California AB 2244: Non-Ultraprocessed Certified Food Standard

California AB 2244, Non-Ultraprocessed Certified Food Standard:

What California’s New Standard Could Mean for Food Formulation and Labeling

What Does “Non-Ultraprocessed” Mean Under California Law?

There is currently no single nationally recognized definition of an ultra-processed food in the United States. California, however, established a statutory definition through AB 1264, the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, signed in 2025.

Under that law, California's definition considers specified additives along with nutritional characteristics such as saturated fat, sodium and added sugar, as well as nonnutritive sweeteners and certain other substances. The law also excludes several categories, including raw agricultural commodities and certain minimally processed foods.

AB 2244 builds on that framework but establishes specific certification eligibility criteria. Under the enacted law, an accredited certification agent cannot certify a food product if it meets California's specified additive criteria for ultra-processed food, or if the product is classified as an “ultraprocessed food of concern” or a “restricted school food.” CDPH is responsible for developing regulations defining the latter two categories.

This distinction is important. California's certification standard is not simply based on whether a product has been industrially processed. The ingredients and additives used in the formulation matter.

How Is California’s Definition Different From NOVA?

Much of the scientific discussion surrounding ultra-processed foods comes from the NOVA food classification system. NOVA divides foods into four groups based largely on the nature, extent and purpose of processing.

NOVA's fourth category includes ultra-processed foods, generally described as industrial formulations made primarily from food-derived substances and additives, often with relatively little intact whole food. Ingredients associated with this category can include certain flavors, colors, emulsifiers, sweeteners, thickeners and other additives.

California's regulatory approach is different because it translates the concept into specific statutory criteria that can be used in a certification program.

As a result, the question “Is this product ultra-processed?” may have different answers depending on the framework being applied. A NOVA classification, California certification determination and private non-UPF certification are not necessarily interchangeable.

Which Ingredients Could Affect Non-Ultraprocessed Certification?

Ingredient review is likely to be one of the most important parts of evaluating a product under California's standard.

California's underlying UPF statute references substances in FDA's Substances Added to Food database that perform specified technical functions. These include categories such as colors, flavors, flavor enhancers, stabilizers and thickeners, surface-active agents, propellants and aerating agents, among others. The law also addresses nonnutritive sweeteners and specifically identified sweetening ingredients.

At the same time, the law provides exceptions. Salt, spices and certain natural seasonings or flavorings, and natural color additives do not by themselves cause a food to meet the UPF definition. That makes a detailed ingredient assessment more useful than simply counting ingredients or deciding whether an ingredient sounds “natural.” Its technical function and regulatory classification can be important.

Compound ingredients can add another layer of complexity. An ingredient such as a seasoning blend, coating, filling or flavor system may itself contain several subingredients. Evaluating a finished product may therefore require looking beyond the primary formulation and reviewing supplier specifications and subingredient documentation.

Does Processing Alone Determine Whether a Food Is Ultra-Processed?

No. Under California's approach, a food is not automatically considered ultra-processed simply because it has undergone multiple processing steps.

Heating, freezing, drying, pasteurizing, grinding, canning and other processing methods can substantially change a food without necessarily placing it in California's UPF category. California law expressly excludes certain minimally processed foods, which may include foods that are cut, sliced, diced, canned, pureed, dried or pasteurized.

This is one of the reasons the term “ultra-processed” can be confusing. Food processing exists on a broad spectrum, and the amount of processing is not necessarily the same thing as a regulatory classification.

For California certification, the complete formulation and applicable statutory criteria need to be considered rather than relying only on the manufacturing process.

What Documentation Will Be Needed for California Non-UPF Certification?

AB 2244 establishes a third-party certification structure overseen by CDPH. No later than June 1, 2029, the department must accredit certification agents that can certify qualifying products.

The law requires certification agents to report information about certified products to the state, including the product name, ingredients, Nutrition Facts information, manufacturer and brand, product identifiers and certification date. CDPH will also maintain a public system containing information about certified products.

For a product undergoing review, useful supporting records may therefore include the finished formulation, complete ingredient and subingredient statements, supplier specifications, Nutrition Facts data, product identifiers and documentation supporting the regulatory identity or technical function of ingredients when classification is unclear.

This makes formulation control especially important. The product being certified needs to correspond to the formulation, ingredient information and nutrition information used during certification.

What Happens if a Non-Ultraprocessed Certified Product Is Reformulated?

California's law specifically addresses reformulation. Certified products must be recertified at least once every three years. More importantly, if a product bearing the Non-Ultraprocessed Certified seal is reformulated, the manufacturer must obtain recertification of the reformulated product before using the seal on that version.Even a relatively small formulation change could therefore warrant a new assessment.



Replacing a stabilizer, flavor system, sweetener, color or other functional ingredient may affect certification eligibility. Changing ingredient quantities can also alter the nutritional composition of the finished product. For that reason, non-UPF certification should be viewed as tied to a specific formulation rather than to a product name or brand indefinitely.

How Can Reformulation Affect the Nutrition Facts and Ingredient Statement?

Reformulating a product to remove or replace an ingredient can create changes elsewhere on the food label. For example, replacing a sweetener could change total carbohydrate, added sugars or calories. Modifying a fat source could affect total fat and saturated fat. Replacing a sodium-containing ingredient could change declared sodium. New ingredients may also change the ingredient statement, allergen considerations or the basis for nutrient and content claims.

The effects are not always predictable from the ingredient substitution alone. A reformulated product should therefore be evaluated as a new formulation from both a certification and labeling perspective. Updated formulation calculations or analytical testing may be appropriate to confirm nutrient values, depending on the product, the extent of the reformulation and the claims being made.

Why Might Analytical Testing Be Important After Reformulation?

Removing ingredients associated with ultra-processing does not guarantee that the replacement formulation will perform the same way.

Functional ingredients are often included for a reason. They may control texture, moisture, emulsion stability, oxidation, microbial growth, color or flavor. Replacing them can therefore affect more than the ingredient statement.

Depending on the formulation change, additional evaluation may include nutrition analysis, microbiological testing, water activity or moisture analysis, oxidation testing, physical or sensory evaluation, and shelf-life testing.

Shelf life deserves particular attention when reformulation involves preservatives, stabilizers, acidulants, humectants or other ingredients that contribute to product stability. A formulation that satisfies a desired ingredient standard still needs to remain safe and maintain acceptable quality throughout its intended shelf life.

How Does California’s Label Compare With Private Non-UPF Certifications?

California's seal will not be the only non-ultraprocessed certification available. Private programs have already introduced their own standards, including the Non-GMO Project's Non-UPF Verified program and the Non-UPF Certified program. Food Dive reported in September 2026 that more than 300 products from 23 brands had already received Non-UPF Verified status through the Non-GMO Project.

The existence of multiple programs creates an important distinction: a product qualifying under one non-UPF standard should not automatically be assumed to qualify under another. Each program can use different definitions, prohibited ingredients, processing criteria and verification requirements. California's program is particularly notable because its criteria are connected to definitions established in state law and its certification agents will be accredited by CDPH.



The applicable standard therefore needs to be identified before a product is evaluated.

Is There a Federal Definition of Ultra-Processed Food?

Not yet.

FDA and USDA began a joint effort in 2025 to develop a uniform federal definition of ultra-processed foods. The agencies acknowledged that there was no single authoritative definition for the U.S. food supply and requested information about existing classification systems, ingredient characteristics, processing methods and other factors that could potentially be incorporated into a federal definition.

That work is significant because a future federal definition may not exactly match California's standard, NOVA or existing private certification systems.

The Institute of Food Technologists has also raised concerns about the possibility of different states adopting different definitions, which could leave food companies operating under multiple interpretations of what constitutes an ultra-processed food.

For now, “non-ultraprocessed” should not be treated as a universal regulatory term with one definition across every jurisdiction and certification program.

What Should Food Companies Review as California Implements the New Standard?

The immediate task is not necessarily reformulation. It is understanding how existing products compare with the criteria.

A practical review can start with the complete formulation and ingredient statement, including subingredients and the technical functions of additives. Products being considered for certification can then be evaluated against California's eligibility criteria, with Nutrition Facts information and supporting supplier documentation reviewed at the same time.

Products that do not qualify may require a more detailed assessment before ingredients are replaced. A substitute ingredient can affect processing performance, nutrition, sensory characteristics, food safety and shelf life. Reformulation decisions therefore work best when ingredient compliance, label accuracy and finished-product performance are considered together.

California's new certification program also remains a developing regulatory area. CDPH still has implementation work ahead, including regulations related to ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, as well as accreditation of certification agents.

The larger takeaway is that “non-ultraprocessed” is becoming more than a consumer-facing description. In California, it is becoming a defined certification category tied to ingredient criteria, documentation and ongoing formulation control. As state, federal and private standards continue to develop, understanding which definition applies will be just as important as understanding what is in the product.