Amid debates over whether the political influence of the Make America Healthy Again movement is on the wane, a new bill advanced in the Senate on Wednesday shows that concerns over ultra-processed food continue to upend the usual partisan stances in Washington.
The bill, which would ban junk food advertisements targeted to children and require the Food and Drug Administration to put strong warning labels on ultra-processed foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fat, was proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
An earlier version of the bill died when Sanders introduced it back in 2024 — but that was before President Trump appointed MAHA leader Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary and Republicans began supporting food industry regulation, typically the domain of Democrats. This time, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions voted to move the bill ahead to the full Senate by a 12-10 vote.
“I think it’s terrific, particularly the part about marketing [ultra-processed foods] to kids,” said leading nutrition researcher Marion Nestle via email. (The U.S. until now has been largely stuck with industry self-regulation on this point.)
The food label proposal is also “substantially better” than the FDA’s 2025 nutrition label proposal, said Lindsey Smith Taillie, a nutrition epidemiologist at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, via email. That’s because Sanders’ proposal would work more along the lines of Latin American warning labels that alert people to high levels of nutrients of concern, while the FDA proposal is harder to parse, labeling the levels of salt, sugar, and saturated fat as low, middle, or high.
In addition, the bill proposes warning labels specific to sugar-sweetened beverages and ultra-processed foods, “both of which would be the first of their kind globally if implemented,” Taillie said.
“I think MAHA plus the clear bipartisan support on these issues had completely revolutionized the landscape — this might be a unique and rare window to see some meaningful policy action,” Taillie said.
Unexpected alliances among Republicans and Democrats were on full display during the Senate HELP Committee markup. Republican committee head Bill Cassidy of Louisiana was in favor of Sanders’ proposal, saying, “I don’t think it’s a perfect bill, but it’s a starting bill for bipartisan changes we need to make to how food is regulated.” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) echoed the sentiment, saying that while he’s generally averse to introducing more regulation, “desperate times call for desperate measures. … We have to do something, and this is the most significant something I can see.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to make items like soda and candy ineligible for food stamps. (Twenty-three U.S. states have been approved by the Department of Agriculture to move ahead with similar measures for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though a federal judge blocked the bans in five states last month.) That won support from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) but not Sanders, while Marshall said he was “torn” about how to vote on his Republican colleague’s idea. (Ultimately, Cassidy tabled the amendment, saying he supported it but that it was under the agriculture committee’s jurisdiction.)
Not all Republicans were on board with Sanders’ proposal. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) warned that introducing stronger labeling requirements could “have the unintended consequence of making food more expensive for Americans.”
That sentiment was echoed by the food industry. The National Association of Manufacturers said in a statement following the HELP Committee’s approval of the bill that the measure could risk “unfairly targeting nutritious products, creating confusion and raising costs at a time when affordability matters most.”
The bill may still have a hard time getting passed by the Senate, said Jerold Mande, head of the nonprofit Nourish Science. The food industry remains quite powerful. But he was heartened by the support for Paul’s amendment in particular. “Maybe that gets pulled out as a separate initiative,” he said, “and that would have a better chance of passing.”
STAT’s coverage of chronic health issues is supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies. Our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism.