SB379

The original bill and Senate-passed version were broader: they separately covered energy drinks, sweetened beverages, carbonated drinks, candy, potato/corn chips and cookies, with a longer set of exceptions. The House committee substitute narrowed this to sweetened carbonated drinks with the five-gram added-sugar threshold and milk/milk-substitute/juice exclusions. Introduced text; House substitute.

All three indexed floor amendments were checked. Senator Alvarado’s proposed food-desert exception failed; Senator Gutierrez’s proposed protection for Texas-produced/processed/manufactured food and drinks failed. Neither became law. Representative Gerdes’s amendment specifying “any amount of” artificial sweetener was adopted and survives in the final text. Amendment index; Alvarado proposal; Gutierrez proposal; Gerdes amendment.

The conference agreement removed the requirement that drinks be carbonated and restored candy. It did not restore the separate chips/cookies ban or the original long list of exceptions. Both chambers adopted the agreement May 31. The final enrolled text matches the conference’s three sections. May 30 Senate journal: conference text; Version and fiscal-note index.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

The final May 30 fiscal note says the total state cost could not be determined before federal waiver terms were settled. It estimates $1,543,220 in one-time fiscal-year-2026 communication costs and identifies uncertain staffing, monitoring and technology costs; no significant local-government impact was expected. This is a legislative estimate, not a record of actual spending or an appropriation. The earlier March 10 note split the same communication amount between $764,750 state general revenue and $778,470 federal funds; that earlier funding split should not be presented as the final total cost. Final fiscal note; Earlier fiscal estimate.

SNAP households lose the option to use benefits for covered products, while retailers must distinguish eligible and ineligible items. Supporters seek better nutrition, but the bill itself does not prove improved health or medical savings. USDA’s approval requires evaluation of purchasing behavior, household impacts, retailer feedback and administrative costs, allows termination and makes extensions conditional. It does not grant an unconditional five-year approval. The law does not itself reduce the dollar benefit award or ban private-money purchases. Evaluation, compliance and duration conditions.