A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act of 2025 aims to reduce childhood diabetes by requiring specific health warning labels on various food products. These labels would apply to sugar-sweetened beverages, foods containing non-sugar sweeteners, ultra-processed foods, and foods high in certain nutrients. The bill also restricts the marketing and advertising of "junk food" directed at children. To support these efforts, the legislation expands nutrition science research through the NIH and establishes a national public education campaign. Additionally, it empowers the Federal Trade Commission to regulate child-directed advertising for these products.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +8
Would children be better off under this?
Protects children under 13 from junk food marketing and aims to reduce childhood diabetes and obesity.
- Scored +8
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Mandates clear health warning labels on high-sugar, ultra-processed foods to help consumers make informed choices.
- Scored +7
Does this put more money into scientific research?
Provides dedicated funding for scientific research into nutrition science and ultra-processed foods via the NIH.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Imposes significant compliance, labeling, and marketing restrictions on food and beverage businesses.
- Scored -3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Food manufacturers, vendors, and retailers face strict new labeling and advertising compliance burdens.
- Scored -2
Does this protect the individual right to speak freely?
Imposes strict new restrictions on commercial marketing and advertising directed at children.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Consumer Awareness: The bill requires specific health warnings on labels for sugar-sweetened beverages, foods with non-sugar sweeteners, and ultra-processed foods to inform consumers of risks like obesity and type 2 diabetes (Section 101(a)(1)-(3)).
-
Nutrient Transparency: For foods high in nutrients of concern like added sugar, saturated fat, or sodium, the bill requires a "High in" label to help people identify specific health risks (Section 101(a)(4)).
-
Protection of Children from Targeted Marketing: The bill restricts the marketing of "junk food" through advertising that is reasonably directed at children, such as through the use of fun themes, cartoon characters, or social media influencers (Section 101(b) and Section 202(a)(1)).
-
Advancement of Nutrition Science: The legislation directs the NIH to expand research into the health effects of ultra-processed foods and the safety of certain food additives (Section 102(a)(1)-(2)).
-
Public Education on Healthy Lifestyles: A national campaign will be developed to teach the public how to read new warning labels and understand the health risks associated with poor nutrition (Section 103(a)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Increased Labeling Requirements for Food Providers: Manufacturers of sugar-sweetened beverages, foods with non-sugar sweeteners, or ultra-processed foods must include specific, prominently displayed warning statements and icons on their packaging (Section 101(a)).
-
Restrictions on Advertising Strategies: Companies marketing junk food will be prohibited from using child-directed advertising strategies, which include themes like fantasy, use of celebrities/athletes, or providing free gifts and toys (Section 101(b) and Section 201(2)).
-
Mandatory Advertising Disclosures: Any person marketing or advertising junk food must include the relevant mandatory health or nutrient warning labels within that advertisement (Section 202(b)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Protects children under 13 from junk food marketing and aims to reduce childhood diabetes and obesity. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Promotes healthier eating habits and better consumer awareness early in life. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Aids adults in making healthier dietary choices to prevent chronic health conditions. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Supports public education on nutrition and health risks associated with poor diet and inactivity. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides health education campaigns that can help lower-income families navigate healthier nutritional choices. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improves access to clear nutritional information to support family health decisions. Would business owners be better off under this? — Imposes significant compliance, labeling, and marketing restrictions on food and beverage businesses.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Provides dedicated funding for scientific research into nutrition science and ultra-processed foods via the NIH.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — Expands NIH programs and authorizes substantial funding for research into nutrition science and ultra-processed foods.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Improves public disclosure requirements and mandates public reporting of nutrition and health research meetings. Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands federal regulatory authority for the FDA and FTC over food labeling and child-targeted advertising. Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — Imposes strict new restrictions on commercial marketing and advertising directed at children.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Mandates clear health warning labels on high-sugar, ultra-processed foods to help consumers make informed choices. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Food manufacturers, vendors, and retailers face strict new labeling and advertising compliance burdens. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes new federal appropriations for research and public education campaigns.
- 9/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/25/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Christopher DeluzioDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York
Scott PetersDemocrat · California