3. Provide a list to CDPH of all the products certified by the accredited certification agent.
9. Requires any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to CDPH to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.
10. Requires an accredited certification agent that certifies Non-UPF Certified products to immediately make the following records available for inspection by CDPH, or provide copies within three business days of a request by CDPH, or within a reasonable time exceeding three business days as determined by CDPH:
    1. Records obtained from applicants for certification of a product; and,
    2. Records created by the accredited certification agent regarding applications for certification of a product.
11. Permits CDPH to audit the accredited certification agent’s certification procedures and records at any time, but requires any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by CDPH.
12. Requires CDPH to maintain a webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as Non-UPF Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.
13. Permits CDPH to adopt any regulations as are reasonably necessary to assist in the implementation of, or to make more specific, the provisions of this bill related to the certification of Non-UPF foods.
14. Deems the following actions as unlawful:
    1. For a person to certify products as Non-UPF Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent;
    2. For a person to willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed, in registration as an accredited certification agent;
    3. For a person to willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclose to an accredited certification agent; and,
    4. For a person to use the Non-UPF Certified seal on a product that does not meet the requirements of this bill.
15. Permits a person who engages in the misuse of the Non-UPF Certified seal to be enjoined in a court by any of the following:
    1. CDPH;
    2. The Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor; or,
    3. A consumer, business entity, or non-profit organization.
16. Specifies that a violation of the above provisions is not subject to existing criminal penalties for violations of the Sherman Law.
17. Requires a grocery store, as defined in existing law, with gross annual store sales of more than $10 million dollars, to make clearly identifiable at least three or more items that are Non-UPF Certified if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 Non-UPF Certified items.
18. Defines “clearly identifiable,” for purposes of the requirement in 17) above, as a manner of offering a product for sale on a display unit or within a retail setting that allows a reasonable consumer to readily distinguish the product from other products, including through physical separation, signage, or other visual cues.
19. Permits a grocery store that fails to meet the requirement in 17) above to be enjoined in court by the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor. Specifies that this violation is not subject to existing criminal penalties for violations of the California Retail Food Code.
20. Deems a grocery store to be in compliance with the requirement in 17) above if it demonstrates that it has made a good faith effort to comply and has implemented reasonable policies, procedures, or employee training designed to achieve compliance. Prohibits de minimis or isolated instances of noncompliance that occur despite good faith efforts, from constituting a violation of the requirement.
21. Sunsets the provisions of this bill relating to grocery stores making certified products “clearly identifiable” until the soonest of the following occurs: appropriated funds are exhausted, or January 1, 2040.

Background

The NOVA classification system and the definition of UPF. The NOVA classification, also referred to as Nova, comes from the Portuguese title of the article that was originally published in 2009 by a researcher in Brazil: “A new classification of foods.” As it has evolved since originally formulated, NOVA classifies foods into four groups:

• • Group 1: unprocessed or minimally processed foods. Minimally processed foods are natural foods (from plants, or from animals, including muscle, eggs, and milk) that are altered by processes that include removal of inedible or unwanted parts; and drying, crushing, grinding, fractioning, filtering, roasting, boiling, non-alcoholic fermentation, pasteurization, refrigeration, chilling, freezing, placing in containers, and vacuum packaging. These processes are designed to preserve natural foods, make them suitable for storing, or make them safe or edible or more pleasant to the consumer.
  • Group 2: processed culinary ingredients. Processed culinary ingredients such as oils, butter, sugar and salt, are substances derived from Group 1 foods or from nature by processes that include pressing, refining, grinding, milling, and drying. The purpose of such processes is to make durable products that are suitable for use in home and restaurant kitchens to prepare, season, and cook Group 1 foods. They are not meant to be consumed by themselves, and are normally used in combination with Group 1 foods to make freshly prepared drinks, dishes and meals.
  • Group 3: processed foods. Processed foods, such as bottled vegetables, canned fish, fruits in syrup, cheeses, and freshly made breads, are made by adding salt, oil, sugar, or other substances from Group 2 to Group 1 foods. Processes include various preservation or cooking methods, and, in the case of breads and cheese, non-alcoholic fermentation. Most processed foods have two or three ingredients, and are recognizable as modified versions of Group 1 foods. They are edible by themselves, or more usually, in combination with other foods.
  • Group 4: UPFs. UPFs, such as soft drinks, sweet or savory packaged snacks, reconstituted meat products, and pre-prepared frozen dishes, are not modified foods but formulations made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, with little, if any, intact Group 1 food. Ingredients of these formulations usually includes those also used in processed foods, such as sugars, oils, fats, or salt, but also include other sources of energy and nutrients not normally used in culinary preparations. Some of these are directly extracted from foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten. Many are derived from further processing of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar, and high-fructose corn syrup. Additives in UPF include some used in processed foods, such as preservatives, antioxidants and stabilizers. Classes of additives found only in UPF products include those used to imitate or enhance the sensory qualities of foods or to disguise unpalatable aspects of the final product. These additives include dyes and other colors, color stabilizers, flavors, flavor enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as carbonating, firming, bulking, and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents, emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.

AB 1264 (Gabriel, Chapter 467, Statutes of 2025) establishes a multi-pronged definition to categorize whether foods intended to be sold or served in schools are UPF. First, it uses the FDA’s Substances Added to Food database (which was previously known as Everything Added to Foods in the United States, or EAFUS). This is a database of additives, including color additives, flavoring substances, and other ingredients added to food to achieve certain “technical effects.” Federal regulations list 32 different physical or technical effects that a food ingredient or additive can have, including antioxidants or antimicrobial agents used to preserve food, drying agents to maintain an environment of low moisture, enzymes to improve food processing, leavening agents, lubricants and release agents to prevent food from sticking to food contact surfaces, etc. The definition of UPF includes eight of these technical effects that are considered by the proponents of AB 1264 and this bill as associated with UPF – technical effects that are for flavoring or coloring effects, for example, or emulsifiers and thickeners.

If a food product meets the first test of having an additive with one of the eight technical effects, it moves on to the second prong: whether it is either high in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or it contains a nonnutritive sweetener or one of eleven other substances that are used as sugar replacements. These eleven substances, such as xylitol, D-sorbitol, and isomalt, are sugar alcohols or other substances that do not meet the definition of nonnutritive sweeteners because they still contain some calories, but are used as sugar substitutes.

Restricted school foods will be determined at a later date by a regulatory process. In addition to foods designated as UPF, this bill also prohibits products from being Non-UPF Certified if they are “restricted school foods.” (This bill also prohibits certification of “UPFs of concern” from AB 1264, but UPFs of concern already come from the universe of UPFs.) Restricted school foods were included in AB 1264 last year to capture foods that have one or more of the additives in the first prong of the definition of UPF, but do not meet the “high-in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar” of the second prong of the definition, and do not have a nonnutritive sweetener or other sugar substitute. The purpose of adding the category of “restricted school foods” was to give CDPH the ability to restrict a food that has all the characteristics of a UPF of concern, including a risk of adverse health consequences, etc., but was not high in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar. Unlike the definition of UPF, which is a statutory definition, the list of restricted school foods will be determined pursuant to regulations adopted by CDPH, just like the “UPFs of concern” targeted by AB 1264.

Because the definition of UPF is statutory, the Non-UPF certification process can start without waiting for regulations. However, it is possible a product could be approved as “Non-UPF Certified,” and then later lose this eligibility as a result of the product being included in the list of restricted school foods.

Based on certified organic program. The author states that this bill is modeled on the California Organic program. Under the California Organic Food and Farming Act, any certification agency that certifies products in California sold as organic is required to register with the Department of Agriculture, including paying an annual registration fee. Similar to this bill, a certification agency that certifies organic products is required to make records available for inspection. All products sold as organic in California are required to be certified by an accredited certifying agent.

Other Non-UPF programs. There are at least two existing programs that provide seals for food products to indicate that the product is “non-UPF:” Non-UPF Verified, which is a project under the umbrella of the Non-GMO Project and its Food Integrity Collective; and, WISEcode Non-UPF Shield.

Non-UPF Verified. The Non-GMO Project started in 2007, and in 2025 launched the Non-UPF Verified program. They published their Non-UPF Standard on January 21, 2026, which is a 30 page document detailing standard criteria and requirements for verification as Non-UPF Verified. This standard includes processing methods, which is something that the definition of UPF in California law used by this bill does not cover. There is some overlap in the list of ingredients that would exclude a product from being considered Non-UPF, such as non-nutrititive sweeteners, and thickeners and texturizers, but also some prohibited products not captured by this bill, such as certain refined oils.

WISEcode. On May 4, 2026, WISEcode launched “Non-UPF Shield,” a verification program for brands, and a redesigned WISE Code UPF Detector mobile app. Both are powered by an artificial intelligence classification system that relies on an ingredient database and a proprietary automated review system.

Comments

According to the author of this bill:

This bill would establish a Non-UPF seal that food manufacturers could place on products that meet clear standards for not being ultra-processed. Modeled after the “USDA Organic” label, the seal would provide consumers with a simple, trustworthy way to identify healthier options with a quick glance. Additionally, the bill would require grocery stores in California to feature products bearing the seal in a display, thereby making it easier for busy families to locate healthier foods quickly and conveniently. Ultimately, parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. to understand what they’re feeding their kids, and this new law will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to find foods that are free from harmful additives.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1264 (Gabriel, Chapter 467, Statutes of 2025) enacts the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act to reduce the consumption of UPFs by California children by: defining UPFs intended to be sold or served in schools; establishing a regulatory process for CDPH to determine which UPFs are of concern by June 1, 2028; and, requiring these UPFs of concern to be phased out of schools until they are prohibited from being offered to schools by vendors as of July 1, 2032, and prohibited from being served or sold in schools by July 1, 2035.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, unknown ongoing General Fund costs, potentially hundreds of thousands, for CDPH for state administration.

The California Department of Justice anticipates a minor fiscal impact to the department.

Unknown potential costs to local enforcement agencies related to requirements on grocery stores. Costs could be potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.

Unknown, potential workload costs to the courts to adjudicate cases seeking injunctive relief (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to increase the amount appropriated for trial court operations.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/14/26)

Environmental Working Group (source)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy

Active San Gabriel Valley

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

American Academy of Pediatrics, California

American Diabetes Association

American Heart Association

American Nurses Association/California

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology

California Grocers Association

California Medical Association

California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice

California Podiatric Medical Association

Center for Ecoliteracy

Center for Environmental Health

Chef Ann Foundation

Children Now

Clean Earth 4 Kids

Consumer Federation of America

Consumer Reports

Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation

Democrats of Rossmoor

Eat Real

Ecology Center

Educate. Advocate.

End Chronic Disease

Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety

Farm Fatales

Food & Water Watch

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Indivisible Marin

Mamavation - Non-toxic Products for Healthy Families

San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility

San Francisco Marin Medical Society

The Office of Kat Taylor

United Nurses Associations of California/union of Health Care Professionals

Wellness in the Schools, Inc.

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/14/26)

American Beverage Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California League of Food Producers

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

Calorie Control Council

Civil Justice Association of California

Competere

Consumer Brands Association

Dairy Institute of California

Food Ingredient Safety Coalition

Non-GMO Project

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the Environmental Working Group, and is joined in support by a large coalition. Supporters state that this bill builds on California’s first-in-the-nation definition of UPFs and creates a voluntary Non-UPF Certified seal that gives consumers a clear, trusted way to identify healthier food options for their families. According to supporters, UPFs now make up more than half of all calories consumed by adults in the U.S., and nearly two-thirds of the calories consumed by children. Consumers want to make better choices, but they do not have practical information at the point of purchase. Supporters point to a 2025 national survey that found that 72% of Americans are trying to reduce their UPF intake, yet fewer than half could correctly identify common UPF products. A separate study of more than 50,000 products at Walmart, Target, and Whole Foods found that most offerings across all three stores fell in the UPF category. This bill creates a voluntary certification program administered through CDPH-accredited third-party agents, backed by a public product registry and enforceable by the Attorney General. No manufacturer is required to participate, and a requirement that the product display is clearly identifiable only applies to large retailers that carry more than 25 certified items. Unlike private certification programs that operate without government oversight, this bill establishes a clear, accountable, state-backed standard.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Consumer Brands Association, the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, the Food Ingredient Safety Coalition, and the Calorie Control Council submitted a joint letter of opposition, stating that this bill is premature, would create consumer confusion, and would distort the marketplace. This group notes this bill creates a state-backed Non-UPF Certified seal at a time when private certification already serves this purpose, pointing to the Non-UPF Program and WISEcode, which already certify Non-UPF foods nationwide. Consumers already encounter a wide range of certifications and claims in the marketplace, including California Grown, organic, non-GMO, and Fair Trade, many administered by nonprofit or independent third parties. California should not single out one processing-based standard, attach a California-branded seal to it, and imply a unique level of state endorsement. This group states that certification under this bill turns in part on whether a product is classified as a UPF of concern or a restricted school foods, terms that CDPH is not required to define by regulation until June 1, 2028, and has not even begun the rulemaking. These opponents also note that the definition this bill relies on were enacted for school nutrition, a narrow context never intended for the general food supply. Because that definition excluded alcoholic beverages from the definition of UPF, a spirit or flavored malt beverage could carry the states Non-UPF Certified seal, while a low-fat, low-calorie yogurt sweetened with a nonnutritive sweetener, or a packaged salad whose dressing pairs a common emulsifier with added sugar, could be denied it. The opponents state that this bill authorizes anyone to seek an injunction over an alleged misuse of the seal, and given the close similarity between this seal and the existing national Non-UPF seal, there is a meaningful risk of litigation arising from consumer confusion between the two. Finally, according to the opponents, the FDA and United States Department of Agriculture are actively developing a federal definition of UPF, and no single, universally accepted definition exists today. Because private programs are not codified in statue, they can adapt as federal guidance evolves. By contrast, anchoring a California seal to a state-specific definition would require legislative action to realign.

The California League of Food Producers, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Dairy Institute of California also jointly wrote in opposition, making similar arguments. The broad definition of UPF risks capturing foods that are widely regarded as healthy and nutritious, and states the part of the definition tying in foods that have high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugars could impact foods like cheeses, even though it is widely recognized as a healthy source of protein, calcium, and other essential nutrients.

The Non-GMO Project states in opposition that they are a California nonprofit corporation with more than 20 years of experience in food certification and the operator of Non-UPF Verified, the nation’s leading independent certification for non-UPF foods. The Non-GMO project notes that they are not observers of this issue, they are one of its practitioners, and have serious concerns about this bill. The Non-GMO Projects core concerns include that it duplicates an existing nonprofit certification (Non-UPF Verified); it requires certification before definitions are finalized; it introduces litigation exposure and consumer confusion; and it establishes a non-UPF certification framework without requiring evaluation of actual processing methods.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/27/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Castillo, Hadwick, Lackey, Macedo, Celeste Rodriguez, Tangipa

Prepared by: Vincent D. Marchand / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111

8/17/26 10:13:57

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 2244 (Gabriel) - Non-Ultraprocessed Certified food standard

Bill Summary:

AB 2244 would establish a regulatory process for the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to accredit certification agents that can certify products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.”

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 13, 2026

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown ongoing General Fund costs, potentially hundreds of thousands, for the CDPH for state administration.
• The California Department of Justice anticipates a minor fiscal impact to the department.
• Unknown potential costs to local enforcement agencies related to requirements on grocery stores. Costs could be potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.
• Unknown, potential workload costs to the courts to adjudicate cases seeking injunctive relief (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to increase the amount appropriated for trial court operations.

Committee Amendments:

Specify that provisions remain operative until funds appropriated for this purpose are exhausted or until January 1, 2040, whichever is sooner.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 2244 (Gabriel) - Non-Ultraprocessed Certified food standard

Bill Summary:

AB 2244 would establish a regulatory process for the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to accredit certification agents that can certify products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.”

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown ongoing General Fund costs, potentially hundreds of thousands, for the CDPH for state administration.
• The California Department of Justice anticipates a minor fiscal impact to the department.
• Unknown potential costs to local enforcement agencies related to requirements on grocery stores. Costs could be potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.
• Unknown, potential workload costs to the courts to adjudicate cases seeking injunctive relief (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to increase the amount appropriated for trial court operations.

Background:

State law requires schools, no later than July 1, 2029, to begin to phase out “ultraprocessed foods” of concern and restricted school foods. State law prohibits, by July 1, 2032, a vendor from offering ultraprocessed foods of concern or restricted school foods to a school. For these purposes, current law defines the following:

• “Ultraprocessed food” is any food or beverage that contains a substance that has one of eight U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-defined technical effects, as specified, and that has either higher amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or contains a nonnutritive sweetener or other sugar substitute, as specified. Current law excludes certain food products from this definition, including Class 1 milk, alcoholic beverages, medical foods, and infant formula.
• “Ultraprocessed food of concern” is a food product that is an ultraprocessed food, and that is determined by regulations adopted by CDPH to be of concern, based on specified factors, including whether it contains a substance linked to health harms or adverse health consequences. CDPH must adopt these regulations by June 1, 2028.
• “Restricted school food” is a food or beverage that contains a substance that has one of the eight FDA-defined technical effects but does not meet the definition of an ultraprocessed food because it is not high in fat, sodium, or added sugar, but is restricted from being sold in schools because it has been determined by regulations adopted by CDPH to be of concern, based on specified factors. CDPH must adopt these regulations by June 1, 2028.

Proposed Law:

Specific provisions of the bill would:

• Define “accredited certification agent” to mean an entity accredited by the CDPH to certify products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” and define “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” to mean a product that has been certified by an accredited certification agent.
• Require, no later than June 1, 2028, the CDPH to accredit certification agents that can certify products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.”
• Prohibit an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” if it is classified as an ultraprocessed food, an ultraprocessed food of concern, or a restricted school food, as defined in existing state law.
• Require a product to be recertified as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” no less frequently than every three years.
• Require that if a product using the “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” seal is reformulated, an applicant for certification of a product must submit an application to the accredited certification agent within 30 days for recertification of the reformulated product.
• Require CDPH to create a standardized seal, as specified; permit a person to use the “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” seal on a product only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent; and permit the seal may be placed on the principal display panel, the information panel, or elsewhere on the package, provided that the seal does not obscure other required information, such as the nutrition facts panel or the statement of identity.
• Require an accredited certification agent to register with the CDPH, as specified.
• Require CDPH to maintain a public internet webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” as reported by the accredited certification agent.
• Provide that it is unlawful for a person to:
• Certify products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent.
• Willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed, in registration as an accredited certification agent.
• Willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed to an accredited certification agent.
• Use the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal on a product that does not meet the provisions of this bill.
• Provide that a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction by any of the following:
• The CDPH.
• The Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California.
• A consumer, business entity, or non-profit organization.
• Require, upon the creation of the standardized seal, a grocery store with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to make clearly identifiable at least 3 or more items certified if the grocery store offers for sale more than 25 certified items; provide that a grocery store that fails to meet this requirement may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California; and sunset this provision on January 1, 2040.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2244 (Author:Gabriel)

Version: June 25, 2026

Hearing Date: June 30, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Non-Ultraprocessed Certified food standard

DIGEST

This bill requires the State Department of Public Health (CDPH) to accredit certification agents that can certify products as “Non-Ultraprocessed (UPF) Certified,” as provided. The bill would provide that certain records of an accredited certification agent are to be kept confidential by CDPH. Under the bill, CDPH, the Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor may enjoin the misuse. A consumer, a business entity, or a non-profit may bring an action to enjoin a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal. The bill also requires a grocery store with gross annual store sales of more than $10 million dollars to make clearly identifiable at least three or more items certified as Non-Ultraprocessed, as provided.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This bill seeks to establish a California Non-UPF Certification program where certified foods can be certified through accredited certification agents. The program would be under the oversight of CDPH. The author and sponsor argue this will provide consumers reliable and truthful information about the ingredients in the food they are purchasing so they can make more informed choices regarding food with harmful additivities.

This bill was previously analyzed by the Senate Health Committee—where it passed by a vote of 10 to 0—regarding issues relating to the public health implications of the bill. This analysis is limited to the issues within this Committee’s jurisdiction—namely, the enforcement and limitation on access to public records implicated by the bill’s provisions. The bill also requires a grocery store with gross annual store sales of more than $10 million dollars to make clearly identifiable at least three or more items certified as Non-Ultraprocessed. “Clearly identifiable” means the manner of offering a product for sale on a display unit or within a retail setting that allows a reasonable consumer to readily distinguish the product from other products, including through physical separation, signage, or other visual cues.

The bill is sponsored by the Environmental Working Group and supported by numerous public health advocacy organizations. The bill is opposed by the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, Calorie Control Council, Consumer Brands Association, and the Food Ingredient Safety Coalition. The bill passed out of the Senate Health Committee on a vote of 10 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (Sherman Law), which regulates the packaging, labeling, and advertising of food, drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics and is administered by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). (Health & Saf. Code §§ 109875-111915.)
2. Defines “ultraprocessed food” (UPF), for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as any food or beverage that contains a substance that has one of eight FDA-defined technical effects, as specified, and that has either higher amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or contains a nonnutritive sweetener or other sugar substitute, as specified. Excludes certain food products from this definition, including Class 1 milk, alcoholic beverages, medical foods, and infant formula. (Health & Saf. Code § 104661.)
3. Defines “UPFs of concern,” for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as a food product that is a UPF, and that is determined by regulations adopted by CDPH to be of concern, based on specified factors, including whether it contains a substance linked to health harms or adverse health consequences. Requires these regulations to be adopted by June 1, 2028. (Health & Saf. Code § 104662(a)(2).)
4. Defines “restricted school foods,” for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as a food or beverage that contains a substance that has one of the eight FDA-defined technical effects but does not meet the definition of a UPF because it is not high in fat, sodium, or added sugar, but is restricted from being sold in schools because it has been determined by regulations adopted by CDPH to be of concern. Requires these regulations to be adopted by June 1, 2028. (Health & Saf. Code § 104662(a)(1).)
5. Requires schools, no later than July 1, 2029, to begin to phase out UPFs of concern and restricted school foods. By July 1, 2032, a vendor is prohibited from offering UPFs of concern or restricted school foods to a school. (Health & Safe. Code § 104664.)
6. Enacts the California Food Safety Act to prohibit, commencing January 1, 2027, the manufacture or sale of a food product that contains any of the following substances:
   1. brominated vegetable oil;
   2. potassium bromate;
   3. propylparaben; or,
   4. red dye 3. (Health & Saf. Code § 109025.)
7. Prohibits food and beverages served or sold at elementary, middle, and high schools, beginning December 31, 2027, for purposes of provisions of law governing what can be sold at the school until 30 minutes after the school day ends, from containing any of the following synthetic color additives:
   1. blue 1;
   2. blue 2;
   3. green 3;
   4. red 40;
   5. yellow 5; or,
   6. yellow 6. (Ed. Code §§ 49431 et seq.)
8. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies are required to be open to public scrutiny. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
   1. Requires a statute to be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
   2. Requires a statute that limits the public’s right of access to be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. const. art. I, § 3(b)(1).)
9. Governs the disclosure of information collected and maintained by public agencies pursuant to the CPRA. (Gov. Code §§ 792.000 et seq.)
   1. States that, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code § 7921.000.)
   2. Defines “public records” as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code § 7920.530.)
   3. Defines “public agency” as any state or local agency. (Gov. Code § 7920.525(a).)
10. Provides that all public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency and that every person has a right to inspect any public record, unless the record is exempt from public disclosure. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. (Gov. Code § 7922.525.)
    1. Some records are prohibited from being disclosed and other records are permissively exempted from being disclosed. (See e.g. Gov. Code §§ 7920.505 & 7922.200.)
    2. There are several general categories of documents or information that are permissively exempt from disclosure under the CPRA essentially due to the character of the information. The exempt information can be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information, but it also may be disclosed if it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information. (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, at 652.).

This bill:

1. Requires CDPH to accredit certification agents that can certify products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” (Non-UPF Certified) no later than June 1, 2028.
   1. Requires any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to CDPH to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.
   2. Requires CDPH to maintain a webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as Non-UPF Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.
   3. Authorizes CDPH to adopt any regulations as are reasonably necessary to assist in the implementation of, or to make more specific, the provisions related to the certification of Non-UPF.
2. Requires an accredited certification agent to do all of the following:
   1. Register with CDPH on a form provided by CDPH;
   2. Annually renew the registration, unless the certification agency is no longer engaged in certifying products under this bill; and,
   3. Provide a list to CDPH of all the products certified by the accredited certification agent.
3. Requires an accredited certification agent that certifies Non-UPF Certified products to immediately make the following records available for inspection by CDPH, or provide copies within three business days of a request by CDPH, or within a reasonable time exceeding three business days as determined by CDPH:
   1. Records obtained from applicants for certification of a product; and,
   2. Records created by the accredited certification agent regarding applications for certification of a product.
4. Authorizes CDPH to audit the accredited certification agent’s certification procedures and records at any time, but requires any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by CDPH.
5. Makes the following actions unlawful:
   1. For a person to certify products as Non-UPF Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent;
   2. For a person to willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed, in registration as an accredited certification agent;
   3. For a person to willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed to an accredited certification agent; and,
   4. For a person to use the Non-UPF Certified seal on a product that does not meet the requirements of this bill.
6. Authorizes a person who engages in the misuse of the Non-UPF Certified seal to be enjoined in a court by any of the following:
   1. CDPH;
   2. The Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor; or
   3. A consumer, business entity, or non-profit organization.
7. Specifies that a violation of the above provisions is not subject to existing criminal penalties for violations of the Sherman Law.
8. Requires a grocery store with gross annual store sales of more than $10 million to make clearly identifiable at least three or more items that are Non-UPF Certified if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 Non-UPF Certified items.
   1. A grocery store that fails to meet this requirement may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California.
   2. A grocery store is deemed in compliance if it demonstrates that it has made a good faith effort to comply and has implemented reasonable policies, procedures, or employee training designed to achieve compliance.
   3. De minimis or isolated instances of noncompliance that occur despite good faith efforts, including temporary conditions resulting from restocking, customer handling, or ordinary store operations, do not constitute a violation.
   4. This provision remains in effect only until January 1, 2040.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

AB 2244 would establish a “Not Ultraprocessed” seal that food manufacturers could place on products that meet clear standards for not being ultra-processed. Modeled after the “USDA Organic” label, the seal would provide consumers with a simple, trustworthy way to identify healthier options with a quick glance. Additionally, the bill would require grocery stores in California to feature products bearing the seal in a display, thereby making it easier for busy families to locate healthier foods quickly and conveniently. Ultimately, parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. to understand what they’re feeding their kids, and this new law will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to find foods that are free from harmful additives.

1. Enforcement under the bill is limited to injunctive relief
   

The bill provides for enforcement though injunctive relief. Under the bill, a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the Non-UPF Certified seal may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. This action may be brought by the Attorney General, CDPH, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor. Additionally, consumers, business entities, and non-profit organizations are authorized to seek an action to enjoin the misuse of the Non-UPF Certified seal. The author and sponsor argue that this limited remedy will enhance the ability of the public to ensure the seal is not being misused, and that there is little concern that this process will be abused as there is no penalty or ability to receive attorney’s fees or costs under this remedy.

Opposition to the bill raises concerns regarding this enforcement mechanism, stating, “AB 2244 authorizes any consumer, business entity, or nonprofit organization to seek an injunction over alleged misuse of the seal. Given the close similarity between this seal and the existing national “Non-UPF” label, there is a meaningful risk of litigation arising from consumer confusion between the two.”

The bill also provides that a grocery store can be enjoined for the display requirements under the bill, but solely in an action brough by the Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor. 

1. Confidentiality of public records under the bill

Access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code § 7921.000.) In 2004, the right of public access was enshrined in the California Constitution with the passage of Proposition 59 (Nov. 3, 2004, statewide general election), which amended the California Constitution to specifically protect the right of the public to access and obtain government records: “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore . . . the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 3 (b)(1).) In 2014, voters approved Proposition 42 (Jun. 3, 2014, statewide direct primary election) to further increase public access to government records by requiring local agencies to comply with the CPRA and the Ralph M. Brown Act , and with any subsequent statutory enactment amending either act, as provided. (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 3 (b)(7).)

Under the CPRA, public records are open to inspection by the public at all times during the office hours of the agency, unless exempted from disclosure. (Gov. Code § 7922.252.) A public record is defined as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by any public agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code § 7920.530.) There are several general categories of documents or information that are permissively exempt from disclosure under the CPRA essentially due to the character of the information. The exempt information can be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information, but it also may be disclosed if it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information. (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, at 652.). Additionally, some records are prohibited from disclosure or are specifically stated to not be public records. (see Gov. Code § 7924.110(a).)

The bill provides findings and declarations regarding the need for this limitation on the access to public records, stating it is necessary to protect confidential and proprietary business information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets; any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed by CDPH. In light of the nature of the information shared with CDPH, this limitation on the access to public records seems warranted.

1. Stakeholder statements

A support coalition made up of numerous public health advocacy organizations including the sponsor of the bill, writes:

Decades of peer-reviewed research have linked high consumption of UPFs to serious chronic diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders, dementia, and reproductive harm. UPFs now make up more than half of all calories consumed by adults in the U.S. and nearly two-thirds of the calories consumed by children.

UPFs are not merely processed foods. They are often engineered with industrial ingredients and additives to trigger the brain's reward system, override fullness signals, and promote overconsumption. Experts estimate that 14% of adults and 12% of children meet criteria for UPF addiction - rates comparable to alcohol and tobacco.

Consumers want to make better choices, but they do not have practical information at the point of purchase. A 2025 national survey found that 72% of Americans are trying to reduce their UPF intake, yet fewer than half could correctly identify common ultra-processed products. A separate study of more than 50,000 products at Walmart, Target, and Whole Foods found that most offerings across all three stores fell in the ultra-processed category.

AB 2244 creates a voluntary certification program administered through CDPH-accredited third-party agents, backed by a public product registry and enforceable by the Attorney General. […]

Unlike private certification programs that operate without government oversight, AB 2244 establishes a clear, accountable, state-backed standard. The "Non-Ultraprocessed Certified" seal gives families a simple and reliable signal when they are trying to choose less processed foods.

The opposition writes with various concerns and issues with the bill, including the enforcement mechanism of the bill described above in Comment 2. Specifically, they believe the bill is premature, stating certification:

turns in part on whether a product is classified as an “ultraprocessed food of concern” or a “restricted school food” (Health & Safety Code § 104662) — terms the Department is not required to define by regulation until June 1, 2028, through a rulemaking it has not yet begun. Critically, that is the very same date by which AB 2244 directs the Department to accredit certification agents. The bill thus requires the certification program to be operational on the same day the governing standard is finalized, leaving no period in which a settled definition exists before products must be certified against it.

They argue the bill relies on definitions that were created for school nutrition, and that applying this definition to a broader context of foods undercuts the public policy this bill seeks to address arguing that the:

definitions this bill relies on were enacted for school nutrition through AB 1264 (the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act)—a narrow context never intended for the general food supply. Lifted into a marketplace-wide certification, they produce results that undercut the bill’s own health goals. Because Section 104661 expressly excludes alcoholic beverages from the definition of “ultraprocessed food,” a spirit or flavored malt beverage could carry the state’s “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” seal, while a low-fat, low-calorie yogurt sweetened with a nonnutritive sweetener, or a packaged salad whose dressing pairs a common emulsifier with added sugar, could be denied it. Anchoring a consumer-health certification to a school-nutrition framework inverts the very outcome the bill seeks.

They also raise concerns that the bill may be misaligned with standards being developed at the federal level regarding “ultraprocessed” foods. They write “anchoring a California seal to a state-specific definition would require legislative action to realign — a slow, cumbersome process that risks a regulatory patchwork and repeated reformulation and recertification burdens on manufacturers.”

SUPPORT

Environmental Working Group (sponsor)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy

ActiveSGV

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

American Academy of Pediatrics, California

American Diabetes Association

American Heart Association

American Nurses Association California

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

CA Chapter of the American College of Cardiology

California Medical Association (CMA)

California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice

California Podiatric Medical Association

Center for Ecoliteracy

Center for Environmental Health

Chef Ann Foundation

Children Now

Clean Earth 4 Kids

Consumer Federation of America

Consumer Reports

Crohns and Colitis Foundation

Democrats of Rossmoor

Eat Real

Ecology Center

Educate. Advocate.

End Chronic Disease

Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety

Farm Fatales

Food & Water Watch

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Indivisible Marin

Mamavation - Non-toxic Products for Healthy Families

Office of Kat Taylor

PSR SF Bay Chapter

San Francisco Marin Medical Society

The Office of Kat Taylor

Wellness in the Schools

OPPOSITION

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

Calorie Control Council

Consumer Brands Association

Food Ingredient Safety Coalition

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation: AB 1264 (Gabriel, Ch. 467, Stats. 2025) established a multi-pronged definition to categorize whether foods intended to be sold or served in schools are UPF, as provided.

PRIOR VOTES

Senate Health Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 74, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 13, Noes 2)

Assembly Health Committee (Ayes 16, Noes 0)

**************

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Senator Akilah Weber Pierson, Chair

BILL NO: AB 2244

SUBJECT: Non-Ultraprocessed Certified food standard

SUMMARY:

Establishes a process for the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to accredit certification agents that can certify food products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” (Non-UPF Certified), and requires CDPH to create a standardized seal for these certified food products. Requires grocery stores with more than $10 million in gross annual sales to make at least three or more items that are Non-UPF Certified clearly identifiable, with regard to their display in the grocery store, if the grocery store offers for sale more than 25 Non-UPF Certified items.

Existing law:

1. Enacts the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, enforced by CDPH, which provides broad authority for CDPH to enforce food safety requirements, including that food is not adulterated, misbranded, or falsely advertised. Food labeling requirements generally adopt federal food labeling laws as the state requirement, including nutrition labeling and allergen labeling. Permits CDPH to adopt additional food labeling regulations. [HSC §109875, et seq. and §110380]
2. Defines “ultraprocessed food (UPF),” for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as any food or beverage that contains a substance that has one of eight FDA-defined technical effects, as specified, and that has either higher amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or contains a nonnutritive sweetener or other sugar substitute, as specified. Excludes certain food products from this definition, including Class 1 milk, alcoholic beverages, medical foods, and infant formula. [HSC §104661]
3. Defines “UPFs of concern,” for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as a food product that is a UPF, and that is determined by regulations adopted by CDPH to be of concern, based on specified factors, including whether it contains a substance linked to health harms or adverse health consequences. Requires these regulations to be adopted by June 1, 2028. [HSC §104662(a)(2)]
4. Defines “restricted school foods,” for purposes of food intended to be served or sold in schools, as a food or beverage that contains a substance that has one of the eight FDA-defined technical effects but does not meet the definition of a UPF because it is not high in fat, sodium, or added sugar, but is restricted from being sold in schools because the it has been determined by regulations adopted by CDPH to be of concern. Requires these regulations to be adopted by June 1, 2028. [HSC §104662(a)(1)]
5. Requires, no later than July 1, 2029, schools to begin to phase out UPFs of concern and restricted school foods, and by July 1, 2032, prohibits a vendor from offering UPFs of concern or restricted school foods to a school. [HSC §104664]
6. Enacts the California Food Safety Act to prohibit, commencing January 1, 2027, the manufacture or sale of a food product that contains any of the following substances:
   1. Brominated vegetable oil;
   2. Potassium bromate;
   3. Propylparaben; or,
   4. Red dye 3. [HSC §109025]
7. Prohibits food and beverages served or sold at elementary, middle, and high schools, beginning December 31, 2027, for purposes of provisions of law governing what can be sold at the school until 30 minutes after the school day ends, from containing any of the following synthetic color additives:
   1. Blue 1;
   2. Blue 2;
   3. Green 3;
   4. Red 40;
   5. Yellow 5; or,
   6. Yellow 6. [EDC §49431, et seq.]

This bill:

1. Requires CDPH, no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” (“Non-UPF Certified) pursuant to this bill.
2. Prohibits an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as Non-UPF Certified if it is classified as any of the following:
   1. A UPF, as defined in existing law;
   2. A UPF of concern, as defined in existing law; or,
   3. A restricted school food, as defined in existing law.
3. Requires a product to be recertified as Non-UPF Certified at least every three years.
4. Requires an applicant for certification, if a product using the Non-UPF Certified seal is reformulated, to submit an application to the accredited certification agent within 30 days for recertification of the reformulated product.
5. Requires CDPH to create a standardized seal that is permitted to incorporate both of the following:
   1. The phrase “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified Food Standard;” and,
   2. Images and themes association with California and health, nutritious whole foods.
6. Restricts the use of the Non-UPF Certified seal on a product to only those products that have been certified by an accredited certification agent.
7. Permits the Non-UPF Certified seal to be placed on the principal display panel, the information panel, or elsewhere on the package, provided that the seal does not obscure other required information, such as the nutrition facts panel or the statement of identity.
8. Requires an accredited certification agent to do all of the following:
   1. Register with CDPH on a form provided by CDPH;
   2. Annually renew the registration, unless the certification agency is no longer engaged in certifying products under this bill; and,
   3. Provide a list to CDPH of all the products certified by the accredited certification agent.
9. Requires any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to CDPH to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.
10. Requires an accredited certification agent that certifies Non-UPF Certified products to immediately make the following records available for inspection by CDPH, or provide copies within three business days of a request by CDPH, or within a reasonable time exceeding three business days as determined by CDPH:
    1. Records obtained from applicants for certification of a product; and,
    2. Records created by the accredited certification agent regarding applications for certification of a product.
11. Permits CDPH to audit the accredited certification agent’s certification procedures and records at any time, but requires any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by CDPH.
12. Requires CDPH to maintain a webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as Non-UPF Certified as reported by the accredited certification agent.
13. Permits CDPH to adopt any regulations as are reasonably necessary to assist in the implementation of, or to make more specific, the provisions of this bill related to the certification of Non-UPF foods.
14. Deems the following actions as unlawful:
    1. For a person to certify products as Non-UPF Certified unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent;
    2. For a person to willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed, in registration as an accredited certification agent;
    3. For a person to willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclose to an accredited certification agent; and,
    4. For a person to use the Non-UPF Certified seal on a product that does not meet the requirements of this bill.
15. Permits a person who engages in the misuse of the Non-UPF Certified seal to be enjoined in a court by any of the following:
    1. CDPH;
    2. The Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor; or,
    3. A consumer, business entity, or non-profit organization.
16. Specifies that a violation of the above provisions is not subject to existing criminal penalties for violations of the Sherman Law.
17. Requires a food facility to make clearly identifiable at least three or more items that are Non-UPF Certified if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 Non-UPF Certified items.
18. Defines “food facility,” for purposes of the requirement in 17) above, as an operation where food is consumed on or off the premises, regardless of whether there is a charge for the food, excluding restaurants or other types permanent and nonpermanent retail food facilities, as specified, and that has more than $10 million in gross annual sales.
19. Defines “clearly identifiable,” for purposes of the requirement in 17) above, as a manner of offering a product for sale on a display unit or within a retail setting that allows a reasonable consumer to readily distinguish the product from other products, including through physical separation, signage, or other visual cues.
20. Permits a food facility that fails to meet the requirement in 17) above to be enjoined in court by the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor. Specifies that this violation is not subject to existing criminal penalties for violations of the California Retail Food Code.
21. Deems a food facility to be in compliance with the requirement in 17) above if it demonstrates that it has made a good faith effort to comply and has implemented reasonable policies, procedures, or employee training designed to achieve compliance. Prohibits de minimis or isolated instances of noncompliance that occur despite good faith efforts, from constituting a violation of the requirement.
22. Sunsets the provisions of this bill relating to food facilities making certified products “clearly identifiable” on January 1, 2040.

FISCAL EFFECT:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs to CDPH of an unknown amount, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, one-time, to develop a process and standards for accrediting certification agents to certify products as ″Non-UPF Certified,″ create a seal, and possibly adopt regulations. CDPH would also incur ongoing costs, possibly low hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, to maintain the accreditation program (General Fund). The Department of Justice anticipates no costs associated with this bill. However, this bill allows private entities to enjoin a food facility that does not meet the display requirements in this bill, creating potential cost pressures to the courts of an unknown amount to adjudicate any additional filings. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded based on workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the Trial Court Trust Fund to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26.

PRIOR VOTES:

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, this bill would establish a Non-UPF seal that food manufacturers could place on products that meet clear standards for not being ultra-processed. Modeled after the “USDA Organic” label, the seal would provide consumers with a simple, trustworthy way to identify healthier options with a quick glance. Additionally, the bill would require grocery stores in California to feature products bearing the seal in a display, thereby making it easier for busy families to locate healthier foods quickly and conveniently. Ultimately, parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. to understand what they’re feeding their kids, and this new law will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to find foods that are free from harmful additives.
2. The NOVA classification system and the definition of UPF. The NOVA classification, also referred to as Nova, comes from the Portuguese title of the article that was originally published in 2009 by a researcher in Brazil: “A new classification of foods.” As it has evolved since originally formulated, NOVA classifies foods into four groups:
   1. Group 1: unprocessed or minimally processed foods. Minimally processed foods are natural foods (from plants, or from animals, including muscle, eggs, and milk) that are altered by processes that include removal of inedible or unwanted parts; and drying, crushing, grinding, fractioning, filtering, roasting, boiling, non-alcoholic fermentation, pasteurization, refrigeration, chilling, freezing, placing in containers, and vacuum packaging. These processes are designed to preserve natural foods, make them suitable for storing, or make them safe or edible or more pleasant to the consumer.
   2. Group 2: processed culinary ingredients. Processed culinary ingredients such as oils, butter, sugar and salt, are substances derived from Group 1 foods or from nature by processes that include pressing, refining, grinding, milling, and drying. The purpose of such processes is to make durable products that are suitable for use in home and restaurant kitchens to prepare, season, and cook Group 1 foods. They are not meant to be consumed by themselves, and are normally used in combination with Group 1 foods to make freshly prepared drinks, dishes and meals.
   3. Group 3: processed foods. Processed foods, such as bottled vegetables, canned fish, fruits in syrup, cheeses, and freshly made breads, are made by adding salt, oil, sugar, or other substances from Group 2 to Group 1 foods. Processes include various preservation or cooking methods, and, in the case of breads and cheese, non-alcoholic fermentation. Most processed foods have two or three ingredients, and are recognizable as modified versions of Group 1 foods. They are edible by themselves, or more usually, in combination with other foods.
   4. Group 4: UPFs. UPFs, such as soft drinks, sweet or savory packaged snacks, reconstituted meat products, and pre-prepared frozen dishes, are not modified foods but formulations made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, with little, if any, intact Group 1 food. Ingredients of these formulations usually includes those also used in processed foods, such as sugars, oils, fats, or salt, but also include other sources of energy and nutrients not normally used in culinary preparations. Some of these are directly extracted from foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten. Many are derived from further processing of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar, and high-fructose corn syrup. Additives in UPF include some used in processed foods, such as preservatives, antioxidants and stabilizers. Classes of additives found only in UPF products include those used to imitate or enhance the sensory qualities of foods or to disguise unpalatable aspects of the final product. These additives include dyes and other colors, color stabilizers, flavors, flavor enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as carbonating, firming, bulking, and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents, emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.

AB 1264 (Gabriel, Chapter 467, Statutes of 2025) establishes a multi-pronged definition to categorize whether foods intended to be sold or served in schools are UPF. First, it uses the FDA’s Substances Added to Food database (which was previously known as Everything Added to Foods in the United States, or EAFUS). This is a database of additives, including color additives, flavoring substances, and other ingredients added to food to achieve certain “technical effects.” Federal regulations list 32 different physical or technical effects that a food ingredient or additive can have, including antioxidants or antimicrobial agents used to preserve food, drying agents to maintain an environment of low moisture, enzymes to improve food processing, leavening agents, lubricants and release agents to prevent food from sticking to food contact surfaces, etc. The definition of UPF includes eight of these technical effects that are considered by the proponents of AB 1264 and this bill as associated with UPF – technical effects that are for flavoring or coloring effects, for example, or emulsifiers and thickeners.

If a food product meets the first test of having an additive with one of the eight technical effects, it moves on to the second prong: whether it is either high in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar, or it contains a nonnutritive sweetener or one of eleven other substances that are used as sugar replacements. These eleven substances, such as xylitol, D-sorbitol, and isomalt, are sugar alcohols or other substances that do not meet the definition of nonnutritive sweeteners because they still contain some calories, but are used as sugar substitutes.

1. The formulas for determining whether a food is high in saturated fat, sodium, or sugar are from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Nutrient Profile Model. As described above, one of the prongs for determining whether a food is UPF is whether it is high in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar. Rather than basing this determination on meeting a certain percentage of the recommended daily allowance (RDA), under the PAHO formula, it is the ratio that is important, not the total amount. So a single, small cookie, for example, might not meet 20% of the RDA for added sugar, but it might meet the PAHO definition if the sugar content is 10% of the total calories. A gram of sugar is equal to four calories: if a food product is 100 calories, it can have no more than 2.5 grams of sugar (2.5x4=10 calories, which is 10% of 100). Similarly, a gram of saturated fat is equal to 9 calories: that same 100 calorie food product can have no more than 1.1 gram of saturated fat to stay within the 10% limit. With regard to sodium, it is a straight 1:1 ratio of milligrams to calories: that 100 calorie food product can have no more than 100 milligrams of sodium. Under the PAHO formula, the ratio stays the same, regardless of serving size.
2. Definition of UPF may capture foods not typically considered UPF. As described above, the definition of UPF hinges, in part, on whether a food has a substance in the FDA database of food additives that has one of eight defined “technical effects:” surface-active agents; stabilizers and thickeners; propellants, aerating agents, and gases; colors and coloring adjuncts; emulsifiers and emulsifier salts; flavoring agents and adjuvants; flavor enhancers; and, nonnutritive sweeteners. However, food additives in the database often have multiple technical effects, and so a food additive can be included in the UPF definition even if it is being used for a technical effect that is not one of the technical effects associated with UPF.
   For example, cornstarch has ten different potential technical effects, some of which are functional and not UPF, like anticaking agent, drying agent, or formulation aid, while other technical effects of cornstarch are listed in this bill as meeting the definition of UPF, such as stabilizer and thickener, and flavoring agent. Under this bill, if a food product has cornstarch, it meets the first prong of the definition. This means that some foods that are not generally considered “UPF” might still be captured by the definition. For example, a block of mozzarella cheese usually contains milk, cheese cultures, salt, and enzymes, none of which meet the first prong of the definition. Even though the mozzarella cheese is both high in saturated fat and high in sodium, it is not UPF. However, that same cheese, packaged as shredded mozzarella, is likely going to be identified as UPF because anti-caking agents or release agents (such as cornstarch or potato starch) are typically added to the product to prevent the cheese shreds from sticking together. While these two technical effects are not considered by the bill to be UPF, cornstarch and potato starch also have other technical effects, such as flavor enhancer and stabilizer/thickener, which would trigger designation as UPF. Another example is a fruit jam or jelly that uses fruit pectin to set the fruit. Pectin is a firming agent, which is not a UPF technical effect under this bill, but it also has other technical effects that are UPF, such as flavor enhancer and stabilizer/thickener. A jam with only fruit, sugar, and fruit pectin meets the first prong, and would almost certainly meet the second prong of having added sugar that is at least 10% of the calories.
   
   It is unclear how many other examples of foods there are that might meet the definition of UPF despite not meeting the common understanding of UPF. The criteria that the food must also be high in saturated fat, sodium, or sugar does narrow the list of food products considerably.
3. Restricted school foods will be determined at a later date by a regulatory process. In addition to foods designated as UPF, this bill also prohibits products from being Non-UPF Certified if they are “restricted school foods.” (This bill also prohibits certification of “UPFs of concern” from AB 1264, but UPFs of concern already come from the universe of UPFs.) Restricted school foods were included in AB 1264 last year to capture foods that have one or more of the additives in the first prong of the definition of UPF, but do not meet the “high-in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar” of the second prong of the definition, and do not have a nonnutritive sweetener or other sugar substitute. The purpose of adding the category of “restricted school foods” was to give CDPH the ability to restrict a food that has all the characteristics of a UPF of concern, including a risk of adverse health consequences, etc., but was not high in saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar. Unlike the definition of UPF, which is a statutory definition, the list of restricted school foods will be determined pursuant to regulations adopted by CDPH, just like the “UPFs of concern” targeted by AB 1264.
   
   Because the definition of UPF is statutory, the Non-UPF certification process can start without waiting for regulations. However, because we will not know what are considered “restricted school foods” until CDPH promulgates regulations, it is possible a product could be approved as “Non-UPF Certified,” and then later lose this eligibility as a result of the product being included in the list of restricted school foods.
4. Based on certified organic program. The author states that this bill is modeled on the California Organic program. Under the California Organic Food and Farming Act, any certification agency that certifies products in California sold as organic is required to register with the Department of Agriculture, including paying an annual registration fee. Similar to this bill, a certification agency that certifies organic products is required to make records available for inspection. All products sold as organic in California are required to be certified by an accredited certifying agent.
5. Other Non-UPF programs. There are at least two existing programs that provide seals for food products to indicate that the product is “non-UPF:” Non-UPF Verified, which is a project under the umbrella of the Non-GMO Project and its Food Integrity Collective; and, WISEcode Non-UPF Shield.
6. Non-UPF Verified. The Non-GMO Project started in 2007, and in 2025 launched the Non-UPF Verified program. They published their Non-UPF Standard on January 21, 2026, which is a 30 page document detailing standard criteria and requirements for verification as Non-UPF Verified. This standard includes processing methods, which is something that the definition of UPF in California law used by this bill does not cover. There is some overlap in the list of ingredients that would exclude a product from being considered Non-UPF, such as non-nutrititive sweeteners, and thickeners and texturizers, but also some prohibited products not captured by the definition used by this bill, such as certain refined oils.
7. WISEcode. On May 4, 2026, WISEcode launched “Non-UPF Shield,” a verification program for brands, and a redesigned WISE Code UPF Detector mobile app. Both are powered by an artificial intelligence classification system that relies on an ingredient database and a proprietary automated review system.
8. Double referral. This bill is double referred. Should it pass out of this Committee, it will be referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
9. Prior legislation. AB 1264 (Gabriel, Chapter 467, Statutes of 2025) enacts the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act to reduce the consumption of UPFs by California children by: defining UPFs intended to be sold or served in schools; establishing a regulatory process for CDPH to determine which UPFs are of concern by June 1, 2028; and, requiring these UPFs of concern to be phased out of schools until they are prohibited from being offered to schools by vendors as of July 1, 2032, and prohibited from being served or sold in schools by July 1, 2035.
   
   AB 2316 (Gabriel, Chapter 914, Statutes of 2024) prohibits schools, commencing December 31, 2027, from serving or selling any food or beverage during the school day that contains the following six synthetic color additives: Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6.
   
   AB 418 (Gabriel, Chapter 328, Statutes of 2023) enacts the California Food Safety Act to prohibit, commencing January 1, 2027, the manufacture or sale of a food product that contains any of the following substances: brominated vegetable oil; potassium bromate; propylparaben; and, red dye 3.
   
   SB 348 (Skinner, Chapter 600, Statutes of 2023) requires schools to provide students with adequate time to eat following guidelines established by the California Department of Education (CDE); makes various conforming changes to the school meal program to implement the free universal school breakfast and lunch program; and, requires the CDE, in partnership with the California School Nutrition Association to develop guidelines to reduce the sugar and sodium content in school meals if the National School Lunch Program allows more added sugar or sodium than is recommended by the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans at any time in the future.
   
   SB 651 (Wieckowski of 2021) would have required food containing synthetic dyes to have the following label: SAFETY WARNING: Synthetic dyes may cause or worsen behavioral problems in children. SB 651 was not heard in the Senate Health Committee.
   
   SB 347 (Monning of 2019), SB 300 (Monning of 2017), SB 203 (Monning, of 2015), and SB 1000 (Monning of 2014) would have established the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Health Warning Act, to be administered by CDPH, and required a safety warning on all sealed sugar-sweetened beverage containers, as specified. SB 347 would have required the warning label to be posted in a place that is easily visible at the point-of-purchase of an establishment where a beverage container is not filled by the consumer. SB 347 was not heard in Assembly Health Committee. SB 300 was not heard in Senate Health Committee. SB 203 failed passage in the Senate Health Committee. SB 1000 failed passage in the Assembly Health Committee.
   
   SB 504 (Wieckowski of 2017), as introduced, was substantially similar to SB 651 (Wieckowski of 2021). Prior to the hearing in Senate Health Committee, it was amended to require the OEHHA to review existing scientific literature on the risks, if any, to children who consume synthetic food dyes, and to issue a report on whether synthetic dyes adversely affect some children’s behavior, and if so, what risk management options are available to the Legislature. SB 504 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file, but funding for OEHHA to complete this assessment was included in the 2018-2019 Budget Act.
   
   SB 1381 (Evans of 2014), would have enacted “The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” to require the labeling of all genetically engineered foods sold within California. SB 1381 failed passage on the Senate Floor.
10. Support. This bill is sponsored by the Environmental Working Group, and is joined in support by a large coalition. Supporters state that this bill builds on California’s first-in-the-nation definition of UPFs and creates a voluntary Non-UPF Certified seal that gives consumers a clear, trusted way to identify healthier food options for their families. According to supporters, UPFs now make up more than half of all calories consumed by adults in the U.S., and nearly two-thirds of the calories consumed by children. Consumers want to make better choices, but they do not have practical information at the point of purchase. Supporters point to a 2025 national survey that found that 72% of Americans are trying to reduce their UPF intake, yet fewer than half could correctly identify common UPF products. A separate study of more than 50,000 products at Walmart, Target, and Whole Foods found that most offerings across all three stores fell in the UPF category. This bill creates a voluntary certification program administered through CDPH-accredited third-party agents, backed by a public product registry and enforceable by the Attorney General. No manufacturer is required to participate, and a requirement that the product display is clearly identifiable only applies to large retailers that carry more than 25 certified items. Unlike private certification programs that operate without government oversight, this bill establishes a clear, accountable, state-backed standard.
11. Opposition. The Consumer Brands Association, the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, the Food Ingredient Safety Coalition, and the Calorie Control Council submitted a joint letter of opposition, stating that this bill is premature, would create consumer confusion, and would distort the marketplace. This group notes this bill creates a state-backed Non-UPF Certified seal at a time when private certification already serves this purpose, pointing to the Non-UPF Program and WISEcode, which already certify Non-UPF foods nationwide. Consumers already encounter a wide range of certifications and claims in the marketplace, including California Grown, organic, non-GMO, and Fair Trade, many administered by nonprofit or independent third parties. California should not single out one processing-based standard, attach a California-branded seal to it, and imply a unique level of state endorsement. This group states that certification under this bill turns in part on whether a product is classified as a UPF of concern or a restricted school foods, terms that CDPH is not required to define by regulation until June 1, 2028, and has not even begun the rulemaking. These opponents also note that the definition this bill relies on were enacted for school nutrition, a narrow context never intended for the general food supply. Because that definition excluded alcoholic beverages from the definition of UPF, a spirit or flavored malt beverage could carry the states Non-UPF Certified seal, while a low-fat, low-calorie yogurt sweetened with a nonnutritive sweetener, or a packaged salad whose dressing pairs a common emulsifier with added sugar, could be denied it. The opponents state that this bill authorizes anyone to seek an injunction over an alleged misuse of the seal, and given the close similarity between this seal and the existing national Non-UPF seal, there is a meaningful risk of litigation arising from consumer confusion between the two. Finally, according to the opponents, the FDA and United States Department of Agriculture are actively developing a federal definition of UPF, and no single, universally accepted definition exists today. Because private programs are not codified in statue, they can adapt as federal guidance evolves. By contrast, anchoring a California seal to a state-specific definition would require legislative action to realign.
    
    The California League of Food Producers, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Dairy Institute of California also jointly wrote in opposition, making similar arguments. The broad definition of UPF risks capturing foods that are widely regarded as healthy and nutritious, and states the part of the definition tying in foods that have high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugars could impact foods like cheeses, even though it is widely recognized as a healthy source of protein, calcium, and other essential nutrients.
    
    The Non-GMO Project states in opposition that they are a California nonprofit corporation with more than 20 years of experience in food certification and the operator of Non-UPF Verified, the nation’s leading independent certification for non-UPF foods. The Non-GMO project notes that they are not observers of this issue, they are one of its practitioners, and have serious concerns about this bill. The Non-GMO Projects core concerns include that it duplicates an existing nonprofit certification (Non-UPF Verified); it requires certification before definitions are finalized; it introduces litigation exposure and consumer confusion; and it establishes a non-UPF certification framework without requiring evaluation of actual processing methods.
12. Technical amendment to define grocery store. The provisions of this bill requiring a store with more than $10 million in gross annual sale to make Non-UPF Certified products clearly identifiable cross references to a definition of food facility in the California Retail Food Facility code, and then excludes restaurants and certain other food facilities. If the intention is to apply this requirement to grocery stores, there is an existing definition of grocery store that the author may wish to consider using to make this more clear:

b) (1) Upon the creation of the standardized seal pursuant to Section 110423.203, a food facility grocery store, as defined in paragraph (1) (3) of subdivision (a) (e) of Section 113789 113948, with gross annual store sales of more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall make clearly identifiable at least 3 or more items certified according to Article 5 (commencing with Section 110423.200) if the food facility grocery store offers for sale more than 25 certified items.

(2) For the purposes of this chapter, “food facility” does not include a restaurant or a facility listed in subdivision (b) of Section 113789.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support: Environmental Working Group (sponsor)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
American Diabetes Association
American Heart Association

American Nurses Association/California

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology

California Grocers Association
California Medical Association
California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
California Podiatric Medical Association
Center for Ecoliteracy
Center for Environmental Health
Chef Ann Foundation

Children Now
Clean Earth 4 Kids
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Reports
Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation
Democrats of Rossmoor
Eat Real

Educate. Advocate.
End Chronic Disease
Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxics Safety

Farm Fatales

Food & Water Watch
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Mamavation - Non-toxic Products for Healthy Families
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
San Francisco Marin Medical Society
The Office of Kat Taylor
United Nurses Associations of California/union of Health Care Professionals
Wellness in the Schools, Inc.

Oppose: American Beverage Association
California Chamber of Commerce

California Fuels and Convenience Alliance (unless amended)
California League of Food Producers

California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association (unless amended)

Calorie Control Council
Civil Justice Association of California
Competere

Consumer Brands Association
Dairy Institute of California

Food Ingredient Safety Coalition
Non-GMO Project

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2244

Author:(Gabriel)

As Amended Ver:May 22, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the State Department of Public Health (DPH), no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.″ Prohibits an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified″ if it is classified as an ultraprocessed food (UPF), ultraprocessed food of concern (UPF of concern), or a restricted school food. Requires DPH to create a specified standardized ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified″ seal. Authorizes a person to use the seal on a product only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. Authorizes DPH, among other parties, including public attorneys and private entities, as specified, to enjoin a person who engages, has engages, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the seal. Requires a food facility, as specified, with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to make clearly identifiable, as defined, at least three or more ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified″ items if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 certified items. Authorizes public attorneys, as specified, to enjoin a food facility that fails to meet these requirements, as specified. Requires a food facility to be deemed in compliance with this bill if it demonstrates that it has made a good faith effort to comply, as specified. Sunsets this bill’s requirements on food facilities on January 1, 2040.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

The NOVA classification system characterizes foods based on their level of industrial processing, with four categories ranging from unprocessed/minimally processed foods to ultraprocessed food (UPF). The UPF category is characterized by food products that are formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes. Common examples of UPFs include confectionery, sodas, packaged breads and reconstituted meat products such as hot dogs.

A 2024 article published in the scientific journal Foods titled ″UPF Intake and Increased Risk of Obesity: A Narrative Review″ notes that UPF consumption correlates with adverse health outcomes, including but not limited to overweight, obesity, and hypertension and insulin resistance. The article further states that UPFs, prevalent in modern diets, contribute to nutritional deficiencies and excessive caloric intake, exacerbating obesity rates. Lifestyle factors such as busy schedules and quick meal management further drive UPF consumption, disrupting hunger regulation and promoting overeating.

AB 1264 (Gabriel), Chapter 467, Statutes of 2025 defined UPFs, UPFs of concern, and restricted school foods as specified in existing law and further required DPH to promulgate regulations to define these terms considering specified factors by June 1, 2028.

Consumers and UPFs. The Environmental Working Group, the sponsors of this bill cite a 2025 report from the Food Integrity Collective and Linkage Research titled, ″Disconnected: Understanding the Gaps Between Consumer Intentions and Actions on Ultra-Processed Foods (2025),″ which found that 72% of Americans are trying to reduce their UPF intake, yet fewer than half could correctly identify common ultra-processed products.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic Label. According to the author, this bill is modeled after the USDA Organic Label. The USDA Organic label indicates that a product meets federal standards for organic farming and processing, including agricultural production practices that foster resource cycling, promote ecological balance, maintain and improve soil and water quality, minimize the use of synthetic materials, and conserve biodiversity. Organic product labels are required to be reviewed and approved by a USDA-accredited certifying agent before being used in the marketplace.

Impact of Nutrition Labels on Retail Costs. An article published on the University of Georgia′s website titled ″Impact of food nutrition labels on retail pricing and consumer purchasing″, highlighted research on sales of yogurt sold by stores who had adopted NuVal labels (which assigned scores describing the healthfulness of a product) and found that retailers increased prices for healthier products (products with higher NuVal scores).

What does this bill do? This bill does two key things. First, this bill establishes a process overseen by DPH where food manufacturers could apply to accredited certification agents to use a not ultra-processed label on their packaging, thereby indicating that a product is not a UPF as defined in state law. Second, this bill requires grocery stores in California to make products with the non-ultraprocessed seal clearly identifiable, allowing a reasonable consumer to readily distinguish the products from other products including through physical separation, signage, or other physical cues. The enforcement mechanism for both of these provisions is to allow specified entities to pursue injunctive relief through the courts. Entities who can enjoin those who misuse the seal include DPH, the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California; and, a consumer, business entity, or non-profit organization. Entities who can enjoin food facilities who fail to comply with this bill’s requirements to make products clearly identifiable, as specified, include the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California.

Please see the Assembly Committee on Health analysis for additional background.

According to the Author

This bill would establish a ″Not Ultraprocessed″ seal that food manufacturers could place on products that meet clear standards for not being ultra-processed. Modeled after the ″USDA Organic″ label, the seal would provide consumers with a simple, trustworthy way to identify healthier options with a quick glance. The author further notes that this bill would require grocery stores in California to feature products bearing the seal in a prominent, high-traffic area of the store, thereby making it easier for busy families to locate healthier foods quickly and conveniently. The author concludes that ultimately, parents should not need a Ph.D. to understand what they′re feeding their kids, and this bill will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to find foods that are free from harmful additives.

Arguments in Support

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is the sponsor of this bill and states in support that right now, consumers in California have no practical way to identify UPFs at the grocery store, even when they are actively trying to avoid them. EWG continues that consumers want to make better choices, but the information they need is not available to them at the point of purchase. EWG continues that this bill builds on AB 1264′s first-in-the-nation UPF definition and creates a voluntary seal administered through DPH-accredited third-party agents, backed by a public product registry, and enforceable by the Attorney General. EWG states that under this bill, no manufacturer is required to participate, and the preferred placement requirement applies only to large retailers already carrying more than 25 certified items. EWG states that unlike existing private certification programs, which operate without government oversight, this seal carries the force of state law and the accountability of a government-backed standard. EWG concludes that the seal is the trusted, reliable signal that consumers need.

Arguments in Opposition

The California League of Food Producers (CLFP) opposes this bill, stating its most fundamental concern is that this bill builds on a definitional foundation that has not yet been established. CLFP notes that AB 1264 directed DPH to adopt regulations defining ″UPFs of concern″ and ″restricted school foods″ by June 1, 2028, the same deadline by which this bill would require certification agents to be accredited and operational. CLFP is concerned that a certification system will be in place before the underlying definitions it depends on have been established through a transparent rulemaking process. Additionally, as noted in CLFP′s opposition to AB 1264, the broad definition of ″ultraprocessed″ risks capturing foods that are widely regarded as healthy and nutritious. CLFP highlights concerns with the preferred placement provisions, including that not all qualifying products will receive the same priority or treatment from retailers and many healthy, protein-rich items such as dairy, produce, frozen vegetables and meat products will have limited exposure, as these items require refrigeration or frozen display cases that are not available in the ″prominent locations″ that this bill contemplates. Many of these products would qualify for the California Certification yet would be unable to access the benefit the bill is designed to provide.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs to DPH of an unknown amount, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, one-time, to develop a process and standards for accrediting certification agents to certify products as ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified,″ create a seal, and possibly adopt regulations. DPH would also incur ongoing costs, possibly low hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, to maintain the accreditation program (General Fund). The Department of Justice anticipates no costs associated with this bill. However, this bill allows private entities to enjoin a food facility that does not meet the display requirements in this bill, creating potential cost pressures to the courts of an unknown amount to adjudicate any additional filings. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded based on workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the Trial Court Trust Fund to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26. The Legislative Analyst′s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year and ongoing.

VOTES

ASM HEALTH: 16-0-0

YES: Bonta, Chen, Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Caloza, Carrillo, Mark González, Johnson, Patel, Patterson, Rogers, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Stefani

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-2-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta

NO: Dixon, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: May 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Eliza Brooks / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0003104

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2244

Author:(Gabriel)

As Amended Ver:April 16, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the State Department of Public Health (DPH), no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.″ Prohibits an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified″ if it is classified as an ultraprocessed food (UPF), ultraprocessed food of concern (UPF of concern), or a restricted school food. Requires DPH to create a specified standardized ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified″ seal. Authorizes a person to use the seal on a product only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. Requires a food facility, as specified, with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to prominently display, as defined, at least three or more ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified″ items if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 certified items. Authorizes DPH, among other parties including public attorneys and private entities, to enjoin a food facility that fails to meet these requirements, as specified.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

The NOVA classification system characterizes foods based on their level of industrial processing, with four categories ranging from unprocessed/minimally processed foods to ultraprocessed food (UPF). The UPF category is characterized by food products that are formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes. Common examples of UPFs include confectionery, sodas, packaged breads and reconstituted meat products such as hot dogs.

A 2024 article published in the scientific journal Foods titled ″UPF Intake and Increased Risk of Obesity: A Narrative Review″ notes that UPF consumption correlates with adverse health outcomes, including but not limited to overweight, obesity, and hypertension and insulin resistance. The article further states that UPFs, prevalent in modern diets, contribute to nutritional deficiencies and excessive caloric intake, exacerbating obesity rates. Lifestyle factors such as busy schedules and quick meal management further drive UPF consumption, disrupting hunger regulation and promoting overeating.

AB 1264 (Gabriel), Chapter 467, Statutes of 2025 defined UPFs, UPFs of concern, and restricted school foods as specified in existing law and further required DPH to promulgate regulations to define these terms considering specified factors by June 1, 2028.

Consumers and UPFs. The Environmental Working Group, the sponsors of this bill cite a 2025 report from the Food Integrity Collective and Linkage Research titled, ″Disconnected: Understanding the Gaps Between Consumer Intentions and Actions on Ultra-Processed Foods (2025),″ which found that 72% of Americans are trying to reduce their UPF intake, yet fewer than half could correctly identify common ultra-processed products.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic Label. According to the author, this bill is modeled after the USDA Organic Label. The USDA Organic label indicates that a product meets federal standards for organic farming and processing, including agricultural production practices that foster resource cycling, promote ecological balance, maintain and improve soil and water quality, minimize the use of synthetic materials, and conserve biodiversity.Organic product labels are required to be reviewed and approved by a USDA-accredited certifying agent before being used in the marketplace.

Impact of Nutrition Labels on Retail Costs. An article published on the University of Georgia′s website titled ″Impact of food nutrition labels on retail pricing and consumer purchasing″, highlighted research on sales of yogurt sold by stores who had adopted NuVal labels (which assigned scores describing the healthfulness of a product) and found that retailers increased prices for healthier products (products with higher NuVal scores).

What does this bill do? This bill does two key things. First, this bill establishes a process overseen by DPH where food manufacturers could apply to accredited certification agents to use a not ultra-processed label on their packaging, thereby indicating that a product is not a UPF as defined in state law. Second, this bill requires grocery stores in California to prominently display products with the not ultra-processed seal in a prominent location, with flexibility in identifying such a location. The enforcement mechanism for both of these provisions is to allow specified entities to pursue injunctive relief through the courts. The specified entities include DPH; the Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in in the name of the people of the State of California; and, a consumer, business entity, or non-profit organization.

Please see the Assembly Committee on Health analysis for additional background.

According to the Author

This bill would establish a ″Not Ultraprocessed″ seal that food manufacturers could place on products that meet clear standards for not being ultra-processed. Modeled after the ″USDA Organic″ label, the seal would provide consumers with a simple, trustworthy way to identify healthier options with a quick glance. The author further notes that this bill would require grocery stores in California to feature products bearing the seal in a prominent, high-traffic area of the store, thereby making it easier for busy families to locate healthier foods quickly and conveniently. The author concludes that ultimately, parents shouldn′t need a Ph.D. to understand what they′re feeding their kids, and this bill will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to find foods that are free from harmful additives.

Arguments in Support

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is the sponsor of this bill and states in support that right now, consumers in California have no practical way to identify UPFs at the grocery store, even when they are actively trying to avoid them. EWG continues that consumers want to make better choices, but the information they need is not available to them at the point of purchase. EWG continues that this bill builds on AB 1264′s first-in-the-nation UPF definition and creates a voluntary seal administered through DPH-accredited third-party agents, backed by a public product registry, and enforceable by the Attorney General. EWG states that under this bill, no manufacturer is required to participate, and the preferred placement requirement applies only to large retailers already carrying more than 25 certified items. EWG states that unlike existing private certification programs, which operate without government oversight, this seal carries the force of state law and the accountability of a government-backed standard. EWG concludes that the seal is the trusted, reliable signal that consumers need.

Arguments in Opposition

The California League of Food Producers (CLFP) opposes this bill, stating its most fundamental concern is that this bill builds on a definitional foundation that has not yet been established. CLFP notes that AB 1264 directed DPH to adopt regulations defining ″UPFs of concern″ and ″restricted school foods″ by June 1, 2028, the same deadline by which this bill would require certification agents to be accredited and operational. CLFP is concerned that a certification system will be in place before the underlying definitions it depends on have been established through a transparent rulemaking process. Additionally, as noted in CLFP′s opposition to AB 1264, the broad definition of ″ultraprocessed″ risks capturing foods that are widely regarded as healthy and nutritious. CLFP highlights concerns with the preferred placement provisions, including that not all qualifying products will receive the same priority or treatment from retailers and many healthy, protein-rich items such as dairy, produce, frozen vegetables and meat products will have limited exposure, as these items require refrigeration or frozen display cases that are not available in the ″prominent locations″ that this bill contemplates. Many of these products would qualify for the California Certification yet would be unable to access the benefit the bill is designed to provide.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs to DPH of an unknown amount, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, one-time, to develop a process and standards for accrediting certification agents to certify products as ″Non-Ultraprocessed Certified,″ create a seal, and possibly adopt regulations. DPH would also incur ongoing costs, possibly low hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, to maintain the accreditation program (General Fund). The Department of Justice anticipates no costs associated with this bill. However, this bill allows private entities to enjoin a food facility that does not meet the display requirements in this bill, creating potential cost pressures to the courts of an unknown amount to adjudicate any additional filings. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded based on workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the Trial Court Trust Fund to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26. The Legislative Analyst′s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year and ongoing.

VOTES

ASM HEALTH: 16-0-0

YES: Bonta, Chen, Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Caloza, Carrillo, Mark González, Johnson, Patel, Patterson, Rogers, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Stefani

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-2-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta

NO: Dixon, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: April 16, 2026

CONSULTANT: Eliza Brooks / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0002971

Date of Hearing: May 13, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2244

Author:(Gabriel) – As Amended Ver:April 16, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents to certify products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.”

The bill also requires CDPH to create a specified standardized “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” seal and allows a person to use the seal on a product only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. This bill also requires a food facility with gross annual store sales of more than $10 million to prominently display, as defined, at least three “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” items if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 certified items. The bill authorizes CDPH, public attorneys, and private entities to enjoin a food facility that fails to meet the display requirements.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Costs to CDPH of an unknown amount, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, one-time, to develop a process and standards for accrediting certification agents to certify products as “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified,” create a seal, and possibly adopt regulations. CDPH would also incur ongoing costs, possibly low hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, to maintain the accreditation program (General Fund).

The Department of Justice anticipates no costs associated with this bill. However, this bill allows private entities to enjoin a food facility that does not meet the display requirements in this bill, creating potential cost pressures to the courts of an unknown amount to adjudicate any additional filings. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded based on workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the Trial Court Trust Fund to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year and ongoing.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by Environmental Working Group. According to the author:

This bill would establish a “Not Ultraprocessed” seal that food manufacturers could place on products that meet clear standards for not being ultra-processed. Modeled after the “USDA Organic” label, the seal would provide consumers with a simple, trustworthy way to identify healthier options with a quick glance.

This bill would require grocery stores in California to feature products bearing the seal in a prominent, high-traffic area of the store, thereby making it easier for busy families to locate healthier foods quickly and conveniently. The author concludes that ultimately, parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. to understand what they’re feeding their kids, and this bill will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to find foods that are free from harmful additives.

1. Background. The NOVA classification system characterizes foods based on their level of industrial processing, with four categories ranging from unprocessed/minimally processed foods to ultraprocessed food (UPF). The UPF category is characterized by food products that are formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes. Common examples of UPFs include confectionery, sodas, packaged breads and reconstituted meat products such as hot dogs.

A 2024 article published in the scientific journal Foods notes that UPF consumption correlates with adverse health outcomes, including but not limited to overweight, obesity, and hypertension and insulin resistance. The article further states that UPFs, prevalent in modern diets, contribute to nutritional deficiencies and excessive caloric intake, exacerbating obesity rates. Lifestyle factors such as busy schedules and quick meal management further drive UPF consumption, disrupting hunger regulation and promoting overeating. 

The Environmental Working Group, the sponsors of this bill cite a 2025 report from the Food Integrity Collective and Linkage Research that found that 72% of Americans are trying to reduce their UPF intake, yet fewer than half could correctly identify common ultra-processed products.

An article published on the University of Georgia’s website highlighted research on sales of yogurt sold by stores that had adopted NuVal labels (which assigned scores describing the healthfulness of a product) and found that retailers increased prices for healthier products (products with higher NuVal scores).

Analysis Prepared by: Allegra Kim / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 14, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Mia Bonta, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2244

Author:(Gabriel) – As Amended Ver:April 6, 2026

SUBJECT: California Certified food standard.

SUMMARY: Requires the State Department of Public Health (DPH), no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as “California Certified.” Prohibits an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as “California Certified” if it is classified as an ultraprocessed food (UPF), ultraprocessed food of concern (UPF of concern), or a restricted school food. Requires DPH to create a specified standardized “California Certified” seal. Authorizes a person to use the seal on a product only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent. Requires a food facility with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to prominently display, as defined, at least 3 or more “California Certified” items if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 certified items. Authorizes DPH, among other parties, to enjoin a food facility that fails to meet these requirements. Specifically, this bill:

“California Certified” Seal Accreditation

1. Requires DPH to accredit certification agents that can certify products as California Certified pursuant to this bill no later than June 1, 2028.
2. Requires an accredited certification agent to do all of the following:
   1. Register with DPH on a form provided by DPH;
   2. Annually renew the registration, unless the certification agency is no longer engaged in certifying products pursuant to this bill; and,
   3. Provide a list to DPH of all the products certified by the accredited certification agent.
3. Requires any registration information submitted by an accredited certification agent to DPH to be made available to the public for inspection and copying.
4. Requires an accredited certification agent that certifies products sold as “California Certified” to immediately make the following records available for inspection by and to provide a copy to DPH upon request within three business days or within a reasonable time exceeding three business days as determined by DPH, provide a copy to DPH:
   1. Records obtained from applicants for certification of a product; and,
   2. Records created by the accredited certification agent regarding applications for certification of a product.
5. Authorizes DPH to audit the accredited certification agent’s certification procedures and records at any time, but requires any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by DPH.
6. Requires DPH to maintain a public internet webpage that lists all of the products currently certified as “California Certified” as reported by the accredited certification agent.
7. Prohibits an accredited certification agent from certifying a product as “California Certified” if it is classified as any of the following:
   1. An ultraprocessed food, as defined in 3) of existing law below.
   2. An ultraprocessed food of concern, as defined in 5) of existing law.
   3. A restricted school food, as defined in 6) of existing law.
8. Requires a product to be recertified as “California Certified” no less frequently than every three years.
9. Requires, if a product using the “California Certified” seal is reformulated, an applicant for certification of a product to submit an application to the accredited certification agent within 30 days for recertification of the reformulated product.
10.  Requires DPH to create a standardized seal that may incorporate both of the following:
    1.  The phrase “California Certified Not Ultraprocessed Food Standard.”
    2. Images and themes associated with California and healthy, nutritious whole foods.
11. Authorizes a person to use the “California Certified” seal on a product only if the product has been certified by an accredited certification agent pursuant to this bill.
12. Authorizes the seal to be placed on the principal display panel, the information panel, or elsewhere on the package, provided that the seal does not obscure other required information, such as the nutrition facts panel or the statement of identity.
13. Makes it unlawful for a person to certify products as “California Certified” unless duly registered as an accredited certification agent.
14. Makes it unlawful for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed, in registration as an accredited certification agent pursuant to this article.
15. Makes it unlawful for a person to willfully make a false statement or representation, or knowingly fail to disclose a fact required to be disclosed to an accredited certification agent.
16. Makes it unlawful for a person to use the California Certified seal on a product that does not meet the provisions of this bill.
17. Authorizes specified entities to enjoin a person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in the misuse of the California Certified seal in a court of competent jurisdiction. These entities include:
    1. DPH;
    2. The Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in in the name of the people of the State of California; and,
    3. A consumer, business entity, or non-profit organization.
18. Specifies that violation of these provisions is not subject to the penalties of the Sherman Act.

Preferred Placement

1. Requires a food facility with gross annual store sales of more than $10,000,000 to prominently display, as defined, at least 3 or more “California Certified” items if the food facility offers for sale more than 25 certified items.
2. Authorizes specified entities to enjoin a food facility that fails to meet the requirements of this bill in a court of competent jurisdiction. These entities include:
   1. DPH;
   2. The Attorney General, county counsel, city attorney, or city processor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California; and,
   3. A consumer, business entity, or non-profit organization.
3. Specifies that violation of these provisions is not subject to the enforcement provisions of the California Retail Food Code (CRFC).
4. States the intent of the Legislature to provide consumers with reliable and easily accessible health-related information so that they can make informed choices when purchasing food and beverages.
5. Defines the following for purposes of this bill:
   1. “Accredited certification agent” to mean an entity accredited by the department to certify products as “California Certified,”; and,
   2. “California Certified” to mean a product that has been certified by an accredited certification agent.
6. Finds and declares that the portion of this bill relating to the “California Certified” Seal accreditation imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest: To ensure protection for confidential and proprietary business information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets, requires any records of the accredited certification agent not otherwise required to be disclosed to be kept confidential by DPH.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Sherman Law, which provides for the regulation of various subjects relating to the processing, labeling, advertising, and sale of food, drugs, and cosmetics, including dietary supplements, under the administration and enforcement of DPH. [Health & Safety Code (HSC) § 109875, et seq.]
2. Requires a person who violates the Sherman Law or regulations adopted pursuant to the Sherman Law, if convicted, to be subject to imprisonment for not more than one year in a county jail or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both the imprisonment and fine. [HSC § 111825]
3. Defines “UPF” to mean any food or beverage that contains a substance (including surface-active agents, stabilizers and thickeners, propellants, colors, emulsifiers, flavoring agents, flavor enhancers, and nonnutritive agents as specified in federal regulations) and either high amounts of saturated fat, sodium, or added sugar or a nonnutritive sweetener as defined in federal regulations or other substance, as specified. [HSC § 104661]
4. Specifies that UPF does not include the following: a commodity food specifically made available by the United States Department of Agriculture; a raw agricultural commodity; an unprocessed locally grown or locally raised agricultural product; a minimally processed prepared food, Class 1 milk, alcoholic beverages, medical foods only if exempted by the department by regulation; and infant formula, as specified. [Ibid.]
5. Defines “restricted school foods” to mean a food or beverage product that is not listed in 4) above, that contains one or more of the substances specified in 3) above, and that is restricted from service or sale in schools, as defined by the regulations adopted by DPH consistent with 7) below. [HSC § 104662]
6. Defines “UPF of concern” to mean a food or food product that is an ultraprocessed food, as defined in 3) above, that is of concern, as determined by regulations consistent with 7) below. [HSC § 104662]
7. Requires DPH to adopt regulations, on or before June 1, 2028, to define “ultraprocessed foods of concern” and “restricted school foods,” as specified, and requires DPH, when defining ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, to consider several specified factors, including whether the substance or group of substances are banned or restricted in other state, federal, or international jurisdictions due to concerns about adverse health consequences. [HSC § 104662]
8. Establishes the CRFC) to provide for the regulation of retail food facilities. Establishes health and sanitation standards at the state level through the CRFC, while enforcement is charged to local agencies, carried out by the 58 county environmental health departments and four city environmental health departments (Berkeley, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Vernon). [HSC § 113700, et.seq.]
9. Defines, within the CRFC, a “food facility” to mean an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption at the retail level, including, but not limited to, the following:
   1. An operation where food is consumed on or off the premises, regardless of whether there is a charge for the food; and,
   2. A place used in conjunction with the operations described in 9) a) above, including but not limited to storage facilities for food-related utensils, equipment and materials. [HSC § 113789]
10. Specifies that “food facility” includes permanent and nonpermanent food facilities, including, but not limited to, the following:
    1. Public and private school cafeterias;
    2. Restricted food service facilities;
    3. Licensed health care facilities, except as specified;
    4. Commissaries;
    5. Mobile food facilities;
    6. Mobile support units;
    7. Temporary food facilities;
    8. Vending machines;
    9. Certified farmers’ markets, for purposes of permitting and enforcement;
    10. Farm stands, for purposes of permitting and enforcement;
    11. Fishermen’s markets;
    12. Microenterprise home kitchen operations;
    13. Catering operation; and,
    14. Host facility. [HSC § 113789 (c)]

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

1. PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, this bill would establish a “Not Ultraprocessed” seal that food manufacturers could place on products that meet clear standards for not being ultra-processed. Modeled after the “USDA Organic” label, the seal would provide consumers with a simple, trustworthy way to identify healthier options with a quick glance. The author further notes that this bill would require grocery stores in California to feature products bearing the seal in a prominent, high-traffic area of the store, thereby making it easier for busy families to locate healthier foods quickly and conveniently. The author concludes that ultimately, parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. to understand what they’re feeding their kids, and this bill will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to find foods that are free from harmful additives.
2. BACKGROUND. The term UPF was first introduced in a scientific context in 2009 as part of the NOVA classification system. The NOVA classification system characterizes foods based on their level of industrial processing (such as whole food fractioning, chemical modification, assembly, additions for palatability, and packaging), with four categories ranging from unprocessed/minimally processed foods to UPF. According to a 2019 article published in Public Health Nutrition titled “Ultraprocessed foods: what they are and how to identify them,” the UPF category is characterized by food products which are formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes. According to the aforementioned article, common examples of UPFs include confectionery, sodas, packaged breads and reconstituted meat products (for example, hot dogs). The article notes that another practical way to identify UPFs is to examine whether listed ingredients contain substances rarely used in home kitchens (for example, hydrogenated oils) and/or include additives to enhance food palatability or appearance (for example, sweeteners).

A 2024 article published in Foods (a peer-reviewed scientific journal) titled “UPF Intake and Increased Risk of Obesity: A Narrative Review” notes that UPF consumption correlates with adverse health outcomes, including but not limited to overweight, obesity, and hypertension and insulin resistance. The article further states that UPFs, prevalent in modern diets, contribute to nutritional deficiencies and excessive caloric intake, exacerbating obesity rates. Lifestyle factors such as busy schedules and quick meal management further drive UPF consumption, disrupting hunger regulation and promoting overeating. 

• 1. State Level Efforts to Reduce the Impact of UPFs.
     1. Governor’s Executive Order (EO) on UPFs. On January 1, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an EO related to UPFs. Among other provisions, the EO required DPH to provide recommendations to the Governor’s Office regarding potential action to limit the harms associated with UPFs and food ingredients that pose a health risk to individuals and stated that such recommendations may include, but are not necessarily limited to, requiring the inclusion of warning labels for certain UPFs. Additionally, the EO required specific state agencies to do the following:
        1. Continue investigating the adverse health impacts of synthetic food dyes;
        2. Recommend actions to reduce the purchase of soda, candy, other UPFs and/or foods with synthetic food dye or other additives;
        3. Investigate the feasibility of requiring Medi-Cal Managed Care plans and California hospitals to use their Community Investment dollars and Community Benefit funds to enhance access to fresh, healthy foods, mitigate the impacts of “food deserts,” and otherwise promote public health at the local level;
        4. Identify areas where California may adopt higher standards for healthy school meals than national standards; and,
        5. Explore developing new standards and partnerships to further protect and expand universal school food programs.
     2. AB 1264 (Gabriel), Chapter 467, Statutes of 2025 defined UPFs, UPFs of concern, and restricted school foods as specified in existing law above and further required DPH to promulgate regulations to define these terms considering specified factors by June 1, 2028.
  2. Consumers and UPFs. A 2024 study of adults living in the United Kingdom titled “Consumer Awareness: Perceptions and Avoidance of UPFs” published in Foods found that 73% of participants were aware of the term UPF and 58% reported that their food choices are determined by whether they believe a food is a UPF or not. Participants with the highest income and education levels were most likely to report both being aware of, and, avoiding consuming UPFs. Most participants could not accurately categorize whether foods were UPFs. Some sociodemographic groups (for example, higher education levels) were more likely to accurately categorize UPFs but were also more likely to incorrectly believe that non-UPFs were UPFs. Participants tended to report that UPF-health risk information acts as a deterrent to consuming UPFs.

The Environmental Working Group, the sponsors of this bill cite a 2025 report from the Food Integrity Collective and Linkage Research titled, “Disconnected: Understanding the Gaps Between Consumer Intentions and Actions on Ultra-Processed Foods (2025),” which found that 72% of Americans are trying to reduce their UPF intake, yet fewer than half could correctly identify common ultra-processed products.

• 1. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic Label. According to the author, this bill is modeled after the USDA Organic Label. The USDA Organic label indicates that a product meets federal standards for organic farming and processing, including agricultural production practices that foster resource cycling, promote ecological balance, maintain and improve soil and water quality, minimize the use of synthetic materials, and conserve biodiversity. Organic product labels are required to be reviewed and approved by a USDA-accredited certifying agent before being used in the marketplace.
  2. Impact of Nutrition Labels on Retail Costs. An article published on the University of Georgia’s website titled “Impact of food nutrition labels on retail pricing and consumer purchasing”, highlighted research on sales of yogurt sold by stores who had adopted NuVal labels (which assigned scores describing the healthfulness of a product) and found that retailers increased prices for healthier products (products with higher NuVal scores), with the implication that people with more money are able to purchase healthier foods, whereas people with less money are more likely to purchase less healthy foods.
  3. What does this bill do? This bill does two key things. First, this bill establishes a process overseen by DPH where food manufacturers could apply to accredited certification agents to use a not ultra-processed label on their packaging, thereby indicating that a product is not a UPF as defined in state law. Second, this bill requires grocery stores in California to prominently display products with the not ultra-processed seal in a designated high-traffic area. The enforcement mechanism for both of these provisions is to specified entities to pursue injunctive relief through the courts.

1. SUPPORT. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is the sponsor of this bill and states in support that right now, consumers in California have no practical way to identify UPFs at the grocery store, even when they are actively trying to avoid them. EWG continues that consumers want to make better choices, but the information they need is not available to them at the point of purchase. EWG continues that this bill builds on AB 1264's first-in-the-nation UPF definition and creates a voluntary "California Certified" seal administered through DPH-accredited third-party agents, backed by a public product registry, and enforceable by the Attorney General. EWG states that under this bill, no manufacturer is required to participate, and the preferred placement requirement applies only to large retailers already carrying more than 25 certified items. EWG states that unlike existing private certification programs, which operate without government oversight, this seal carries the force of state law and the accountability of a government-backed standard. EWG concludes that the "California Certified" seal is the trusted, reliable signal that consumers need.
2. OPPOSITION. The California League of Food Producers (CLFP) opposes this bill, stating its most fundamental concern is that this bill builds on a definitional foundation that has not yet been established. CLFP notes that AB 1264 directed DPH to adopt regulations defining “ultraprocessed foods of concern” and “restricted school foods” by June 1, 2028, the same deadline by which this bill would require certification agents to be accredited and operational. CLFP is concerned that a certification system will be in place before the underlying definitions it depends on have been established through a transparent rulemaking process. Additionally, as noted in CLFP’s opposition to AB 1264, the broad definition of “ultraprocessed” risks capturing foods that are widely regarded as healthy and nutritious. CLFP further contends that “California Certified” could lead to consumer confusion, as products grown and processed in California have the distinct advantage of being labeled and marketed with California Grown and California Organic seals, prestigious certification labels that require rigorous review. CLFP states that under this bill products that are imported from out of state, or even the country, can receive a “California Certified” label, which could mislead the consumer into thinking that the product is from California and meets the extensive standards that California producers undergo. CLFP states these products would carry a cost advantage, as they are not subject to the same regulatory and environmental requirements as California processors. Further, CLFP concludes by expressing this its concerns with “preferred placement” provision, highlighting a concern that not all qualifying products will receive the same priority or treatment from retailers and many healthy, protein-rich items such as dairy, produce, frozen vegetables and meat products will have limited exposure, as these items require refrigeration or frozen display cases that are not available in the “prominent locations” that this bill contemplates. Many of these products would qualify for the California Certification yet would be unable to access the benefit the bill is designed to provide.
3. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED. The California Grocers Association (CGA) and California Retailers Association (CRA), oppose this bill unless amended, stating that product placement, shelving configuration, and in-store displays in retail grocery environments are the result of extensive planning, consumer behavior analysis, and longstanding contractual relationships among retailers, distributors, brokers, and manufacturers and include negotiated slotting fees, promotional agreements, and category management strategies that ensure products are stocked efficiently and presented in ways that meet customer expectations. CGA and CRA further state that these systems are essential to maintaining operational viability in an industry where net profit margins are often just one to two percent, and a state mandate dictating the placement or display of certain products would disrupt these agreements, create operational inefficiencies, and jeopardize an important source of revenue that helps grocers keep food prices as low as possible. CGA and CRA further state shelf space in grocery stores is finite and intensely competitive and this bill would override retailer decisions by requiring grocers to dedicate valuable shelf space to specific labeled products, regardless of whether those products align with customer purchasing patterns in a given store or community. CGA and CRA contend that if certain product labels trigger mandatory display requirements, retailers may respond by choosing not to carry those labeled products at all in order to avoid the associated compliance burdens and loss of merchandising flexibility, resulting in reduced consumer access to the products this bill seeks to promote. Finally, CGA and CRA state that compliance with this bill would introduce new operational burdens, including staff training, monitoring, and potential enforcement risks. CGA and CRA request an amendment to remove the section of this bill relating to “preferred placement” in its entirety.
4. RELATED LEGISLATION. AB 2034 (Addis) would require manufacturers of food additives to submit safety information to DPH before using certain food additives that have not undergone federal pre-market review. Would create a public database which includes, among other things, safety information provided by manufacturers. Would require manufacturers to report all ingredients to DPH, including those under the names “natural flavor,” “artificial flavor,” “artificial color,” and “spice,” and requires DPH to create a public, searchable database where consumers can view ingredient information. Would deem a food additive unsafe if it is found to induce cancer. AB 2034 passed the Assembly Health Committee on a 10-3 vote.
5. PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
   1. AB 1264 (Gabriel), Chapter 467, Statutes of 2025 prohibits local educational agencies from selling "particularly harmful ultra-processed foods" or beverages, beginning July 1, 2035. Prohibits a vendor from offering particularly harmful UPF to a school, beginning January 1, 2032. Requires OEHHA to adopt, by July 1, 2026, regulations to define particularly harmful UPF.
   2. AB 2316 (Gabriel), Chapter 914, Statutes of 2024 prohibits schools, commencing December 31, 2027, from serving or selling any food or beverage during the school day that contains the following six synthetic color additives: Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6.
   3. AB 418 (Gabriel), Chapter 328, Statutes of 2023 enacts the California Food Safety Act to prohibit, commencing January 1, 2027, the manufacture or sale of a food product that contains any of the following substances: brominated vegetable oil; potassium bromate; propylparaben; and, red dye 3.
   4. SB 348 (Skinner), Chapter 600, Statutes of 2023 requires schools to provide students with adequate time to eat following guidelines established by the California Department of Education (CDE); makes various conforming changes to the school meal program to implement the free universal school breakfast and lunch program; and, requires the CDE, in partnership with the California School Nutrition Association to develop guidelines to reduce the sugar and sodium content in school meals if the National School Lunch Program allows more added sugar or sodium than is recommended by the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans at any time in the future.
   5. SB 651 (Wieckowski) of 2021 would have required food containing synthetic dyes to have the following label: SAFETY WARNING: Synthetic dyes may cause or worsen behavioral problems in children. SB 651 was not heard in the Senate Health Committee.
   6. SB 347 (Monning) of 2019, SB 300 (Monning) of 2017, SB 203 (Monning) of 2015, and SB 1000 (Monning) of 2014 would have established the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Health Warning Act, to be administered by DPH, and required a safety warning on all sealed sugar-sweetened beverage containers, as specified. Would have required the warning label to be posted in a place that is easily visible at the point-of-purchase of an establishment where a beverage container is not filled by the consumer. SB 347 was not heard in Assembly Health Committee. SB 300 was not heard in Senate Health Committee. SB 203 failed passage in the Senate Health Committee. SB 1000 failed passage in the Assembly Health Committee.
6. POLICY COMMENT.
   1. Rising food costs. According to the 2024 California Health Interview Survey, 47.2% of California adults earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) — $30,120 for a single adult and $62,400 for a family of four — were food insecure. Concerns have been raised that this bill could increase manufacturing and retail costs which would be passed on to already struggling consumers. As described in the Background above, research has shown that retailers raise prices on products with nutrition labels that make implications about the healthfulness of a product.
   2. Preferred placement in grocery store. This bill requires food facilities with gross annual sales of more than $10 million to prominently display at least three or more “California Certified” items if the food facilities offers for sale more than 25 certified items. Decisions about prominent placement entail careful design and planning as well as contractual relationships between grocery stores and manufacturers. These decisions have impacts on a grocery store’s revenues. Thus, there is concern that requiring prominent placement of items with the California Certified seal will have negative impacts on grocery store profits which could also lead to increased food costs.
   3. Injunctive Relief. This bill authorizes DPH, the Attorney General, other public attorneys (county counsel, city attorney or city prosecutor), and consumers, businesses and nonprofit organizations to enjoin a person who has misused the California Certified Seal or a food facility who fails to meet this bill’s preferred placement requirements. Allowing consumers, businesses, and nonprofits to seek injunctions in this manner would function as a private right of action and could potentially lead to frivolous lawsuits. As this bill moves forward, the author is encouraged to consider deleting the authorization for consumers, business entities, and non-profit organizations to pursue injunctive relief.
   4. Overlapping Timelines. This bill requires DPH, no later than June 1, 2028, to accredit certification agents that can certify products as “California Certified.” This bill also prohibits accredited certification agents from certifying products as “California Certified” if it is classified as a “UPF,” “UPF of Concern,” or “restricted school food” based on definitions established in AB 1264 described above. The definitions of “UPF of concern” and “restricted school food” rely on regulations adopted by DPH on or before June 1, 2028. Requiring the certification agents to be operational on the same deadline that the DPH is required to establish the definitions that these agents will rely on in doing their work could create confusion. Moving forward, the author may wish to delay implementation of this bill until six months after the AB 1264 regulations go into effect.
7. AMENDMENTS. The Committee may wish to amend this bill as follows:
   1. Replace the term “California Certified” with “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.”
   2. Require a food facility to be granted flexibility in identifying a prominent location within their store.
   3. Clarify that this bill does not apply to restaurants and other entities described in 10) of existing law above.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Environmental Working Group (sponsor)

A Voice for Choice Advocacy
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Diabetes Association
California Medical Association (CMA)
California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
California Podiatric Medical Association
Center for Ecoliteracy
Center for Environmental Health
Chef Ann Foundation
Clean Earth 4 Kids
Consumer Reports
Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation
Eat Real
End Chronic Disease
Facts Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Mamavation - Non-toxic Products for Healthy Families
PSR SF Bay Chapter
United Nurses Associations of California/union of Health Care Professionals
Wellness in the Schools, Inc.

Opposition

California Chamber of Commerce
California League of Food Producers
Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC)
Competere - Policies for Sustainable Development

Analysis Prepared by: Eliza Brooks / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097