California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed off on a bill establishing a voluntary label certification for qualifying non-ultra-processed foods.
The legislation mandates the state’s public health department to appoint accredited agents to certify food items eligible to carry the “non-ultra-processed certified” seal on front of packs.
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
The state has set an implementation deadline of 1 June 2029.
Eligibility relies on California’s 2025 standard, which flags products containing additives or elevated thresholds of sodium, saturated fat, and added sugars.
The certification will be reviewed and renewed every three years.
Signed into law on 28 September, Assembly Bill 2244 was passed by California legislators earlier this month and builds on the state’s move last year to phase out UPFs from school meals.
The legislation creates the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund to support the application of the non-UPF certified labels.
Californian grocers with annual gross revenues of above $10m are required to showcase at least three qualifying products if they stock more than 25 certified non-UPF offerings.
Additionally, the law introduces a public database of certified products and establishes penalties for fraudulent use of the seal.
Describing the law as a “first-in-the-nation”, Newsom said it is “focused on making whole, healthy foods as accessible as possible’.
However, the move has drawn scrutiny from the food science community.
The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) has cautioned that individual state policies could generate fragmented standards before federal regulators establish a unified definition for ultra-processed foods.
In a blog post, Anna Rosales, the vice president of science and policy at IFT, advocated for a “consistent, science-based framework”.
Rosales also called for prioritising the nutritional quality of foods instead of only focusing on the processing element as existing systems often classify staples like whole-grain bread and yogurt as UPFs.
She urged regulators to ensure guidelines remain “rooted in sound science” and “flexible enough to evolve as evidence emerges”.
She added in a reactionary statement: “If other states adopt similar certification programmes or develop their own definitions of ultra-processed foods while a uniform federal definition is still taking shape, manufacturers, retailers, schools, and consumers could eventually face different interpretations of what qualifies as an ultra-processed food.
“We do not yet know whether that will happen. But the possibility of multiple state-level approaches highlights the importance of developing a consistent, science-based framework as UPF policies become more widespread.”
