Relating to the marketing and sale of catfish and similar fish by food service establishments, food service suppliers, wholesalers, distributors, and wholesale distributors; providing administrative and civil penalties.
SB 1484 would create a new subchapter in the Texas Health and Safety Code regulating how catfish and fish similar to catfish are marketed and sold by food service establishments and seafood supply-chain businesses. The bill defines “catfish” narrowly as fish in the Ictaluridae family and excludes species commonly sold as basa, tra, and swai. It then prohibits restaurants and other covered businesses from representing a product as catfish unless it actually contains catfish and no similar fish, and requires suppliers, wholesalers, distributors, and wholesale distributors to clearly identify the species and country of origin when selling products that contain fish similar to catfish but are not catfish.
The bill also establishes enforcement tools. State and local health authorities that license or permit these businesses could impose administrative penalties for violations, and state, county, district, or municipal attorneys could seek civil penalties. Each day a violation continues would count as a separate violation, but a business could not be punished with both an administrative and civil penalty for the same conduct. The bill includes an affirmative defense for a food service establishment that in good faith believed the fish it purchased and sold was catfish.
The bill’s impact would be to tighten labeling and marketing rules for seafood products in Texas, especially in the restaurant and wholesale seafood sectors. It would affect food service establishments, seafood suppliers, wholesalers, distributors, and wholesale distributors by requiring more accurate product descriptions and origin disclosures, and by exposing violators to monetary penalties. It would also likely reduce consumer confusion and mislabeling involving imported fish marketed as catfish.
The available legislative history shows little recorded debate or controversy in the provided materials, and the bill advanced to the House calendar without any recorded vote totals on the listed actions. Overall, the measure appears to have been treated as a consumer protection and food-labeling enforcement bill rather than a highly contentious proposal. Any likely concern would center on compliance burdens for restaurants and seafood sellers, while supporters would likely emphasize truthful labeling, consumer transparency, and fair competition for domestic catfish producers.
SB 1484 amends the Health and Safety Code by adding new restrictions and enforcement provisions governing the sale and labeling of catfish and catfish-like fish. It creates statutory definitions for catfish-related products, imposes disclosure requirements for non-catfish fish sold as similar products, and authorizes administrative and civil penalties enforced by state and local authorities. The bill would directly affect restaurants, seafood suppliers, wholesalers, distributors, and wholesale distributors, and it would likely influence labeling practices, procurement, and compliance procedures in the seafood market.
The limited available record suggests generally favorable or at least noncontroversial treatment of the bill. There are no committee transcripts provided and no recorded yeas or nays in the listed vote actions, indicating no visible floor opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s movement to the House General State Calendar suggests it was considered viable and procedurally advanced without notable resistance in the available history.
The main substantive issue is the distinction between true catfish and fish commonly marketed as catfish substitutes, such as basa, tra, and swai. Supporters would likely favor the bill as a truth-in-labeling and consumer protection measure, while potential critics may argue that the requirements could impose additional compliance costs on food service businesses and seafood distributors. Another possible point of contention is the enforcement structure, which allows both administrative and civil penalties, though the bill limits punishment to one remedy for the same conduct and provides a good-faith defense for restaurants.