Ethics Over Aesthetics Act.

The bill text was reformatted from a traditional legislative document layout (with line numbers, page headers, and centered formatting) to a web page format with navigation elements, version selectors, and different typographic styling. The actual legal content is unchanged.

The core prohibition was narrowed from banning all transgenic pet animals modified by intentional genomic alterations to only banning those that possess a cosmetic transgenic trait. This means non-cosmetic genetic modifications (e.g., disease resistance, hypoallergenic traits) are no longer subject to the ban even without meeting an exception.

The definition of 'intentional genomic alteration' (a change to an animal's genomic DNA produced using modern molecular technologies, including random or targeted DNA sequence changes) was removed entirely from the bill.

A new exception was added for transgenic pet animals that are fish species satisfying the requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 1.92 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, which likely covers certain commercially produced ornamental fish.

The exceptions structure was simplified. The Assembly version included an explicit list of traits that do NOT enhance interaction with humans (novel coloring, no claws, no vocal cords, addition or subtraction of appendages). The Senate version removes this illustrative list and relies solely on the 'cosmetic transgenic trait' definition to draw the line.

The chapter heading was shortened from 'Sale of Genetically Altered Pets Ethics Over Aesthetics Act' to simply 'Ethics Over Aesthetics Act.' The fiscal committee designation changed from 'yes' to 'no,' indicating the Senate determined no fiscal impact review is required.

A section stating the Legislature's intent to enact subsequent legislation relating to animal welfare for adoptable animals was removed entirely. This was a non-binding statement of intent and did not create any enforceable obligation, but its removal narrows the bill's stated policy goals.

The fiscal committee answer changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now requires review by the Legislative Analyst's Office for fiscal impact.

The author name was updated from 'Essayli' to 'Essayli Castillo' (full name correction).

Added an entirely new Chapter 6.5 (Sections 122325-122325.4) to Part 6 of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, creating a regulatory framework for genetically altered pets that did not exist in the introduced version.

The original bill contained only a one-line intent statement about future adoptable animal welfare legislation. The amended version retains that intent statement (now as Section 2) but adds the full regulatory chapter as Section 1, transforming the bill from a placeholder into an operative law.

Defined 'intentional genomic alteration' as changes to an animal's genomic DNA produced using modern molecular technologies, including random or targeted DNA sequence changes (insertions, substitutions, deletions). Defined 'pet animal' to include dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, mice, reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and other household pet species.

Prohibited any person from importing for profit, selling, or offering for sale in California a pet animal modified by intentional genomic alterations, unless the alteration is solely to benefit the animal's health (e.g., disease resistance) or solely to enhance its interaction with humans (e.g., hypoallergenic traits).

Explicitly excluded cosmetic traits from the human-interaction enhancement exception, listing as examples novel fur/skin/scale coloring, creating a cat with no claws, a dog without vocal cords, or addition/subtraction of appendages.

Established that each genetically altered pet animal sold in violation is a separate civil penalty offense of not less than $5,000, enforceable by the district attorney of the county or city attorney of the city where the violation occurred, with penalties paid to that jurisdiction.

Added coauthors Senators Jones and Ochoa Bogh; changed fiscal committee designation from 'no' to 'yes'; updated the legislative counsel digest to reflect the new substantive content.