California legislators have approved a bill to introduce a certified label for non-ultra-processed foods, aiming to help consumers identify healthier options amid ongoing federal discussions on food classification.
California lawmakers have approved a bill that would create the state’s first certified label for foods deemed non-ultra-processed, sending the measure to Governor Gavin Newsom for a final decision by 30 September. If enacted, the law would establish a “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” seal and require certain large grocery chains to make those products easier for shoppers to spot in store, either with dedicated signage or by placing them separately from other goods.
The proposal, Assembly Bill 2244, was written by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel of Encino and is designed to give manufacturers a state-backed route to market foods that avoid ingredients the bill flags as disqualifying, including dyes, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners and some processing aids. According to the bill’s backers, the idea is to make it simpler for families to identify products that meet the standard without having to decode lengthy ingredient lists.
The California Department of Public Health would oversee the certification system through approved third-party agents, who would need to be accredited by 1 June 2029. Products would have to be recertified at least every three years, while the state would be able to audit records, publish a public list of certified items and penalise misuse of the seal. The legislation also applies only to retailers that sell more than 25 certified product types and generate more than $10 million in annual sales.
Supporters say the bill follows growing concern over the health effects linked to diets heavy in ultra-processed foods. The Environmental Working Group, which co-sponsored the measure, says the new label would help consumers make more informed choices. Industry groups, however, have argued that any broad definition of ultra-processed foods could sweep in a large share of the food supply, create confusion and raise costs. The debate comes as federal agencies continue work on a national definition, raising the possibility of conflicting state and federal standards for manufacturers and retailers.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical judgment, advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
