The California Upper House actually rejected the Ethics Over Aesthetics Act, which would have prohibited companies from importing, selling, or advertising genetically modified pets if their DNA is altered solely for the sake of appearance.
An initiative to ban genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in domestic animals was introduced into the legislature in 2025 amid media publications about the plans of American companies. Wired wrote that the Californian startup Los Angeles Project is preparing to breed glow-in-the-dark rabbits, hypoallergenic cats and horses with horns like unicorns.
In early August, it was also reported that biotech startup Kindred Companion Sciences had unveiled two genome-edited Beagle dogs. The dogs did not produce the Can f 1 protein, the main allergen found in dog saliva and dander, making them virtually hypoallergenic.
California Assembly member Leticia Castillo, who introduced the bill, together with animal rights activists, feared that breeding “designer animals” was, in principle, unethical, and they would then, like ordinary individuals, end up in municipal shelters.
It was proposed to ban the trade of pets with “cosmetic transgenic traits,” which included changes that affect the natural appearance or function of the animal: for example, changes in the color and shape of fur, skin, feathers or scales, removal of claws or vocal cords, and so on.
The law could include dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and other pets that undergo changes.
“The bill would make each transgenic pet animal imported for profit, sold, or offered for sale into this State in violation of this prohibition a separate offense punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $5,000,” the California Legislature states.
The initiative was unanimously passed by Castillo's colleagues in the lower chamber, but ultimately fell on deaf ears in the California Senate Appropriations Committee in mid-August. As the Los Angeles Times (LAT) notes, the fact that the bill was not mentioned at all at the August 13 hearing indicates its “death.”
This may be related to the upcoming elections in November, the publication believes. The committee chair is Democratic Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, whose sister Clarissa Cervantes is running against Republican Castillo. The bill's author defeated the same opponent in the 2024 election by less than 600 votes.
Judy Mancuso, founder of Social Compassion in Legislation, which supported the bill, called the outcome “ridiculous” in a LAT commentary and added that “good bills can become political liabilities during an election campaign.” Michelle Kelly, head of the non-profit organization Los Angeles Rabbit Foundation, also linked the failure of the initiative to “some kind of political game.”
At the same time, the bill also had opposition not associated with Cervantes. In a commentary to Newsweek, the animal rights organization Pet Advocacy Network said such a regulation would “disrupt legitimate commerce, limit consumer choice, and set a troubling precedent for prohibiting product regulation based on aesthetics rather than scientific evidence.” Separately, the human rights organization emphasized the lack of “any tangible benefit” for the well-being of pets.
“Technology Advocates” [генетического модифицирования] believe that genome editing can lead to desirable characteristics, such as disease resistance or hypoallergenicity, and should not be restricted prematurely,” Newsweek wrote.
