Bipartisan support for federal legislation that would require warning labels on ultra-processed foods and ban advertising “junk food” to young children signals a significant shift in how lawmakers are approaching food regulation and could accelerate reformulation efforts and reshape CPG marketing strategies.
In a narrow 12-10 vote late last week across party lines, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee advanced Sen. Bernie Sanders Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act (S. 5026) to the full Senate – signaling a shift in the policy debate from whether ultra-processed foods should face new federal regulation to what that regulation should look like.
After an earlier version of the legislation died in 2024, Sanders reintroduced the 2026 version, which he said would require “strong warning labels” on the front of pack for foods and beverages sweetened with sugar or high-intensity sweeteners or which are high in added sugar, saturated fat or sodium. Warnings also would be required on ultra-processed foods.
Beyond the warnings, the legislation would restrict advertising these products to children, “similar to what Congress did to the tobacco industry nearly 30 years ago,” Sanders said in the July 22 hearing.
He argued the warnings are “not a radical idea,” and mirror those required in Chile.
He said the changes are needed because “much of the food we use in America and are consuming are making us unhealthy and are contributing to the fact that our life expectancy is significantly lower than other countries.”
He added: “None of this is happening by accident. The food and beverage industry is spending over $11 billion a year on advertising – pushing these unhealthy products onto American consumers,” while the FDA has done “not much” to address the dual epidemics of type 2 diabetes and obesity.
While supporters framed the legislation as a public-health measure modeled on policies already adopted abroad, the proposal raises sweeping questions for food and beverage manufacturers about product formulation, front-of-pack labeling, marketing and the federal definition of ultra-processed foods.
Bipartisan support signals a changing regulatory landscape
The bill’s narrow committee vote signals unexpected support from across the aisle, but also uncertainty about how it might need to evolve to secure sufficient support to pass the full senate.
“I don’t think it is a perfect bill, but it is a starting bill for bipartisan changes we need to make to how food is regulated,” said Committee Chair Bill Cassidy, R-La. He added that he is working on “other initiatives in this space, including the need for a national uniform standard for food regulations, rather than a patchwork of widely different state laws.”
Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall, a republican, also offered his support, even though he too said the bill was not perfect.
“Desperate times call for desperate measures, and I feel desperate,” he said, noting the childhood obesity epidemic is “for real.”
He argued: “I am going to support Sen. Sanders bill here. It is not perfect, but sometimes you have to do something and this is the most significant something I can see. … It is a good first step, and we have more work to do.”
What that additional work, or amendments to the bill, might entail could become a quagmire for the legislation.
For example, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., expressed doubt that warning labels would alter consumer behavior or move the needle on childhood obesity and diabetes.
Rather, he argued, a more effective way to influence eating habits is to prohibit the use of government food assistance to buy cookies, soda, candy and sugar.
“A significant percentage of our country has food stamps. The No. 1 item [bought] on food stamps is Coca-Cola, Pepsi, soft drinks. ... Number 11 is candy. … If we were really serious about this, we shouldn’t just subsidize bad food,” he said, advocating for an amendment that would restrict the use of SNAP benefits for “unhealthy food.”
Sanders, predictably, said he would oppose such an amendment on the grounds that it would stigmatize low-income people.
Other senators raised concerns that the costs associated with label changes or reformulating products to avoid the warnings would lead to higher grocery prices – but again Sanders countered that existing nutrition label requirements did not drive up grocery prices, leading him to believe warnings on UPFs would not either.
What would companies have to put on pack?
Even if lawmakers significantly revise the legislation before a floor vote, its front-of-pack warning requirements remain the centerpiece of the proposal and among its most controversial provisions.
Those provisions have drawn pushback from food manufacturers, advertising organizations and free-market groups who raised First Amendment concerns as well as wanting a UPF definition to be based in science.
The legislation prescribes highly specific warning statements modeled after tobacco-style disclosures, which would link ingredients or processing to diet-related chronic disease and could include a caution against consumption by children.
For example, sugar sweetened beverages would be required to include a warning prominently on the front of a pack alongside a exclamation point within a triangle. The warning would say, “Food and Drug Administration Warning: Drinking beverages with added sugar can contribute to obesity, type 2 diabetes and tooth decay. Not recommended for children.”
Similarly, products with high-intensity sweeteners – including natural and synthetic ingredients such as aspartame, monk fruit, sucralose and stevia – would need to bear the statement “Food and Drug Administration Warning: Contains high-intensity sweetener. Not recommended for children.”
A similar warning that “consuming ultra-processed foods and drinks can cause weight gain, which increases the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes” would be required on UPFs.
Yet another definition for UPFs
Perhaps more consequential than the warning statements themselves is the bill’s attempt to define “ultra-processed food.”
The legislation defines UPF as a product with “one or more industrial ingredients, including surface-active agents, stabilizers and thickeners, propellants, aerating agents and gases, color or coloring adjuncts, emulsifiers and emulsifier salts, flavoring agents and adjuvants, flavor enhancers, surface-finishing, high-intensity sweeteners and other ingredients, as the Secretary determines appropriate.”
Carveouts include products that qualifies as ‘healthy’ under current FDA regulations, infant formula, beverages for medical use or designed as supplemental, meal replacement or the sole-source of nutrition, any milk product, 100% natural fruit and vegetable juice or alcoholic beverages.
The proposal is yet another variation on a definition for UPFs, which has emerged as a hot button debate in recent years and source of confusion among industry stakeholders, public health advocates and consumers.
A year ago the FDA requested information to help it define UPFs, and despite proclamations by leadership that guidance is forthcoming, it has yet to publicly share how it is thinking about the term. To fill the void, several states and private certifiers have offered definitions – all of which conflict.
Marketing restrictions could prove an even bigger legal battleground
Beyond packaging, the legislation also would reshape how companies market covered products to children.
It would prohibit child-directed advertising featuring cartoon characters, athletes, celebrities, social media influencers, games, contests and other techniques commonly used to appeal to younger audiences.
Those provisions are expected to face particularly strong scrutiny from advertising organizations, which have argued similar restrictions raise significant First Amendment concerns.
Whether the legislation advances in its current form remains uncertain, given several senators characterizing it as imperfect and as a starting point – suggesting additional revisions are likely before any floor vote.
But for food manufacturers, the committee vote is significant because it demonstrates that front-of-pack warnings, restrictions on child-directed marketing and a federal definition of ultra-processed foods have moved from largely academic debates into mainstream congressional policymaking.
