[joe-collins]

I'm grateful that this bill is taking a much more measured approach than the headline suggests. The bill is targeting specific additives, or "excessive" amounts of added sugar, salt, or fat (exact thresholds unnamed).

"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.

[rahimnathwani]

  The bill is targeting specific additives...

Where did you get information about what this bill is targeting?

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.

[Aloisius]

> To identify which ultra-processed foods should be eliminated from school offerings, scientists will consider whether a product includes additives that are banned elsewhere, whether it has been linked to health harms, whether it has been show to contribute to food addiction, and whether it contains excessive fat, sugar or salt, California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, said on the call.

>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.

[SlightlyLeftPad]

It doesn’t go far enough. The states food for schools is so bad, most kids aren’t eating anything at all.

[SlightlyLeftPad]

I’ll add my anecdote: my kids and their friends would have “rather starved than eat the food provided in hot-lunch.” We had a picnic day and the ham sandwich my kid bought was two stale pieces of bread with a single slice of ham. No lettuce, no tomato, no mayo, mustard. Just two pieces of stale bread and a slice of ham. I came home pretty livid that day.

[bitwize]

Banning foods that contain any amount of added sugar, except for sweets that are explicitly marketed as such, is very reasonable and would go a long long way in helping manage the obesity crisis.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

Would it, though? What matters is glycemic index, and that depends on the overall composition of the food, not just on levels of simple carbohydrates. Focusing purely on one nutrient or on total caloric content is hopelessly reductionist.

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.

[wahern]

I believe sugar is added to sliced bread primarily as a preservative and to retain moisture. When fresh I've never noticed much of a difference between "no sugar added" and comparable sliced bread with corn syrup or honey, but the former goes stale more quickly.

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.

[InitialLastName]

So ban all mass-produced bread, especially whole-grain?

[asoneth]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you claiming that mass-produced bread, or whole-grain bread in particular, cannot be produced without adding sugar?

[InitialLastName]

There is almost no whole-grain bread on the market in the US that does not have added sugar.

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.

[asoneth]

Interesting, the only mass-produced whole-grain bread I have on hand is Ezekiel and it didn't list any added sugar, or indeed any sugar at all. It's also not listed as an ingredient on the (partially) whole-grain bread I got from our local bakery.

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?

[InitialLastName]

Ezekiel bread is one exception, but they are also (at my local big box store) 3x the price (by kcal) of the white-label whole wheat bread AND less shelf-stable (thus will incur more process losses and expenses).

[gopher_space]

Given what we know about sugar, I’d be really interested to learn more about the specific individuals standing against a measure like this.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

Couldn't agree more. I see this a lot here in Norway too. So much talk of "ultra-processed" food and its dangers, and recommendations to avoid it but the category is so wide as to include even things like baked beans, because they may have some salt, sugar and modified starch added; or peanut butter because it may have some sugar added to help it stay emulsified and some saturated fat added to make it less runny.

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".

[Symbiote]

Modified starch seems like a prime candidate for an ultra-processed ingredient. I don't know which one is used in baked beans, but there's a whole list of enzymes, acids and alkalis used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_starch

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.

[ndsipa_pomu]

The cheapest peanut butter here (UK) often contains xylitol. Not so much of an issue for people, but is toxic to dogs.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

It's by far the most sold one. I just checked, and it's not palm oil(which I would be opposed to for environmental reasons), but sunflower oil(probably high-stearic, though it doesn't say), diglycerides and monoglycerides, salt and glucose. probably most of the additive is the sunflower oil.

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.