With the increasing attention and criticism being given to UPFs, one of the challenges faced by the food and beverage industry is to define what exactly qualifies as a UPF. California has offered up its definition of the term, becoming the first state in the nation to do so. 

Under AB 1264, the "Real Food, Healthy Kids" Act, UPFs are foods or beverages that meet these criteria: (1) contains surface-active agents; stabilizers or thickeners; propellants, aerating agents, or gases; colors or coloring adjuncts; emulsifiers or emulsifier salts; flavoring agents or adjuvants; flavor enhancers; or nonnutritive sweeteners, as each term is defined in 21 C.F.R. § 170.3(o) (excluding salt or sodium chloride; spices or other natural seasonings or flavorings, as listed in 21 C.F.R. § 182.10; and natural color additives, as listed in 21 C.F.R Part 73); and (2) contains either: (a) 10% or greater of its total energy from saturated fat, 10% or greater of its total energy from added sugars, or a ratio of milligrams of sodium to calories that is equal to or greater than 1:1; or (b) nonnutritive sweeteners or d-sorbitol, erythritol, hydrogenated starch hydrolysates, sucralose, isomalt, lactitol, luo han fruit concentrate, maltitol, steviol glycosides, thaumatin, or xylitol. UPFs that meet this definition will be phased out of California schools by July 1, 2029. Exemptions from this definition include, for example, raw agricultural commodities as defined by the California Health and Safety Code, minimally processed prepared food as defined in the California Food and Agricultural Code, and alcoholic beverages as defined in the California Business and Professions Code.

The California definition of UPFs has no legal impact outside the California school system. But it is a bold first step toward possibly achieving a nationwide consensus of what is, and is not, a UPF. Indeed, the “Real Food, Healthy Kids” Act comes at a time the Trump administration is waging its own war against UPFs as part of the Make America Healthy Again movement. Last summer, the FDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services filed a joint request for data and information to help develop a uniform definition of "ultra-processed foods" for human food products in the U.S. food supply. 

Thus, it seems like it will only be a matter of time before there is a uniform definition of UPFs. Whether that definition will look like California's, remains a mystery.