Genetically-engineered animals bill stalls in Legislature

Transgenic animals, according to the most recent legislative analysis of the bill, are animals that have been genetically modified to have new traits or capabilities that are not natural. Those traits are scientifically possible to engineer in animals through genetic manipulation.

Castillo’s bill, specifically, targeted transgenic animals who are genetically modified for aesthetic reasons. This can include genetically altered traits that result in glow-in-the-dark rabbits, miniature livestock animals kept as pets and animals nicknamed “unicorns," according to a press release from Castillo’s office.

Castillo could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The sponsor of the bill, Social Compassion in Legislation, told The Center Square on Tuesday that the organization first became aware of the need for a bill like AB 1382 after reading about a company who was trying to genetically modify animals for aesthetic purposes.

Glow-in-the-dark rabbits, in particular, pose a problem for animal advocates and animal shelter workers, said Judie Mancuso, the founder, CEO and president of Social Compassion in Legislation.

“This was alarming to the folks who shelter rabbits and rescue them because the influx of animals to our shelters, primarily are dogs, cats and rabbits,” Mancuso said. “The first thing that everyone thought of is can you imagine this becoming some kind of social media trend – somebody taking a picture with their blue glow-in-the-dark bunny and how everybody buys one as an accessory.”

Such animals being novelties, and the novelty eventually wearing off, is worrisome and exploitative for those animals and for wildlife, Mancuso said.

“Then they’re on the side of the street, they’re in our shelters, and they could be released in the wild,” Mancuso said. “We don’t even know what the ramifications are of genetically-modified animals mixing with our wildlife. There’s just no good outcome.”

While the bill had dozens of groups register support this year, only one group briefly opposed the bill earlier this year. That organization, Pet Advocacy Network, submitted comments in the Jan. 16 version of the bill analysis to say the legislation would undermine current law and consumers' ability to choose.

“[This bill] would override existing science-based regulatory determinations, 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,” the group said, “AB 1382 would open the door to banning regulated products based on aesthetics or perception rather than science.”

The Center Square reached out to Pet Advocacy Network on Tuesday and did not hear back before press time. The Jan. 16 analysis was the only version of the analysis in which Pet Advocacy Network registered its opposition.

There was not a determined fiscal cost to implement the bill if it had passed, according to the most recent analysis, but the cost of prosecuting those who violated the law could have reached into the hundreds of thousands of dollars to trial courts throughout the state.

With the failure of the bill to pass this year, supporters told The Center Square they would like to see it have another chance to pass into law in 2027.

“I think the merits are still completely valid, and it has received widespread bipartisan support across the aisle, so I think it does have a good shot again in the future,” said Jennifer Hauge, senior legislative affairs manager for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, which also supported the bill.