California just passed legislation to identify non-ultra-processed foods
getty
California is poised to become the first state with a government-backed label identifying foods that are not ultra-processed.
The premise behind Californias AB 2244 is straightforward: Make complicated food information easier to understand, and consumers may make healthier choices. The new voluntary “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” seal will identify qualifying foods, while large grocery retailers will be required to make certified products easier for shoppers to find.
But Californias experiment raises a bigger question as public health officials call for government intervention targeting ultra-processed foods (UPFs): If the objective is healthier consumers, how should we determine whether the policy actually works？
Sales of certified products would be one measure. Consumer recognition of the seal would be another. But neither shows us whether Californians ultimately eat better or become healthier.
Three tests may tell us considerably more.
Test No. 1: Who Responds To The Label？
Nutrition labels can influence food choices. But consumers dont respond to them equally.
Discover more
FINANCE
Financial
Compare Exchange Rates
Research conducted by the Natural Marketing Institute and included in our Georgetown University study All Indulgent Products Are Not Created Equal found a striking difference.
Among the most health-oriented consumers (the “Well Beings”), 84% selected foods based on the Nutrition Facts panel. Among the least health-active “Eat, Drink & Be Merrys,” only 24% did so. This least health-oriented consumer segments also exhibited the highest obesity rates.
Earlier research examining consumers specifically by BMI found the same pattern: healthy weight consumers were significantly more likely than consumers with obesity to select foods based on front-of-package nutrition information and ingredient lists.
That creates a potential paradox for California. The consumers most likely to respond to a healthier food signal may be those who need it least.
The first question, therefore, isn‘t simply whether Californians notice the seal. It’s whether it reaches the consumers whose behavior policymakers most hope to change.
Test No. 2: Which Foods Actually Matter？
Californias approach also raises a question about the foods themselves.
Our Why They Buy research examined purchasing of indulgent foods across consumers with different body weights. The differences were substantial, but they werent uniform.
For example, compared with healthy weight consumers, those with obesity had a purchase index gap of +27.0 for regular soda while for chocolate candy, the gap was only a not statistically significant +1.7. Non-chocolate candy also showed no statistically significant difference between healthy weight consumers and those with obesity.
And the differences werent limited to purchasing behavior. NHANES data analyzed for our Georgetown research found beverages accounted for 7.9% of total calories, compared with just 1.9% for candy.
None of this makes candy healthy or suggests processing doesn‘t matter. However, it demonstrates something more useful for policymakers in that foods placed under the same broad policy umbrella don’t necessarily have the same consumption patterns, caloric contribution or relationship with obesity.
Treating them as though they do risks turning a useful classification into a blunt policy instrument.
The distinction matters for food companies, too. Californias seal could create powerful incentives to reformulate products or develop new ones that qualify for certification. The most valuable innovation, however, may not always be the one that earns a seal. It may be the one that reduces calories, sugar or portion sizes in the products and categories contributing most to overconsumption.
Test No. 3: Does Changing Purchases Improve Health？
Then may be the most important test.
Chile provides a useful precedent. Its highly visible black warning labels combined with taxes, marketing restrictions and other measures produced substantial changes in purchases of targeted foods and nutrients. While those are meaningful results, obesity continued to increase after the policies were introduced.
That doesn‘t demonstrate that Chile’s policies failed. Obesity is influenced by many factors, and rates conceivably could have risen even faster without the interventions.
It does, however, expose the limitation of using purchasing behavior as the finish line. Changing what people buy is an intermediate outcome. Improving health is the objective.
Consumers can substitute other foods. A healthier looking product may not reduce overall calorie intake. And, as our consumer research suggests, the people most likely to respond to nutrition information may not be the people whose behavior most needs to change.
Discover more
Trade Crypto Assets
Track Stocks Bonds
Stock
The Real Test Is What Happens Next
California deserves credit for attempting a new approach. But if the goal of AB 2244 is to improve how people eat, success cannot be measured simply by whether consumers recognize the seal or buy more certified products.
California should measure who responds, which food categories actually change and what consumers eat instead. Most important, it should determine whether those changes translate into better diets and health outcomes.
That distinction will become increasingly important as the federal government develops its own definition of ultra-processed foods and policymakers consider what to do with it. California could provide important real-world evidence of what works, and what doesnt.
A label can influence what consumers see on the shelf. The real test is whether it changes how people eat.