California’s agriculture community has always supported the goal of nourishing our state’s children. We grow the nuts, citrus, and fruit that feed families here and around the world. So, it’s with great concern that we respond to Assembly Bill 1264 — legislation that proposes to ban so-called “ultra-processed foods” from California school meals.

We agree that healthier school lunches are a worthy goal. But this bill relies on an overly broad and poorly defined concept of “ultra-processed” that risks doing far more harm than good. AB 1264’s attempt to classify certain proven-safe ingredients as unhealthy is so sweeping that it could limit access to nutrient-dense foods, such as fruits, salads, and soups. It may cause confusion for consumers and school meal providers alike — and ultimately increase food prices across the board for Californians.

If passed, AB 1264 would sweep up safe, affordable, and often highly nutritious foods — many made with California-grown ingredients — just because they go through basic steps like preservation, packaging or enrichment. That includes items like almond butters, citrus-based snacks and fruit blends that are shelf-stable and designed to meet U.S. Department of Agriculture school nutrition standards.

These aren’t empty-calorie foods. They’re staples of institutional meal programs, and they help ensure kids have access to reliable, consistent nutrition — especially in cities where fresh options may not always be feasible. But AB 1264 could blacklist them anyway, creating unnecessary gaps in the food supply and limiting what schools can serve.

This isn’t just a nutrition issue — it’s an economic one. California is home to more than 150 confectionery and snack manufacturing facilities, directly employing more than 10,000 workers. Altogether, this segment of our economy supports more than 106,000 jobs statewide when you include agriculture, distribution, packaging and retail. These are high-quality, middle-class jobs in communities that often depend on food production as a core industry. AB 1264 risks disrupting that ecosystem by creating sweeping new restrictions on products made with California-grown ingredients.

The ripple effects would be immediate and far-reaching. School food contracts sustain many of our local businesses — not just farms, but also processors, packers and distributors. If AB 1264 passes, the impact won’t just hit large manufacturers. It will fall hardest on small and mid-sized operations that don’t have the resources to rapidly overhaul product lines or navigate an inconsistent regulatory patchwork. Rural economies could be disproportionately affected, particularly in regions where agriculture is the dominant employer.

School nutrition directors have also raised concerns. They warn that the bill would force abrupt changes to menus, limit flexibility, and unintentionally reduce the variety of healthy options available to students. Many districts simply don’t have the staffing or budget to start from scratch. And when commonly used items are banned, children often end up with fewer calories, and not necessarily better ones.

What’s more, AB 1264 threatens to undercut existing farm-to-school partnerships — programs that connect local growers to nearby school districts and help students build lifelong habits rooted in seasonal, fresh, and diverse foods. At a time when we should be scaling up those relationships, this bill puts them at risk.

We’re all working toward the same outcome: healthy kids and healthy communities. Let’s get there with policies grounded in facts — not politics.

---

Roger Isom is the president & CEO of the Fresno-based Western Tree Nut Association, an agricultural trade organization representing the tree nut processing industry including almond hullers and processors, pistachio, pecan and walnut huller/dehydrators and processors.