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.
Glow, Rabbit, Glow
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.
Stock image: A currently non-glowing rabbit in the outdoors.
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.
What the Bill Would Have Stopped
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.
Preparing for an injection of genetic modifications at the Revivicor Laboratories in Blacksburg, Virginia on November 22, 2024.
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.
A GloFish swims in a aquarium at a pet store in Virginia, April 6, 2004 in Alexandria, Virginia. The trademarked fish is genetically engineered and California is the only state to ban the species
Why Didn’t It Pass?
The legislation appeared to have strong momentum for much of the year. It cleared the Assembly with unanimous support and later passed the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on a 6-0 vote.
The Senate Judiciary analysis also noted support from a large coalition of animal welfare organizations and stated that no timely opposition had been received by the committee.
Nevertheless, the measure ultimately stalled in the Senate Appropriations Committee and was held under submission, preventing it from advancing further during the legislative session, according to the Los Angeles Times.
While lawmakers haven’t identified a single reason for the bill’s failure, animal welfare group Pet Advocacy Network submitted opposition comments that said the bill “would disrupt lawful commerce, reduce consumer choice, and set a troubling precedent for banning regulated products based on aesthetics rather than evidence—all without providing any measurable animal-welfare benefit,” adding that “AB 1382 would open the door to banning regulated products based on aesthetics or perception rather than science.”
Newsweek has reached out to the Pet Advocacy Network by email for comment.
A Senate Appropriations Committee analysis also warned of potential costs associated with enforcing the legislation through California’s court system because violations could be pursued through civil litigation. In its fiscal summary of the legislation, the committee said, “unknown, potentially significant workload cost pressures to the state funded trial court system to adjudicate any civil cases filed as a result of this bill,” adding that an “eight-hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If court days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Fluorescence in a crinoid the Red Sea.
Sparking a Wider Debate
Although AB 1382 failed to reach the governor’s desk, the debate it sparked is unlikely to disappear.
Advances in gene-editing tools such as CRISPR are making genetically engineered pets increasingly plausible, and California’s unsuccessful effort represents one of the first attempts by state lawmakers to draw regulatory boundaries around the emerging market for designer pets.
Newsweek has also reached out to Castillo via email for comment.
What Happens Next?
Although AB 1382 has stalled for the current legislative session, that doesn’t necessarily mean the issue is settled.
Castillo could reintroduce similar legislation in a future session, particularly as advances in gene-editing technology continue to bring genetically engineered companion animals closer to the commercial market.
According to The Los Angeles Times, she said, “I’m disappointed AB 1382 did not move forward, but I am not done fighting for these animals. The technology that makes ‘designer pets’ possible isn’t going away, and neither am I.”
The broader debate is also likely to intensify as biotechnology companies continue exploring new applications for genetic engineering in pets. Supporters of AB 1382 argue that state lawmakers need to act before a market for designer pets becomes established, while advocates of the technology contend that gene editing could lead to desirable traits such as disease resistance or hypoallergenic animals and should not be restricted prematurely.
For now, California’s proposal remains one of the highest-profile attempts in the U.S. to regulate genetically engineered pets. With no state ban currently in effect and companies such as the Los Angeles Project continuing to explore novel companion animals, the question of where regulators should draw the line between scientific innovation and animal welfare is likely to remain an active policy debate.
Related Articles