Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require new caffeine labeling and menu disclosures, commission federal reviews and studies, and fund public education on caffeine safety. Major provisions: menu labeling for chain restaurants (20+ locations) including a “High caffeine” mark for items with added caffeine ≥150 mg and milligram disclosure; packaged foods and dietary supplements with >10 mg caffeine must show caffeine milligrams, source (natural or added), and an advisory about a 400 mg daily limit.
Scope: whether mandates should cover small businesses and all venues
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes concrete regulatory changes to require caffeine labeling and builds statutory authority for agency reviews and studies.
This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require new caffeine labeling and menu disclosures, commission federal reviews and studies, and fund public education on caffeine safety.
Major provisions: menu labeling for chain restaurants (20+ locations) including a “High caffeine” mark for items with added caffeine ≥150 mg and milligram disclosure; packaged foods and dietary supplements with >10 mg caffeine must show caffeine milligrams, source (natural or added), and an advisory about a 400 mg daily limit.
The FDA must review caffeine’s GRAS status and safety; NIH must review effects on vulnerable populations; a public education campaign and a GAO study of caffeinated beverage marketing are required. $1 million each is authorized for the FDA and NIH reviews.
A modest, public-health labeling bill with limited spending has plausible path, but industry lobbying, regulatory definition gaps, and Senate hurdles reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes concrete regulatory changes to require caffeine labeling and builds statutory authority for agency reviews and studies. It is well-structured in its statutory amendments and sets clear numerical thresholds in many places, but leaves several implementation and resourcing details to agency action or unspecified.
Scope: whether mandates should cover small businesses and all venues
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope: whether mandates should cover small businesses and all venues
Generally supportive as a consumer-protection and public-health measure.
Values labeling, targeted reviews, and education to protect children and vulnerable groups, while likely wanting stronger limits and broader scope.
Cautiously favorable: sees reasonable, evidence-driven steps to inform consumers while preserving reasonable limits on regulation.
Wants clear implementing guidance and attention to compliance costs for businesses.
Skeptical: sees federal labeling mandates and reviews as regulatory overreach that could burden businesses.
Prefers voluntary industry standards, higher thresholds, and state-level approaches.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
A modest, public-health labeling bill with limited spending has plausible path, but industry lobbying, regulatory definition gaps, and Senate hurdles reduce odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope: whether mandates should cover small businesses and all venues
A modest, public-health labeling bill with limited spending has plausible path, but industry lobbying, regulatory definition gaps, and Sena…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes concrete regulatory changes to require caffeine labeling and builds statutory authority for agency reviews and studies. It is well-structured in its statu…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.