California has enacted a sweeping measure, the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, that aims to remove ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) from school campuses over a decade-long phaseout, beginning in the 2029–2030 school year and culminating in a full ban by 2035. The statute establishes two parallel timelines: one for regulatory development and vendor reporting, and another for the staged elimination of UPFs from school sales and meal programs.

A key regulatory milestone arrives on February 1, 2028, when vendors selling food to schools must begin annual reporting to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Required disclosures for each product sold in a calendar year include product quantities, the product name, whether the item is a UPF, whether it is designated a restricted school food or a UPF of concern, the food category or categories, the average total calories per item, full ingredient lists, and nutritional facts. The law conditions eligibility for state meal reimbursement on compliance; schools that fail to comply become ineligible for those funds.

The legislative approach contrasts with an earlier, more accelerated move in Arizona. Earlier this year Arizona enacted the Arizona Healthy Schools Act, which also bars schools from selling certain ultraprocessed foods but relies on a narrower definition tied to the presence of one or more items from a list of eleven ingredients, primarily synthetic food dyes. Arizona’s law takes effect in the 2026–2027 school year, giving schools and vendors a substantially shorter adjustment period.

The California law’s dual-track design reflects a desire to marshal regulatory capacity and give supply chains time to adapt, but it imposes new administrative burdens on vendors and school districts. Annual reporting to CDPH will require vendors to assemble detailed data across large product portfolios and could expose procurement contracts to scrutiny. School systems that rely on revenues from à la carte sales and vending face revenue uncertainty as manufacturers reformulate products, distribution networks adapt, and local meal programs transition menus.

Institutionally, the success of the policy depends on CDPH’s ability to translate statutory definitions of UPFs and “UPFs of concern” into enforceable regulations and on school districts’ procurement offices to renegotiate contracts and monitor compliance. The statute’s linkage of reimbursement to compliance gives the state leverage, but it could also prompt legal challenges from vendors or districts contesting classifications or alleging inadequate implementation support.

Politically, the differing timelines and definitions are likely to shape legislative debates and local electoral contests, especially school board races where parents, nutrition advocates and industry stakeholders will press competing priorities. States that considered similar measures earlier this year signaled a broader trend toward tighter nutrition standards in schools, but they also revealed the policy trade-offs between speed, clarity and administrative feasibility.

As California moves to implement the reporting regime and phaseout schedule, monitoring outcomes on costs, student participation in meal programs, and nutritional impacts will be essential. The law establishes a significant regulatory experiment: whether a long transition anchored by detailed vendor transparency can reduce ultraprocessed food availability in public schools without disrupting access to meals or shifting burdens disproportionately onto districts serving low-income students.