According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 25 are projected to result in a net negative impact to the state’s General Revenue-related funds totaling approximately $6.4 million over the 2026–2027 biennium. This cost primarily stems from staffing and administrative expenses associated with implementing the bill's numerous mandates. The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) estimates it will require 24 full-time employees to oversee new responsibilities, including enforcement of food labeling requirements, management of the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee, and support for expanded health and nutrition education programs.

These new positions include compliance inspectors, administrative specialists, attorneys, and program managers tasked with monitoring and enforcing food labeling standards, managing stakeholder communications, and developing educational materials. Salaries, benefits, training, and travel costs for these employees account for the majority of the bill’s fiscal burden. An estimated $2.9 million will be needed in 2027 alone to maintain these operations. The bill also anticipates minor technology upgrades to DSHS systems, which are expected to cost less than $0.1 million annually and can be absorbed within existing resources.

While there is potential for increased state revenue through civil penalties for violations of the bill’s food labeling provisions, the exact amount is indeterminate. Similarly, the fiscal impact of withheld grants or funding from non-compliant health-related institutions cannot be precisely estimated. Institutions of higher education and licensing boards, such as the Texas Medical Board and Board of Nursing, indicated they could absorb curriculum and rulemaking changes without new appropriations.

At the local level, school districts and charter schools may incur costs due to new curriculum development, staffing needs for added physical education semesters, and instructional materials for the new high school nutrition course. However, the fiscal note indicates that the full financial impact on local governments remains uncertain and cannot be quantified at this time.

SB 25 proposes a wide-reaching set of health and nutrition reforms across the educational, medical, and commercial sectors in Texas. While the bill is motivated by growing concerns over chronic disease, obesity, and diet-related health challenges, the mechanisms it introduces to address these issues raise substantial concerns when evaluated against core liberty principles. In its current form, the legislation imposes mandates that reflect significant state overreach, creating burdens for school districts, healthcare professionals, and private businesses.

The creation of the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee and its role in issuing binding nutritional guidelines is a central features of the bill. While intended to centralize scientifically informed best practices, this structure concentrates policymaking authority in a single, gubernatorially appointed entity with power over curriculum, licensing, and compliance standards across multiple sectors. The lack of local discretion or opt-outs for school districts or health professionals is especially problematic. For example, nutrition education mandates apply not only to K-12 schools but also to all public higher education students and even to the continuing education requirements for licensed physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and dietitians. These mandates do not adequately account for professional relevance, institutional variation, or local priorities.

Equally concerning are the provisions related to food labeling. SB 25 requires food manufacturers to place warning labels on products that contain ingredients banned in certain foreign jurisdictions, regardless of whether those ingredients are legal under federal standards. The bill imposes up to $50,000 per day in civil penalties per noncompliant product and empowers the Texas Attorney General to enforce these requirements. While transparency in food labeling is a worthwhile goal, these provisions create an extensive new regulatory burden, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. The required labeling criteria are drawn from foreign regulatory regimes, which may not align with domestic science-based regulatory standards and may impose compliance costs that these businesses are ill-equipped to bear.

From a fiscal standpoint, the bill carries a projected cost of over $6.4 million to General Revenue for the upcoming biennium, largely due to staffing and implementation needs at the Department of State Health Services. These recurring costs, coupled with unfunded mandates on local school districts, such as the need for additional physical education staff, curriculum development, and scheduling changes, further strain resources without providing sufficient flexibility or financial support. The bill also presumes state agencies and higher education institutions can absorb new duties within current budgets, a proposition that may not hold true across the board.

While the bill addresses legitimate public health issues and contains some meritorious goals, its current form prioritizes enforcement and state control over collaborative, incentive-based, or flexible approaches. To align better with liberty principles, the bill should be amended to include voluntary compliance mechanisms, local implementation discretion, sunset or reauthorization provisions for the advisory committee’s authority, and tailored exemptions for small businesses and low-capacity institutions.

Texas Policy Research maintains the recommendation that lawmakers vote NO on SB 25 unless amended as described above to ensure that limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise are not undermined.

• Individual Liberty: While the bill promotes health awareness, it does so through mandates rather than voluntary action. Students, parents, healthcare professionals, and businesses are all compelled to follow state-directed policies, such as nutrition curricula, continuing education requirements, and food labeling rules. These top-down mandates restrict the autonomy of individuals and institutions to make decisions based on local values, professional judgment, or consumer preference. In particular, the bill removes flexibility in how schools administer physical education and restricts professional discretion by requiring licensed medical personnel to complete specific continuing education coursework, regardless of its relevance to their specialty. These provisions limit personal and professional freedom in favor of centralized standards.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill aims to empower Texans with knowledge to make healthier choices, an objective consistent with personal responsibility. Through nutrition education in schools and continuing education for healthcare providers, the legislation encourages informed decision-making about diet and wellness. However, by mandating compliance rather than fostering voluntary participation, the bill undermines the very principle it seeks to advance. It presumes individuals cannot be trusted to make sound health decisions without state intervention, diminishing the role of self-directed responsibility in favor of compelled behavior.
• Free Enterprise: The bill poses clear threats to free enterprise, especially through its stringent food labeling requirements. It mandates that manufacturers include prominent warning labels if their products contain certain ingredients, based not on U.S. standards but on bans in other countries like the EU, UK, Canada, or Australia. This imports foreign regulatory frameworks into Texas commerce and imposes significant compliance costs, particularly for small and mid-sized producers. Additionally, these mandates come with steep penalties—up to $50,000 per day per product—for noncompliance, which could be financially crippling for smaller firms. The bill grants the Attorney General enforcement authority, adding further pressure on private enterprise. These provisions interfere with market dynamics and consumer choice by threatening punitive consequences rather than promoting informed consent.
• Private Property Rights: Though the bill does not involve direct appropriation or seizure of property, its enforcement mechanisms effectively dictate how private businesses must operate within their own facilities—what they must print on labels, how they market products online, and how they engage with consumers. This regulatory overreach infringes upon the discretion business owners typically have in how they use and present their property. Additionally, the mandates on schools (many of which operate in public-private partnership models) may force charter school operators and administrators to alter curricula, hiring practices, or facility use, further intruding on how they manage their institutions.
• Limited Government: This principle suffers most under the bill. The bill creates a new centralized entity, the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee, with sweeping authority over education, licensing, public policy, and business operations. Although framed as an expert advisory group, its guidelines become de facto mandates across sectors, with little local input or oversight. Moreover, the bill increases the regulatory scope of multiple state agencies (DSHS, TEA, HHSC, medical licensing boards) and authorizes civil penalties for noncompliance, expanding the state’s policing and enforcement powers. Rather than respecting subsidiarity and decentralization, the bill enshrines a top-down, enforcement-first approach to public health.

• HB 25 (Same As)