It’s counterintuitive: U.S. schools sell ultra-processed foods that make students worse.
School is meant to be an environment that nurtures students' growth and success, but these goals are undermined by the sale of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) on college campuses. The scope of the California School Food Safety Act does not reach higher education, so it's up to colleges and students to say "NO" to harmful UPFs.
Effective Dec. 31, 2027, the California School Food Safety Act bans the sale of snacks with artificial dyes, including Red 40, Yellow 5 and 6, Blue 1, Green 3, and titanium dioxide. These dyes are linked to potential hyperactivity, attention deficit, and poorer academic performance in children and adolescents, requiring a warning label in the EU.
Adolescents who generally consume UFPs perform significantly worse on tests compared to those with healthier diets, according to a 2025 study published in the Nutrients research journal by José Francisco López-Gil et al. However, vending machines at Santa Monica College (SMC) almost exclusively sell UFPs. It's counterintuitive: institutions that are meant to foster learning can sell products that make it harder for students to learn.
Familiar fan favorites, like Flamin' Hot Cheetos, Takis, and Doritos, all include artificial dyes such as Red 40 and Yellow 5 or 6. Because these foods hinder academic performance, similar precautionary measures should be adopted by colleges. "My Hot-Cheeto-loving self says no, but if healthier foods mean better grades and attention spans, then schools should definitely make an effort to not sell these in vending machines," said SMC student Martin Freeman.
Artificial food additives contribute to adverse health risks, resulting in higher mortality rates and decreased quality of life in frequent consumers. The government's job is to protect people from biological harm; however, the U.S. regulatory standards fail to protect public health adequately. Addressing the overuse of artificial additives in American food is essential to improving public health and creating a better quality of life beyond the classroom.
Adverse health effects from UPFs disproportionately impact individuals with lower socioeconomic statuses, as they are likely to eat ultra-processed foods since it is a cheaper alternative to natural food. "Knowing me, (I'm) probably not (switching to healthier foods) because I cannot afford to go (from) Red 40. No," said SMC student Rex Yape. "I feel like it's cheaper to buy more processed or unhealthy foods. I would do it if they made healthier things convenient, but it's just more expensive." The new regulations should force the U.S. food industry to transition and adjust the market by banning harmful additives in food at the national level, promoting the packaged food industry's transition to bio-friendly ingredients only.
But it's a much bigger problem than food dyes in school: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 60% of Americans' daily calories come from UPFs, which increase health risks like obesity, heart disease, cancer, behavioral disorders, and diabetes. Other artificial foods pose greater risks, too.
Those whose diets are rich in trans fats from UPFs have a 25-30% higher risk of heart disease, the nation's leading cause of death. Additionally, studies find that cancer, the second leading cause of death, is linked to processed meat additives like nitrates, nitrites, and bread additives like potassium bromate.
The root of this issue arises from lenient U.S. regulations that permit harmful substances in processed food. An estimated 10,000 food additives are allowed in the U.S. instead of 411 in the European Union (Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation). "I didn't know there were so many additives allowed in the U.S. compared to the EU - 10,000 here versus 400 there. That's concerning, actually," said Freeman.
Thus, Americans must ask themselves if the Food and Drug Administration is truly doing its job to make food safe.
Expansive Policy Solutions include adopting stricter federal food standards aligned with the EU's precautionary principles. This approach would ban artificial dyes, preservatives, and sweeteners if there is reasonable suspicion that they pose health risks, even if scientific evidence is inconclusive. Once a product is suspected of biological harm, companies will need to prove that it is safe or reformulate it for additional review.
The link between UPFs and adverse health outcomes is reflected in the U.S. and EU's contrasting food standards. According to 2021 data from the CDC and Eurostat, 42% of adults in the U.S. are obese, compared to the average 23% in EU nations (CDC, 2021; Eurostat, 2021). The contrast is in part attributed to the EU's stricter regulations of UPF additives linked to obesity.
The government should hold food corporations accountable for the sake of consumer health by adopting regulations similar to the EU’s precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is the most effective method in cutting harmful additives from our food industry, as there isn’t a need to wait for scientific evidence to be found conclusive.
Current U.S. policies on issues including processed foods and climate protection demonstrate a pattern of misalignment with scientists' opinions. This illogical and dangerous method stems from a priority of economic freedom that imposes “innocence until proven guilty for food products”; the catch is that the standard of proof when evaluating bodies of research is often unattainable. "Food quality in America isn't about quality; it's about cost-effectiveness," said SMC student Lucas Rostes.
A thriving nation should be defined more by the health of its population than the health of corporate profit margins; however, U.S. policies negate this idea with loose industry regulation. Moving forward, our politicians should prioritize precaution when it comes to critical issues of health and safety.
California's new ban is a bright horizon and proof of political feasibility—that our government can listen to science and prioritize health. Specifically, Congress and the FDA could do more to reduce the problem for all Americans by implementing stricter regulations on food corporations.
Schools and the federal government should make harmful foods less accessible to students by regulating what can be sold on campuses. Curricula in health, nutrition, and even biology classes should include education on the effects of eating these foods to ensure that children and young adults make informed choices about their health and diets. Please beware of the impact of eating ultra-processed foods; avoiding them may be a necessary act of discipline demanded for your health and success.