What changed between these versions
A complete substitute amendment that significantly revises the implementation details and scope of the Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act of 2026. v2 broadens the Secretary's discretion in food labeling exemptions and rulemaking, reduces the specificity of NIH nutrition research mandates, and makes the public education campaign less prescriptive, while also removing specific funding authorizations for research and the campaign.
Overview
Extensive changes throughout the bill, particularly within Title I. · v2 narrows some specific mandates and expands the Secretary's discretion regarding food labeling exemptions and rulemaking, while also broadening the scope of NIH research and public education campaigns to be less prescriptive. It also removes specific funding authorizations.
v2 is a comprehensive revision of v1, maintaining the core intent of requiring warning labels on certain foods and restricting advertising to children, but significantly altering the implementation details. Key changes include broadening the Secretary's discretion for food labeling exemptions by introducing a new "critical food" category and allowing for additional exemptions. The mandates for NIH nutrition research and the public education campaign are made less prescriptive, with specific requirements for public meetings and detailed campaign topics removed. Furthermore, specific appropriations for NIH research and the public education campaign are eliminated in favor of "such sums as may be necessary" or by updating existing authorization years without specifying amounts.
Major additions
v2 introduces the term "critical food" as a new exclusion category for both sugar-sweetened beverages and ultra-processed foods from the mandatory warning label requirements. This term is not defined within the bill itself.
This addition creates a new pathway for certain foods to be exempted from warning label requirements, potentially reducing the scope of products subject to the labels. The lack of a definition for "critical food" means its impact depends entirely on external definitions or future regulatory interpretation.
v2 adds a provision allowing the Secretary to determine "any other product that the Secretary determines appropriate" to be excluded from the definitions of sugar-sweetened beverages and ultra-processed foods, respectively.
This grants the Secretary broad discretionary authority to exempt additional products from the warning label requirements, potentially allowing for flexibility in implementation but also introducing uncertainty regarding the final scope of covered products.
v2 expands the scope of regulations the Secretary may promulgate regarding labeling requirements. These now include information on minimum font size, spacing, compliance for small packaging, how requirements apply to online retailers (which was mandatory in v1), and any other necessary information.
This provides a more detailed framework for the Secretary's rulemaking authority, allowing for comprehensive guidance on label implementation. However, it also changes the online retailer regulation from a mandatory requirement in v1 to an optional inclusion in v2's broader rulemaking.
v2 introduces new subsections (b) and (c) for the nutrition and physical activity public education campaign. Subsection (b) outlines potential activities, including disseminating evidence-based information on health risks, nutrition's relationship to chronic disease, using food labels, and strategies for healthy eating. Subsection (c) details coordination efforts with other Federal agencies and consultation with State, local, and Tribal public health agencies.
These additions provide a more structured, yet flexible, framework for the public education campaign, detailing its potential content and collaborative approach. This replaces v1's more prescriptive list of campaign topics with a broader set of activities.
Deletions
v1 added a subclause (iii) stating that foods not required to include a nutrition warning label under 403(z)(1)-(4) would be subject to certain existing nutrition information requirements.
The deletion removes a provision that would have clarified the application of existing nutrition information requirements for foods not subject to the new warning labels. Its removal could create an ambiguity regarding how such foods are treated under the broader nutrition labeling framework.
v1 mandated that the Secretary "shall promulgate regulations to apply the labeling requirements under subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) with respect to food offered for sale by online retailers."
This deletion removes the explicit mandate for the Secretary to promulgate regulations specifically for online retailers. While v2's new 403(z)(6)(B) allows for such regulations, it makes them optional rather than required, potentially delaying or preventing their implementation.
v1 explicitly excluded "infant formula," "any beverage for medical use," and "any milk product" from the definition of a sugar-sweetened beverage.
The removal of these specific exclusions means that, without the new "critical food" definition or Secretary's discretion, these product categories could potentially fall under the sugar-sweetened beverage definition and be subject to warning labels. However, the introduction of "critical food" and Secretary's discretion in v2 likely covers these, but the explicit, clear exclusions are gone.
v1 explicitly excluded "infant formula" from the definition of an ultra-processed food.
Similar to the sugar-sweetened beverage exclusions, the removal of this explicit exclusion means infant formula could potentially be classified as ultra-processed without the new "critical food" definition or Secretary's discretion.
v1 specifically directed NIH research to include the "Nutrition Regulatory Science Program" and research on "the safety profile of food and beverage ingredients, additives, sweeteners, and chemicals that have been self-affirmed by food and beverage manufacturers as generally recognized as safe without review of such status by the Food and Drug Administration."
This deletion removes specific programmatic and research focus areas, particularly the scrutiny of self-affirmed GRAS substances, which was a key point of v1's research mandate.
v1 mandated public meetings on nutrition every five years, with specific requirements for diverse stakeholders and a prohibition on speakers having financial affiliation with ultra-processed food manufacturers.
The removal of this entire subsection eliminates a structured mechanism for public engagement and expert input on nutrition science, particularly the safeguard against industry influence in those discussions.
v1 authorized a specific appropriation of $60,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2031 for NIH nutrition science research.
This deletion removes the dedicated, specific funding authorization for NIH research, making future funding dependent on general appropriations processes without a specified amount.
v1 authorized a specific appropriation of $10,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2031 for the nutrition and physical activity public education campaign.
This deletion removes the dedicated, specific funding authorization for the public education campaign, making future funding dependent on general appropriations processes without a specified amount.
Modifications
No operative impact; it is a stylistic change to the description of the border shape.
Before
The warning statement for foods high in nutrients of concern was required to be "enclosed by an octagon border."
After
The warning statement for foods high in nutrients of concern is required to be "enclosed by an octagonal border."
This change removes the guaranteed minimum funding for FDA's implementation and enforcement activities, making the actual funding level subject to annual appropriations decisions.
Before
v1 authorized a specific appropriation of $5,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2031 for FDA regulations and enforcement related to labeling and advertising.
After
v2 authorizes "such sums as may be necessary" for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2031 for the same purposes.
This modification provides NIH with greater flexibility in determining its nutrition science research priorities and methods, potentially allowing for a wider range of studies but removing the specific focus on certain controversial areas like self-affirmed GRAS.
Before
v1 mandated that the Director of NIH "shall expand, intensify, and coordinate programs, such as the Nutrition Regulatory Science Program," for specific research areas, including health effects of ultra-processed foods, harmful ingredients, safety of self-affirmed GRAS substances, and hyper-palatable qualities.
After
v2 states that the Director of NIH "shall, as appropriate, expand, intensify, and coordinate the activities of the National Institutes of Health with respect to nutrition science, including basic and clinical research on" broader topics like effects of food/dietary patterns, food processing/formulation, biological/health effects of ingredients, effects on eating behavior, and evidence-based approaches to improve nutrition.
No operative impact, purely a technical update to maintain correct referencing.
Before
The definition of "ultra-processed food" referenced FFDCA Section 403(z)(6).
After
The definition of "ultra-processed food" references FFDCA Section 403(z)(5).
This indicates a different legislative approach to the public education campaign, suggesting it is an enhancement of an existing program rather than a wholly new one, though the substance of the campaign is still significantly altered.
Before
v1 struck the existing Section 399Y and inserted a new, detailed Section 399Y, including a specific section heading "NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN."
After
v2 amends the existing Section 399Y's heading by inserting "nutrition and physical activity public" before "education campaign," implying it modifies an existing section rather than replacing it entirely.
This provides the CDC and Assistant Secretary of Health with greater flexibility in designing and implementing public education campaigns, moving away from a highly specific curriculum to a broader focus on nutrition, physical activity, and chronic disease prevention.
Before
v1 mandated the Secretary (via CDC) to develop a national public campaign to educate on specific topics, including reading 403(z) labels, health risks of obesity/inactivity/poor nutrition (including 403(z) foods), physical activity, healthy lifestyle, good nutrition, and improving eating/drinking habits.
After
v2 states the Secretary (in coordination with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health) "shall, as appropriate, conduct or support public education activities concerning nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of chronic disease related to diet."
Similar to the NIH research funding, this removes a dedicated, specific funding authorization for the public education campaign, making its funding dependent on general appropriations processes without a specified amount.
Before
v1's new Section 399Y(b) authorized $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031 for the public education campaign.
After
v2 amends an existing Section 399Y(d) by striking "2001 through 2005" and inserting "2027 through 2031." The specific dollar amount is not present in v2's text for this authorization.
Scope
Fundamental restructuring — Changes are scattered throughout Title I, affecting the FDA's labeling authority, NIH's research mandates, and the CDC's public education campaign. While Title II (FTC) remains largely unchanged in its text, its operative effect is tied to the modified definitions in Title I. — v2 represents a meaningful shift in policy direction by granting greater discretionary authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, reducing the specificity of mandates, and removing explicit funding authorizations, while still maintaining the core policy goals of warning labels and advertising restrictions. — The changes to definitions and rulemaking authority in Section 101 directly impact the scope of products subject to warning labels and the implementation of those labels. The removal of specific funding authorizations for NIH and CDC programs fundamentally alters how those initiatives would be resourced, shifting from dedicated funding to reliance on general appropriations.
Impact analysis
Food and beverage manufacturers
Gains flexibility and potential relief from certain labeling requirements.
v2 introduces new potential exemptions for "critical foods" and grants the Secretary broad discretion to exempt other products from warning label requirements, which were not present in v1. It also makes regulations for online retailers optional rather than mandatory.
Consumers of sugar-sweetened beverages and ultra-processed foods
Potentially loses some of the comprehensive warning label coverage intended by v1.
The scope of products subject to mandatory warning labels may be narrowed due to new exemptions for "critical foods" and expanded Secretarial discretion, compared to v1's more rigid exclusion list.
Researchers in nutrition science
Experiences a shift in research focus and a loss of guaranteed funding, gaining flexibility but losing specificity and dedicated resources.
v2 broadens the scope of NIH nutrition research but removes specific mandates, such as the focus on self-affirmed GRAS substances and the requirement for public meetings with specific stakeholder rules. It also removes the specific $60M funding authorization.
Public health advocates and organizations focused on nutrition
Loses specific mandates and dedicated funding for certain public health initiatives, potentially reducing the direct impact of the education campaign as envisioned in v1.
v2 removes the specific mandate for public meetings on nutrition with safeguards against industry influence and makes the public education campaign less prescriptive, removing specific topics like reading 403(z) labels. It also removes specific funding authorizations for the campaign.
Federal agencies (FDA, NIH, CDC)
Gains flexibility and discretion but loses specific directives and guaranteed funding levels.
FDA gains broader discretionary authority in rulemaking and exemptions but loses a mandatory directive for online retailer regulations and a specific funding amount. NIH and CDC gain flexibility in program design but lose specific mandates and dedicated funding authorizations.