The Legislative Budget Board estimates that SB 25 will have a negative impact of $4.8 million on General Revenue-related funds for the biennium ending August 31, 2027, with ongoing annual costs of approximately $2.67 million per year through 2030. The bill does not appropriate funds but provides a legal basis for future appropriations necessary for implementation.

The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) will require 18 new full-time employees (FTEs) to support enforcement efforts, including food labeling compliance, school physical activity requirements, and the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee. These personnel costs will account for about $1.6 million in FY 2026 and $2.2 million in FY 2027, with additional non-IT costs of $400,000 per year. The bill also authorizes civil penalties for non-compliance with nutrition labeling and school activity requirements, but the exact revenue impact of these penalties is uncertain.

Local school districts and charter schools may incur additional costs to comply with new physical education requirements, which could include hiring additional staff, modifying class schedules, and purchasing educational materials for the mandatory nutrition curriculum. However, higher education institutions and state agencies (such as the Texas Education Agency and Texas Medical Board) are expected to absorb implementation costs within existing budgets.

While SB 25 includes provisions for penalties and enforcement, these are not expected to generate significant revenue to offset the projected multimillion-dollar state expenditure over the next five years.

SB 25 presents a comprehensive approach to addressing public health concerns by emphasizing nutrition education, increased physical activity in schools, and regulatory oversight of food labeling. The bill seeks to counter rising rates of obesity, chronic diseases, and metabolic disorders by mandating nutrition education in schools and higher education institutions, establishing a Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee, and introducing food labeling requirements for products containing banned ingredients. While these initiatives align with public health goals, the bill also introduces government overreach concerns, financial burdens on schools and businesses, and uncertain enforcement mechanisms that warrant amendments before full approval.

From a liberty perspective, SB 25 has both strengths and weaknesses. It supports personal responsibility by educating students and healthcare professionals on nutrition, which could empower individuals to make healthier choices. However, the mandates on schools, higher education institutions, and businesses raise limited government and free enterprise concerns. The bill also authorizes civil penalties for non-compliance, which could disproportionately impact small food manufacturers and local school districts struggling with budget constraints. Additionally, the requirement for continuing education for medical professionals imposes an additional regulatory burden that may not be necessary for all specialties.

While the intent of the bill is commendable, it would benefit from amendments to reduce state overreach, offer an alternative to penalties, and ensure flexibility in implementation. A revised version of SB 25 that encourages voluntary compliance, provides local control over physical education, and offers resources rather than punitive measures would better align with core liberty principles while still addressing public health concerns. Thus, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO unless amendments are adopted onto SB 25 to better balance health objectives with individual liberty, limited government, and economic impact considerations.

• HB 25 (Same As)