Governor Newsom’s Executive Order on "Ultra-Processed" Foods

The governor released a statement in conjunction with his E.O.: “The food we eat shouldn’t make us sick with disease or lead to lifelong consequences. California has been a leader for years in creating healthy and delicious school meals, and removing harmful ingredients and chemicals from food. We’re going to work with the industry, consumers and experts to crack down on ultra-processed foods, and create a healthier future for every Californian.” This is a prevailing trend in the food industry following E.U. bans which also influenced Californian legislation such as AB 418 (D – Gabriel, 2023) and AB 2316 (D – Gabriel, 2024). Additionally, there are calls from the federal government for further investigation into food dyes. Robert F. Kennedy, who has been confirmed as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, has raised many concerns on “ultra processed foods” and food dyes. He has stated an interest in tightening federal regulations on the subject and is promoting the consumption of “whole foods.” CLFP remains engaged in these processes, including opposing Assemblymember Gabriel’s bill AB 2316. It is likely there will be more legislation on food additives this coming year, including the possibility of a budget trailer bill once the governor has received recommendations from the regulating entities.

Earlier this month, CDPH reached out to stakeholders asking for their input regarding Newsom’s E.O. An online questionnaire was provided for stakeholder engagement. The form asked for the following information:

·       What should CDPH consider in examining the impact or role of ultra-processed foods and food ingredients with respect to public health?

·       What do we need to know more about? Where are there gaps in the evidence literature?

·       How should ultra-processed foods be defined and/or categorized for the purpose of responding to the Executive Order?

CLFP participated in the questionnaire, providing information on our members and their crucial role in providing healthy and safe nutrition for the state and nation. Our comments focused on the importance of shelf stability, economic impacts to disadvantaged communities, and continuing affordability struggles – an issue which was widely discussed this last November during the Presidential election. The survey also asked for recommendations in respect to the E.O. Considering the broad implications and ramifications of the recommendations that could come out of CDPH, CLFP continues to work with fellow stakeholders to provide reliable resources on available science and data for the industry.

Currently, the E.O. has not defined the term “ultra-processed,” although the survey asked participants to provide their own definition. It is unclear what the recommendation coming from CDPH will be on this matter, or if stakeholder input will be considered. The results of their investigation will be sent directly to the Governor’s Office for his review. The agencies tasked with these recommendations do not have to disclose their findings publicly – so stakeholders may never know what the recommendations ultimately are.

CLFP will continue to communicate our concerns with the Governor’s Office, CDPH, and OEHHA. We have also joined a large coalition of stakeholders to communicate industry-wide interests. If you have any questions, please contact Katie: katie@clfp.com.