California’s newly enrolled AB 2244, "Non-Ultraprocessed Certified food standard," could give the flavor industry a reason to pay closer attention to how flavoring ingredients are treated under the state’s emerging framework for “non-ultraprocessed” foods. The legislation establishes a voluntary “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” designation for foods that meet specified criteria, with eligibility tied in part to California’s existing statutory definition of an ultraprocessed food (UPF).
Whether or not the legislation is ultimately signed into law, it points to the ways in which flavors/flavor materials could be viewed in the wider UPF conversation.
Before diving into the specifics, it's important to acknowledge that defining UPFs is challenging primarily because the current classification framework—most notably the widely used NOVA system—relies heavily on industrial processing methods and additive content rather than a precise, universally agreed-upon nutritional threshold. Because NOVA categorizes foods based on industrial formulation rather than strict chemical or nutrient profiles, it creates a gray area where nutrient-dense options like fortified whole-grain breads, plant-based milk alternatives and mass-produced yogurts are lumped into the same category as sodas, candy and hot dogs.
This broad brush confuses both consumers and policymakers: it penalizes minor functional processing (like adding emulsifiers, vitamins or flavor materials to healthy foods) and ignores that not all industrial processing is inherently bad.
Furthermore, isolated biological mechanisms, such as whether the harm stems from hyper-palatability, altered gut microbiomes or specific additives, remain difficult to decouple from overall diet quality in observational studies, making a clean, objective regulatory definition elusive.
For flavor companies, the key issue in the California legislation is the treatment of flavoring agents, adjuvants and flavor enhancers under the state's definition. These substances can contribute to a food being classified as ultraprocessed when they are present alongside specified nutritional or compositional characteristics, including thresholds for saturated fat, sodium or added sugar, or the presence of certain other listed substances. Importantly, the presence of a flavoring ingredient alone does not automatically make a food ultraprocessed.
The legislation also contains an important distinction for natural flavors. California’s UPF definition excludes spices and other natural seasonings and flavorings covered by the specified federal regulation, meaning that not all flavor ingredients will be treated equally under the framework.
AB 2244 therefore does not constitute a ban on flavors or flavor enhancers for Non-Ultraprocessed Certified products. Instead, it creates a potential market and formulation consideration for flavor suppliers and food manufacturers seeking the new certification. Products pursuing the designation will undergo review of their ingredient lists, making the classification and regulatory status of individual flavor ingredients increasingly relevant to product developers.
As consumers, retailers and policymakers increasingly scrutinize ultraprocessed foods, the way regulations distinguish between flavoring agents, flavor enhancers and natural flavorings could influence formulation decisions and the positioning of finished foods. AB 2244 offers an early indication of how flavor technology could become part of the broader conversation around what constitutes a “processed” or “non-ultraprocessed” food.
As of the time of this writing, the bill has yet to be signed by Governor Gavin Newsom.
