What’s Actually in Texas’s New Health Law (SB 25)?

Some parts could help kids. Others could spread misinformation and deepen health gaps.

Image: Texas State Capitol building in Austin, Texas

---

Hi - I write this to cut through the noise and bring you the truth about what’s happening in science and public health. If that matters to you, please consider upgrading to become a paid subscriber. Every new subscriber helps me reach more people and do more of this work.

---

This week, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 25, a sweeping new law dubbed the Make Texas Healthy Again Act. It’s being celebrated by supporters of the MAHA movement as their biggest legislative win to date.

The bill mandates daily physical activity in schools, introduces a new statewide nutrition curriculum (from kindergarten through medical school), requires warning labels on foods containing certain additives, and creates a Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee to guide all of it.

But as with most big legislation, the details matter. Some provisions could offer real public health benefits. Others raise red flags about science, implementation, and equity, especially when it comes to who’s making the decisions and how schools and healthcare providers are expected to comply.

So, let’s review the bill together and explore what’s helpful, what’s questionable, and what’s just MAHA-based pseudoscience.

1. Mandatory Physical Activity & Recess Protections

SB 25 reinforces and slightly expands Texas’s existing school physical activity mandates by:

• Requiring all K–5 students in full-day programs to engage in at least 30 minutes of moderate or vigorous daily physical activity, delivered through structured recess, PE, or classroom-integrated movement.

• Requiring students in grades 6–8 to meet the same standard for at least six semesters (four were previously required), with flexibility for block scheduling.

• Prohibiting schools from eliminating recess, or withholding it as punishment for misbehavior or incomplete academic work.

• Providing exemptions for students with disabilities, health issues, or those who meet the requirement through qualifying extracurricular activities.

The law does not apply to high school students.

✅ Pros

• Supports academic and behavioral outcomes: Evidence consistently shows that daily movement improves student focus, attention, memory, and emotional regulation, especially in elementary-age children.

• Addresses health equity: For many students, particularly in low-income or unsafe neighborhoods, school may be their only opportunity for daily physical activity.

• Protects recess from being deprioritized: By explicitly prohibiting its removal, the bill helps ensure unstructured physical play remains a regular part of the school day, which is something experts view as critical for development.

• Aligns with CDC and AAP guidelines: National recommendations call for at least 60 minutes of daily activity for children, and this provision helps schools meet at least half that target.

❌ Cons

• No added funding: While the 30-minute activity rule isn’t new, SB 25 reinforces it and makes recess legally protected, which could require schedule and staffing adjustments. Yet the bill provides no funding for PE teachers, equipment, or facilities.

• No training or support: Teachers receive no professional development to implement activity effectively, raising the risk of low-quality or inconsistent execution, especially in under-resourced schools.

• Time pressure: In schools that are already struggling to meet academic benchmarks or state testing requirements, carving out a guaranteed 30 minutes each day for physical activity may feel like one more demand on an already packed schedule. Without additional support or flexibility, educators may feel forced to cut into other areas like art, music, or science labs to make room for the mandate.

Overall

This provision is, at its core, a public health win. Daily physical activity is one of the most well-established tools we have for supporting children’s physical and mental health. And evidence consistently links it to improved focus, behavior, academic outcomes, and long-term disease prevention. And by explicitly protecting recess, SB 25 helps ensure that play and movement aren’t sidelined, which is especially beneficial for young children.

That said, the bill’s lack of funding, training, or oversight could limit its impact, particularly in under-resourced districts. The mandate itself is sound, but the implementation risks falling short without meaningful support. In other words, the policy is strong on paper, but well-meaning goals without infrastructure may widen existing gaps in how physical activity is delivered across the state.

2. Nutrition Curriculum in K–12 and Higher Education

SB 25 mandates the development and adoption of a statewide nutrition curriculum in both K–12 schools and public higher education institutions in Texas. Specifically:

• Public K–12 schools must offer a standalone ½-credit course in nutrition education, in addition to the existing health ½-credit, using curriculum developed by the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee.

• Public institutions of higher education offering associate or bachelor’s degrees in health-related fields must require a full nutrition course for students, based on the committee’s recommendations, by July 1, 2027.

• The Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee will create the curriculum, with a focus on links between ultra-processed foods, additives, and chronic disease. Its first report is due September 1, 2026.

Private schools and non–health-related college programs are not subject to these requirements.

✅ Pros

• Elevates nutrition education across the system: Embedding nutrition instruction from early education through professional health training could improve baseline health literacy in both the general population and among future health professionals.

• Focus on chronic disease: By requiring attention to nutrition’s role in metabolic health, the law attempts to align curriculum with key drivers of public health outcomes like type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

❌ Cons

• No teacher training or implementation support: There is no funding, training, or professional development to prepare teachers or professors to deliver this curriculum.

• Unclear evidence base: The content of the curriculum is to be determined by the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee, which is a body that includes members who are not required to be credentialed in nutrition science or public health (more on that in #4).

• Risk of politicization: Because the committee is governor-appointed, there’s a possibility that curriculum recommendations could reflect political agendas rather than scientific consensus.

Overall

In theory, this is a valuable step. Nutrition is foundational to public health, and consistent, evidence-informed education across the lifespan is good public health policy. But the law places significant power in the hands of a small, unelected committee without built-in protections to ensure scientific accuracy or pedagogical best practices.

There is also no funding, teacher training, or resource allocation included to support implementation, leaving schools and universities to figure out how to deliver the curriculum without additional support. If the content is developed with integrity and expertise, this provision could improve health literacy across generations. If not, it risks injecting ideology into classrooms instead of nutrition science.

3. Continuing Medical Education (CME) for Doctors

Beginning January 1, 2027, physicians licensed in Texas must complete continuing medical education (CME) in “nutrition and metabolic health” to renew their license. The content must align with guidance developed by the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee.

✅ Pros

• Addresses a known gap in medical training where most physicians receive minimal education in formal nutrition, despite being routinely expected by patients to provide dietary guidance.

• If evidence-based and well-designed, this requirement could help improve provider competency in nutrition education.

❌ Cons

• The content is controlled by the same appointed advisory committee developing school nutrition standards, raising concerns about whether the material will reflect broad scientific consensus or ideological perspectives.

Overall

Requiring nutrition-focused CME for physicians reflects growing recognition that while most receive extensive training in physiology and metabolic science, they often lack preparation in practical, patient-centered nutrition care. Patients routinely expect dietary guidance from their doctors, yet many providers report feeling underprepared to offer it, especially in the context of chronic disease management.

That said, we already have highly trained nutrition professionals (registered dietitians) working across healthcare teams. Ideally, medical education would focus not only on foundational nutrition knowledge, but also on when and how to refer to these professionals, and we’d see insurance companies expand coverage so that patients can actually access their expertise. If this CME is implemented with scientific integrity and within that broader systems context, it could help improve the quality and coordination of nutrition care. If not, it risks oversimplifying a complex issue or introducing bias with ideologically-driven information.

4. Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee

SB 25 establishes a 7-member Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee, appointed by the Governor, to develop the nutrition curriculum that will be used in K–12 schools, higher education health programs, and physician CME. The committee is specifically charged with evaluating links between ultra-processed foods, food additives, and chronic disease, and issuing annual guidance based on its findings.

The law specifies who must be included:

• One functional medicine physician (it literally says functional medicine, specifically)

• One metabolic health expert (what does that even mean?)

• One agriculture industry representative (like an industry lobbyist?)

• One member from a rural community (no qualifications outside of living in a rural area)

• One from an urban community (no qualifications outside of living in an urban area)

• One registered dietitian or nutrition professional (what does nutrition professional mean? There’s no formal definition for that)

• One additional member with relevant experience

✅ Pros

• The committee provides a centralized structure for developing statewide nutrition guidance and curriculum, potentially allowing Texas to respond more intentionally to rising rates of chronic disease.

• Including a registered dietitian and a rural/urban balance could help ensure diverse perspectives, at least in theory.

❌ Cons

• There are no credentialing requirements for committee members, and the law does not guarantee a seat for a nutrition scientist or public health expert, despite the committee being tasked with guiding statewide education and policy on chronic disease (which is absurd).

• An agriculture industry representative may bring valuable perspective on food systems, but could also introduce commercial or political bias, especially if recommendations conflict with industry interests.

• All members are appointed by the governor, with no transparency, public input, or scientific oversight built into the selection process, increasing the risk of politicization.

Overall

It’s hard to overstate how unusual and concerning it is to create a statewide committee tasked with shaping nutrition education and policy without guaranteeing seats for credentialed nutrition scientists or public health experts. Instead, SB 25 reserves space for a functional medicine physician, an agriculture industry representative, and members selected solely for where they live, not what they know.

This committee will guide the curriculum taught to millions of Texas students, health professionals, and physicians, yet there's no requirement for scientific expertise, peer review, or transparency in its decisions. At best, this could lead to inconsistent or watered-down recommendations. At worst, it opens the door to ideologically driven or industry-aligned guidance not rooted in evidence.

5. Food Additive Warning Labels

Beginning January 1, 2027, any packaged food product sold in Texas that contains one or more of 44 listed additives must display a prominent warning label if the product’s packaging was designed or updated after that date.

The required warning must state:

“WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.”

Failure to include the label could result in civil penalties of up to $50,000 per day per violation, enforceable by the state attorney general.

✅ Pros

• Could raise consumer awareness of food ingredients that are sometimes controversial, such as synthetic food dyes, titanium dioxide, or brominated flour additives.

• May incentivize some reformulation by manufacturers to avoid warning labels on newly designed packaging.

❌ Cons

• The list of 44 additives is scientifically inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary, based not on toxicology or human health risk assessments, but on whether an ingredient is restricted in any way by the EU, UK, Canada, or Australia.

• Many of the included additives (like Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Blue 2) are not banned in any of those countries — they are approved for use and deemed safe, just like in the U.S. (so the label doesn’t even make any sense).

• The required warning that an ingredient is “not recommended for human consumption” is factually misleading in many cases. It implies a clear safety determination where one does not exist, and may confuse or alarm consumers unnecessarily.

• Different countries have different regulatory frameworks for food approvals, based on cultural norms, precautionary principles, or trade rules, not necessarily new evidence of harm. For example, monk fruit extract is not approved for use in the EU, but it is widely used in the U.S. and is the sweetener used in The Food Babe’s protein powders that she sells. So clearly, an ingredient being banned in another country is not sufficient reason to put a warning label on a package.

Overall

This provision is perhaps the most ideologically revealing part of the bill. While marketed as a transparency win for consumers, it’s not a science-informed decision and includes a list of 44 additives seemingly selected because they're restricted somewhere in the world (even though, oddly they are not even all restricted in the regions listed), not because there's clear evidence of harm at typical levels of consumption. Some ingredients — like titanium dioxide or potassium bromate — do raise legitimate concerns in high doses. But others do not and are approved for use in all of the regions cited in the warning label. The required label misleads more than it informs, implying danger where there may be none.

And importantly, there is no evidence that removing or swapping out these specific additives in ultra-processed foods, especially in isolation, leads to meaningful improvements in health outcomes. This approach risks confusing consumers, eroding trust in science-based regulation, and diverting attention from policies that would actually move the needle on health.

Final Thoughts

SB 25 is being framed as a landmark public health law. And some of its provisions, like protecting recess or expanding nutrition education, absolutely could be meaningful steps in the right direction. But the bill doesn’t provide the infrastructure needed to truly support those goals.

There’s no funding for schools or healthcare providers. No training for teachers or educators. No support to ensure implementation is equitable or evidence-based.

At best, parts of this bill could help improve health literacy and expand access to daily movement for kids. At worst, it risks politicizing nutrition education, misleading consumers with arbitrary warning labels, and concentrating authority in the hands of an unelected committee without guaranteed scientific expertise.