“Free range,” “cage free,” “organic,” “non-GMO,” “hormone free,” and now “ultra processed” are all food terms that can confuse even the most astute shopper.
As consumers move farther from the farm but express deeper concern about where their food comes from and how it is produced, answering those concerns becomes more complex.
States are still empowered to pass unique legislation governing labeling, marketing, and sales of food products across the United States. Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel is taking a shot at labeling “ultra processed foods” (UPF) in the state using the definition established in state law in 2025. AB1264 established a working definition of what “ultra processed food” is, a timeline for phasing foods out of circulation in schools throughout the state by 2035, and nutrition guidelines for schools related to sugars, fats, and calorie counts per serving.
Specifically, Gabriel’s bill bans the inclusion of food dyes – Blue 1 and 2, Green 3, Red 40, and Yellow 5 and 6 – and outlines limits regarding other nutritional concerns like fat and sugar content.
But labels can be misleading.
Opponents of Gabriel’s proposal say the labeling bill does not go far enough to verify the actual processing methods of each food and, instead, focuses on additives and overall ingredient content. For opponents who believe a deeper dive into how a food is processed before it can truly be labeled as “non-UPF” or “UPF free” is important. Focusing on preservatives, dyes, and additives does not get to the “real” processing of foods including exposure to “ultra-high heat” or other manipulation they say removes nutritional value.
Therein lies the heart of the trouble with defining “ultra processed foods.” One person’s “regular” milk is another person’s “ultra processed” milk. Pasteurization of raw milk – exposure to “ultra-high heat” to kill bacteria that can be present in milk and potentially dangerous to people – is a prime example of what makes the discussion challenging. Most would not consider milk a UPF but some consumers, because there is no formal definition of the term, might.
Under the definition in Gabriel’s bill, milk is simply a food product that needs to be consumed in moderation based on its fat and sugar content. Under the potentially stricter guidelines desired by naysayers, milk may be considered a UPF.
An outright ban on UPFs does not leave room for people with atypical nutritional needs. For people undergoing certain medical treatments, those recovering from eating disorders, those who have certain mental health or other physical challenges, ultra processed foods may offer the only form of nutrition they can consume.
Rather than banning foods legislators don’t agree with, perhaps the answer is a more egalitarian approach to food offerings. Personal choice, autonomy, and responsibility should be the rules of law governing our food policy.
Food policy should recognize diverse cultural, medical, and socioeconomic factors while encouraging, not mandating, menus that feature as many foods as possible in their original edible form. That does not mean a ban on potato chips or protein powder, but, rather, an encouragement of fresh fruit and vegetables, nuts and seeds, animal-based proteins, whole grains, dairy, or their alternatives when needed, first. By encouraging these foods first, there is less room – literally and figuratively – for the consumption of other foods.
Encouragement, then, comes from many sources – education, product placement, societal normalization, and so on. The more people are encouraged to change their choices, the more likely they are to do so.
While Gabriel’s intentions are noble, putting a label on a food does not change people’s buying behavior. Buying behavior changes when people are given a reason to change – a cost, health, personal, or other incentive – rather than a governmental mandate robbing them of their choices. There is still time to pivot from mandate to encouragement when it comes to UPFs. Now is the time to make that pivot.
Pam Lewison is a fourth-generation farmer, Pacific Research Institute fellow, and ag research director for Washington Policy Center.