Two federal bills would write ultra processed food into US labeling law

S.5026, the Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act, advanced out of the Senate HELP Committee 12 to 10 on July 24, 2026. Its statutory definition of ultra processed food keys on industrial ingredient classes, naming surface active agents, stabilizers and thickeners, propellants and aerating agents, with carve outs for products meeting the FDA "healthy" standard, infant formula and certain beverages. It mandates three distinct warning statements covering sugar sweetened beverages, high intensity sweeteners and ultra processed foods, and includes a child directed marketing ban that explicitly names cartoon characters, celebrities, athletes and social influencers.

Separately, the Food Labeling Modernization Act was introduced around July 29 to 30, 2026 by Senators Booker and Blumenthal. It would require disclosure whenever non nutritive sweeteners are present, mandate front of pack warnings for added sugar, sodium and saturated fat, and direct FDA to create an official definition of "non UPF" foods.

Context: FDA's July 2025 ultra processed food Request for Information drew more than 5,000 comments, and an official federal UPF definition is described as imminent with no date attached. Versions of the FLMA have been reintroduced repeatedly since 2013 without passing.

The numbers

S.5026 committee vote, July 24, 2026	12 to 10, Senate HELP Committee
Comments on FDA's July 2025 UPF Request for Information	more than 5,000
Numerical thresholds published for either bill	none

What this does not show

That either bill will become law. Committee passage is a long way from law, and the FLMA has failed repeatedly since 2013. This is a planning signal, not a deadline.
Where the lines land. No numerical thresholds have been published for either bill, and the whole practical question is where the thresholds end up.
What the statutory text actually says. Everything here was read from trade and news coverage, not from the bill language itself. A legal read of the actual text is required before relying on any detail.
That a short ingredient list would qualify as non UPF. An affirmative federal definition could land anywhere, and it would coexist uneasily with existing state definitions and private certifier standards.

Caveats worth holding

Neither bill has passed; committee passage is a long way from law and the FLMA has a long record of failing since 2013.
No numerical thresholds have been published for either bill.
Federal definitions would conflict with existing state definitions and private certifier standards, so a given claim could be defensible under one framework and not another.
All details were read from trade and news coverage rather than the statutory text, which is a real limitation of this item.