I'm grateful that this bill is taking a much more measured approach than the headline suggests. The bill is targeting specific additives, or "excessive" amounts of added sugar, salt, or fat (exact thresholds unnamed).
"Ultra-processed" gets thrown about as a big food quality bogeyman, but some definitions of the label are as broad as "contains any amount of added sugar". I'm glad California isn't following a standard that extreme.
Date Published: 02/21/2025 09:00 PM
Bill Start
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly BillNo. 1264
Introduced by Assembly Member Gabriel
February 21, 2025
An act relating to pupil nutrition.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1264, as introduced, Gabriel. Pupil nutrition.
Existing law requires the State Department of Education to develop and maintain nutrition guidelines for school lunches and breakfasts and for all food and beverages sold on public school campuses.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation limiting the sale of ultraprocessed foods in California schools.
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO
Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation limiting the sale of ultraprocessed foods in California schools.
> To identify which ultra-processed foods should be eliminated from school offerings, scientists will consider whether a product includes additives that are banned elsewhere, whether it has been linked to health harms, whether it has been show to contribute to food addiction, and whether it contains excessive fat, sugar or salt, California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, said on the call.
>The scientists will be required to publish a first report outlining this subcategory of especially harmful ultra-processed foods by July 1, 2026, said Gabriel, and will be required to update the list every two years as research on these foods evolves.
I guess the text just isn't available yet, but the article describes what is intended.
I’ll add my anecdote: my kids and their friends would have “rather starved than eat the food provided in hot-lunch.” We had a picnic day and the ham sandwich my kid bought was two stale pieces of bread with a single slice of ham. No lettuce, no tomato, no mayo, mustard. Just two pieces of stale bread and a slice of ham. I came home pretty livid that day.
Banning foods that contain any amount of added sugar, except for sweets that are explicitly marketed as such, is very reasonable and would go a long long way in helping manage the obesity crisis.
Would it, though? What matters is glycemic index, and that depends on the overall composition of the food, not just on levels of simple carbohydrates. Focusing purely on one nutrient or on total caloric content is hopelessly reductionist.
For instance white bread has a high glycemic index not because of added sugar, but because all of the fibre and most of the protein have been removed. Proper whole grain, brown bread has a low glycemic index and tons of protein. And that's true even if there's some syrup added for flavour, which is not uncommon.
I believe sugar is added to sliced bread primarily as a preservative and to retain moisture. When fresh I've never noticed much of a difference between "no sugar added" and comparable sliced bread with corn syrup or honey, but the former goes stale more quickly.
The economic pressures are at odds because as people eat less bread shelf stability, both at the grocery store and at home, becomes increasingly important to maintaining a desirable yet competitively priced product. People don't want added sugar and are more carb conscious generally, but what they dislike even more, without realizing it, is stale bread. So you get a positive feedback loop that turns people off of bread, I think.
There is almost no whole-grain bread on the market in the US that does not have added sugar.
AIUI this is because the whole wheat flour tends to impart a bitter taste, so the sugar balances it. The sugar also enables the yeast to raise the bread faster, helping mass production.
Interesting, the only mass-produced whole-grain bread I have on hand is Ezekiel and it didn't list any added sugar, or indeed any sugar at all. It's also not listed as an ingredient on the (partially) whole-grain bread I got from our local bakery.
Having said that, I see your point that setting too low a threshold might be unnecessarily onerous on cafeterias and manufacturers. Perhaps a threshold of ~1g sugar per slice would be more reasonable?
Ezekiel bread is one exception, but they are also (at my local big box store) 3x the price (by kcal) of the white-label whole wheat bread AND less shelf-stable (thus will incur more process losses and expenses).
Interesting. Near me Ezekiel is a little less than 2x more than the cheapest bread-like sponge loaf but only about 50% more than the cheapest whole wheat bread that doesn't dissolve if you spread peanut butter on it.
That's not nothing of course, especially for a school trying to minimize food costs. Many schools (like the one I attended growing up) procure the cheapest possible USDA/NSLP-approved product.
But kids at these sorts of schools seem like they'd see the greatest benefit from this sort of legislation to raise the threshold of what constitutes a healthy lunch.
Couldn't agree more. I see this a lot here in Norway too. So much talk of "ultra-processed" food and its dangers, and recommendations to avoid it but the category is so wide as to include even things like baked beans, because they may have some salt, sugar and modified starch added; or peanut butter because it may have some sugar added to help it stay emulsified and some saturated fat added to make it less runny.
Does that processing suddenly turn the beans from one of the healthiest foods we know of to an unhealthy one? Probably not. Does it make them easier to use in cooking vs dried beans, leading more people to eat beans? Probably yes.
Same thing for the peanut butter. As part of my breakfast, I often have a slice or two of brown, whole grain bread with peanutbutter(the non-disgusting kind with additives mentioned above, about 89% peanuts) and banana. That's a meal rich in protein, various kinds of fiber, polyunsaturated fats, slow carbs, various vitamins and minerals. The fact that the PB has a little sugar and sat fat in it doesn't really matter very much. I've tried PB That's 99% peanuts and frankly it's disgusting. It separates, it's runny and it has an off taste too. If that was the only PB on the market I wouldn't even use it.
The problem is 1. That government recommendations and public discourse place far, far too much emphasis on population studies based on overly vague categories like this and 2. That there's an almost singular focus on things people should avoid rather than things people need more of, especially fibre and protein. Fibre is crucially important, and maybe this is a hot take, but I think lack of fibre is maybe the most important factor when it comes to public health and food.
Fibre increases satiety and bulk, leading you to eat less calories, lowers glycemic index avoiding insulin resistance and diabetes, improves intestinal function(via interaction with gut biome) and therefore micronutrient uptake, and it(specifically beta-glucans found in oats and other grains) even lowers LDL cholesterol. Not to mention it prevents hemorrhoids, which might not affect longevity, but it's certainly nice. And indeed, no surprise, a lot of "ultra-processed" food happens to be devoid of fibre.
I think "fibre-depleted" and "protein-depleted" would be more useful categories to use than the much more vague "ultra-processed".
Modified starch seems like a prime candidate for an ultra-processed ingredient. I don't know which one is used in baked beans, but there's a whole list of enzymes, acids and alkalis used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_starch
I didn't realize we could buy 89% peanut butter in Europe. At my nearest supermarket in Copenhagen I have the choice of 99.5% (Machandel), 99.6% (Urtekram) or 99.3% (Salling). The other 11% of yours is probably palm oil, sugar and salt, so less questionable than the modified starch but it's still additives to increase shelf life and make the boring, natural peanut more appealing.
It's by far the most sold one. I just checked, and it's not palm oil(which I would be opposed to for environmental reasons), but sunflower oil(probably high-stearic, though it doesn't say), diglycerides and monoglycerides, salt and glucose. probably most of the additive is the sunflower oil.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter, that's my point. the 89% peanuts gives me lots of protein, fibre and healthy fats, which is making it easier for me to diet and lose weight, thereby improving my health. That almost certainly outweighs any potential risks from the 11%. The 11% honestly helps in that it makes the whole thing palatable. I can't overstate how much I hate pure peanut butter; just thinking about it makes me gag.
I mean, adding stuff to food to make it more appealing or longer-lasting is what humans do. It's what we've always done. Just concluding that it's bad and shouldn't be done is silly. I'm much more interested in specifics.
You can even make a health-positive argument for preservatives. Preservatives prolong shelf life -> means I can keep more diverse food around with less time expenditure(not going to the store every day) and with less waste because there's only so much food I can eat in a given time -> means I can follow a more varied diet in practice -> better health outcomes.
Now, if there's a specific problem with one preservative or other additive, fine. replace it with something else.
It's a bit embarrassing I even have to explain this, but yes, because racism or sexism are very important parts of 4chan's appeal: it's a place with freedom of speech. Let's be real the standards of discussion are low, but people can discuss stuff freely, which they wouldn't be able to if everything was buried under some GPT generated spam.
A lot of people think 4chan is one of the last bastions of free speech on the internet because they see a lot of racism that would normally be banned anywhere else.
But if you post something that goes against the alt-right that pisses them off too much and getting a lot of replies, it'll be deleted within minutes, or you'll even get banned for being "off topic".
4chan is not free speech, it is just a haven for the alt-right.
They do have rules and the site is quite moderated.
I do think though that any such site or platform will have the issue of judges inflecting their bias in their application of the rules.
So I wouldn't say that it is a unique phenomenon.
That said, of course there is a semantic as well as technical identity to 4chan. And they are quite connected, rather than isolated.
4chan, apart from its lax rules on what we now call hate speech, has developed a community where insults are now part of its culture. The fact that the site is anonymous greatly influences that animosity.
I like to think of 4chan not as a place where horrible people go, but where people go to be horrible. Of course you have the dedicated users, neets or schizos or chronically online, but again that's a propery of every site, and not necessarily a majority.
So if you read /pol/ or /b/ like articles of an organization with an editorial line, sure you will see nazis and a deranged group of people.
If you however see it like bathroom wall writings, you will see a bit of everyone.
There were no rules broken. Actually they selectively ignore the rule against racism as long as it is aligned with alt-right, and not just the pol board now.
That thread is about the Spanish movie "La piel que habito,"[0] and that OP post is actually describing the plot, it's not even a political post. So bringing up American Republicans out of nowhere is quite off topic. Strange how you conveniently cropped out the title and image that ostensibly showed this. Is this the best you can do?
It's not entirely unrelated to the discussion and I guarantee you if someone said something aligned with alt-right, instead it would not have been censored.
An article about 4chan from left media is something I won't read. Not a boomer, I can actually read 4chan anyways and make my own mind.
Image related is unfortunate. Not uncommon for jannies and mods in any website to use their power to self serve. It happens even in more serious and regulated sites like wikipedia, so I'm not surprised by the lack of moderation neutrality in a meme site.
> Image related is unfortunate. Not uncommon for jannies and mods in any website to use their power to self serve.
This isn't just a 1 off thing by rogue moderators is what I'm trying to point out. This is a constantly re-occurring thing. I also experienced the same issue multiple times until I got fed up with it and stopped posting there a few years ago.
Their main moderator had a goal to make 4chan politically aligned with his views. 4chan used to be free speech but it really isn't anymore.
Its not just the pol board as I showed in my other comments.
I don't use the videogame board so I do not know if anti alt-right comments there get deleted, but I find it hard to believe that anybody is going to be emotionally invested enough to delete posts that say "game X is going to succeed even when it is woke".
From a random search it looks like there's a lot of racist or alt-right aligned political comments there that never get deleted though.
This is not true. You can go to /v/ right now and see tons of pro black/trans in video games posters, and /lgbt/ is one of the largest boards on the site at 12th place by avg. posts per day.[0] Here are 3 /v/ threads I found in less than 5 seconds that are "pro woke":
1. 696014001
OP:
>Face it, it’s going to be a BG3 situation. Everyone will screech about it being woke, play it, then 6 months later everyone will say “no one called it woke, what are you talking about?”
2. 696014873
OP:
>If Japanese people are so based and anti-woke then why is this so popular in nipland? [pic of otokonoko game in image]
3. 696016309
OP:
>>9999 games cater to cis men, 1 doesn't
>>THIS IS LITERALLY GENOCIDE
(Two of these threads I found by searching the word "woke" in the catalog. The first was the first thread when I opened the page.)
In fact, these types of threads are against the rules,[1] but /v/ is somewhat evenly split between liberals and anti-liberals and liberals make these threads all day and can be seen in replies as well. They even have their own terms, eg. "Grumzcord Raid" "Grifter thread" etc. And if you knew anything about the mods and janitors you would know many are far from alt-right.
My guess is you went to /g/ and started making blatant political threads and got banned. Note that both sides get banned for blatant off topic political posts. Do you have any examples of posts you were banned for?
The mods won't ban or delete 1 off posts that don't get any traction. And I'm talking about pol, the #1 board on the site by activity.
And no I don't visit g, if I wanted some discussion about technology I'd rather use this website instead. I'm not going to show any of my own examples for privacy purposes, and no doubt you will probably find some way to nit pick at those.
>mods won't ban or delete 1 off posts that don't get any traction
Janitors don't delete posts that they don't see or are not reported.
>I'm talking about pol, the #1 board on the site by activity.
/vg/ is neck and neck with /pol/, and that's only because /v/ was split into /v/ and /vg/.
And yeah, if you don't give any examples it's hard to take you seriously. The example you did give was egregiously OT, and in fact potentially thread-derailing. The fact that you saw that as an example of janitors being unfair puts your credibility into question. I showed that liberal opinions are allowed and even common on 4chan, which was your initial point. I don't browse /pol/ but I found liberal threads pretty easily here as well:
490048710 (99 replies)
OP:
>Calmly explain why pissing off these countries [in OP pic] will result in untold riches for the working class [countries are China, Canada and Mexico, in reference to Trump's tariffs]
490048788 (103 replies)
OP:
>Is Trump the last gasp of a dying empire?
>He's going hard, threatening every country in the world with huge tariffs and massive retaliation if they use currencies other than the US dollar. It's rather absurd. [post continues for another 3 paragraphs]
I don't think 4chan is necessarily a bastion of free speech. Twitter is probably more free in terms on what you can post now. However 4chan is nothing like Reddit, old twitter, YouTube etc. in terms of what you can post.
> Janitors don't delete posts that they don't see or are not reported.
So why is it that any alt-right or racist posts never get deleted? Even if they only deal with things that get reported to them, there's clearly a huge bias going on here when alt-right aligned posts never get reported while the opposite is reported and dealt with within minutes.
> And yeah, if you don't give any examples it's hard to take you seriously. The example you did give was egregiously OT, and in fact potentially thread-derailing. The fact that you saw that as an example of janitors being unfair puts your credibility into question.
I believe I've given plenty of other examples not my own. I don't want to bring in my own examples because I don't want to be arguing about politics on this website, especially since I am not using a throwaway account like you are.
If the example I gave was egregiously OT, then so are all the dozens of race and politic baiting posts aligned with the alt-right that never ever seem to get the same treatment.
And for posts be deleted quickly, it needs to piss enough people off. The examples you used are the most softball examples that are not too aggressively worded and makes it more likely that alt-right users try and refute the claim rather than a knee jerk "report and sage".
Also tariffs are more of a tangential viewpoint rather than one exactly opposed to the alt-right.
The thing is, addressing the spam and also allowing users to have a low friction experience would be the first step to addressing the concerns you mentioned (without compromising the purpose of the site: anonymous and totally free speech).
There aren't many places for the people that share the views you mentioned to go other than sites like 4chan, so even though there's an awful captcha, they're going to be quite dedicated as they don't have many mainstream options elsewhere.
I believe if users were able to have a frictionless experience, then it'd reduce the chances of someone throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "this isn't worth it". I've actually attempted to reply to threads to challenge the views of others, but once I'm hit with the 300-1000 second wait time to post, I just close the tab and move on.
This problem is a societal one, it mostly harms you indirectly by creating spaces for hateful ideas to spread, 4chan's harm is through the capacity to organize and strengthen hateful and harmful political movements. More socially conscious people not visiting the site only serves to create a stronger echo chamber.
Plainly to you, but not to me. What isn't obvious to everyone, isn't really obvious. You didn't care to explain what kind of stopping mechanisms are there, that make it not a slippery slope.
I'd say rather than there being *a risk* of descending too low on that slippery slope, we already have plenty of evidence this already happened. I'm from Poland and recently a party in ruling coalition proposed criminalizing hate speech on the Internet. Fortunately, precisely the slippery slope rhetoric, supported by evidence from countries like UK, seems to be enough of a backlash to stop politicians from following such ideas.
The fact you think some ideas are "harmful" is exactly why humanity needs sites like these. We don't trust people like you to determine which ideas are "harmful" and which aren't, which ideas are worth spreading and which aren't. We want to see for ourselves, thank you very much.
We are especially interested in the ideas that people deem offensive enough to suppress. Are they actually wrong or are they just socially unacceptable? Whatever the truth is, it can't be learned from a place that suppresses discussion of it. Declaring the matter as settled and suppressing any opposing viewpoint is the very definition of an echo chamber.
You're saying national socialism is not harmful? /pol/, /b/, and tons of other boards constantly spawn threads glorifying nazi germany and vilifying other ethnicities and women, using rhetoric calling for people belonging to these groups to be killed.
Violent far-right groups use these threads as a pool for recruitment. These far-right groups cause real societal harm through violent crime and shifting the view on violent policies against minorities.
I am not using an abstract moral argument when I say these ideas cause harm, I'm arguing based on objectively observed effects that the loose ethical norms of a liberal democratic society would unambiguously deem harmful.
> You're saying national socialism is not harmful?
Everything with the word "socialism" in it is harmful.
> vilifying other ethnicities and women, using rhetoric calling for people belonging to these groups to be killed
Unfiltered hate like that is a property of humanity itself. It is not at all exclusive to the so called internet hate machine. If you look closely, you'll find that plenty of "virtuous" people are capable of just as much hate, if not more. I've personally witnessed it.
If you're not answering the argument, that's fine. But let's acknowledge that you did not answer the argument and are now just spouting the rhetoric of the far-right movement I'm describing.
I won't acknowledge anything. Your argument was not convincing. It was actually the perfect example of an attempt to suppress socially unacceptable views.
You singled those people out as "harmful" because they call for the deaths of "other ethnicities and women". Implicit in your world view is the idea that these people wouldn't also do such things. The idea that these groups are the blameless and virtuous victims, deserving of special protection against these "harmful" words and ideas. That's the part of your argument that I chose to attack.
I chose to attack that idea because I've personally seen people from these "virtuous" groups post some of the most concentrated, unfiltered and unabashed hate speech I've ever seen. I witnessed them call for deaths of entire groups, including those I'm part of, with a clean conscience. I was there when they laughed at the very few people who tried to hold them accountable for it. Not only did they not suffer any consequences, people actually made excuses for such behavior and treated it as though it was justified. Their openly hateful behavior actually empowered them.
I will never forget that as long as I live. I straight up archived those social media threads to ensure the internet never forgets. I even posted those archives here years ago when people asked me for examples. If I cared enough I bet I could even dig up those archive links from my post history.
I didn't care to dig up those links because I've yet to see a single person get outraged by this sort of behavior when it comes from these groups. I have no reason to believe you will be the exception.
They post things like "KILL ALL MEN" verbatim and people make excuses for it. Well, I'm not interested in hearing excuses today. I decided to try and make you realize that hate is a normal human emotion instead. My argument to you is that hate is a perfectly normal human emotion. It's part of the human condition. It's not at all exclusive to 4chan's politics board, oh no. People hate. Everyone hates. Even people on this very site will hate and openly call for the deaths of other humans if presented with a juicy enough target. Don't doubt it, for I have seen it happen.
By the way, dang has rate limited my account to about 5 posts every 2 hours because I would get into too many arguments just like this one. He's actually right and when I contacted him about it I asked him to keep the account rate limited. So you will excuse me if I don't reply further to this thread.
I understand that this issue seems to create a strong emotional reaction in you. That does not excuse you from the consequences of those strong emotional reactions.
I feel like you have massively extrapolated the argument from what the original point was. My response was about how "avoiding 4chan" does not shield you from the effects that 4chan has (including harm).
I don't know which groups you belong to (because you don't mention them), but we clearly agree that violent rhetoric is bad, so why are we disagreeing? It seems you have the exact same point of view as me in the general case of hateful rhetoric, but simply feel that some groups are more important (because you belong to them, perhaps? this is the feeling I get).
Also, let's not kid ourselves, violent crime (including murder) and oppression towards women and minorities are well-documented and studied real-life issues. Violence towards men by "virtuous" groups (leftists?) does not even register on the scale when compared to them. The online violent rhetoric towards women is also at several orders of magnitude higher than violent rhetoric towards men. There is a clear disproportionate aspect to this issue that your emotional reaction is not taking into account.
Magnitudes do not matter. Right and wrong are not based on statistics. I will not excuse their behavior by citing statistics.
It's very simple. We have 4chan people. We have "virtuous" people: women and minorities. I have witnessed the virtuous express hate with complete impunity. Therefore Anonymous should not be punished for doing the same thing.
Nothing emotional about it. I'm simply incapable of the cognitive dissonance necessary to accept the idea that some people get to hate freely while others don't. It is easier to accept the idea that hate is a normal and universal human emotion which will manifest everywhere where humans are present.
That's the price you pay for ability to freely and anonymously voice different opinions. And even then 4chan is considered "soft", because mods still delete some egregiously "incorrect" opinions.
I've been taking some online classes these last two semesters, and I can cleanly group my classmates into three categories: the blatant LLM users, the rare students who actually invest themselves, and the majority whose contributions are so cursory that it hardly matters whether they wrote or generated it.
That would presumably already be against the law in many jurisdictions (cities, suburbs), so there wouldn't need to be an additional law to cover the situation where you're shooting at a drone versus a squirrel.
Recent can be a generous time period, but it's not unimportant. When I was very young, I was able to enjoy the Hardy Boys and the Chronicles of Narnia, but even in the 90s, just forty years after the latter was written, they both felt very, very old. When I started finding more current writing, like Redwall or Animorphs, I never looked back.
"Ultra-processed" gets thrown about as a big food quality bogeyman, but some definitions of the label are as broad as "contains any amount of added sugar". I'm glad California isn't following a standard that extreme.