Caffeine warning labels coming to restaurant menus and energy drinks

What it does

This bill requires restaurants with 20+ locations and packaged food manufacturers to label products containing 150+ mg of caffeine as 'High caffeine' on menus and packaging, and to disclose the exact milligram amount and whether caffeine is natural or added. It directs the FDA to review caffeine safety within 6 months, the NIH to study effects on vulnerable populations (children, pregnant women, people with heart conditions), funds a public education campaign on caffeine risks, and orders the GAO to investigate how caffeinated beverages are marketed to children.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is mandatory disclosure of caffeine content and health warnings on restaurant menus and packaged foods, paired with government safety reviews and public education. This is consumer-protection and transparency legislation, not a narrow carve-out or subsidy.

What the text implies

• Labeling requirement applies only to chains with 20+ locations, exempting small independent restaurants and cafes—may create competitive advantage for large chains that can absorb compliance costs.
• FDA must define 'added caffeine' by regulation; definition could significantly affect which products trigger labeling, creating regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers.
• 150 mg threshold for 'High caffeine' label is set by statute but may not align with actual health risk thresholds for all populations; vulnerable groups may need warnings at lower levels.
• Public education campaign focuses on vulnerable populations but does not restrict marketing or sales to minors—relies on awareness rather than regulatory prohibition.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Ordinary citizens, especially parents and people in vulnerable populations, gain transparent information about caffeine content and health risks. The labeling requirements, safety reviews, and public education campaign address a documented public health concern (caffeine-related injuries and deaths, particularly among youth) without restricting access or imposing costs on consumers.

Named in the bill

FDA (Food and Drug Administration), NIH (National Institutes of Health), CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), GAO (Government Accountability Office), HHS (Department of Health and Human Services), Chain restaurants (20+ locations), Food manufacturers, Dietary supplement manufacturers

Where it stands

17 cosponsors: 16 Democrats, 1 Republicans.

• Mar 31, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Mar 31, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,320,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 18 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Robert Menendez, the sponsor, reported $769,699 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Beverage Association — $1,290,000 on 1 filing
• Mondelez International, Inc. — $30,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.