A bill from an independent
Last activity — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 531.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act of 2026, requires specific warning labels on the front of packaging for sugar-sweetened beverages, foods with high-intensity sweeteners, ultra-processed foods, and foods high in nutrients of concern like added sugar, saturated fat, or sodium. It bans the marketing and advertising of these labeled foods in a manner that reasonably appears to be directed at children under the age of 13. Additionally, the legislation expands National Institutes of Health research into nutrition science and health effects of ultra-processed foods. It updates public education campaigns through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding nutrition and physical activity. Finally, it grants the Federal Trade Commission the authority to enforce advertising restrictions and promulgate rules on children's advertising.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +8
Would children be better off under this?
The bill protects children under 13 from aggressive junk food marketing and promotes healthier dietary choices to combat childhood obesity and diabetes.
- Scored +8
Does this put more money into scientific research?
The legislation provides significant dedicated funding to expand National Institutes of Health research into nutrition science.
- Scored +8
Does this put more money into medical research?
The bill expands National Institutes of Health research programs regarding nutrition science and the health effects of ultra-processed foods.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Imposes new regulatory compliance costs, labeling requirements, and advertising restrictions on food manufacturers and marketers.
- Scored -2
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill imposes new labeling and advertising compliance costs that may create regulatory burdens for food businesses.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Health Warning Labels: Section 101 of the bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require prominent front-of-package warning labels on sugar-sweetened beverages, high-intensity sweeteners, ultra-processed foods, and items high in nutrients of concern. This provides clear, straightforward information to help individuals and families make more informed dietary choices regarding health risks like obesity, type 2 diabetes, and tooth decay.
-
Protection from Junk Food Advertising: Section 202 makes it unlawful to market or advertise junk food using child-directed advertising, which includes the use of cartoon characters, social media influencers, or free toys that appeal to kids. This provision protects children under 13 from aggressive marketing strategies that promote unhealthy eating habits.
-
Expanded Nutrition Research: Section 102 expands and coordinates National Institutes of Health research programs regarding nutrition science, the health effects of ultra-processed foods, and food additives. This research helps build a better scientific foundation for improving public health and managing diet-related chronic diseases.
-
Public Education Campaigns: Section 103 supports a national public education campaign through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to teach adults, children, and caregivers how to read nutrient warning labels and understand the health risks of poor nutrition and physical inactivity. This outreach helps everyday people adopt healthier lifestyles.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Potential Restrictions and Burdens for Businesses: While not explicitly placing direct financial burdens on individual consumers, Section 101 and Section 202 place strict labeling and advertising constraints on food manufacturers, advertisers, and retailers. These regulatory changes could potentially lead to increased compliance costs for food producers, which might indirectly affect product availability or pricing for the public.
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? — The bill protects children under 13 from aggressive junk food marketing and promotes healthier dietary choices to combat childhood obesity and diabetes. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Aids middle-aged individuals in making more informed nutritional choices to reduce chronic disease risks. Would retired people be better off under this? — Public health education and nutritional awareness campaigns support better chronic disease management for retirees. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Better nutritional information and public education campaigns assist seniors in managing diet-related health conditions. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Promotes healthier dietary awareness and clearer food labeling that benefits younger consumers. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides clearer health information and educational campaigns to help families make healthier food choices. Would business owners be better off under this? — Imposes new regulatory compliance costs, labeling requirements, and advertising restrictions on food manufacturers and marketers.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires clearer nutritional disclosures and warning labels, increasing transparency regarding food contents. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal agency authority through the FDA and FTC to regulate food packaging warnings and advertising.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The legislation provides significant dedicated funding to expand National Institutes of Health research into nutrition science.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill expands National Institutes of Health research programs regarding nutrition science and the health effects of ultra-processed foods.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Mandatory front-of-package warning labels and restrictions on child-directed junk food marketing significantly enhance consumer protection and transparency. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill imposes new labeling and advertising compliance costs that may create regulatory burdens for food businesses.
- 7/28/2026
- Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Reported by Senator Cassidy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 531.
- 7/22/2026
- Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- 7/16/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- Introduced in Senate
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.