Estimated Time to Read: 10 minutes
Texas has long been associated with a governing philosophy that favors markets over mandates and individual judgment over centralized control. Food policy, in particular, was traditionally an area where lawmakers limited their role to preventing fraud, ensuring baseline safety, and allowing consumers and producers to determine outcomes through voluntary exchange.
That posture is changing. During the 89th Texas Legislative Session earlier this year, lawmakers enacted and considered a series of food and nutrition policies that rely on government mandates, prohibitions, and compelled disclosures to influence how food is produced, labeled, and consumed. These efforts span nutrition standards, food labeling, agricultural products, and emerging food technologies. While each measure is justified on its own terms, taken together, they reflect a broader shift toward government direction of food policy in Texas.
This shift is especially noteworthy because it has occurred largely under Republican leadership. Republicans have historically positioned themselves as defenders of limited government and free enterprise. The growing acceptance of regulatory and enforcement-driven food policy, therefore, warrants careful examination, not because the motivations are unserious, but because the mechanisms being used represent a meaningful departure from long-held principles.
Why Lawmakers Are Turning to Food Policy Intervention
Food policy has moved to the center of legislative attention for reasons that are both practical and political. Understanding these motivations helps explain why even lawmakers historically skeptical of regulation are now embracing state intervention.
National Security, Food Sovereignty, Public Health, and the MAHA Movement
Concerns about national security and food sovereignty have intensified in recent years as global supply chains have proven fragile and geopolitical instability has increased. Food production and distribution are increasingly viewed not only as economic activities, but as strategic assets tied to resilience, independence, and domestic self-sufficiency.
At the same time, lawmakers face mounting pressure from the downstream effects of poor health outcomes. Chronic disease contributes to rising healthcare costs that are often borne by taxpayers through public programs. When diet-related illness is framed as a collective financial burden, food policy becomes an attractive lever for intervention.
Layered on top of these concerns is the influence of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which has reshaped conservative discourse around food, nutrition, and chemicals. MAHA blends skepticism of large corporations and global supply chains with a populist distrust of federal regulators and a desire for visible, decisive action. In practice, this has pushed many policymakers toward state-level mandates and prohibitions as a way to demonstrate responsiveness to public anxiety about health and food safety.
None of these motivations is inherently illegitimate. National resilience, public health, and consumer awareness matter. The liberty question is whether these concerns require permanent expansions of government control, or whether they can be addressed through voluntary disclosure, competition, innovation, and consumer choice.
From Market Solutions to Government Mandates
Historically, Texas relied on markets and consumer choice to resolve questions of food quality, safety, and preference. Recently, that philosophy has begun to give way to a more directive regulatory approach.
How Government Control Is Expanding in Texas Food Policy
For decades, food policy in Texas emphasized transparency through voluntary labeling, enforcement of fraud laws, and baseline safety regulation. Producers competed on quality and sourcing, and consumers rewarded transparency when they valued it.
Recent legislative efforts reflect a departure from that model. Increasingly, the state is prescribing how food must be labeled, which products may be sold, and what standards must govern education and professional practice related to nutrition. These policies do not merely regulate conduct to prevent deception. They are designed to influence behavior and outcomes.
This shift reflects a growing willingness to substitute centralized judgment for decentralized decision-making whenever health, security, or cultural concerns become politically salient.
Recent Examples of Government Control Over Food Policy
Rather than focusing on a single bill, here are multiple examples to illustrate a broader policy pattern. Each measure highlights a different way the state has intervened in food markets and consumer choice.
Senate Bill 25 and State-Directed Nutrition Standards
Senate Bill 25 (SB 25), authored by State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) and a named legislative priority of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s, provides a broad illustration of this changing posture. Framed as a comprehensive public health initiative, the law embeds state-defined nutrition standards into public education, higher education, healthcare licensing, and commercial food labeling. It establishes a centralized advisory committee and ties compliance with its guidelines to funding eligibility, professional licensure, and regulatory enforcement.
Rather than relying on voluntary adoption or consumer-driven demand, the law mandates compliance across sectors. Students must complete prescribed coursework. Healthcare professionals must satisfy state-directed continuing education requirements. Food manufacturers must display warnings dictated by statute, even when products remain lawful under federal standards.
Senate Bill 823 and Compelled Labeling of Imported Shrimp
Senate Bill 823 (SB 823), authored by State Sen. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), offers a narrower but instructive example. The law regulates how imported shrimp may be labeled and represented in Texas. Businesses must disclose whether shrimp is imported, and restaurants are prohibited from using certain descriptors traditionally associated with domestic sourcing.
While framed as a consumer transparency measure, the law restricts lawful commercial speech and introduces a protectionist dynamic that favors domestic producers. It presumes consumers cannot evaluate sourcing information without state intervention and uses regulatory power to shape market outcomes rather than allowing competition and choice to do so.
Senate Bill 261 and the Prohibition of Cell-Cultured Protein
Senate Bill 261 (SB 261), authored by State Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), represents the most aggressive form of intervention. The law prohibits the manufacture, possession, distribution, and sale of cell-cultured protein (lab-grown meat) for human consumption in Texas. Rather than regulating labeling or safety standards, the state removes the product from the marketplace entirely.
The bill is intended to protect traditional agriculture from disruption, but it does so through outright prohibition rather than transparency or consumer choice. In the process, it suppresses innovation, forecloses consumer decision-making, and blocks participation in an emerging food technology sector that remains lawful at the federal level.
House Bill 1385 and What Lawmakers Were Willing to Propose
House Bill 1385 (HB 1835), authored by State Rep. Wes Virdell (R-Brady), would have required country-of-origin labeling for beef products but never advanced through the legislative process. While it did not become law, its filing is instructive.
Mandatory country-of-origin labeling is not new. Congress enacted federal labeling requirements in 2002, fully implemented them in 2013, and ultimately repealed them in 2016 after trade disputes and economic retaliation demonstrated the policy’s unintended consequences.
Despite that history, similar state-level proposals continue to surface. States such as Wyoming, Kansas, and South Dakota have passed or considered legislation requiring beef origin labeling or restricting how meat products may be marketed. These efforts reflect a renewed populist interest in food nationalism, even as prior federal experience cautions against such mandates.
HB 1385’s failure shows restraint remains in some areas. Its filing, however, signals a broader shift in policy instinct toward compelled labeling as a preferred solution.
Texas Food Policy in a Broader Regional and Legal Context
State-level food policy increasingly creates ripple effects beyond state borders, raising questions about federalism, interstate commerce, and constitutional limits.
Louisiana SB 14 and the Expansion of Ingredient Warning Laws
Louisiana recently enacted Senate Bill 14, which requires warnings for foods containing many of the same ingredients targeted by Texas. While Louisiana relies on QR-code disclosures and Texas mandates explicit on-package warnings, both laws reflect a regional shift toward state-directed ingredient signaling inspired in part by MAHA-aligned policy thinking.
When states impose differing warning regimes for the same ingredients, manufacturers face fragmented compliance obligations that distort national supply chains and invite legal challenges.
Federal Lawsuit Challenging Texas Food Labeling Requirements
Those challenges have already materialized. National food industry groups have filed a federal lawsuit arguing that Texas’s warning label requirements compel misleading speech, conflict with federal law, violate the First Amendment, and improperly burden interstate commerce.
The lawsuit underscores a central tension in modern food policy. When states move from ensuring accuracy to enforcing value-laden warnings, disputes shift from the marketplace to the courtroom.
California’s Proposition 65 Injunction and First Amendment Limits
Recent federal court decisions underscore that there are constitutional limits to how far states may go in compelling food and chemical warnings. In November 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a permanent injunction preventing California from enforcing its Proposition 65 cancer warning requirement as applied to glyphosate.
The court held that California’s warning mandate violated the First Amendment because it compelled businesses to convey messages that were neither purely factual nor uncontroversial. While one international body classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, federal regulators and numerous international authorities disagreed. Forcing businesses to present California’s preferred warning elevated one side of a disputed scientific debate and misled ordinary consumers.
Critically, the court rejected the notion that states may compel speech simply because they believe disclosure serves the public interest. Even when public health concerns are legitimate, the government may not commandeer private actors to deliver controversial or misleading messages when less burdensome alternatives exist.
This decision is directly relevant to Texas’s current trajectory. Like California’s Prop 65 regime, Texas’s labeling laws require businesses to present warnings that embed normative judgments about safety in areas where scientific consensus is disputed. California’s experience demonstrates how quickly such policies collide with constitutional free-speech protections.
A Liberty-Based Assessment of Texas’s Food Policy Trajectory
Taken together, these measures reveal a consistent pattern in how Texas lawmakers are increasingly approaching food policy.
Consumer choice is increasingly treated as a risk to be managed rather than a right to be respected. Personal responsibility gives way to state-directed signaling. Free enterprise is reshaped by protectionism and compliance costs. Property rights are constrained by evolving regulatory preferences. Limited government is replaced by the normalization of control.
None of this requires dismissing the motivations behind the legislation. National security, food sovereignty, and public health costs are real concerns. The question is whether those concerns justify a permanent shift away from voluntary, market-based solutions.
Conclusion: Preserving Liberty While Addressing Real Concerns
Texas faces legitimate challenges related to food security, health outcomes, and supply chain resilience. Addressing those challenges does not require abandoning liberty as a guiding principle.
The growing embrace of government control over food policy reflects a shift away from trust in individuals, markets, and voluntary solutions. That shift is particularly notable given the historical role of Republicans as defenders of limited government.
If Texas is to remain a state defined by liberty, lawmakers must resist the instinct to govern by compulsion and rediscover confidence in consumer choice, innovation, and free enterprise. Food policy should begin with trust, not control.
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!
