What Does California’s War on Ultra-Processed Food Mean for Plant-Based Meat Brands?


7 Mins Read

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed an executive order to crack down on ultra-processed foods – will plant-based meat get caught in the crossfire?

Despite health and nutrition being a top food concern for Americans, the percentage of people who say they ate mostly healthy foods fell from 83% in 2022 to 71% in 2023.

According to the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, nearly three-quarters of US consumers aged 20 and above are overweight and obese, while almost four in 10 children and teenagers are prediabetic.

One of the main causes of these conditions is diet. In fact, unhealthy diets contribute to over 675,000 deaths in the US every year. That said, one of the states with the lowest adult obesity rates (28%) is California – although one in four still are clinically obese. Meanwhile, a third of the state’s residents have prediabetes.

To bring these numbers down further, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed an executive order targeting ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and synthetic food dyes, aiming to limit the associated health risks these ingredients and products pose to the human body.

It chimes with Robert F Kennedy Jr’s war against UPFs, which could become a major talking point if he is confirmed as president-elect Donald Trump’s health secretary. RFK Jr is also known for his disdain for what he calls ‘fake meat’.

With plant-based meat already taking reputational hits for its link to ultra-processing, how will Newsom’s executive order impact vegan food producers?

What are UPFs, and how does California define them?

plant based meat ultra processed
Courtesy: VegFather

UPFs are at the bottom rung of the Nova classification, which places food into four subgroups, based on the amount of processing. They comprise industrial formulations and techniques like extrusion or pre-frying, and cosmetic additives and substances deemed to be of little culinary use – think high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, and modified starch.

In the US, 73% of the food supply is made up of UPFs, contributing to 60% of the country’s calorie consumption.

Newsom’s executive order describes UPFs as those “generally characterized as industrial formulations of chemically modified substances extracted from foods, along with additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and durability, with minimal to no inclusion of whole foods”.

It goes on to provide examples of foods commonly thought of as ultra-processed, such as packaged snacks, chips, crackers, cookies, candy, sugary beverages and processed meats like hot dogs and lunch meat.

The document doesn’t allude to plant-based meat analogues per se, though these are likely to be in focus over the next few months, alongside the aforementioned foods.

There could also be a win for whole-food plant-based brands. Alluding to the dietary committee report, the order notes that diets higher in fruits and vegetables, legumes, whole grains, nuts, unsaturated vegetable oils, and seafood, and lower in processed meats, sugar, refined grains, and saturated fats are associated with favourable health outcomes, including lower risks of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and colorectal and breast cancer.

What does the executive order intend to do?

california ultra processed foods
California Governor Gavin Newsom | Courtesy: Gage Skidmore/CC

Newsom has directed the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to provide recommendations for potential actions that can limit the harms associated with UPFs, which could include the use of warning labels on packaging for certain foods.

The state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, meanwhile, has been asked to work with the CDPH to assess the feasibility of state-level evaluation of food additives that companies have reported to the federal Food and Drug Administration as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe). It could allow California to take state-level action if companies fail to notify the FDA of the GRAS status of certain food additives.

Meanwhile, the California Department of Social Services has been tasked to recommend actions that can help the state reduce purchases of sodas, candy and other UPFs. The Department of Healthcare Services will report to the governor on whether Medi-Cal plans and community investment funds for hospitals can help enhance access to fresh, healthy foods and mitigate the impact of food deserts.

While these are all due on April 1, the state’s Department of Education has been directed to identify areas where the state can adopt higher standards for healthy school meals by October 1.

The latter date is also the deadline for the Department of Food and Agriculture to explore developing new standards and partnerships to ensure universal school food programmes have fresh ingredients grown locally in the state.

Will plant-based meat be affected?

impossible burger eu
Courtesy: Impossible Foods

It’s most likely that vegan products will come under scrutiny amid California’s anti-UPF drive. The state is home to two of the most well-known meat alternative makers – Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods – which have been victims of misinformation about the health impacts of UPFs.

The executive order cites the dietary guidelines committee’s assessment of scientific evidence between UPFs and ill health, confirming that they have an adverse impact on obesity and type 2 diabetes risk. However, the group’s draft for the 2025-30 national dietary recommendations ignores UPFs due to a lack of compelling research on the subject.

Multiple studies have linked UPFs to a range of health impacts. Experts have taken issue with the correlation between food processing and nutrition, since one has nothing to do with the other. The Nova classification describes how much processing a food has gone through, it doesn’t group them based on their health effects.

This results in some convoluted interpretations of food and health. While Coca-Cola, Oreos, Corn Flakes, Lay’s, and Haagen Dazs are all unsurprisingly considered UPFs (though not by every study), so are tofu and whole-grain bread.

Simply put, not all UPFs are bad for you, as a 2023 WHO study put it, suggesting that plant-based meat products – among other foods – are “not associated with risk of multimorbidity” (the medical term for having two concurrent life-threatening diseases), unlike other common UPFs.

Meat analogues have been painted with the same brush as sodas, chips and confectionery, and that has played a part in hurting their sales, which fell by 12% in 2023, and have kept dwindling since.

If California legally requires them to have a warning label, it will likely make things worse, especially in the Ozempic era. Over one in eight Americans have tried GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, and a survey of regular users found that they spend 6-9% less on groceries – primarily UPFs – six months after they start injecting them.

Finally, since any regulations introduced will only be bound to California, companies that sell products nationwide will stand to lose, as they may be forced to reformulate products either nationally or within the state – both of which come with a huge set of challenges.

How does it fit within the wider context of the Trump administration?

trump rfk food health
Courtesy: Gage Skidmore/Flickr/CC

California was the first state to codify President Joe Biden’s federal guidelines to reduce sugar and salt in school meals – an effort that will continue even if the Trump administration enacts lower standards.

Newsom has done a ton of work around school nutrition, outlawing sodas on K-12 campuses, introducing caffeine restrictions on all school grades, requiring entrées to meet calorie, fat, and trans fat standards, and proposing a sugar limit on almond milk and other non-dairy alternatives (which is expected to take effect this year).

Despite his differences with the incoming federal government, his thinking on UPFs dovetails with RFK Jr. The latter has been a vocal critic of processed food, and has vowed to remove them from school lunches should he become health secretary.

“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,” Newsom said. “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.”

The executive order notes how, despite the “emerging evidence” around the ill effects of UPFs, “food companies have opposed efforts across the country to regulate ultra-processed foods and the proliferation of food additives, while continuing to market and sell their products without disclosing to consumers the potential harms their products may cause”.

Almost a dozen Big Food companies have been sued in Pennsylvania for allegedly causing illnesses in kids with “addictive” ultra-processed foods, blaming them for fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair business practices.

What happens if a new warning label appears on plant-based meat products in California? With companies increasingly touting their health benefits on packaging, could they be in danger of facing similar lawsuits?

In Trump’s America, unfortunately, everything is possible.

Author

  • Anay Mridul

    Anay is Green Queen's resident news reporter. Originally from India, he worked as a vegan food writer and editor in London, and is now travelling and reporting from across Asia. He's passionate about coffee, plant-based milk, cooking, eating, veganism, food tech, writing about all that, profiling people, and the Oxford comma.

    View all posts

You might also like