Hunton Retail Law Resource

On October 8, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed first-of-its-kind legislation that will gradually phaseout – and ultimately ban – ultra-processed foods (“UPFs”) in the state’s public schools.  This is the first law at the state or federal level to directly regulate UPFs, signaling a significant shift in public perception and policy toward highly-processed food and beverage products.

The Real Food, Healthy Kids Act[1] requires the phaseout begin no later than July 1, 2029.  Outside vendors will be banned from offering UPFs and “restricted school foods” in California schools by July 1, 2033, while school cafeterias must stop serving meals containing these products by July 1, 2035.  There is an exception for items sold as part of a fundraising event. 

The Act defines UPFs broadly to include any food or beverage product that contains additives such as thickeners, flavor enhancements, and artificial colors, as well as products with high levels of saturated fats, sodium, or added sugars.  However, the Act asks the California Department of Public Health to adopt a regulatory definition of  UPFs and “restricted school foods” by June 1, 2028.  It additionally directs the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, in collaboration with the University of California, to identify a subgroup of “particularly harmful” UPFs that must be eliminated from school meals by 2032.

The focus on UPFs is not confined to California.  Controversies surrounding UPFs have increasingly appeared in courtrooms across the country.  Among these, the most high-profile is Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., et al., originally filed in Pennsylvania state court in December 2024, and later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in January 2025.[2]  Plaintiff alleges that eleven major food and beverage manufacturers produced and aggressively marketed UPFs that caused him to develop two chronic illnesses by the age of sixteen.  The Complaint claims that Defendants intentionally engineered UPFs to be satiating and addicting, all while knowing their long-term negative health effects.  Although the Court initially granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in August, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint in September.  On October 3, 2025, the Court issued a scheduling order for responses on the Motion, setting the stage for further developments.

Federal regulators are also taking aim at UPFs.  On July 25, 2025, the Food & Drug Administration, along with the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, issued a request for information “to help develop a uniform definition of ultra-processed foods for human food products in the U.S. food supply.”[3]  Public comments are due by October 23, 2025.  The initiative, part of the Administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, reflects growing federal interest in addressing the role of UPFs in public health.

The future landscape of UPF regulation and litigation is rapidly evolving.  As both legal challenges and policymaking initiatives continue to unfold, stakeholders in the food and beverage industry must closely monitor developments.  Stay tuned for updates on additional state and federal regulations, as well as key rulings in Martinez and other landmark UPF-related cases.

[1] Real Food, Health Kids Act (Article).

[2] Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., Inc., et al. No. 2:25-cv-00377 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2025).

[3] Federal Register Notice, July 25, 2025 (Link).