Key Takeaways
- • California Governor Newsom signed AB 2244 on September 28, 2026, establishing the nation's first statewide "Non-Ultraprocessed Certified" food label program, modeled after the USDA Organic Seal and administered by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH).
- • The certification program bars products containing stabilizers, thickeners, emulsifiers, coloring or flavoring agents, flavor enhancers, and nonnutritive sweeteners; CDPH must accredit third-party certifiers by June 1, 2029, with mandatory recertification every three years and enforcement penalties for label misuse.
- • Large retailers generating over $10 million in annual sales and stocking more than 25 certified non-UPF products must provide clear in-store display and merchandising of eligible items, creating new retail infrastructure requirements across the food and beverage sector.
- • AB 2030, also signed September 28, 2026, prohibits over-the-counter diet pills and weight-loss dietary supplements sales to anyone under 18, requiring age verification via government ID checks in-store and commercial database verification with photo ID signature for online/delivery purchases; civil penalties reach $500 per violation.
- • The California laws mirror New York's 2023 restrictions, but a pending U.S. Supreme Court petition challenging New York's law on First Amendment grounds could directly impact California's enforcement and validity, creating material legal uncertainty for supplement manufacturers and retailers.
Summary
California's regulatory framework for food and dietary supplements shifted materially on September 28, 2026, when Governor Newsom signed two landmark bills into law. AB 2244 creates a voluntary certification program for non-ultraprocessed foods, becoming the nation's first statewide "Non-Ultraprocessed Certified" label initiative. The program is modeled after the USDA Organic Seal and places administrative authority with the California Department of Public Health. Rather than certifying products directly, CDPH will approve and accredit third-party certifiers to evaluate products against California's ingredient and nutrient criteria. Certification agents must register with the state, which may audit records at any time, and a publicly accessible online database will list all certified products. Products cannot qualify if they contain additives including stabilizers, thickeners, emulsifiers, coloring or flavoring agents, flavor enhancers, or nonnutritive sweeteners, nor if they are classified as "ultraprocessed food of concern" or "restricted school food" under the state's prior 2025 law, AB 1264. CDPH must accredit certifiers by June 1, 2029, with recertification mandated at least every three years.
The certification program carries operational requirements for large retailers. Grocery stores and supermarkets generating more than $10 million in annual sales and selling more than 25 individual non-UPF certified products must display such products with clear, distinct visibility to enable consumer identification. Misuse of the certification label is unlawful and subject to enforcement action. CDPH has also established the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund to support label implementation and public stakeholder education. This development builds on California's broader regulatory trend—the state previously enacted AB 1264 in 2025, establishing the first state statutory definition of ultraprocessed foods and setting timelines to phase certain UPFs out of California schools. Federal regulators are concurrently developing policy: on August 3, 2026, the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services submitted a nonbinding "White Paper: Proposed Definition of Ultra-Processed Food" to the Office of Management and Budget, currently pending review.
AB 2030 addresses dietary supplements and over-the-counter diet products from a different angle—age-gated sales. Effective immediately, retailers cannot sell OTC diet pills or dietary supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building to individuals under 18, regardless of distribution channel. In-store sales require retailers to verify valid identification for purchasers who do not reasonably appear over 18; retailers may further restrict access via behind-the-counter placement. Online and delivery sellers face more stringent requirements: they must verify name, date of birth, and address against a commercial database of government sources, and require an adult signature with photo ID at delivery. The law's scope is broad—a product need not explicitly claim "weight loss" or "muscle building" on its label. Courts may consider whether a product contains listed ingredients (including creatine, green tea extract, garcinia cambogia, or steroids), whether labeling or marketing implies effects on body weight, appetite, metabolism, or muscle maintenance or gain, and whether the seller has grouped or categorized the product with weight-loss or muscle-building items. Violations carry civil penalties of up to $500 per violation, enforceable by the California Attorney General, county counsel, or city attorneys.
California's approach closely mirrors New York's Section 391-oo, enacted in 2023. However, material legal uncertainty persists: industry groups have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit's decision upholding New York's law, arguing it constitutes a content-based restriction on truthful commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. That petition remains pending. A Supreme Court ruling could directly determine the validity and enforceability of California's new statute. Food and beverage companies should begin evaluating product formulations against California's ingredient criteria now, despite the mid-2029 accreditation timeline. Retailers meeting the sales and product volume thresholds should assess merchandising obligations and plan display infrastructure. Supplement and OTC brands, retailers, and investors with consumer health exposures should conduct immediate reviews of product claims, marketing language, e-commerce categorization, and age-verification compliance systems.
The certification program carries operational requirements for large retailers. Grocery stores and supermarkets generating more than $10 million in annual sales and selling more than 25 individual non-UPF certified products must display such products with clear, distinct visibility to enable consumer identification. Misuse of the certification label is unlawful and subject to enforcement action. CDPH has also established the Public Health Food and Nutrition Education Fund to support label implementation and public stakeholder education. This development builds on California's broader regulatory trend—the state previously enacted AB 1264 in 2025, establishing the first state statutory definition of ultraprocessed foods and setting timelines to phase certain UPFs out of California schools. Federal regulators are concurrently developing policy: on August 3, 2026, the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services submitted a nonbinding "White Paper: Proposed Definition of Ultra-Processed Food" to the Office of Management and Budget, currently pending review.
AB 2030 addresses dietary supplements and over-the-counter diet products from a different angle—age-gated sales. Effective immediately, retailers cannot sell OTC diet pills or dietary supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building to individuals under 18, regardless of distribution channel. In-store sales require retailers to verify valid identification for purchasers who do not reasonably appear over 18; retailers may further restrict access via behind-the-counter placement. Online and delivery sellers face more stringent requirements: they must verify name, date of birth, and address against a commercial database of government sources, and require an adult signature with photo ID at delivery. The law's scope is broad—a product need not explicitly claim "weight loss" or "muscle building" on its label. Courts may consider whether a product contains listed ingredients (including creatine, green tea extract, garcinia cambogia, or steroids), whether labeling or marketing implies effects on body weight, appetite, metabolism, or muscle maintenance or gain, and whether the seller has grouped or categorized the product with weight-loss or muscle-building items. Violations carry civil penalties of up to $500 per violation, enforceable by the California Attorney General, county counsel, or city attorneys.
California's approach closely mirrors New York's Section 391-oo, enacted in 2023. However, material legal uncertainty persists: industry groups have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit's decision upholding New York's law, arguing it constitutes a content-based restriction on truthful commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. That petition remains pending. A Supreme Court ruling could directly determine the validity and enforceability of California's new statute. Food and beverage companies should begin evaluating product formulations against California's ingredient criteria now, despite the mid-2029 accreditation timeline. Retailers meeting the sales and product volume thresholds should assess merchandising obligations and plan display infrastructure. Supplement and OTC brands, retailers, and investors with consumer health exposures should conduct immediate reviews of product claims, marketing language, e-commerce categorization, and age-verification compliance systems.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.