"Ultra-processed" gets thrown about as a big food quality bogeyman, but some definitions of the label are as broad as "contains any amount of added sugar". I'm glad California isn't following a standard that extreme.
The bill is targeting specific additives...
When I look at the official page about AB1264 and look at the 'full text', there is virtually nothing there:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
Same if I follow the link to the bill PDF:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_...
This is the complete text I see:
Date Published: 02/21/2025 09:00 PM
Bill Start
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly BillNo. 1264
Introduced by Assembly Member Gabriel
February 21, 2025
An act relating to pupil nutrition.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1264, as introduced, Gabriel. Pupil nutrition.
Existing law requires the State Department of Education to develop and maintain nutrition guidelines for school lunches and breakfasts and for all food and beverages sold on public school campuses.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation limiting the sale of ultraprocessed foods in California schools.
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO
Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation limiting the sale of ultraprocessed foods in California schools.>The scientists will be required to publish a first report outlining this subcategory of especially harmful ultra-processed foods by July 1, 2026, said Gabriel, and will be required to update the list every two years as research on these foods evolves.
I guess the text just isn't available yet, but the article describes what is intended.
For instance white bread has a high glycemic index not because of added sugar, but because all of the fibre and most of the protein have been removed. Proper whole grain, brown bread has a low glycemic index and tons of protein. And that's true even if there's some syrup added for flavour, which is not uncommon.
The economic pressures are at odds because as people eat less bread shelf stability, both at the grocery store and at home, becomes increasingly important to maintaining a desirable yet competitively priced product. People don't want added sugar and are more carb conscious generally, but what they dislike even more, without realizing it, is stale bread. So you get a positive feedback loop that turns people off of bread, I think.
AIUI this is because the whole wheat flour tends to impart a bitter taste, so the sugar balances it. The sugar also enables the yeast to raise the bread faster, helping mass production.
Having said that, I see your point that setting too low a threshold might be unnecessarily onerous on cafeterias and manufacturers. Perhaps a threshold of ~1g sugar per slice would be more reasonable?
That's not nothing of course, especially for a school trying to minimize food costs. Many schools (like the one I attended growing up) procure the cheapest possible USDA/NSLP-approved product.
But kids at these sorts of schools seem like they'd see the greatest benefit from this sort of legislation to raise the threshold of what constitutes a healthy lunch.
Does that processing suddenly turn the beans from one of the healthiest foods we know of to an unhealthy one? Probably not. Does it make them easier to use in cooking vs dried beans, leading more people to eat beans? Probably yes.
Same thing for the peanut butter. As part of my breakfast, I often have a slice or two of brown, whole grain bread with peanutbutter(the non-disgusting kind with additives mentioned above, about 89% peanuts) and banana. That's a meal rich in protein, various kinds of fiber, polyunsaturated fats, slow carbs, various vitamins and minerals. The fact that the PB has a little sugar and sat fat in it doesn't really matter very much. I've tried PB That's 99% peanuts and frankly it's disgusting. It separates, it's runny and it has an off taste too. If that was the only PB on the market I wouldn't even use it.
The problem is 1. That government recommendations and public discourse place far, far too much emphasis on population studies based on overly vague categories like this and 2. That there's an almost singular focus on things people should avoid rather than things people need more of, especially fibre and protein. Fibre is crucially important, and maybe this is a hot take, but I think lack of fibre is maybe the most important factor when it comes to public health and food.
Fibre increases satiety and bulk, leading you to eat less calories, lowers glycemic index avoiding insulin resistance and diabetes, improves intestinal function(via interaction with gut biome) and therefore micronutrient uptake, and it(specifically beta-glucans found in oats and other grains) even lowers LDL cholesterol. Not to mention it prevents hemorrhoids, which might not affect longevity, but it's certainly nice. And indeed, no surprise, a lot of "ultra-processed" food happens to be devoid of fibre.
I think "fibre-depleted" and "protein-depleted" would be more useful categories to use than the much more vague "ultra-processed".
I didn't realize we could buy 89% peanut butter in Europe. At my nearest supermarket in Copenhagen I have the choice of 99.5% (Machandel), 99.6% (Urtekram) or 99.3% (Salling). The other 11% of yours is probably palm oil, sugar and salt, so less questionable than the modified starch but it's still additives to increase shelf life and make the boring, natural peanut more appealing.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter, that's my point. the 89% peanuts gives me lots of protein, fibre and healthy fats, which is making it easier for me to diet and lose weight, thereby improving my health. That almost certainly outweighs any potential risks from the 11%. The 11% honestly helps in that it makes the whole thing palatable. I can't overstate how much I hate pure peanut butter; just thinking about it makes me gag.
I mean, adding stuff to food to make it more appealing or longer-lasting is what humans do. It's what we've always done. Just concluding that it's bad and shouldn't be done is silly. I'm much more interested in specifics.
You can even make a health-positive argument for preservatives. Preservatives prolong shelf life -> means I can keep more diverse food around with less time expenditure(not going to the store every day) and with less waste because there's only so much food I can eat in a given time -> means I can follow a more varied diet in practice -> better health outcomes.
Now, if there's a specific problem with one preservative or other additive, fine. replace it with something else.