BCB's Formal Letter of Support - AB 1382

July 22, 2026

Re: Support for AB 1382 - Banning Genetically Modified Animals for Cosmetic Purposes

Dear Senator Limon and Senator Cervantes,

We are SD Alejo-Chia and Michael Chia, the co-founders of Bun Chia Burrow (BCB), a rabbit hotel, bonding, grooming, and consultation service in Long Beach, California. We also operate Second Hop, an in-house rescue fund that pulls red-listed rabbits from Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) and Long Beach Animal Care Services (LBACS). We write in strong support of AB 1382, and we want to speak to this bill not only from the perspective of shelter overpopulation (though that alone is sufficient reason to act) but from the perspectives of rabbit health, rescue infrastructure, ecological impact, and animal welfare.

In the last four weeks alone, we assisted in wrangling and relinquishing 10+ dumped rabbits from El Dorado Regional Park in Long Beach to LBACS. What we are describing is about to get significantly worse.

The Shelter Crisis Is Already Unsustainable

As volunteers of both LAAS and LBACS, we know first hand that both organizations are overwhelmed. Rabbits are already the third most surrendered animal in the United States and the most underseen in the shelter system. At BCB, we pull red-listed rabbits, animals hours from euthanasia, directly from these shelters. We have done this repeatedly, even at a significant personal and financial cost, because no one else was available to do it.

The introduction of genetically modified novelty rabbits into the consumer market would accelerate the exact cycle that is already breaking the shelter system: impulse purchases driven by novelty, rapid loss of interest, and mass surrenders that overwhelm already under-resourced facilities. We have seen this pattern play out with lop breeds, mini breeds, and every other trend-driven rabbit purchase in the last decade. A glowing rabbit is not a sustainable pet. They are a temporary spectacle with a lifetime of care needs that most consumers are not prepared to meet.

Rabbits live 10 to 12 years or longer with proper care - a commitment on par with a cat or dog. They are not starter pets, novelty gifts, or disposable companions. They require exotic veterinary care, species-appropriate housing, specialized diets, and significant daily attention. The cultural misconception that rabbits are low-maintenance has already contributed to the shelter crisis we are describing. A genetically modified rabbit marketed as a spectacle will only deepen that misconception - and deepen the surrender rate that follows it.

We also urge you to consider the broader precedent this legislation sets. AB 1382 covers genetically modified animals produced for cosmetic purposes - not rabbits specifically. If California fails to act here, the commercial production of novelty animals modified for appearance will not stop at rabbits. Cats, dogs, and other companion animals are the logical next market. The time to draw the line is now, before the industry establishes a foothold and the legislative battle becomes significantly harder to win.

The Genetic Health Consequences Are Serious and Underreported

The rabbit community is already grappling with the consequences of cosmetic breeding without the introduction of intentional genomic alterations. The most documented example is rabbit megacolon syndrome (RMS), caused by mutations in the KIT gene at the English spotting (En) locus.

Rabbits homozygous for the dominant En allele (En/En) develop a dilated cecum and ascending colon due to abnormalities in enteric neurons and interstitial cells of Cajal - the pacemaker cells responsible for gut motility. These rabbits are subvital, require lifelong specialized management, and represent a welfare burden that most owners and shelters are not equipped to handle. The condition has incomplete penetrance and is influenced by environmental stressors including diet and age, making it unpredictable even within controlled breeding programs.

We do not need to look far for a living example of what happens when cosmetic breeding priorities override welfare considerations. The Teddywidder, a German dwarf rabbit breed combining the genetics of the Angora, Lionhead, and lop rabbit, is rapidly gaining popularity in the United States as an internet-driven novelty breed. What most consumers do not know is that this combination produces a rabbit with compounding, chronic health problems inherited from each parent breed simultaneously.

From the Angora: a dense, continuously growing wool coat that requires frequent professional grooming and is prone to life-threatening wool block - a gastrointestinal obstruction caused by ingested fur that, left untreated, is fatal.

From the Lionhead: a brachycephalic (flat-faced) skull structure that leaves insufficient space for proper tooth alignment, resulting in chronic dental malocclusion, overgrown tooth roots, abscesses, and difficulty eating. Narrow tear ducts cause chronic eye inflammation and discharge.

From the lop: drooping ears up to 24–26 centimeters in length that cannot drain properly, leading to chronic ear infections, hearing loss, and altered field of vision. Lop-eared rabbits have been documented in peer-reviewed research to have significantly higher rates of both aural and dental pathology than erect-eared breeds.

Combined, the Teddywidder is a rabbit that requires near-constant veterinary intervention, specialized grooming, and an owner with both the knowledge and financial resources to manage multiple concurrent chronic conditions. They are sold online and in pet stores as a novelty. They are ending up in the streets.

Intentional genomic alterations for cosmetic purposes, including bioluminescence, introduce an entirely new layer of genetic risk. Bioluminescence in animals typically requires the insertion of foreign genetic sequences, most commonly derived from jellyfish or marine organisms. The downstream effects of these insertions on immune function, organ development, reproductive health, and lifespan in rabbits are not yet understood. We are being asked to allow the commercial production of animals whose long-term health profile is genuinely unknown, for no purpose other than novelty. This is not responsible stewardship of a living species.

The Rescue Infrastructure Cannot Absorb This

The people doing rescue work in California are burning out - and literally dying. That is not hyperbole - it is reality. The community of dedicated rabbit rescuers in the Los Angeles area is predominantly in their 60s and 70s. At 33, we are some of the youngest people actively doing this work in Southern California. We have watched colleagues leave rescue not by choice but by necessity: through illness, physical limitation, financial exhaustion, grief, and death.

People who would replace them are not coming, because the conditions that would bring them in do not exist. Introducing a new category of novelty rabbit - one that will inevitably be surrendered, dumped, and require specialized care - will place this burden on a community that is already at its breaking point, with no reinforcements on the way. We should not be asking people in their 70s and 80s to be fighting new genetic welfare crises that could have been prevented by legislation passed today.

The Ecological Consequences of Dumping Are Predictable and Severe

Rabbits are already dumped outdoors in Southern California with alarming regularity. We've already shared what our last four weeks looked like - but even before that, BCB fostered 16 rabbits pulled from a single hoarding situation involving 50+ animals, where two additional litters were born into the shelter system before the situation was contained. In one month, from one group, LBACS was managing over 66 rabbits. That is not an anomaly. That is the baseline reality of rabbit rescue in SoCal right now.

These numbers represent an already overwhelmed system operating without the introduction of any new novelty breed. Every genetically modified rabbit produced for commercial sale is a future surrender. The only question is when.

Genetically modified rabbits dumped in the wild present a new category of ecological concern. Rabbits are already considered an invasive species in many ecosystems, and California's wildland-urban interface is particularly vulnerable. Bioluminescent rabbits would face an immediate and severe predator vulnerability problem. Rabbits are crepuscular and nocturnal foragers - their survival depends on darkness as camouflage. Research on predator-prey dynamics under artificial light conditions confirms that increased visibility at night dramatically increases predation rates. A rabbit that glows in the dark is not a rabbit that survives in the wild. They are a beacon of death.

Beyond individual predation, the introduction of genetically modified rabbits into wild populations raises unprecedented questions about ecological contamination. Under natural conditions, domestic rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and wild cottontails or jackrabbits (Sylvilagus and Lepus species) cannot successfully interbreed - they are distinct genera. However, intentional genomic alterations fundamentally change what we can assume about species boundaries. We do not yet understand whether gene-edited sequences could be transmitted through novel pathways, whether modified rabbits could survive and establish feral populations, or what cascading effects a bioluminescent prey species would have on predator behavior and local ecosystems. The honest answer is that we do not know - and that uncertainty itself is the argument for precaution. We should not be introducing genetically modified animals into a consumer market that will inevitably dump them outdoors and then discovering the ecological consequences after the fact.

AB 1382 Is the Responsible Path Forward

We are not opposed to scientific research (our business is grounded in it). We are opposed to the commercial production of genetically modified animals for cosmetic purposes with no welfare standards, no long-term health data, no rescue infrastructure, and no plan for the animals that will inevitably be surrendered.

AB 1382 does not ban research. It bans the commercial sale of novelty animals created for entertainment at the expense of their welfare and the welfare of the shelter system, the rescue community, and the ecosystems where these animals will inevitably end up.

We urge you to let AB 1382 off the suspense file. The rabbits cannot advocate for themselves. So you must.

Respectfully,
[Signatures on File - Removed for Web Display]
SD Alejo-Chia + Michael Chia
Founders, Bun Chia Burrow + Second Hop
Long Beach, California