A California proposal that would have banned the sale of genetically engineered "designer pets," including glow-in-the-dark rabbits and unicorns, has stalled in the state legislature, despite heavy bipartisan support and backing from dozens of animal welfare groups. Assembly Bill (AB) 1382, known as the “Ethics Over Aesthetics Act”, was introduced by Assembly member Leticia Castillo, who argued that “animals should never be changed simply to create a product that is more unusual or more profitable.” The legislation sought to prevent businesses from making money by importing, selling, or advertising genetically modified pets when the genetic changes were made purely for appearance rather than health or welfare reasons. This, while still allowing for genetic modifications that could improve animals' health, welfare, or compatibility with humans—such as characteristics that make an animal less likely to trigger allergic reactions in people—which wouldn’t generally be considered as cosmetic.
The bill emerged as concerns about advances in gene-editing technology and the prospect of commercially available genetically engineered pets grow. In a legislative analysis, Senate committee staff pointed to a startup known as the Los Angeles Project, which has publicly discussed plans to create genetically modified companion animals, including rabbits engineered to glow through the insertion of a fluorescent protein gene. According to the same Senate analysis, the company had used a gene-editing technology to add a gene to rabbit embryos that produces green fluorescent protein, to eventually sell “glowing baby bunnies” as pets.
The analysis cites reporting by Wired, which described broader ambitions to develop a variety of genetically engineered animals, including glow-in-the-dark rabbits and other novel creatures, such as “actual unicorns.” Newsweek has emailed the Los Angeles Project for comment. AB 1382 wouldn’t have banned genetic engineering in animals altogether. Instead, it targeted what lawmakers described as "cosmetic transgenic trait[s]" that alter an animal's appearance or natural functions.
The bill's definition included traits such as “novel fur, skin, feather, or scale coloring, the removal of claws or vocal cords,” as well as the addition or removal of physical features. Under the proposal, pet animals covered by the law would have included dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and other common household pets. Violations would have carried civil penalties of at least $5,000 per animal.
Local or state government lawyers would have had the power to investigate any alleged violations of the law and take legal action against businesses or individuals who broke it. The legislation did include several exceptions. Genetic modifications designed to improve animal health, increase resistance to diseases, or promote hypoallergenic traits would have remained legal.
Existing fluorescent aquarium fish—called GloFish–-sold under California regulations would have also been exempt. Supporters argued that the measure was necessary to prevent animals from being turned into novelty products. Animal welfare organizations said emerging technologies could encourage demand for designer pets, despite unknown long-term health risks, and could worsen shelter overcrowding if consumers later abandoned these animals.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
