Overall Vote Recommendation

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 2343 prohibits state agencies and public school districts that provide food service from serving imported shrimp or food containing imported shrimp. It also prohibits those entities from entering into food service contracts unless the contracts require vendors to comply with the same prohibition. Contract provisions intended to circumvent these requirements are declared void and unenforceable. The bill directs the executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission to adopt rules necessary to implement these restrictions.

The bill also requires restaurants that serve shrimp to provide customers with notice regarding the origin of the shrimp they offer. Restaurants may satisfy this requirement by posting a conspicuous sign or by including the information directly on their menus. The notice must clearly indicate whether a menu item contains domestic wild shrimp or imported shrimp, or identify the state or country of origin of the shrimp. Certain establishments, including grocery stores and packaged food products, are exempt from these disclosure requirements. The bill further authorizes coordination with the Department of Agriculture to allow qualifying restaurants participating in the Go Texan Partner Program to use the program’s logo when serving qualifying Texas domestic wild shrimp.

The bill requires the Health and Human Services Commission to adopt implementing rules as soon as practicable after the Act takes effect. The prohibition on imported shrimp applies only to contracts entered into on or after the effective date. Compliance is delayed until the 2025–2026 school year for school districts, March 1, 2026, for state agencies, and March 1, 2026, for restaurants subject to the disclosure requirements.

The Committee Substitute for HB 2343 narrows the scope of the bill by redefining what constitutes "imported shrimp." As originally filed, the bill defined imported shrimp as shrimp imported from outside the State of Texas, including shrimp harvested in the Gulf of Mexico outside Texas state-owned submerged lands. The Committee Substitute instead defines imported shrimp as shrimp imported from outside the United States, eliminating the distinction between Texas-caught and shrimp harvested elsewhere in U.S. waters. This substantially reduces the bill's regulatory reach and limits its application to foreign-imported shrimp rather than shrimp originating from other states.

The Committee Substitute also removes the originally filed statewide labeling requirement for imported shrimp sold at retail. The introduced version prohibited the sale of shrimp imported from outside Texas unless the product's label clearly and conspicuously disclosed that it was imported. The substitute eliminates this retail labeling provision entirely, focusing instead on food service disclosures and procurement restrictions.

The restaurant disclosure requirements are significantly expanded and made more specific in the Committee Substitute. As originally filed, any food service establishment serving imported shrimp was simply required to notify customers of the shrimp's imported status through signage or menus, with implementation details left largely to agency rulemaking. The substitute limits these requirements to restaurants, exempts grocery stores and certain packaged foods, creates a statutory definition of "domestic wild shrimp," and prescribes detailed standards governing the size, placement, and content of required signs and menu disclosures. It also allows restaurants to identify either whether shrimp is domestic wild or imported or to identify the shrimp's state or country of origin. Additionally, the substitute authorizes coordination with the Department of Agriculture to allow qualifying participants in the Go Texan Partner Program to use the program's logo when serving qualifying Texas domestic wild shrimp.

The Committee Substitute retains the prohibition on state agencies and school districts purchasing or serving imported shrimp, the requirement for implementing rules, the delayed compliance dates, and the September 1, 2025, effective date. However, because the substitute narrows the definition of imported shrimp to foreign imports, these procurement restrictions likewise apply only to shrimp imported from outside the United States rather than shrimp originating outside Texas.

Author (5)

Terri Leo-Wilson

Christian Manuel

Janie Lopez

Oscar Longoria

Todd Hunter

Co-Author (4)

Charles Cunningham

Erin Gamez

Richard Hayes

A.J. Louderback

Contact the Author

Rep. Terri Leo-Wilson

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0502

Capitol Office:

EXT E2.810

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 2343 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state government. The fiscal note assumes that any costs associated with implementing the bill, including rulemaking and administrative activities related to restaurant notice requirements and restrictions on the purchase and service of imported shrimp by state agencies and school districts, can be absorbed using existing agency resources.

The LBB also concludes that the bill is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on units of local government. Although public school districts will be required to comply with the prohibition on serving imported shrimp beginning with the 2025–2026 school year, the fiscal analysis assumes that any associated administrative or procurement adjustments can be managed within existing resources and will not result in significant additional costs.

Vote Recommendation Notes

While the Committee Substitute for HB 2343 is narrower than the originally filed version, it continues to rely on expanded state regulation rather than existing market incentives and consumer protection laws to address concerns about shrimp labeling and sourcing. The bill requires restaurants to provide prescribed disclosures regarding the origin of shrimp served to customers and prohibits state agencies and public school districts from purchasing or serving shrimp imported from outside the United States. It also delegates implementation to the Health and Human Services Commission through new rulemaking authority.

Although the substitute removes the originally proposed retail labeling requirement and limits the definition of imported shrimp to foreign imports, it nevertheless creates a new statutory disclosure regime governing private restaurants. Existing Texas consumer protection and deceptive trade practice laws already prohibit businesses from making false or misleading representations about the products they sell. Rather than relying on those generally applicable laws, the bill establishes industry-specific mandates that prescribe how businesses must communicate with customers, increasing regulatory complexity without demonstrating that current legal remedies are insufficient.

The procurement restrictions imposed on state agencies and school districts likewise represent an expansion of government purchasing policy to favor one class of products over another. While the state is free to establish standards for its own purchasing decisions, codifying product-specific procurement restrictions creates precedent for future legislative intervention into purchasing decisions that could be addressed through administrative policy rather than statute. In addition, granting new rulemaking authority to implement these requirements modestly expands agency discretion and administrative oversight.

According to the LBB, the bill is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on either state or local governments because implementation costs can be absorbed using existing resources. However, the absence of a significant fiscal impact does not eliminate the additional regulatory burdens placed on restaurants or the broader precedent established by creating new statutory disclosure requirements.

While promoting transparency in seafood marketing is a legitimate policy objective, consumers already have legal recourse against deceptive business practices, and restaurants have strong market incentives to accurately represent locally sourced products. Texas Policy Research generally favors allowing competition, voluntary certification programs, and existing fraud statutes to address these issues rather than creating new industry-specific regulations. For these reasons, the Committee Substitute remains inconsistent with principles of limited government and free enterprise, and Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2343.

Individual Liberty: The bill compels restaurants to provide government-prescribed disclosures regarding shrimp origin and authorizes agency rulemaking to enforce those requirements. While the burden is limited, it expands government regulation of private commercial activity.
Personal Responsibility: The bill neither significantly increases nor decreases personal responsibility. Consumers remain responsible for their purchasing decisions, although the state assumes a larger role in mandating disclosure rather than relying on voluntary business practices or consumer diligence.
Free Enterprise: The bill imposes new regulatory requirements on restaurants and restricts procurement choices for state agencies and school districts by prohibiting imported shrimp. Although narrower than the introduced version, it creates industry-specific regulations that increase compliance obligations and government involvement in the marketplace.
Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect ownership, use, or disposition of private property and does not create any new takings authority or restrictions on property rights.
Limited Government: The bill expands statutory regulation by creating new disclosure mandates, establishing procurement restrictions, and granting additional rulemaking authority to the Health and Human Services Commission. Although the fiscal impact is minimal, it modestly increases the state's regulatory role rather than relying on existing consumer protection laws or market mechanisms.

View Bill Text and Status