California targeting UPFs in school canteens

📈 Following the wave of more than 100 state bills targeting chemical and supposedly unhealthy food on the wave of the MAHA movement, @California Gov. Gavin Newsom is aiming to make school nutrition better.

Being a father used to mediocre school canteen menus, I cannot help to agree, but…

❓ The main issue at hand is the lack of a common ground to find a legal definition of ultra-processed food (UPFs), and the risk is to see a proliferation of such classifications at State law and internationally, pushed by regulators or by private initiatives as NOVA.

Is the degree of processing enough as a criterion to define UPFs? Is it more important to look at the degree of processing or at the overall nutritional value? Is the processing, per se, so linked to unhealthy products? Those are all issues that, to me, require much more defined scientific answers. In any case, place all foods available into boxes it will be a daunting task, and from a legal perspective, I struggle to think how we can figure out a definition of UPFs broad enough to encompass every possible case.

⏱️ The time is ticking, but not so fast:

“The legislation requires the state’s Department of Public Health to adopt rules by mid-2028 defining “ultraprocessed foods of concern” and “restricted school foods.” Schools have to start phasing out those foods by July 2029, and districts will be barred from selling them for breakfast or lunch by July 2035. Vendors will be banned from providing the “foods of concern” to schools by 2032.”

🔎 Mainly, the criticism is focused on potential backlashes: cost increase for school districts, unintended exclusion of certain processed but overall healthy food from the menu.

For more: https://apnews.com/article/california-ultraprocessed-school-meals-bill-newsom-a76fe72828984514858781db23ec7005