2025 · Regular session · Senate bill
SB261
SB261 enacted a temporary Texas ban on offering or selling cell-cultured protein for human consumption.
Official caption: Relating to a prohibition on the offering for sale and the sale of cell-cultured protein for human consumption; providing civil and criminal penalties.
Official report lists Senate author(s): Perry. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- SB261 enacted a temporary Texas ban on offering or selling cell-cultured protein for human consumption.
- The law defines cell-cultured protein as food made by harvesting animal cells and replicating them in a growth medium to produce tissue.
- The law replaces the older “cell-cultured product” terminology and repeals that definition, which had specified production “in a laboratory.” It keeps existing labeling requirements: prominent “cell-cultured,” “lab-grown,” or similar wording near the product name, in type at least as large as surrounding type.
- Violations can trigger existing enforcement provisions.
- Scope: this briefing explains the 2025 enacted provisions, not a certification of present enforceability.
What does it do?
SB261 enacted a temporary Texas ban on offering or selling cell-cultured protein for human consumption. It was signed June 20, 2025 and took effect September 1, 2025. The two sales-ban sections expire September 1, 2027; the definition and labeling changes do not share that expiration. Final law, Sections 1–8; Official history.
The law defines cell-cultured protein as food made by harvesting animal cells and replicating them in a growth medium to produce tissue. This is not the separate category of plant-based analogue products. The final ban does not prohibit mere possession, manufacture or research as such. It adds parallel prohibitions to the food-and-drug and meat-and-poultry chapters; the latter controls over conflicting state law.
The law replaces the older “cell-cultured product” terminology and repeals that definition, which had specified production “in a laboratory.” It keeps existing labeling requirements: prominent “cell-cultured,” “lab-grown,” or similar wording near the product name, in type at least as large as surrounding type. It updates exclusions from the statutory definitions of eggs, fish, meat and poultry products. Labeling is not permission to sell despite the ban. The health commission must adopt necessary implementing rules. Earlier definitions; Earlier labeling requirement.
Violations can trigger existing enforcement provisions. Chapter 431 allows civil or administrative penalties up to $25,000 per violation per day, subject to assessment factors and procedures, and a first-offense Class A misdemeanor, enhanced to a state jail felony for a qualifying prior conviction. Chapter 433 separately has general criminal penalties of up to $1,000 and one year of imprisonment, or both, with higher penalties for specified fraud/adulteration circumstances. These are possible statutory penalties, not automatic sentences; defenses, hearing rights and minor-violation discretion remain relevant. Civil penalties; Administrative penalties; Hearing procedure; Criminal penalties and defenses; Meat-and-poultry enforcement.
Scope: this briefing explains the 2025 enacted provisions, not a certification of present enforceability. In a January 30, 2026 order, a federal judge denied a preliminary injunction, dismissed UPSIDE’s federal poultry-law claim, and allowed the interstate-commerce challenge against state officials to continue. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal February 26. Those documents do not establish the latest outcome. Court order (public docket copy); Notice of appeal (public docket copy).
What changed along the way?
The introduced bill proposed a permanent ban covering manufacture, processing, possession and distribution as well as sales, and would have classified food containing cell-cultured protein as adulterated. The Senate committee substitute added limited university-research exceptions and terminology/labeling changes. Those broad prohibitions and the proposed adulterated-food classification did not become law. All five text versions.
The sole indexed floor amendment, Perry’s Senate amendment F1, was adopted May 12. It replaced the broader restrictions and their research exceptions with the narrower human-consumption sales bans, added the September 1, 2027 expiration and removed the adulterated-food change. These changes survived in the final text. Amendment index and disposition; Full amendment.
The House committee substitute changed only the caption, explicitly describing human consumption and civil/criminal penalties; its operative sections match the Senate-engrossed text. The Senate concurred in the House amendment May 28. The record therefore does include a House amendment, although not another indexed floor amendment. Official House comparison; Enrolled text.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
The latest posted fiscal note, May 20, 2025, anticipates no significant state or local fiscal impact and assumes implementation costs can be absorbed with existing resources. Civil and administrative penalty revenue for fiscal years 2026–2027 could not be estimated because the number of violations was unknown. The note assumes no new violations of the temporary prohibitions after their September 1, 2027 expiration. This is not a finding that enforcement is cost-free or that earlier liabilities disappear. Latest fiscal note.
The earlier March 27 and April 1 notes likewise anticipated no significant state or local cost. The May 21 criminal-justice assessment anticipated no significant correctional-resource impact, while recognizing possible additional prosecutions and confinement. Criminal-justice impact statement.
Businesses seeking to sell these products lose a lawful sales route under the enacted prohibition, and consumers seeking them lose that choice. Existing producers of substitute foods may face less competition, but the sources do not quantify any gain. The law does not establish that cultivated food is unsafe, guarantee health benefits, or estimate consumer price changes. These are potential commercial effects of the sales restriction, not measured outcomes. Enacted scope.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.
