The measure—the first of its kind in the U.S.—reflects growing concerns about the role of industrially processed foods in childhood health.

Under the new statute, the state's Department of Public Health must, by mid?2028, issue rules defining a category of "ultra processed foods of concern" and a class of "restricted school foods." Schools will be required to begin phasing out those foods by July 2029. By July 2035, districts will no longer be permitted to serve them as part of federal breakfast or lunch programs. Meanwhile, vendors supplying schools will be barred from offering these "foods of concern" beginning in 2032.

Newsom signed the bill, AB?1264, at a middle school in Los Angeles, flanked by First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom and legislative leaders. He described the law as an extension of California's long-running leadership in school nutrition policy, pointing to prior bans on certain food dyes and additives. "California has never waited for Washington or anyone else to lead on kids' health—we've been out front," he said. "This first?in?the?nation law builds on that work to make sure every California student has access to healthy, delicious meals that help them thrive."

Newsom had earlier issued an executive order in January 2025 directing agencies to develop recommendations limiting harm from ultra processed foods and scrutinizing food dyes. In prior years, he also signed legislation banning synthetic food dyes from school foods.

A core challenge of the law is drawing the boundary between acceptable processed foods and those deemed harmful. Scholars often refer to the Nova classification (originally from Brazil) that divides foods by processing level, but adapting such a system to U.S. school foods is nontrivial.

Under AB?1264, processed items high in saturated fat, added sugar or sodium—combined with one or more industrial additives (such as emulsifiers, colorants, stabilizers or nonnutritive sweeteners)—are candidates for classification as ultra processed. But not all processed foods will be banned: the Department of Public Health will weigh factors including scientific evidence of harm, whether a food is engineered to be "hyperpalatable," and whether similar items are already regulated elsewhere.

Critics argue the definitions may be too broad. Industry groups caution that many foods currently viewed by consumers as healthy might fall under the restrictions, and that the lack of specificity could impose financial strain on school districts.