California Tried to Stop Selling Genetically Engineered 'Unicorns'

Gen Z Doesn't Fear China, but Additionally Doesn't Know China.

Key points

• Assembly Bill (AB) 1382, known as the "Ethics Over Aesthetics Act", was introduced by Assembly member Leticia Castillo.
• According to The Los Angeles Times, she remarked, I'm disappointed AB 1382 did not move forward, but I am not done fighting for these animals.
• Although AB 1382 failed to reach the governor's desk, the debate it sparked is unlikely to disappear.
• Although AB 1382 has stalled for the current legislative session, that doesn't necessarily mean the matter is settled.
• In a legislative analysis, Senate committee staff pointed to a startup known as the Los Angeles Project.

Notably, 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 backing 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. This person 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 funds by importing, selling, or advertising genetically modified pets when the genetic changes were produced purely for appearance rather than health or welfare reasons. While still allowing for genetic modifications that could improve animals' health, welfare, or compatibility with humans-such as characteristics that create an animal less probable to trigger allergic reactions in people-which wouldn't generally be considered as cosmetic, this. Glow, Rabbit, Glow The bill emerged as reservations concerning 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. It has publicly discussed intends 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 firm had employed 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. It 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 Halted AB 1382 wouldn't have banned genetic engineering in animals altogether. Instead, it targeted what lawmakers described as "cosmetic transgenic trait" 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 administration 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 a number of exceptions. Genetic modifications designed to improve animal health, growth resistance to diseases, or promote hypoallergenic traits would have remained legal. Existing fluorescent aquarium fish-called GloFish–sold under California regulations would have additionally been exempt. Supporters argued that the measure was necessary to prevent animals from being turned into novelty products. Animal welfare organizations remarked emerging technologies could encourage demand for designer pets, despite unknown long-term health risks, and could worsen shelter overcrowding if consumers afterwards abandoned these animals. Why Didn't It Pass? The legislation appeared to have solid momentum for much of the year. It cleared the Assembly with unanimous backing and afterwards passed the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on a 6-0 vote. The Senate Judiciary analysis additionally observed backing from a substantial 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 remarked 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. Notably, a Senate Appropriations Committee analysis additionally cautioned of potential costs associated with enforcing the legislation through California's court system since violations could be pursued through civil litigation. In its fiscal summary of the legislation, the committee remarked, "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." 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 additionally 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 matter 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 remarked, "I'm disappointed AB 1382 did not move forward, but I am not done fighting for these animals. The technology that makes 'designer pets' feasible isn't going away, and neither am I." The broader debate is additionally probable to intensify as biotechnology businesses continue exploring new applications for genetic engineering in pets. 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, supporters of AB 1382 argue that state lawmakers need to act before a market for designer pets becomes established. 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 at present in effect and businesses 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 projected to remain an active policy debate.

By Amanda Greenwood Associate News Editor. Newsweek is a Trust Project member.

See more of our trusted coverage when you search.to see more of our trusted coverage when you search.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1382, known as the "Ethics Over Aesthetics Act", was introduced by Assembly member Leticia Castillo. This person argued that "animals should never be changed simply to create a product that is more unusual or more profitable."

For context, the legislation sought to prevent businesses from making funds by importing, selling, or advertising genetically modified pets when the genetic changes were produced purely for appearance rather than health or welfare reasons.

While still allowing for genetic modifications that could improve animals' health, welfare, or compatibility with humans-such as characteristics that create an animal less probable to trigger allergic reactions in people-which wouldn't generally be considered as cosmetic, this.

Notably, the bill emerged as reservations concerning 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. It has publicly discussed intends 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 firm had employed a gene-editing technology to add a gene to rabbit embryos that produces green fluorescent protein, to eventually sell "glowing baby bunnies" as pets.

Notably, the analysis cites reporting by Wired. It 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 Halted. AB 1382 wouldn't have banned genetic engineering in animals altogether.

Instead, it targeted what lawmakers described as "cosmetic transgenic trait" that alter an animal's appearance or natural functions.

In practice, 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 administration 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.

Meanwhile, the legislation did include a number of exceptions. Genetic modifications designed to improve animal health, growth resistance to diseases, or promote hypoallergenic traits would have remained legal. Existing fluorescent aquarium fish-called GloFish–sold under California regulations would have additionally been exempt.

Supporters argued that the measure was necessary to prevent animals from being turned into novelty products. Animal welfare organizations remarked emerging technologies could encourage demand for designer pets, despite unknown long-term health risks, and could worsen shelter overcrowding if consumers afterwards abandoned these animals.

In practice, the legislation appeared to have solid momentum for much of the year. It cleared the Assembly with unanimous backing and afterwards passed the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on a 6-0 vote.

In practice, the Senate Judiciary analysis additionally observed backing from a substantial 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 remarked 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.

Notably, a Senate Appropriations Committee analysis additionally cautioned of potential costs associated with enforcing the legislation through California's court system since violations could be pursued through civil litigation. In its fiscal summary of the legislation, the committee remarked, "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."

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 additionally reached out to Castillo via email for comment.

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 remarked, "I'm disappointed AB 1382 did not move forward, but I am not done fighting for these animals. The technology that makes 'designer pets' feasible isn't going away, and neither am I."

Notably, the broader debate is additionally probable to intensify as biotechnology firms continue exploring new applications for genetic engineering in pets. 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, supporters of AB 1382 argue that state lawmakers need to act before a market for designer pets becomes established.

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 at present in effect and businesses 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 projected to remain an active policy debate.

In short, california Tried to Stop Selling Genetically Engineered & #039; Unicorns& #039 is the central thread here, and readers can expect follow-up reporting as the picture becomes clearer.