Overall Vote Recommendation

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 1958 would prohibit restaurants from misrepresenting the origin or production method of shrimp served to customers. Specifically, the bill would prohibit restaurants from labeling or representing imported shrimp as "Texas shrimp," "American shrimp," "Domestic shrimp," or "Gulf shrimp," and would prohibit farm-raised shrimp from being labeled or represented as "wild-caught shrimp." Imported shrimp would be defined by reference to the federal country-of-origin labeling standards for wild and farm-raised shellfish.

The bill would require the Texas Department of State Health Services, public health districts, counties, or municipalities that license restaurants to enforce these requirements through administrative penalties. A restaurant would have an affirmative defense if it reasonably believed in good faith that the shrimp was not imported or was not farm-raised. The bill would also specify that it does not create a private cause of action or alter any existing common law or statutory duty.

The Committee Substitute would not apply to grocery stores or similar retail food establishments, nor to properly labeled packaged shrimp products sold at retail. Restaurants would not be required to comply with the new labeling requirements until March 1, 2026.

The Committee Substitute for HB 1958 substantially changes the bill's approach from requiring disclosure of imported shrimp to prohibiting misleading representations about shrimp sold by restaurants. As originally filed, the bill would have required any food service establishment serving shrimp imported from outside Texas to notify customers by posting a conspicuous notice or including the information on its menu. The committee substitute instead prohibits restaurants from labeling or representing imported shrimp as "Texas shrimp," "American shrimp," "Domestic shrimp," or "Gulf shrimp," and prohibits farm-raised shrimp from being represented as "wild-caught shrimp."

The Committee Substitute also broadens and revises the bill's definitions and enforcement provisions. The originally filed version defined imported shrimp based on whether Gulf shrimp were harvested outside Texas state-owned submerged lands and directed the executive commissioner to adopt implementing rules. The Committee Substitute instead adopts the federal country-of-origin labeling standards to determine whether shrimp are imported, requires administrative penalties for violations by the Department of State Health Services or applicable local permitting authorities, provides a good-faith affirmative defense for restaurants, and specifies that the bill does not create a private cause of action or alter existing legal duties.

Finally, the Committee Substitute narrows the scope of regulated businesses while expanding the conduct covered. The originally filed bill applied broadly to food service establishments serving imported shrimp and required only customer notification. The Committee Substitute applies specifically to restaurants, exempts grocery stores, similar retail food establishments, and properly labeled packaged shrimp products, and replaces the notice requirement with restrictions on deceptive marketing practices.

Author (4)

Janie Lopez

Todd Hunter

Denise Villalobos

Wesley Virdell

Contact the Author

Rep. Janie Lopez

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0640

Capitol Office:

EXT E1.422

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1958 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state government. The fiscal note assumes that any costs associated with implementing and enforcing the bill's restaurant labeling requirements could be absorbed using existing agency resources, and no additional state appropriations are anticipated.

The LBB also estimates that the bill would not have a significant fiscal impact on local governments. Although local permitting authorities, including public health districts, counties, and municipalities, may be responsible for enforcing the bill through existing restaurant licensing and inspection processes, those responsibilities are not expected to result in significant additional costs.

Overall, the fiscal note indicates that implementation of the bill's requirements can be accommodated within existing state and local government resources, with no significant effect on the state budget or local government finances.

Vote Recommendation Notes

While the bill seeks to address concerns regarding misleading representations of shrimp origin and production methods, it does so by expanding state regulatory authority over private commercial activity. The legislation creates a new statutory prohibition enforceable through administrative penalties, increasing compliance obligations for restaurants and adding another area of government oversight, despite the absence of a significant fiscal impact.

Existing Texas consumer protection and fraud laws already provide mechanisms for addressing materially deceptive business practices. Rather than creating commodity-specific labeling requirements, lawmakers could rely on those generally applicable laws to address intentional misrepresentation. Creating product-specific regulatory standards risks establishing a precedent for additional industry-by-industry mandates, gradually expanding the state's role in regulating commercial marketing and advertising.

From a free-market perspective, consumer demand and private market incentives are also capable of encouraging truthful product labeling. Restaurants that accurately market Texas-caught or wild-caught shrimp can distinguish themselves through branding, reputation, and voluntary certification programs without requiring additional government mandates. Consumers who value locally harvested seafood can reward those businesses through their purchasing decisions, allowing market competition to encourage transparency.

Although the Committee Substitute narrows the bill's scope by relying on existing enforcement agencies, providing a good-faith affirmative defense, and avoiding a private cause of action, it nevertheless expands the regulatory burden on restaurants by creating new compliance requirements backed by administrative penalties. For lawmakers who prioritize limited government, regulatory restraint, and market-based solutions, the policy objective does not clearly justify creating a new statutory regulatory framework where existing legal remedies and private market mechanisms are already available.

As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 1958.

Individual Liberty: The bill restricts how private businesses may describe and market their products by prohibiting certain representations and subjecting violations to administrative penalties. While the restrictions are narrow, they nevertheless limit commercial discretion through government mandate.
Personal Responsibility: The bill neither significantly increases nor decreases individual responsibility. Consumers remain responsible for their purchasing decisions, while restaurants assume additional statutory compliance obligations rather than relying solely on voluntary business practices or market accountability.
Free Enterprise: The bill imposes additional regulatory requirements on restaurants by establishing new labeling restrictions enforceable through administrative penalties. Although intended to promote truthful marketing, it increases compliance costs and government oversight of private commercial activity, rather than relying on competition, branding, and existing consumer protection laws.
Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect ownership, use, or control of private property, nor does it create new takings authority or impose land-use restrictions. Its requirements relate only to commercial representations of products.
Limited Government: The bill expands state regulatory authority by creating a new statutory prohibition enforced by state and local licensing authorities. While it relies on existing agencies and has no significant fiscal impact, it nevertheless increases the scope of government regulation and administrative enforcement in an area where existing consumer protection laws already address deceptive practices.

View Bill Text and Status