Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 29, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance consumer transparency and public health by requiring more comprehensive and prominent nutrient and ingredient information on food labels and online.
What it actually does
This bill significantly amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to mandate new front-of-package labeling requirements for foods high in added sugars, sodium, or saturated fat, and for those containing non-nutritive sweeteners. It also modernizes ingredient lists, expands allergen labeling to include gluten-containing grains, requires a public database for food label information, and sets new rules for online food sales and the use of terms like 'natural' and 'non-ultraprocessed'.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for empowering consumers to make healthier, more informed food choices, thereby combating diet-related diseases and improving public health outcomes. They contend that current labeling is insufficient and that clearer, more accessible information, especially front-of-package warnings, is necessary to address the prevalence of unhealthy ingredients in the food supply.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that the extensive new labeling requirements could impose significant compliance costs on food manufacturers, potentially leading to higher food prices or reduced product innovation. They might also raise concerns about potential consumer confusion from an overload of information on labels and question the scientific basis or practical effectiveness of certain proposed warnings or definitions.
The bill is substantial but well-structured, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 2(a)
Mandatory Front-of-Package Labeling for Key Nutrients
This provision amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require an icon on the top half of the principal display panel for foods that are high in added sugars, sodium, or saturated fat. It mandates separate labels for each nutrient, including the words 'High in' and an exclamation point icon. Additionally, foods containing non-nutritive sweeteners must carry a 'Contains non-nutritive sweeteners. Not recommended for children.' statement.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that front-of-package labeling is a highly effective tool for quickly communicating nutritional information, enabling consumers to make healthier choices without needing to deeply analyze the full Nutrition Facts panel. They cite international precedents where such labels have led to positive public health outcomes.
Critics contend
Opponents may contend that these labels could be overly simplistic, potentially misleading consumers about the overall nutritional value of a food, or stigmatizing certain ingredients. They might also argue that the cost of redesigning packaging and reformulating products could be substantial and passed on to consumers.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the public health goal of informing consumers about potentially unhealthy ingredients against concerns about regulatory burden on industry and the potential for oversimplification of complex nutritional information.
Sec. 2(b)
Disclosure of Grain, Fruit, Vegetable, and Yogurt Content
This section requires prominent disclosure on the principal display panel of the percentage of whole grains and refined grains in products claiming whole grain content. It also mandates the quantity per serving and 'nutrient-dense' form of fruit, vegetable, or yogurt to be declared on the principal display panel if the product uses related terms or images, with regulations to establish quantities below which a 'not a full serving' statement is required.
Sec. 2(c)
Prominent Disclosure of Artificial Dyes and Flavorings
This provision mandates that if a food contains any artificial dye or any added artificial or natural flavoring, this fact must be prominently stated on the principal display panel of the food's packaging. 'Artificial dye' is specifically defined as a batch-certified dye.
Sec. 3(a)
Expanded Scope and Substantiation for Health-Related Claims
This section expands the definition of 'health-related claims' to include statements describing a nutrient's effect on body structure/function, its documented mechanism, or general well-being. It also requires manufacturers to provide all documentation relating to such claims within 90 days if requested by the Secretary. Furthermore, it amends criteria for nutrient content claims, stating that a food 'may not be compatible with maintaining healthy dietary practices' rather than 'increases the risk of disease'.
Sec. 4
Regulation of 'Natural' and 'Non-Ultraprocessed' Terms
This section mandates the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations defining and governing the use of terms like 'non-UPF', 'non-ultraprocessed', 'not UPF', 'not ultraprocessed', and 'natural' on food labels. The definition of 'natural' must exclude artificial ingredients and be based on consumer understanding, requiring prominent disclosure of what the term does and does not mean.
Sec. 9
Expanded Allergen Labeling to Include Gluten-Containing Grains
This section amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to include 'gluten-containing grains' (wheat, rye, barley, and their crossbred hybrids) in the major food allergen labeling requirements. This means foods containing these grains must prominently declare their presence, similar to how major food allergens are currently handled. It also integrates gluten-containing grains into hazard analysis and preventive controls for food facilities.
Sec. 10
Public Database for Food Label Information
This section requires food manufacturers and importers to submit all information included in a food label (nutrition facts, ingredients, principal display panel image, allergens, claims) to the Secretary. The Secretary must then establish and maintain a publicly accessible database of this information on the FDA website, allowing for easy search and sorting. Knowingly violating the submission requirement incurs a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day.
Sec. 16
Online Sale of Food Labeling Requirements
This section mandates that for food sold online or through other remote electronic means, all required label information (nutrition facts, ingredients, principal display panel image, allergens, claims) must be available to consumers at the point of selection prior to purchase. This information must be easily accessible on the first screen of product information and appear prominently and conspicuously. Special provisions are made for products with multiple formulations.
Requires a parenthetical listing each specific substance included under generic terms like 'natural flavor' or 'spice' in the ingredient list. If the list exceeds 10 substances or the package is small (40 sq. inches or less), a scannable QR code linking to a full ingredient list online is permitted, accompanied by specific text.
Sec. 6(b)(4)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail for managing extensive ingredient disclosures, common in legislative drafting. The QR code option is a practical solution for space constraints.
Case for: Supporters argue this provides unprecedented transparency for complex flavorings and spices, allowing consumers to know exactly what is in their food, while the QR code offers a practical solution for small packaging.
Case against: Opponents may argue that listing every sub-ingredient for flavors could be proprietary information and that requiring QR codes adds complexity and cost for manufacturers, and may not be accessible to all consumers.
Estimated impact: Significantly increases the granularity of ingredient disclosure for many processed foods, potentially impacting product formulation and labeling for a wide range of products.
Establishes a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each day a manufacturer or importer knowingly violates the requirement to submit food label information to the Secretary for the public database.
Sec. 10(a)(3)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to place enforcement mechanisms directly within the section creating the new requirement, ensuring clarity on consequences for non-compliance.
Case for: Proponents argue that a substantial daily civil penalty is necessary to ensure compliance with the mandatory submission of label information, making the public database effective and comprehensive.
Case against: Opponents might argue that such a high daily penalty could be overly punitive, especially for smaller businesses, and that it might not adequately account for unintentional errors or technical difficulties in submission.
Estimated impact: Creates a strong financial incentive for food manufacturers and importers to comply with the new data submission requirements, potentially generating significant revenue from non-compliance.
Stipulates that if the Secretary of Health and Human Services fails to issue a final regulation by the specified deadline, the corresponding proposed regulation shall automatically become final on that deadline.
Sec. 18(a)(3)
Why it matters:This is a legislative mechanism to ensure timely agency action on mandated regulations, preventing delays in implementation. It's a procedural safeguard.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is critical for ensuring the timely implementation of the bill's public health and transparency goals, preventing regulatory inertia from delaying important consumer protections.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision could lead to the finalization of regulations that are not fully vetted or that contain unintended consequences, as it removes the flexibility for agencies to refine rules beyond a strict deadline.
Estimated impact: Significantly accelerates the regulatory process for this Act, ensuring that new labeling and disclosure requirements are implemented within the statutory timelines.
Defines 'artificial' with respect to food or ingredients, largely excluding traditionally processed foods but including synthetically produced substances or those undergoing chemical changes from synthetic chemicals/processing aids. It also defines 'synthetic' as a substance formulated or manufactured by a chemical process or one that chemically changes a naturally extracted substance, excluding naturally occurring biological processes.
Sec. 17(tt) and (uu)
Why it matters:These definitions are foundational for the implementation of other key provisions, particularly those related to 'natural' claims and artificial ingredients. Placing them in a dedicated definitions section is standard legislative practice.
Case for: Proponents argue that clear, legally binding definitions for 'artificial' and 'synthetic' are essential to provide a solid basis for regulating 'natural' claims and ensuring consistency in food labeling, protecting consumers from misleading marketing.
Case against: Opponents might argue that these definitions are overly broad or too narrow, potentially leading to unintended consequences for certain food ingredients or processing methods. They may also contend that the definitions could be difficult to implement consistently across a diverse food industry.
Estimated impact: These definitions will significantly influence how food products can be labeled and marketed, particularly regarding 'natural' claims, affecting a vast array of food products and potentially driving reformulation efforts.