On March 11, 2026, the Berkeley Food Institute (BFI) and the Berkeley School of Journalism hosted a panel at the David Brower Center Auditorium to navigate a new era for school food in California. The event came at a moment of major change in state school food policy following the passage of AB 1264—the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act—a law designed to reshape the health of millions of students by phasing out the ultra-processed foods that have long dominated school cafeterias.

—

The evening was moderated by Helena Bottemiller Evich, founder of Food Fix, and featured:

• Dr. Laura Schmidt, Professor of Health Policy, UC San Francisco – on how food companies influence what we eat.
• Brian Ronholm, Director of Policy, Consumer Reports – on protecting consumers through food policy and regulation 
• Dr. Beth Katz, Co-Founder + Executive Director, Food Insight Group– on the impact of CA’s Farm to School Grant Program
• Erin Primer, Food & Nutrition Services Director,  (San Luis Coastal Unified School District – on the day-to-day realities of school meals

—

For millions of students, school meals are a daily staple that shape health, learning, and long-term eating habits. At the same time, concerns about ultra-processed foods in institutional settings have intensified, as rising rates of diet-related disease and long-standing reliance on highly processed products have prompted renewed attention to what is served in schools. 

“California is engaging in this very interesting and important experiment to show that through school foods, it is, in fact, possible to have real, minimally processed, and sustainably grown food within school meals,” said Neha Sanghera, BFI Policy Director, in her opening remarks.

The discussion centered not just on the promise of AB 1264, but on the conditions required to make it real—funding constraints, kitchen infrastructure, workforce capacity, supply chains, and the evolving role of industry.

From policy to practice

AB 1264 does not impose an immediate ban on ultra-processed foods in schools. Instead, it creates a phased timeline to define, evaluate, and gradually remove the most harmful products from California’s school food system, while giving schools and suppliers time to adapt.

Implementation then unfolds in stages:

• By 2028: The state must finalize a definition of ultra-processed foods and identify a list of “ultra-processed foods of concern,” along with requiring manufacturers to disclose relevant product information.
• By 2029: Schools begin phasing out identified products, reducing their presence in meals over time.
• By 2032: The sale of these foods to schools is prohibited, cutting off supply at the vendor level.
• By 2035: Schools must fully eliminate these products from meals and campus food sales.

As panelists emphasized, regulation can set the direction, but it cannot, on its own, build the system required to get there.

Why are ultra-processed foods everywhere in schools?

Before we can understand why processed foods show up so often in school cafeterias, it helps to look at how school meal programs are funded. As Erin Primer noted, most funding comes from federal reimbursements through the National School Lunch Program, roughly a little over four dollars per meal per student, which must cover not just food but also staff, utilities, and kitchen operations. With such tight budgets, fresh, minimally processed ingredients can be difficult to provide, making shelf-stable, pre-prepared foods an easier option.

Adding to the challenge, food companies have long marketed heavily to children, shaping tastes from an early age. “If you can hook a kid on your brand, that means you save money for the lifetime of that child as they become an adult,” said Dr. Laura Schmidt. Together, tight budgets, operational constraints, and a convenience-focused food environment help explain why processed foods remain common in many school cafeterias.

The reformulation challenge

One major concern is how manufacturers will respond to new standards. Some may reformulate products to meet regulations while keeping the same branding and highly processed nature. As Beth Katz explained, “We have a food manufacturing sector that is extremely good at making cheap products that match regulations. And when the regulations change, they can reformulate.”

For example, a high-sugar cereal like Froot Loops might be adjusted for schools with slightly less sugar or more whole grain. These “school-only” versions pass nutrition standards but aren’t sold in stores. Erin Primer called this a “branding trap”: familiar packaging gives students the impression the product is endorsed by schools, while later exposure to the original, unhealthier version reinforces brand loyalty and lifelong consumption of processed foods. In short, school-specific snacks act as a foot in the door for big food brands, using the cafeteria to build lasting habits.

The investment gap

Funding for California’s farm-to-school efforts has grown significantly since 2021, with the California Farm to School Incubator Grant Program now totaling roughly $86 million across more than 300 projects. These grants, alongside the 2022 Universal School Meals Program, have created a massive new demand and new markets for fresh, minimally processed and organic foods.

“This is really trying to undo decades of underinvestment and undervaluing the system, not only from the worker perspective… but even in school kitchen infrastructure” said Katz about the progress that has been made over the past years in school food funding and legislation. “There are a lot of schools around the country, including in California, that don’t have kitchens anymore… those that do have kitchens often lack cooking equipment.”

The panelists made it clear that money for a kitchen isn’t the same as a functional food system. As Beth Katz and Erin Primer explained, a grant can buy a new oven, but it can’t always fix the forty-year-old electrical wiring needed to plug it in. Many schools still lack the basic “bones” of a cooking operation—like massive industrial fridges (chillers) to keep farm produce from spoiling—meaning grants are often swallowed up just reaching a functional baseline.

Beyond the equipment, there is a “human gap.” We are asking staff hired as “box-openers” to suddenly become professional chefs without necessarily raising wages to match those new skills. Finally, a “missing middle” in the supply chain remains: most small farmers lack the trucks and warehouses to wash, slice, and deliver produce to dozens of schools. Without these food hubs to bridge the gap, even well-funded districts may find themselves stuck with the same “heat-and-serve” processed meals they are trying to replace.

A path forward: A district’s journey from frozen pizza to scratch cooking

Despite these challenges, the panel also highlighted what is possible.

“We had 15 different kinds of packaged processed pizza. None of which were good…” said Primer.

Ten years ago, her district was serving fifteen different varieties of frozen pizza. Today, the district runs a scratch-cooking program: dough is made in-house, sauces are fresh, and toppings come from local farms. The change, she said, began when the district secured a grant for a chiller and invested in staff training so cooks could move beyond “open the box and reheat.”

“Pick one thing. Start with one thing. This didn’t happen overnight. We didn’t get rid of packaged, processed pizza in a week, a month, even a year. So find one thing that you can start chipping away at” said Primer.

Primer’s team looked at their food-cost report, saw that pizza was the biggest expense, and replaced it with a locally sourced, minimally processed version. Once they celebrated that win, they could move on to the next item. Her advice was simple and encouraging: start small, celebrate each success, and let that momentum carry you forward.

A policy laboratory for the nation

AB 1264 represents both a milestone and a next step in California’s long effort to transform school food and the broader food system. Over the past decade, the state has expanded access to healthy meals through major investments, including the 2022–23 Universal Meals Program, which made breakfast and lunch free for all public school students. At the same time, farm-to-school initiatives have scaled rapidly, with 2023–24 grant funding projected to support projects reaching approximately 1.65 million students through local procurement, education, and nutrition programs.

These efforts, alongside national momentum and decades of advocacy, have laid the groundwork for more systemic change. 

“What’s happening here in California is really a national story,” said Brian Ronholm. “California’s example is sort of like a policy laboratory. Nationally, folks in Washington and other states are looking to see, well, how is this going to work?”

The future of school food

The vision for our future school food system is clear: every student should have access to fresh, nourishing meals, sourced in a way that supports local farmers and builds resilient regional food webs.

Based on our panel’s discussion, everyone has a role to play in making this real. School districts can lead by adopting new standards and being transparent about their menus, while parents and community members can engage directly in board meetings and meal planning. Manufacturers must also step up to meet the growing demand for healthier options. Meanwhile, policymakers and advocates will be essential in directing funding and shaping the systems that determine how food is sourced, prepared, and served.

AB 1264 sets the direction, and the Farm to School grant program, along with related state grants, provide initial investments. But its true success will be measured on cafeteria trays, in school kitchens, and in the everyday lives of students. The challenge now is to bridge the gap between policy and the plate—turning that vision into a lasting reality for the next generation.