PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 16, 2012
Stop Subsidizing Childhood Obesity Act - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to deny a tax deduction for expenses related to advertising and marketing primarily directed at children to promote the consumption by children of: (1) food from any fast food restaurant, (2) food of poor nutritional quality, and (3) any brand under which the majority of products are food of poor nutritional quality. Defines "food of poor nutritional quality" as food and beverages that are determined by the Secretary of the Treasury (in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services [HHS] and the Federal Trade Commission [FTC]) to be inconsistent with the most recent dietary guidelines published under the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990.
People & committees
Rep. Kucinich, Dennis J. [D-OH-10] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6599 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6599 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6599 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6599 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.