Animals: sale of pets: intentional genomic alterations.
The bill asserts that any violation of the prohibition against selling genetically altered pets will incur a civil penalty of at least $5,000 for each pet involved. Local district attorneys and city attorneys are empowered to enforce this law. The implications on existing sales practices could be profound, as breeders and retailers might need to adjust their practices to remain compliant with these new standards. Existing regulations regarding the sale of pets, including the requirement for health certificates and detailed disclosures by breeders, remain in effect alongside this new prohibition.
Assembly Bill 1382, known as the Ethics Over Aesthetics Act, aims to regulate the sale of genetically altered pet animals in California. The bill prohibits the importation, sale, or offering for sale of pet animals that have undergone intentional genomic alterations unless such alterations are for health benefits or to enhance human-animal interactions. The criteria outlined in this legislation represent a significant shift in the state's regulation of animal sales, extending beyond traditional pet welfare laws to include genetic considerations.
Discussions surrounding AB 1382 encompass a range of sentiments. Supporters perceive the law as a necessary safeguard for animal welfare, emphasizing the need to prevent unethical breeding practices that prioritize aesthetics over health. On the other hand, some industry stakeholders express concerns about the potential impact on their businesses, fearing loss of sales opportunities due to the restrictions on genetically modified animals. Overall, the sentiments reflect a conflict between ethical considerations for animal well-being and the commercial interests of pet sellers.
A key point of contention involves defining what constitutes an acceptable genomic alteration. The bill specifies that alterations should either be for health benefits or to enhance the human-animal bond, but there is considerable debate about how these terms are interpreted. Critics have raised concerns about the vagueness of these definitions, fearing that it could lead to enforcement challenges and inconsistencies in how the law is applied. Additionally, the bill could inadvertently limit advancements in genetic research that aim to improve animal health.