2025 · Regular session · Senate bill
SB823
SB823 requires imported-shrimp labeling in the supply chain and bars restaurants from presenting imported shrimp as domestic.
Official caption: Relating to labeling and representation of imported shrimp; authorizing an administrative penalty.
Official report lists Senate author(s): Middleton. 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.
- SB823 requires imported-shrimp labeling in the supply chain and bars restaurants from presenting imported shrimp as domestic.
- “Imported” follows federal country-of-origin requirements, not simply whether shrimp came from Texas.
- A state or local authority that licenses or permits a covered business under Health and Safety Code Chapter 431 or 437 may impose an administrative penalty for a violation.
- The section excludes food served or prepared in similar retail establishments, such as grocery stores and food businesses inside them.
What does it do?
SB823 requires imported-shrimp labeling in the supply chain and bars restaurants from presenting imported shrimp as domestic. Food-service suppliers, wholesalers and distributors selling shrimp in Texas must clearly and conspicuously state on the label whether it is imported. Restaurants may not label or represent imported shrimp as “Texas shrimp,” “American shrimp,” “Domestic shrimp” or “Gulf shrimp.” The governor signed the bill June 20, 2025; it took effect September 1, 2025. Final law; History.
“Imported” follows federal country-of-origin requirements, not simply whether shrimp came from Texas. For farm-raised shellfish, the referenced rule requires U.S. hatching, raising, harvesting and processing. Wild shellfish must be harvested in U.S. waters or by a U.S.-flagged vessel, and processed in the United States or aboard a U.S.-flagged vessel. Both categories must not undergo a substantial transformation outside the United States. The Texas law also incorporates successor federal regulations. Section 436.083(a); 7 CFR 60.128, January 2025 edition.
A state or local authority that licenses or permits a covered business under Health and Safety Code Chapter 431 or 437 may impose an administrative penalty for a violation. A good-faith belief that the shrimp was not imported is an affirmative defense—a defense the license or permit holder can raise. SB823 itself does not set a dollar penalty, create a private lawsuit or change existing common-law or statutory duties. The health commission’s executive commissioner must adopt implementing rules as soon as practicable. Enforcement, defense and rulemaking.
The section excludes food served or prepared in similar retail establishments, such as grocery stores and food businesses inside them. It also excludes properly labeled shrimp sold packaged, either alone or as an ingredient in another packaged food. The restaurant restriction is about misleading origin claims; the act does not require every menu to carry an imported-shrimp notice. Section 436.083(b)–(g).
What changed along the way?
The introduced bill covered meat, poultry and related products as well as shrimp, and would have required labels stating whether the food originated in Texas. The Senate committee substitute removed the meat and poultry provision and changed the shrimp test from Texas origin to the federal U.S.-origin standard. It specified the covered suppliers, added the restaurant representation ban, administrative enforcement, good-faith defense, no-new-lawsuit clause and retail/packaged-food exclusions.
The amendment index reports no floor amendments. All five indexed text versions were compared: the committee substitute, engrossed bill, House committee text and enrolled law have the same operative provisions. These changes came through the substitute, not a later floor amendment.
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?
Customers get clearer origin information and protection against the listed misleading restaurant descriptions. Domestic shrimp businesses may benefit from more accurate labeling, but the law does not guarantee higher prices, sales or food safety. Covered suppliers and restaurants may need to check origin records, labels and descriptions; licensing authorities may face enforcement work. Requirements and exclusions.
The May 20 substitute fiscal note, which matches the final operative text, anticipated no significant state fiscal impact and assumed costs could be absorbed using existing resources. Local-government fiscal effects could not be determined. It did not estimate business compliance costs.
The May 18 introduced-version note estimated a $618,209 state General Revenue cost for fiscal years 2026–2027 and two additional staff positions for the broader meat/poultry/shrimp proposal. That was not the estimate for the final, narrower law, and the bill itself made no appropriation.
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.