Amid debate over whether the political influence of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement is waning, new legislation introduced in the Senate on Wednesday shows that concerns about ultra-processed foods continue to upend the usual partisan positions in Washington.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), would ban junk food advertising to children and require the Food and Drug Administration to put strong warning labels on ultra-processed foods that are high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.
An earlier version of the bill was repealed when Sanders introduced it in 2024, but that was before President Trump appointed MAHA leader Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of health and Republicans began supporting food industry regulation, usually the domain of Democrats. Now, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee voted 12-10 to advance the bill to the full Senate.
“I think the part about marketing[ultra-processed foods]to children in particular is great,” leading nutrition researcher Marion Nestle said in an email. (The United States has so far stuck mostly to industry self-regulation in this regard.)
Lindsey Smith-Taley, a nutritional epidemiologist at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, said in an email that the food labeling proposal is “significantly better” than the FDA’s 2025 nutrition labeling proposal. That’s because Sanders’ proposal is more in line with Latin American warning labels that alert people to high levels of nutrients of concern, while the FDA’s proposal is more difficult to parse to label levels of salt, sugar, and saturated fat as low, moderate, or high.
STAT Plus: UPDATE: Tracking RFK Jr.’s promise to reshape America’s health
Additionally, the bill proposes specific warning labels for sugary drinks and ultra-processed foods, “both of which, if implemented, would be the first of their kind in the world,” Tiley said.
“I think MAHA and clear bipartisan support on these issues has completely changed the game, and this may be a unique and rare opportunity to see some meaningful policy action,” Tiley said.
The unexpected alignment between Republicans and Democrats was on full display in the Senate Assistance Committee markup. “I don’t think this is a perfect bill, but it is a starting point for the bipartisan changes we need in the way we regulate food,” Louisiana Republican Party Chairman Bill Cassidy said in support of Sanders’ proposal. Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) echoed this sentiment, saying that while he generally opposes further restrictions, “desperate times call for desperate measures. … We have to do something. This is the most important thing I know.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment that would exempt items such as soda and candy from food stamps. (Twenty-three U.S. states have received approval from the Department of Agriculture to move forward with similar measures for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but a federal judge blocked the ban in five states last month.) The idea had the support of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), but Sanders did not, while Marshall said he was “unsure” how to vote for his fellow Republican’s proposal. (In the end, Cassidy offered an amendment, saying he supports the amendment but that it falls under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee.)
Not all Republicans agreed with Sanders’ proposal. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) warned that implementing stronger labeling requirements “could have the unintended consequence of making food more expensive for Americans.”
Similar opinions were expressed by those in the food industry. The National Association of Manufacturers said in a statement after the HELP Committee approved the bill that the measure risks “unfairly targeting nutritious products, causing confusion and raising costs at a time when affordability is most important.”
Jerrold Mande, president of the nonprofit group Nourish Science, said the bill may still have a hard time passing the Senate. The food industry is still very strong. But he was particularly encouraged by Paul’s support for the amendment. “Maybe it could be taken up as a separate initiative, so it would have a better chance of passing,” he said.
STAT’s chronic health coverage is supported by a grant from. bloomberg philanthropy. our financial supporter It has no role in any of our journalism decisions.
