Estimated Time to Read: 9 minutes
Texas has long prided itself on a governing philosophy that favors markets over mandates and consumer choice over centralized control. During the 89th Texas Legislative Session (2025), however, lawmakers enacted a series of food and nutrition policies that reflect a growing willingness to use state power to shape what products may be produced, sold, and consumed. Senate Bill 261 (SB 261), authored by State Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), stands out as the most aggressive example of this shift.
SB 261 prohibits the sale of cultivated meat in Texas, even though those products have been reviewed and approved by federal regulators for sale nationwide. Texas Policy Research (TPR) opposed the bill as it moved through the Legislature, warning that its structure raised serious concerns about individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, and constitutional limits. Those concerns are now being tested in federal court.
In January, a federal judge declined to dismiss a lawsuit brought by cultivated meat producers challenging SB 261 on constitutional grounds. While enforcement of the law continues for now, the ruling confirms that Texas must defend the ban not as a political statement, but as a lawful exercise of state power under the United States Constitution.
What Senate Bill 261 Does Under Texas Law
The final enacted version of Senate Bill 261 amends the Texas Health and Safety Code to prohibit the offering for sale or sale of what the statute defines as cell-cultured protein. The law defines cell-cultured protein as a food product derived from harvesting animal cells and artificially replicating those cells in a growth medium to produce tissue for human consumption.
The statute integrates this prohibition into existing food and drug enforcement mechanisms, meaning violations may be pursued using the same civil, administrative, and criminal tools already available under Texas law. The ban is temporary and is scheduled to expire on September 1, 2027, unless extended by lawmakers. If allowed to expire, the statute contemplates that cultivated meat products could be sold subject to specific labeling requirements that clearly disclose their nature to consumers.
SB 261 also rewrites multiple statutory definitions to explicitly exclude cell-cultured protein from the legal meanings of meat, poultry, fish, egg, and related food products under Texas law. While Texans may legally consume cultivated meat obtained elsewhere, the commercial sale of such products within Texas is criminalized.
What Is Cultivated Meat and Why It Became a Legislative Target
Cultivated meat, sometimes referred to as lab-grown or cell-cultured meat, is produced by growing animal cells in controlled environments rather than raising and slaughtering animals. The resulting products are biologically meat, not plant substitutes or analogues.
Two companies at the center of the lawsuit, Wildtype and UPSIDE Foods, produce cultivated salmon and cultivated chicken, respectively. Both companies completed extensive federal safety reviews and received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to distribute their products in interstate commerce.
Before SB 261 took effect, cultivated meat products were sold and distributed in Texas.. After September 1, 2025, those same transactions became unlawful under state law despite remaining legal under federal regulation.
Texas Policy Research’s Analysis and Opposition to SB 261
Texas Policy Research reviewed SB 261 while it was under consideration and recommended that lawmakers vote no. That recommendation was grounded in concerns about the bill’s sweeping prohibition and its departure from liberty-based policy principles.
The bill’s stated intent was to protect traditional livestock and agricultural industries from market disruption. Rather than addressing concerns through labeling transparency or safety regulation, the Legislature chose an outright ban that removed an entire category of lawful products from the marketplace.
Texas Policy Research noted that while the Legislative Budget Board projected no significant fiscal impact on state or local governments, the fiscal note failed to account for long-term economic effects such as suppressed innovation, lost investment, and foreclosed entrepreneurship in an emerging biotechnology sector.
From the outset, the bill analysis warned that SB 261 reflected protectionist policy rather than neutral regulation and that such an approach risked conflict with federal law and constitutional limits.
Dormant Commerce Clause Issues With Texas’s Meat Ban
The federal lawsuit challenging SB 261 alleges that the law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. That doctrine restricts states from enacting laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce.
According to the complaint, all cultivated meat companies authorized to sell products in the United States are based outside Texas. SB 261, therefore, operates to exclude an entirely out-of-state industry from the Texas market while shielding in-state conventional meat producers from competition.
Legislative debate and public statements surrounding the bill emphasized protecting Texas agriculture and ranchers from disruption. Courts evaluating Commerce Clause claims routinely examine such statements when assessing whether a law was enacted for protectionist purposes rather than legitimate health or safety reasons.
The fact that Texans may consume cultivated meat but may not purchase it within the state further undermines claims that the ban is grounded in public health. A law that permits consumption while criminalizing sale is difficult to justify as a safety measure.
Federal Preemption and the Role of USDA and FDA Regulation
As applied to cultivated poultry products, SB 261 faces additional scrutiny under the Supremacy Clause. Congress has established a comprehensive national framework governing poultry products through the Poultry Products Inspection Act, which assigns regulatory authority to the USDA and FDA.
UPSIDE Foods argues that Texas may not prohibit the sale of a USDA-inspected, federally approved poultry product based solely on the method of production. Federal courts have repeatedly held that states cannot evade preemption by banning sales of products that federal law permits and regulates.
Texas Policy Research flagged this risk during the legislative process, noting that the bill’s structure appeared designed to avoid direct conflict while still achieving the same exclusionary effect. That strategy is now central to the constitutional challenge.
Federal Court Allows the SB 261 Lawsuit to Proceed
In January, United States District Judge Alan Albright denied Texas’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing claims under the Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause to move forward. The court also denied a request for preliminary injunctive relief, meaning SB 261 remains in effect during litigation.
The denial of injunctive relief does not resolve the merits of the case. Preliminary injunctions require a heightened evidentiary showing, and courts often allow enforcement to continue while factual records are developed through discovery.
What matters most is that the court concluded the plaintiffs’ claims are legally plausible and worthy of full adjudication.
Political Rhetoric and the Framing of the Cultivated Meat Debate
Following the ruling, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller (R) issued a public statement condemning the lawsuit and portraying the case as an attack on ranchers and state sovereignty. His remarks framed cultivated meat as a threat to rural livelihoods and cast the litigation as an ideological struggle involving outside elites and investors such as Bill Gates.
While such rhetoric may resonate politically, it reinforces the plaintiffs’ core argument that SB 261 is rooted in economic protectionism rather than consumer safety. Courts evaluating constitutional claims focus on statutory structure, legislative intent, and legal effect rather than cultural or political symbolism.
SB 261 in the Broader Context of Texas Food Policy Intervention
SB 261 did not emerge in isolation. During the same legislative session, Texas lawmakers enacted and considered multiple measures that rely on mandates, prohibitions, and compelled disclosures to influence food production, labeling, and consumption.
Texas Policy Research has documented a broader shift away from market-based food policy toward centralized control justified by concerns about public health, national security, food sovereignty, and cultural identity. While these motivations are not inherently illegitimate, the mechanisms chosen increasingly substitute government judgment for consumer choice.
Among recent examples, SB 261 represents the most extreme approach. Instead of regulating transparency or enforcing fraud laws, the Legislature removed a lawful product from the marketplace entirely.
A Liberty-Based Assessment of the Cultivated Meat Ban
Texas Policy Research’s opposition to SB 261 was grounded in five core liberty principles.
The bill restricts individual liberty by denying Texans the ability to make personal dietary choices based on their own values and preferences. It undermines personal responsibility by assuming consumers cannot evaluate information about food products without state intervention. It infringes on free enterprise by blocking entrepreneurs and innovators from competing in an emerging market. It raises private property concerns by criminalizing possession and commercial handling of lawfully obtained products. It expands government power beyond what is necessary to protect public safety.
None of these concerns requires endorsing cultivated meat or predicting its success. They require recognizing that markets and consumers, not prohibitions, are the proper mechanisms for resolving such questions in a free society.
Conclusion: When Policy Choices Meet Constitutional Limits
Senate Bill 261 was enacted as a defense of traditional agriculture and consumer trust. It has become a constitutional test case that reflects a broader shift in how Texas approaches food policy.
Texas Policy Research warned lawmakers that SB 261 abandoned liberty-based principles in favor of prohibition and protectionism. The federal lawsuit now proceeding reflects those same concerns through a constitutional lens.
As the case moves into discovery, Texas will be required to defend SB 261 not as a cultural statement, but as a lawful exercise of state authority within the constraints of federalism and interstate commerce.
The outcome will shape the future of cultivated meat in Texas, but it will also signal whether innovation and consumer choice remain welcome in a state long defined by liberty.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
