I. Historical Context

In a world where the food we consume becomes increasingly processed, nutrition standards that help people maintain a healthy and balanced diet have never been more important, as people with adequate nutrition are more productive and thus beneficial to society. Though processed foods in themselves are not inherently harmful to people, as most foods require processing to a certain degree, chemically processed foods, also called ultra-processed foods (UPFs), tend to be high in sugar, artificial ingredients, refined carbohydrates, and trans fats. These ingredients have consistently been linked to an increased risk of health issues, including cancer, major heart and lung conditions, mental health disorders, and early death. Hence, it is imperative that action is taken to reduce the consumption of such foods, whether it be by state governments or citizens themselves. 

Since the early 2000s, the Democratic Party has overwhelmingly been in control of California, forming a trifecta, where they have control of the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature. Currently, the Democrats maintain a supermajority in the state legislature, allowing them to pass legislation without the need for opposition support. As a result, they have been able to pass legislation such as the California Real Food, Healthy Kids Act (AB 1264), the implications of which will be further discussed in this brief. 

Nutrition standards have increasingly become an area of concern for state and federal governments alike, seeing as there has been a rise in both malnutrition and obesity rates in children across the U.S. in the past 20 years. As a result, various acts to regulate nutrition standards for children have been passed in recent years at both the federal and state levels, most notably the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, passed under the Obama administration. This was a landmark piece of legislation in funding child nutrition programs at schools and setting nutrition standards for school lunch programs, such as reducing food portions, mandating a maximum amount of sugar, sodium, and fat content, and a minimum amount of fruit, vegetables, and whole grain content in school meals to combat obesity. However, this Act had its various shortcomings, with critics pointing out how the Act created increased costs for both governments and schools alike, and most crucially, how the Act failed to address the prevalence of UPFs and their related health concerns, which were already a growing concern at the time of the Act’s passage. The California Real Food, Healthy Kids Act (AB 1264) thus addresses this policy gap by pledging to phase out UPFs from school meals by 2035. 

There have also been attempts to mandate nutrition standards regarding malnutrition. Another notable piece of federal legislation that has attempted to restructure nutrition in the education system is the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004. This Act authorised federal school meal and child nutrition programs that provided funding to ensure that low-income children have access to healthy and nutritious foods, no matter their background. However, various flaws in the Act, such as a lack of funding and support for schools to implement its proposed programs, meant that its provisions were unable to be enforced fully, paving the way for the much more aggressive Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 as mentioned above. 

Overall, though action has previously been taken to regulate nutrition, there is much-needed room for improvement in both federal and state-level nutrition standards to combat rising obesity and malnutrition rates across the country. 

II. Current Policy

The California Real Food, Healthy Kids Act—bill AB 1264—established through Gavin Newsom’s signature on October 8, 2025, implemented the first U.S. statutory definition of ultra-processed foods (UPFs). UPFs are processed products with a compound of ingredients, such as additives that enhance taste, texture, and duration of life. Furthermore, Gavin Newsom directed the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to identify “particularly harmful UPFs” and “restricted school foods” to assess the potential health risks that can occur from a lack of adequate nutrition, including cancer, obesity, diabetes, and food addiction. In particular, the bill prevents educational institutions from selling or serving the identified harmful UPFs in reimbursable meals that schools provide, from lunch, breakfast, and programs that serve afterschool snacks, or competitive foods from vendors, and food that has monetary gain. This process began with a phase-out where schools must gradually remove and significantly reduce these foods by January 1, 2028, and thereafter vendor restrictions were established so that by July 1, 2032 companies that supply food to schools will have stricter rules and cannot supply the banned food anymore—all of which escalated to a full ban by July 1, 2035 where foods will be eliminated from schools and would not be sold or served at all.

A. Timeline and Goals

The timeline for AB 1264 begins, and the CDPH/OEHHIA must define harmful categories by July 1, 2026, through scientific criteria that are supported by common alarming patterns that warn of health concerns;  banned additives elsewhere or research on metabolic harms are examples that can strengthen the scientific criteria when identifying negative aliment consumption. After this, the phase-out plan for identified UPFs will proceed for schools no later than the July 1, 2032, deadline; vendors will then no longer offer restricted foods, followed by the deadline of July 1, 2032; complete prohibition in school meals will be finalized by July 1, 2035. This timeline aims to address the goal of shifting over 1 billion annual school meals toward whole foods for positive nutrition, which will support prior state bans like AB 418 about food additives and AB 2316 about school food dyes.

B. Year-One Implementation

Year-one implementation for the current month, April 2026, reveals the early planning stages with no major actions reported. OEHHA/CDPH begins with their task and the requirement to finalize definitions by July 1, 2026, and—following the estimated timeline—will continue with vendor reporting and oversight beginning ahead of the 2028 phase-out. An update from this past month notes ongoing state efforts to align with the law amid national nutritional debates; however, there have not yet been any significant menu alterations due to the prioritization of scientific review and procurement guidelines.

C. Impact of Trump’s MAHA Campaign

President Trump’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, launched federally, promises a national UPF definition, although it has not explicitly confronted or directly challenged state laws like AB 1264; rather, some analysts note California “beat MAHA to the punch” from their principal action, which can influence federal policy instead of conflicting with it. Conservative voices in MAHA, including some who highlight UPF risks, have indirectly supported similar reforms; however, policy experts underline the strain of state compliance from federal funding cuts to school meals.

D. Stakeholder Reactions

Some stakeholders, such as health advocates and pediatricians, praise AB 1264 for addressing the correlation between UPF and health risks that result in obesity and affect mental health. In addition, bipartisan passage (79-1 Assembly, 40-0 Senate) emphasizes this broad support from groups consisting of Consumer Reports and chefs like Andrew Zimmern. Although food industry stakeholders mention concerns over financial strain, compliance costs, and supply chains, there aren’t any strong feelings, controversies, or public pushbacks. Instead, they’re focusing on the phased timeline, relying on the slow rollout that will provide adequate time for adjustments and adaptability. No major parent polls are available yet; in other words, there has yet to be solid data about parent opinions for this policy, though early district health metrics show stable childhood obesity rates pre-implementation, which signifies minimal early evidence that the policy is improving health since it hasn’t started. Medical professionals hypothesize that early vendor education could support smooth adoption of the policy with ease in compliance and transition, which prevents chaos, while rural districts worry about fresh food access with limited resources. 

III. Perceived Benefits

Enrolled and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 8, 2025, AB 1264 provides the legal definitions of "ultra-processed foods," the vendor reporting requirements starting February 2028, and the 2035 final compliance deadline. The phase out of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) under AB 1264 represents a structural shift toward "whole-food" nutrition. Medical professionals and researchers hypothesize that this transition could catalyze significant long-term health improvements for California’s youth.

A. Nutrition Benefits

Phasing out UPFs is expected to improve the nutrient density of a student's diet throughout their K-12 journey. Unlike processed items, which are often "engineered" for shelf-life and palatability, whole or minimally processed foods provide essential components that UPFs typically lack. According to a 2025 review done by the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, children are more susceptible to the impacts of UPFs because “their bodies and brains are developing and they are more sensitive to the nutritional deficiencies and metabolic disruptions caused by UPFs.” Experts note that frequent, early childhood exposure to these UPFs creates the conditions for “lifelong preferences for sweet, salty and artificially flavoured foods.” These preferences are said to have detrimental impacts on the quality of life in the future. Furthermore, the review states that children and adolescents are increasingly vulnerable to the industry's “aggressive marketing strategies,” which involve the use and creation of UPFs, and therefore struggle to understand and recognize that they are being persuaded. In recognition of this scientific understanding, AB 1264 reduces the prevalence of these foods; in turn, this could reduce the prevalence of this underlying persuasion and negative dietary habit formation. By limiting access to these foods in school environments, AB 1264 could directly intervene at a critical developmental stage, reducing repeated exposure and helping reshape diet choices. In doing so, the policy could not only improve immediate nutritional intake but also target the root of long-term unhealthy eating behaviors and therefore could align itself with its goal of systemic public health improvement.

B. Fiber and Satiety

The benefits of this bill may also include increased fiber and satiety. Whole grains and fresh produce contain natural fiber that aids digestion and helps students feel full longer, potentially reducing overconsumption of "empty-calorie" snacks. Research published through the National Institutes of Health in 2025 shows that dietary fiber plays a critical role in digestion and gastrointestinal health while also enhancing satiety and supporting weight regulation. Fiber slows gastric emptying and digestion, which in turn stabilizes blood sugar levels and prolongs feelings of fullness after meals. Because ultra-processed foods are often low in fiber and replace whole-food alternatives in many diets, their removal from school meals may help correct widespread fiber deficiencies among children. The previous studies, as well as similar research, indicate that the majority of children do not meet recommended fiber intake levels in part due to the high consumption of these processed foods. By increasing access to more fiber-rich foods through widespread and accessible school meals, AB 1264 could help improve digestive health and regulate appetite, which reinforces its broader goal of improving long-term dietary practices and behaviors in California’s youth.

C. Micronutrient Absorption

Micronutrient absorption could also be a positive byproduct of AB 1264. Fresh foods provide bioavailable vitamins and minerals (like Vitamin A, Calcium, and Iron) that are often depleted during the high-heat manufacturing of ultra-processed goods. Unlike whole foods, which retain their natural composition of nutrients, ultra-processed foods are often stripped of key micronutrients and later fortified synthetically, which may not replicate the same absorption efficiency in the body. Research from the National Library of Medicine in 2025 indicates that diets higher in whole foods and dietary fiber are associated with improved overall nutrient intake and absorption. Studies on children mentioned in this research show that higher fiber consumption is linked to improved intake of essential nutrients, which could suggest that diets centered around whole foods support more balanced nutrition. Additionally, fiber itself plays a role in nutrient absorption by supporting gut health and promoting a balanced microbiome, therefore enhancing the body’s ability to process and utilize vitamins and minerals effectively. In the Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes section of the research compilation, the following is stated: “Dietary fiber is a key component of a healthy diet, promoting cardiovascular, metabolic, and gastrointestinal health while reducing the risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes, colorectal cancer, and obesity.” By shifting school meals away from ultra-processed options and toward nutrient-dense alternatives, AB 1264 may improve not only the quality of nutrients students consume but also their ability to absorb and utilize those nutrients. This could reinforce the bill’s broader objective of addressing nutritional deficiencies at a systemic level, particularly among children who rely on school meals as a primary source of food.

D. Brain Development

Another critical benefit of this bill is its potential positive impact on brain development. Additional research from the National Library of Medicine in 2025 suggests that reducing synthetic additives and high sugar intake during critical windows of brain plasticity may support better executive function and emotional regulation. In this study, experts state that because the risks imposed by UPFs have existed and accumulated across generations, the greatest benefit in limiting their effects will come from fixes that start early in childhood and adolescence while simultaneously minimizing the overall dosage. They conclude the study with the following: “Policy levers that curb UPF availability, require unambiguous front-of-pack labelling, and stimulate reformulation are urgently needed.” While this study addresses the circumstances guiding AB 1264’s intentions rather than its specific implementation, the perspective from scientific and medical experts is often the most relevant information possible when guiding public health policy action. Because AB 1264 specifically limits the availability of UPFs, its potential to be the necessary “policy lever” to prevent future generations of UPF-reliant populations is considerable. 

With AB 1264’s structured and phased timeline, implementation of this bill could be a swift benefit for the bureaucratic functions of public health, and could therefore impact how we enact nutrition policy on a nationwide scale. Because California often sets precedents that influence national markets and legislation, AB 1264 has the potential to shape broader food policy beyond the state. Food manufacturers may reformulate products to meet new standards, and other states could adopt frameworks similar to this bill, therefore amplifying its potential impact. In this way, AB 1264 could function not only as a school nutrition policy but also as a scalable model for nationwide public health reform.

IV. Potential Drawbacks

At first glance, a bill spearheading advancements in health policy specific to nutrition can elicit a sigh of relief, especially when introduced and adopted by one of the most influential states and economies in America. However, despite the numerous perceived benefits of the California Real Food, Healthy Kids Act (AB 1264), drawbacks must be considered in order to properly analyze the efficiency of this legislation on both a local and national scale. Brought forth by experts and the public alike, concerns of AB 1264 specifically include administrative blocks and issues with implementation, all falling under the umbrella of logistical and practical constraints of large-scale health policy.

A. Logistical Challenges

Potential issues of AB 1264 reveal themselves as we move down the chain of logistical implementation. Roger Islom, president and CEO of the agricultural trade organization Western Tree Nut Association, based in Fresno, represents components of the tree-nut processing industry, including but not limited to almond hullers and processors. He shared his professional perspective in a blog post belonging to The Business Journal in July of 2025: “Rural economies could be disproportionately affected, particularly in regions where agriculture is the dominant employer,” says Islom, citing concerns that AB 1264 could heavily limit smaller and mid-sized operations, ones that lack the resources to bounce back from the organizational consequences on uncharted regulatory and legislative ground. Islom also highlights concerns of California school nutrition directors, citing their warnings that the bill could “force abrupt changes to menus, limit flexibility, and unintentionally reduce the variety of healthy options available to students.” He says that many districts do not have the proper assets, including staffing or budget, to “start from scratch” when it comes to food operationalization and overall organization for their students. “And when commonly used items are banned,” Islom warns, “children often end up with fewer calories, and not necessarily better ones.” The insight of agricultural processing leaders such as Islom gives us a unique perspective into the pieces of public health that are rarely spotlighted: the mechanical steps in which we move towards a better future of diet and nutrition for our children.

B. Bill Details and Community Impacts

In the name of protecting the delicate balance between public health advancement and proper installation, numerous community leaders have come forward to protest the collateral damage that this bill could impose on vulnerable demographics within California. Julian Canete, President and CEO of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, highlighted these concerns in an opinion piece belonging to California’s own Capitol Weekly. They explain that for the 1.8 million Latino-owned businesses in California, “any law affecting food access is a law that affects our lives and livelihoods.” The biggest concern Canete cites is AB 1264’s definition of ultra-processed foods, explaining that while the bill claims to support public health, “it defines thousands of safe, affordable, and widely enjoyed food products as ‘ultra-processed’, with no clear or consistent scientific basis.” Canete describes that under this bill’s definition, affordable food staples such as tortillas, canned beans, cheese, and even tangerines with a “natural wax coating” would fall under the ban; “not because they’re unhealthy,” Canete states, “but because they don’t fit an arbitrary, oversimplified standard.” This restriction could create the conditions for extensive food restrictions across schools and other applicable public programs. Canete cites that in doing this, the bill gives “every public agency the power to impose additional limits.” Ultimately, this could create a constantly changing and forever unfinished framework of regulation, subject to unpredictable outside control that could threaten rural communities and increase the prevalence of food deserts. Canete claims that this is a byproduct of limiting “affordability, access, and choice.” Canete also addresses the potential impact of AB 1264 on SNAP and WIC purchases. The bill could impose restrictions on the type of food purchased using these programs, a caveat that Canete urges could end up “disproportionately hurting low-income families who already have limited food options.” 

C. Practical Implementations

Another critical challenge facing school administrations under AB 1264 is the practical reality of replacing inexpensive, widely available processed foods with fresher, less-processed alternatives. While the intention is to improve nutrition quality, schools operate within strict budgetary and logistical constraints. Many districts rely on shelf-stable and pre-packaged foods because they are inherently cost-effective, requiring minimal preparation while still being able to be distributed efficiently across a large student population. Transitioning to fresh or minimally processed options would require increased spending on ingredients and additional labor for preparation. The grim reality is that these costs are ones that many districts, particularly in underfunded or rural areas, cannot properly absorb. Rising food prices and ongoing supply chain disruptions further complicate this shift and, therefore, make it difficult for schools to secure consistent deliveries of fresh products. 

D. Parental Concerns

Additionally, this transition may generate resistance from parents and broader communities who rely on affordable, familiar food options, much like the lack of minority food accessibility addressed by Julian Canete earlier in this brief. Program Director at Together We Thrive Food Bank and California parent Elianna Friedman has already noted this in a September 2025 opinion piece published in the Orange County Register, where she criticized the bill’s broad definition of UPFs (ultra-processed foods) by claiming that it could eliminate access to staple items. These items include whole wheat bread, yogurt, canned beans, and fortified tortillas, foods that are both nutritious and financially accessible. She states that while the bill claims to protect students, “its definition is so broad that it would apply to more than 70% of the grocery store.” Many of Friedman’s concerns echo Julian Canete, especially as she brings up the bill’s potential impact on SNAP and WIC food benefits. As a nutrition expert, Friedman has spent twenty years teaching families to cook, hosting food pantries with fresh food for underserved communities, and running cooking camps that connect schools and students to fresh produce and groceries. She claims that her efforts to improve nutrition inform her perspective on AB 1264, but in addition to being a nutrition expert, she states she also sees this issue as a mother: “My 4-year-old receives a free school lunch every day through LAUSD, and as both a parent and a chef, I’m deeply impressed by the quality and healthfulness of the meals she is served.” As such, she argues that restricting these food options could unintentionally increase costs for families and reduce students’ caloric intake without necessarily improving dietary quality. This perspective highlights a key administrative dilemma in balancing public health goals with affordability and cultural food norms. Without careful implementation, schools risk increased food waste and inequitable access to meals, issues that have the possibility to ultimately undercut AB 1264’s intended benefits to public health.

E. Timeline Considerations

All of the potential challenges addressed in this brief are made more significant by the previously mentioned timeline imposed by the bill, which entails the following: January 2028 for schools to be ready for the system and regulatory framework to start, June 2028 for the definitions of banned foods to be finalized, July 2029 for schools to start phasing out ultra-processed foods, and July 2035 for full implementation to be required and all restricted foods eliminated. Although AB 1264 gives some breathing room with a phased approach, this extended timeline might not be enough to eliminate logistical strain. Schools have to begin restructuring supply chains, budgets, and food preparation systems years in advance, even before the state has finalized the actual food restrictions. This could create a period of uncertainty in which administrators are expected to plan for large-scale changes without clear guidance, which could therefore compound financial and operational challenges in ways that could be difficult to manage without destabilizing the entire food supply chain.

F. National Framework and Consequences

Policy experts and critics alike also spotlight AB 1264’s potential as a model for national implementation. California is not only the most populous state in America, but it is also the 4th largest economy in the world. As such, effectual legislation implemented in California often has the foundation to be considered as a blueprint for the rest of the United States. AB 1264 specifically is already pioneering politics before being fully integrated into law; according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, it is a “first-of-its-kind” bill that is influential because it enshrines a legal, state-wide definition of ultra-processed foods, the definition proved to be contentious earlier in this brief. No other state has adopted science-based definitions of food and nutrition in relation to their school systems that are actively enshrined in the law, meaning that this could pave the way for other states to create their own definitions of ultra-processed foods using the resources and frameworks provided by this bill. However, as previously stated, the definition in AB 1264 is not fully completed and therefore subject to change, meaning that while the existence of the definition itself could be revolutionary for the policy status quo, its perceived vagueness could also complicate other states’ pursuit of their own similar nutrition legislation. The aforementioned bureaucratic burdens of this bill could be significantly amplified by nationwide implementation, even if it is still handled by the individual states. This is especially true in states with a greater number of rural areas, food deserts, and hard-to-reach populations. These demographics could be even more greatly affected by a limitation of cheap, easy food staples. For example, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Arkansas all have a large part of their state population living in food-scarce areas; according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mississippi has 30% of its population living in these neighborhoods, followed by New Mexico with 28% and Arkansas with 26%. In contrast, CalMatters, a non-profit and non-partisan news organization, states that 11.4% of California households are food insecure. The layout, landscape, and living conditions of these states are all different, with much of Mississippi, New Mexico, and Arkansas’ food deserts being physically far from the urban hubs offering fresh, healthy food; survival in states like these often means eating what is readily available and easily affordable. Definitions criticized for restricting these foods, such as the ones in AB 1264, could therefore be even more detrimental to the communities when enacted in these vulnerable states. 

To conclude, the California Real Food, Healthy Kids Act exhibits considerable potential for actionable, necessary change to childhood malnutrition in America, but it also burdens itself with the large undertakings of administrative hurdles; addressing the considerable burden on small food operations, navigating school budgets in relation to legislative restriction, and conquering the challenges of accessibility for vulnerable populations are all actions that must be prioritized to improve not just California’s own system, but our nation as a whole.

V. Future Policy

A. Lowering Production Costs

As children grow and develop, all schoolchildren in the United States must have access to a healthy, nutritious diet. However, as the cost of food is mounting, many low-income families are priced out of healthy foods for their children and may even suffer from food insecurity, leading to an increased risk of diet-related diseases. Thus, while states aim to do their part in regulating child nutrition at school, increasing accessibility to these school meals could also be a helpful method to reduce and potentially even resolve such health concerns that have been on the rise. 

One main method to reduce the costs of school lunches without affecting their nutritional value or quality would be to utilise new innovative technologies. An example of this would be vertical farming, which is not only relatively land and water-efficient when compared to traditional arable farming, but could also potentially allow for crops to be grown in a wider range of areas. This could thus solve the accessibility problem of “food deserts”, where certain urban or rural areas may not have ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food, in turn improving the affordability of school lunches for many. 

Another example of technologies that could be used to increase accessibility would be the use of AI in supply chains. As global food supply chains are quite complex, often spanning a multitude of countries and continents, many inefficiencies often arise. This can come in the form of food spoilage and waste, or uneven distribution, as mentioned above. AI could thus aid with the resource management of such foods, by forecasting demand and optimising inventory management, alongside adjusting distribution to ensure food reaches consumers most efficiently. By improving resource management and efficiency through AI, the processes of supply chains can become more cost-effective, lowering the barrier for access to many healthier and more nutritious food options and, in turn, increasing accessibility to a more nutritious diet. 

B. Expansion of Nutritional Regulations

Apart from lowering costs, additional nutritional regulations could be created at the state or federal level to further improve children’s nutritional intake. An example of a recent federal policy that tackles nationwide nutrition would be President Trump’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) policy, which aims to “put real food at the centre of health”, by calling for a diet that prioritises high-quality protein, healthy fats, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains – and avoiding highly processed foods and refined carbohydrates. 

Though the mandate did not explicitly mention ultra-processed foods (UPFs), the administration has also announced a series of measures targeted at the removal of petroleum-based artificial dyes from their products, which are one of the more harmful components of UPFs. Perhaps more steps could be taken at either a federal level to take further action against UPFs and their proven links to a myriad of health problems, such as California’s recent bill on phasing UPFs out of school meals entirely. However, such forceful action will likely not come from a federal level, but instead on a state level; hence, the expansion of nutritional regulations will likely depend on each state’s needs and resources available at their disposal. 

Overall, there has been emerging evidence that one’s diet can directly affect mental health through the gut-brain axis, alongside the proven positive effects that a healthy and nutritional diet can have on children, such as lowering obesity and promoting growth and development. The benefits of having a healthy and nutritious diet as a child cannot be understated. It is now or never for the U.S. to take action once and for all to alleviate the chronic diet-related health issues in children, and only time will tell if such measures are effective or not in combatting the serious issue at hand.

VI. Acknowledgement

The Institute for Youth in Policy would like to acknowledge Rylan Wang for editing this brief.

VII. References

Banu Manickam Rajalu. 2024. “The Gut-Brain Axis: Implications for Mental Health.” Neuroscience and Psychiatry: Open Access 7 (4): 237–38. https://doi.org/10.47532/npoa.2024.7(4).237-238.

“California Adopts First Definition of ‘Ultra-Processed Foods’ and Sets Phase-out for School Products.” 2025. Foster Garvey. 2025. https://www.foster.com/newsroom-alerts-california-adopts-first-definition-of-ultra-processed-foods-and-sets-phase-out-for-school-products.

California State Assembly Committee. 2025. “AB 1264 - Assembly Bill Policy Committee Analysis.” California State Assembly. September 4, 2025. https://trackbill.com/s3/bills/CA/2025/AB/1264/analyses/assembly-floor-analysis.pdf.

Cochran, Thad. 2004. “S.2507 - 108th Congress (2003-2004): Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004.” Www.congress.gov. June 30, 2004. https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/2507.

“Consistent Evidence Links Ultra-Processed Food to over 30 Damaging Health Outcomes.” 2024. BMJ Group. February 29, 2024. https://bmjgroup.com/consistent-evidence-links-ultra-processed-food-to-over-30-damaging-health-outcomes/.

Crawford, Elizabeth. 2025. “California’s Ultra-Processed Food Ban Could Reshape School Meals and National Policy.” FoodNavigator-USA.com. October 9, 2025. https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2025/10/09/californias-ultra-processed-food-ban-could-reshape-school-meals-and-national-policy/.

Dillard, Gabriel. 2025. “BLOG: Well-Intended, Badly Designed AB 1264 Could Hurt School Nutrition, California Ag.” The Business Journal. July 15, 2025. https://thebusinessjournal.com/blog-well-intended-badly-designed-ab-1264-could-hurt-school-nutrition-california-ag/.

Edwards, Robert G. 2025. “California Beats MAHA to Define ‘Ultra-Processed Food’ in Its Real Food, Healthy Kids Act (AB 1264) | ArentFox Schiff.” ArentFox Schiff. October 22, 2025. https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/california-beats-maha-define-ultra-processed-food-its-real-food-healthy-kids.

Ehisen, Rich. 2025. “AB 1264 Fails Latino Communities - Capitol Weekly.” Capitol Weekly. June 11, 2025. https://capitolweekly.net/ab-1264-fails-latino-communities/.

“Fact Sheet: Trump Administration Resets U.S. Nutrition Policy, Puts Real Food Back at the Center of Health.” 2026. HHS.gov. January 7, 2026. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-historic-reset-federal-nutrition-policy.html.

“Food Security in the U.S. - Key Statistics & Graphics.” USDA.gov. March 30, 2026. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.

Flynn, Dan. 2025. “California Law Will Ban Ultra-Processed Foods in School Meals.” Foodsafetynews.com. September 15, 2025. https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2025/09/california-law-will-ban-ultra-processed-foods-in-school-meals/.

Friedman, Elianna. 2025. “California Kids Deserve Real, Healthy Food — Not Half-Baked Policies.” Orange County Register. September 5, 2025. https://www.ocregister.com/2025/09/05/california-kids-deserve-real-healthy-food-not-half-baked-policies/.

Gaia Mottis, Pratheba Kandasamey, and Daria Peleg-Raibstein. 2025. “The Consequences of Ultra-Processed Foods on Brain Development during Prenatal, Adolescent and Adult Stages.” Frontiers in Public Health 13 (June). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1590083.

Ghimire, Shreya. 2025. “How Artificial Intelligence Is Revolutionizing Food Security: From Predictive Farming to Supply Chain Optimization - Frost & Sullivan Institute.” Frost & Sullivan Institute. January 28, 2025. https://frostandsullivaninstitute.org/how-artificial-intelligence-is-revolutionizing-food-security-from-predictive-farming-to-supply-chain-optimization/.

“Governor Newsom Signs First-In-The-Nation Law to Ban Ultra-Processed Foods from School Lunches | Governor of California.” 2025. Governor of California. October 8, 2025. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/10/08/governor-newsom-signs-first-in-the-nation-law-to-ban-ultra-processed-foods-from-school-lunches/.

Graves, Scott , and Marcela Salvador. 2021. “California’s Supermajority & What the Legislature Can Do.” California Budget and Policy Center. September 2021. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/californias-supermajority-what-the-legislature-can-do/.

“How Does ca AB 1264 Categorize Foods?” 2025. Center for Science in the Public Interest. December 15, 2025. https://www.cspi.org/resource/how-does-ca-ab-1264-categorize-foods.

Iyun, Oluwatosin B, Okelue E Okobi, Elochukwu U Nwachukwu, Wendy Miranda, Natalie O Osemwegie, Roseline Igbadumhe, Adedoyin Olawoye, Chika C Oragui, and Nnenna A Osagwu. 2024. “Analyzing Obesity Trends in American Children and Adolescents: Comprehensive Examination Using the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Database.” Cureus, June. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.61825.

Kluczkovski, Alana, Philip Hadley, Christopher Yap, Ulrike Ehgartner, Bob Doherty, and Katherine Denby. 2025. “Urban Vertical Farming: Innovation for Food Security and Social Impact?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 380 (1935). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2024.0154.

LaMotte, Sandee. 2025. “Harmful Ultraprocessed Foods May Be Removed from Billions of California School Lunches.” CNN. June 3, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/03/health/ultraprocessed-california-food-legislation-wellness.

Marty, Noah. 2025. “California Legislature Passes First-In-The-Nation Legislation to Remove Harmful Ultra-Processed Foods from Schools | Official Website - Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel Representing the 46th California Assembly District.” Asmdc.org. September 14, 2025. https://gabriel.asmdc.org/press-releases/20250914-california-legislature-passes-first-nation-legislation-remove-harmful-ultra.

Pennisi, Giuseppina, Giorgio Gianquinto, Leo, Michael Martin, and Francesco Orsini. 2025. “Vertical Farming: Productivity, Environmental Impact, and Resource Use. A Review.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 45 (5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-025-01055-w.

Rath, Shree, Ghazal Ishaque, Saif Ur Rahman, Ahmad Sanan, Bushra Syed, Mubashira Ali, Pinkey Kumari, and Amar Lal. 2025. “Rising Deaths due to Malnutrition and Growing Disparities in the U.S.: A 24‐Year Trend Analysis from 1999 and 2023.” Food Science & Nutrition 13 (10). https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.71040.

Schuler, Brittany R., Brit I. Saksvig, Joy Nduka, Susannah Beckerman, Lea Jaspers, Maureen M. Black, and Erin R. Hager. 2018. “Barriers and Enablers to the Implementation of School Wellness Policies: An Economic Perspective.” Health Promotion Practice 19 (6): 873–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839917752109.

Smethers, Alissa D., and Barbara J. Rolls. 2018. “Dietary Management of Obesity.” Medical Clinics of North America 102 (1): 107–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2017.08.009.

Sylvester, Brian P, and Alex M Schroth. 2025. “Newly Passed California Bill Defines Ultra-Processed Foods.” Morrison Foerster. September 23, 2025. https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/250923-california-bill-ultra-processed-foods.

UC Berkeley Possibility Lab. 2026. “California Has Plenty. So Why Do Millions Still Struggle for Food, Water, and Basic Safety?” CalMatters. January 28, 2026. https://calmatters.org/sponsored/2026/01/california-food-water-safety/.

UNICEF Brazil. 2025. “Ultra-Processed Foods and Children: State-of-The-Art Review.” UNICEF Brazil. 2025. https://www.unicef.org/brazil/media/36621/file/UPF%20and%20Children%20State-of-the-art%20review.pdf.pdf.

USDA. 2014. “FACT SHEET: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act School Meals Implementation.” Usda.gov. May 20, 2014. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2014/05/20/fact-sheet-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-school-meals-implementation.

World Health Organization. 2022. “Nutrition.” World Health Organization. 2022. https://www.who.int/health-topics/nutrition#tab=tab_1.

Young, Angela Odoms, Alison Brown, Tanya Agurs Collins, and Karen Glanz. 2023. “Food Insecurity, Neighborhood Food Environment, and Health Disparities: State of the Science, Research Gaps and Opportunities.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 119 (3): 850–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.12.019.