THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1115

Author: Wilk (R), et al.

Amended: 6/18/20

Vote: 27 - Urgency

SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE: 4-0, 5/13/20

AYES: Galgiani, Wilk, Caballero, Dahle

NO VOTE RECORDED: Glazer

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/18/20

AYES: Portantino, Bates, Bradford, Hill, Jones, Leyva, Wieckowski

SUBJECT: Commercial blood banks for animals: animal blood donors

SOURCE: Social Compassion in Legislation

DIGEST:

This bill allows commercial blood banks to obtain blood from community-sourced animals; establishes procedures for phasing out commercial blood banks for animals upon determination by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) that a supply of blood equivalent to that sold in California from captive closed-colony blood banks for animals during the years 2019-2020, inclusive, is being produced over an equivalent time period from community-sourced blood banks for animals; implements a permissive adoption program for captive closed-colony blood bank for animals; and increases the license application and license renewal fees to $1,000 and authorizes the fees to be increased by the Secretary in an amount not to exceed the reasonable regulatory costs administering these provisions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines “commercial blood bank for animals” to mean an establishment that produces animal blood or blood component products from captive closed-colony or community-sourced animals to market and sell for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of injury or disease in animals [Food and Agriculture Code Section 9205].
2. Prohibits the offering for sale or use any animal blood or blood component product unless it is produced in an establishment licensed by the secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture [Food and Agricultural Code 9241(b)].
3. Provides open access and accountability of government by giving the public access to records unless there is a legal reason not to do so [Government Code Section 6251, the California Public Records Act].
4. Exempts all records held by CDFA for a commercial blood bank from disclosure [Food and Agriculture Code Section 9269 (a)].
5. Establishes an application and annual license fee of $250 for each establishment and allows the department to increase these fees to cover the department’s reasonable regulatory costs incurred with annual inspections.

This bill:

1. Makes code sections and certain definitions for commercial blood banks inoperative three years after the date CDFA determines that a supply of blood equivalent to that sold in California from captive closed-colony blood banks for animals during the years 2018-2019, inclusive, is being produced over an equivalent time period from community-sourced blood banks for animals.
2. Defines “captive closed-colony” to mean an animal is kept, housed, or maintained in any way for the purpose of collecting its blood.
3. Redefines “commercial blood bank for animals” to mean establishments that produce animal blood or blood component products from community-sourced animals to market and sell for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of injury or disease in animals.
4. Defines “community-sourced” to mean an animal that is both of the following:
   1. Kept, housed, and maintained at the residence of its owner who is an individual, and not a partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, or an organized group of persons whether incorporated or not.
   2. Brought by its owner to a commercial blood bank for animals to have its blood collected.
5. Defines “indirect supervision” to be consistent with Section 2034 of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations:
   1. The supervisor is not physically present at the location where animal health care job tasks are to be performed, but has given either written or oral instructions (“direct orders”) for treatment of the animal patient;
   2. The animal has been examined by a veterinarian at such times as good veterinary medical practice requires, consistent with the particular delegated animal health care task and the animal is not anesthetized as defined in Section 2032.4.
6. Implements an adoption program for a captive closed-colony commercial blood bank for animals.
7. Establishes that a commercial blood bank for animals shall not provide payment to a person who brings a community-sourced animal to the commercial blood bank for the purpose of donating that animal’s blood or blood component products.
8. Requires a commercial blood bank to report to CDFA annually the following:
   1. All donations collected.
   2. Units of blood supplied from closed-colony and community-sourced animals during that year.
   3. The number of animals experiencing adverse effects and the nature of those adverse effects experienced from both closed-colony and community-sourced animal donors during that year.
   4. The number of closed-colony and community-sourced animal donors whose blood tested positive for known pathogens.
9. Provides that identifying personal information for owners of an animal donor shall be kept confidential and not subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
10. Provides that personal identifying information of a person who owns, operates, or oversees a commercial blood bank for animals is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
11. Increases license application and renewal fees from $250 to $1,000 and clarifies CDFA’s ability to raise the fee even more if needed to cover costs.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1953 (Bloom, 2020): Currently in Assembly Business and Professions Committee.

SB 202 (Wilk, 2019): Vetoed by Governor.

AB 366 (Bloom, 2019): Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the California Constitution.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the CDFA indicates that it would incur first-year administrative costs of $1.5 million, and $808,000 annually thereafter to implement the provisions of the bill. Net costs from the amended version of the bill would likely be at most in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/18/20)

Social Compassion in Legislation (source)

Adamant Media
Animal Rebellion
Bear League
Berkeley Animal Rights Center
Coalition for Pets and Public Safety
Communities, Legislation and Animal Welfare
Compassionate Bay
Delfina Saddlery
Direct Action Everywhere
Fix Project, Fix Long Beach
In Defense of Animals
International Citizen Design House
Lady Freethinker
Long Beach Spay and Neuter Foundation
Orange County Animal Liberation
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Plant-Based Advocates - Los Gatos
PlantDiego
Poison Free Calabasas

University of California, Davis, Veterinary Blood Bank

SPCA Fiji Islands
St. John Creative
Wildlife Generation
Women United for Animal Welfare

454 Individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/18/20)

California Veterinary Medical Association

Hemopet

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “Far too many pets in California die because there is simply not enough blood to save them. Senate Bill 1115 will expand the pool of available animal blood donors and to ensure they are treated humanely. I have been working with stakeholders to address the concerns expressed by the governor in his veto message of similar legislation (SB 202), which I carried last year. In it, he stated the bill did not go ‘far enough’ to ensure the safe and humane treatment of donor animals. We can all agree that adequate oversight and enforcement must be in place to meet these goals, and I am optimistic we will find common ground as we move the bill through the legislative process.”

According to Social Compassion in Legislation, the sponsor, the bill will “allow commercial blood banks to obtain blood from community-sourced animals, while initiating the phase-out of closed-colony blood banks.” The letter states current law limits the supply of blood and blood products by preventing blood collection from community-based banks. The letter mentions a study published in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science that concluded, “community-based canine volunteer donor programs for animal blood banks can be successful while maintaining high safety standards and ethical treatment of volunteers.” Finally, the letter states the bill “will require all blood banks to be maintained by a licensed veterinarian, ensuring a completely safe and regulated environment for all community animal donors. SB 1115 also ends the public record exemption for commercial blood banks by making them subject to the California Public Records Act for more transparency into the business of how animal blood products are produced.”

The University of California, Davis, Veterinary Blood Bank wrote in support stating, “Community-based blood banks have proven to be a safe, effective, and efficient way to collect donor blood, while also allowing for the donor animals to live a more humane life as the pet of a human companion compared to their counterparts living in captive closed-colony blood banks. SB 1115 will simply allow for these community-based blood banks to operate, while leaving the current captive closed-colony blood bank model largely unaffected.

“SB 1115 ensures that these operations will be conducted in the most responsible manner possible for both the animals and the blood product. Lastly, the bill will allow for public records requests of information filed with the California Department of Food and Agriculture. SB 1115 will open California animal blood banking to the community-based model and by doing so will allow animals to live a more humane live with their human companions, while also allowing veterinarians to expand their business practice.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) has raised concerns regarding the closure of the two commercial animal blood banks in the state. They state, “This move seeks to upend the current manner in which veterinarians principally obtain their whole blood and blood products (plasma, packed red blood cells, etc.) in California. The two commercial blood banks are the only source for blood purchasing by veterinarians, as importation into the state is currently not authorized.”

CVMA also states it is critical that quality data is obtained by CDFA on whole blood and blood product collection. This data will need to be analyzed “both retrospectively and moving forward” to determine how much blood and blood products are produced and sold in California before the two closed-colonies are closed. In their letter, CVMA states they would like to work with the author on amendments to create stronger parameters for the development of blood safety protocols and to obtain quality data regarding whole blood and blood product collection.

Prepared by: Reichel Everhart / AGRI. / 916-651-1508

6/23/20 17:13:50

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

SB 1115 (Wilk) - Commercial blood banks for animals: animal blood donors

Bill Summary:

SB 1115 would allow commercial blood banks to obtain blood from community-sourced animals.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on June 18, 2020

Fiscal Impact:

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) indicates that it would incur first-year administrative costs of $1.5 million, and $808,000 annually thereafter to implement the provisions of the bill. Net costs from the amended version of the bill would likely be at most in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

Author Amendments:

Increase the license application and renewal fees from $250 to $1,000, and clarify CDFA’s ability to raise the fee even more if needed to cover costs.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

SB 1115 (Wilk) - Commercial blood banks for animals: animal blood donors

Bill Summary:

SB 1115 would allow commercial blood banks to obtain blood from community-sourced animals.

Fiscal Impact:

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) indicates that it would incur first-year administrative costs of $1.5 million, and $808,000 annually thereafter to implement the provisions of the bill. While CDFA has cost-recovery authority, much of the initial funding would likely come from the General Fund (See Staff Comments).

Background:

In California, two commercial blood banks currently operate to produce animal blood and blood products under California licenses: Hemopet based in Garden Grove and Dixon-based Animal Blood Resources International. Both blood banks use the captive closed-colony model—meaning that they own, keep, house, and maintain animals, most often dogs and cats, for the sole purpose of taking their blood and selling the blood and blood component products.

Current law does not allow pet owners to volunteer their animals as donors to commercial blood banks. According to CDFA, “Commercial blood banks for animals are establishments that produce animal blood and blood products to market or sell for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of injury or disease in animals. California law prohibits the offering for sale or use any animal blood and blood component product unless it is produced in an establishment licensed by the secretary [Food and Agricultural Code 9241(b)]. California requires a license for each commercial blood bank for animals’ establishment and requires the registration of each blood and blood product being produced and sold. Application and licensing requirements must be met to qualify for licensure.” Thus, CDFA licenses and oversees commercial animal blood banks. The current license fee is $250 per establishment.

Last year, the Governor vetoed SB 202 (Wilk) which would have established the creation of community animal blood banks in California. In his veto message, the Governor stated he is supportive of changing California’s law governing animal blood donation but he felt that particular bill did not go far enough. He asked the Legislature to send him legislation that leads to the phasing-out of “closed colonies”.

Proposed Law:

This bill would do the following:

• Make code sections and certain definitions for commercial blood banks inoperative three years after the date CDFA determines that a supply of blood equivalent to that sold in California from captive closed-colony blood banks for animals during the years 2018-2019, inclusive, is being produced over an equivalent time period from community-sourced blood banks for animals.
• Define “captive closed-colony” to mean an animal is kept, housed, or maintained in any way for the purpose of collecting its blood.
• Redefine “commercial blood bank for animals” to mean establishments that produce animal blood or blood component products from community-sourced animals to market and sell for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of injury or disease in animals.
• Define “community-sourced” to mean an animal that is both (1) kept, housed, and maintained at the residence of its owner who is an individual, and not a partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, or an organized group of persons whether incorporated or not, and (2) brought by its owner to a commercial blood bank for animals to have its blood collected.
• Define “indirect supervision” to be consistent with Section 2034 of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations:
  • The supervisor is not physically present at the location where animal health care job tasks are to be performed, but has given either written or oral instructions (“direct orders”) for treatment of the animal patient;
  • The animal has been examined by a veterinarian at such times as good veterinary medical practice requires, consistent with the particular delegated animal health care task and the animal is not anesthetized as defined in Section 2032.4.
• Implement an adoption program for a captive closed-colony commercial blood bank for animals.
• Establish that a commercial blood bank for animals shall not provide payment to a person who brings a community-sourced animal to the commercial blood bank for the purpose of donating that animal’s blood or blood component products.
• Require a commercial blood bank to report specified information to CDFA annually.
• Provide that identifying personal information for owners of an animal donor shall be kept confidential and not subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
• Would not apply to personal identifying information of a person who owns, operates, or oversees a commercial blood bank for animals from the California Public Records Act.

Related Legislation:

SB 202 (Wilk) was similar to this bill, and was vetoed by the Governor.

Staff Comments:

The number of new licensees that CDFA would need to oversee as a result of this bill is unknown; consequently, its cost estimates are subject to uncertainty. However, the bill’s proposed changes would increase the department’s workload and resulting costs in two general areas. First, there would be an increase in the number of animal blood banks relative to the current two. Thus, CDFA would need to regulate an increased number of facilities. Second, the workload related to regulation would become more complex.

The department notes that the bill would add a reference to “standards of practice” that did not exist previously, potentially improving quality and safety of products. The intent of the bill as stated is also to increase the number of licensed blood banks by allowing for community-sourcing. When CDFA is asked to regulate to a “standard of practice,” it must retain staff capable of making those decisions, particularly when more facilities with diverse practices and differing business models are expected, necessitating CDFA to retain staff with this veterinary expertise.

CDFA would be responsible for a method of auditing or otherwise assuring that the reported information is accurate. Developing such systems necessitates additional workload for a Veterinarian Specialist managing the blood bank program.

Finally, CDFA would need (1) a new IT module to help with registration and inspections data, (2) additional resources to respond to an increase in the number of public information records requests, and (3) additional investigative staff to accommodate the increased number of licensed facilities and distributed donors.

As noted above, the license fee for animal blood banks is $250 under existing law. This amount is insufficient to cover the costs of implementing this bill. Current law allows CDFA to increase fees on animal blood banks to cover the reasonable costs of performing annual inspections. CDFA would likely utilize this authority to recover the costs of this bill, but until the fee increase is finalized there would be a gap in fee revenues and ongoing enforcement costs associated with new animal blood bank licensees. General Fund support would likely be needed to bridge this gap.

Specifically, CDFA estimates that, in order to support the bill’s requirements, cost recovery fees authorized under current law would (1) need to generate approximately $808,000 annually, and (2) require Agricultural Fund authority. Because inspections would need to begin immediately, the Department would require a total of $1.5 million in the initial year, to staff positions while additional facilities become licensed and regulations are promulgated to generate cost recovery. CDFA indicates that it would not be able to implement the requirements of this bill until the provisions are funded and personnel are hired; consequently, rendering bill’s urgency clause ineffective.

CDFA indicates that its estimates assume only facilities within California become licensed. To the extent facilities outside of the State become licensed, the resulting inspections may generate additional cost.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

Senator Cathleen Galgiani, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: SB 1115 Hearing Date: 5/13/20

Subject: Commercial blood banks for animals: animal blood donors

SUMMARY

:

This bill would allow commercial blood banks to obtain blood from community-sourced animals. The bill would establish procedures for phasing out commercial blood banks for animals upon determination by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) that a supply of blood equivalent to that sold in California from captive closed-colony blood banks for animals during the years 2019-2020, inclusive, is being produced over an equivalent time period from community-sourced blood banks for animals. This bill would implement a permissive adoption program for captive closed-colony blood bank for animals.

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

:

Existing law:

1. Defines “commercial blood bank for animals” to mean an establishment that produces animal blood or blood component products from captive closed-colony or community-sourced animals to market and sell for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of injury or disease in animals [Food and Agriculture Code Section 9205].
2. Prohibits the offering for sale or use any animal blood or blood component product unless it is produced in an establishment licensed by the secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture [Food and Agricultural Code 9241(b)].
3. Provides open access and accountability of government by giving the public access to records unless there is a legal reason not to do so [Government Code Section 6251, the California Public Records Act].
4. Exempts all records held by CDFA for a commercial blood bank from disclosure [Food and Agriculture Code Section 9269 (a)].

PROPOSED LAW

:

This bill:

1. Would make code sections and certain definitions for commercial blood banks inoperative on January 1 next following the date CDFA determines that a supply of blood equivalent to that sold in California from captive closed-colony blood banks for animals during the years 2019-2020, inclusive, is being produced over an equivalent time period from community-sourced blood banks for animals.
2. Would define “captive closed-colony” to mean an animal is kept, housed, or maintained in any way for the purpose of collecting its blood.
3. Would redefine “commercial blood bank for animals” to mean establishments that produce animal blood or blood component products from community-sourced animals to market and sell for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of injury or disease in animals.
4. Would define “community-sourced” to mean an animal that is both of the following:
   1. Kept, housed, and maintained at the residence of its owner who is an individual, and not a partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, or an organized group of persons whether incorporated or not.
   2. Brought by its owner to a commercial blood bank for animals to have its blood collected.
5. Would define “indirect supervision” to be consistent with Section 2034 of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations:
   1. The supervisor is not physically present at the location where animal health care job tasks are to be performed, but has given either written or oral instructions (“direct orders”) for treatment of the animal patient;
   2. The animal has been examined by a veterinarian at such times as good veterinary medical practice requires, consistent with the particular delegated animal health care task and the animal is not anesthetized as defined in Section 2032.4.
6. Would implement an adoption program for a captive closed-colony commercial blood bank for animals.
7. Would establish that a commercial blood bank for animals shall not provide payment to a person who brings a community-sourced animal to the commercial blood bank for the purpose of donating that animal’s blood or blood component products.
8. Would require a commercial blood bank to report to CDFA annually the following:
   1. All donations collected.
   2. Units of blood supplied from closed-colony and community-sourced animals during that year.
   3. The number of animals experiencing adverse effects and the nature of those adverse events experienced from both closed-colony and community-sourced animal donors during that year.
   4. The number of closed-colony and community-sourced animal donors whose blood tested positive for known pathogens.
9. Would provide that identifying personal information for owners of an animal donor shall be kept confidential and not subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
10. Would not apply to personal identifying information of a person who owns, operates, or oversees a commercial blood bank for animals from the California Public Records Act.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to the author:

“Far too many pets in California die because there is simply not enough blood to save them. Senate Bill 1115 will expand the pool of available animal blood donors and to ensure they are treated humanely. I have been working with stakeholders to address the concerns expressed by the governor in his veto message of similar legislation (SB 202), which I carried last year. In it, he stated the bill did not go ‘far enough’ to ensure the safe and humane treatment of donor animals. We can all agree that adequate oversight and enforcement must be in place to meet these goals, and I am optimistic we will find common ground as we move the bill through the legislative process.”

According to Social Compassion in Legislation, the sponsors, the bill will “allow commercial blood banks to obtain blood from community-sourced animals, while initiating the phase-out of closed-colony blood banks.” The letter states current law limits the supply of blood and blood products by preventing blood collection from community-based banks. The letter mentions a study published in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science that concluded, “community-based canine volunteer donor programs for animal blood banks can be successful while maintaining high safety standards and ethical treatment of volunteers.” Finally, the letter states the bill “will require all blood banks to be maintained by a licensed veterinarian, ensuring a completely safe and regulated environment for all community animal donors. SB 1115 also ends the public record exemption for commercial blood banks by making them subject to the California Public Records Act for more transparency into the business of how animal blood products are produced.”

The medical director of the UC Davis Veterinary Blood Bank wrote in support stating, “Community-based blood banks have proven to be a safe, effective, and efficient way to collect donor blood, while also allowing for the donor animals to live a more humane life as the pet of a human companion compared to their counterparts living in captive closed-colony blood banks. SB 1115 will simply allow for these community-based blood banks to operate, while leaving the current captive closed-colony blood bank model largely unaffected.

SB 1115 ensures that these operations will be conducted in the most responsible manner possible for both the animals and the blood product. Lastly, the bill will allow for public records requests of information filed with the California Department of Food and Agriculture. SB 1115 will open California animal blood banking to the community-based model and by doing so will allow animals to live a more humane live with their human companions, while also allowing veterinarians to expand their business practice.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) has raised concerns regarding the closure of the two commercial animal blood banks in the state. In a letter received by the committee, they state, “This move seeks to upend the current manner in which veterinarians principally obtain their whole blood and blood products (plasma, packed red blood cells, etc.) in California. The two commercial blood banks are the only source for blood purchasing by veterinarians, as importation into the state is currently not authorized.”

CVMA also states it is critical that quality data is obtained by CDFA on whole blood and blood product collection. This data will need to be analyzed “both retrospectively and moving forward” to determine how much blood and blood products are produced and sold in California before the two closed-colonies are closed. In their letter, CVMA states they would like to work with the author on amendments to create stronger parameters for the development of blood safety protocols and to obtain quality data regarding whole blood and blood product collection.

The Animal Blood Bank (ABB), states that while ABB is in strong support for licensing community-sourced blood banks to help alleviate a chronic shortage of canine blood, they have concerns regarding the “trigger language” failing to ensure that pet owners and veterinarians will have continual, reliable access to transfusion products. ABB would be neutral on the bill if the following concerns were addressed prior to reducing the production of blood or blood products by “kennel-based donors”:

1. The reliability of community-based donor production should be demonstrated over a period of years, not months, and should address the fact that community-based production in other states has been materially adversely affected by the current pandemic.
2. The comparison to kennel-based production should be over a period of years not months. Like community-based programs, kennel-based donations can be adversely affected not just by pandemic but also by earthquake, fire, flood and other natural or manmade disasters.
3. Any reduction in kennel-based production should be gradual and take place over a period of years to ensure that supply continues to be adequate.
4. Whether community-based production is sufficient to replace alternatives must be decided with respect to each veterinary transfusion product. Very few community-based programs produce anything other than whole blood and to do so requires a significant investment of human and physical capital.
5. While production (market supply) is certainly an important measure of success for community-based programs, it is equally important, that the products produced satisfy the demand from veterinarians. Thus, not only should CDFA certify that levels of production of units for sale are sufficient, the Veterinary Medical Board should also certify that the needs of the veterinary community are being met to ensure community-based blood banks are able to deliver a highly perishable product in a timely manner. This is particularly important in consideration of the fact that the demand for veterinary transfusion products has grown every year over the past two plus decades.

COMMENTS

:

In California, two commercial blood banks currently operate to produce animal blood and blood products under California licenses: Hemopet based in Garden Grove and Dixon-based Animal Blood Resources International. Hemopet has been in business since 1990. Animal Blood Resources International, according to their website, has been in business for more than 30 years and was the first commercial blood bank for domestic animals in the United States.

According to CDFA, “Commercial blood banks for animals are establishments that produce animal blood and blood products to market or sell for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of injury or disease in animals. California law prohibits the offering for sale or use any animal blood and blood component product unless it is produced in an establishment licensed by the secretary [Food and Agricultural Code 9241(b)]. California requires a license for each commercial blood bank for animals’ establishment and requires the registration of each blood and blood product being produced and sold. Application and licensing requirements must be met to qualify for licensure.”

Last year, the governor vetoed, SB 202 (Wilk) which would have established the creation of community animal blood banks in California. In his veto message, the governor stated he is supportive of changing California’s law governing animal blood donation but he felt the bill did not go far enough. He asked the legislature to send him legislation that leads to the phasing-out of “closed colonies”. To address the governor’s comments, this bill establishes a mechanism that would close down the two animal blood banks once CDFA determines that an equivalent supply of blood sold in California from captive closed-colony blood banks for animals during the years 2019-2020 is being produced over an equivalent time period from community-sourced blood banks for animals.

Suggested Amendments:

1. In an effort to ensure continuity of blood and blood product supply, the phasing out of the two blood banks should not be immediate once CDFA determines that community-sourced animal blood donors have met the threshold noted above. The committee may wish to consider an amendment providing a 3-year phase-out timeframe once the determination is made. This will ensure that community-based animal donors can sustain the threshold for several years, allow the animal blood banks to establish an adoption program for their animal donors, and close in a way that will ensure the best success for blood donations.
2. This bill would make code sections and certain definitions for commercial blood banks inoperative on January 1 next following the date that CDFA determines that an equivalent supply of blood sold in California from captive closed-colony blood banks for animals during the years 2019-2020, inclusive, is being produced over an equivalent time period from community-sourced blood banks for animals. Because of the current pandemic, data from 2019-2020 may not accurately reflect the average demand for canine blood and blood product. The committee may wish to consider an amendment to change 2019-2020 to 2018-2019 as the “barometer” for canine blood demand in California.

Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the unprecedented nature of the 2020 Legislative Session, all Senate policy committees are working under a compressed timeline. This timeline does not allow this bill to be referred and heard by more than one committee as a typical timeline would allow. In order to fully vet the contents of this measure for the benefit of Senators and the public, this analysis includes information from the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Business and Professions Committee.

The Senate Judiciary Committee notes that, “This bill contains various provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including but not limited to issues relating to the transparency of public records. The bill is substantially similar to SB 202 (Wilk, 2019), which was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee but vetoed by Governor Newsom because it did not provide a mechanism for phasing out captive colonies. The bill includes new provisions intended to address the concerns raised by Governor Newsom in his veto message in addition to the amendments the Senate Judiciary Committee proposed to SB 2020 (Wilk, 2019).” The Senate Business and Professions Committee continues to monitor the bill.

RELATED LEGISLATION

:

SB 202 (Wilk), 2019: Vetoed by Governor.

AB 366 (Bloom), 2019: Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

AB 1953 (Bloom), 2020: Currently in Assembly Business and Professions Committee.

SUPPORT

:

Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)

454 Individuals
Adamant Media
Animal Rebellion
Bear League
Berkeley Animal Rights Center
Coalition for Pets and Public Safety
Communities, Legislation and Animal Welfare
Compassionate Bay
Delfina Saddlery
Direct Action Everywhere
Fix Project, Fix Long Beach
In Defense of Animals
International Citizen Design House
Lady Freethinker
Long Beach Spay and Neuter Foundation
Orange County Animal Liberation
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Plant-Based Advocates - Los Gatos
PlantDiego
Poison Free Calabasas
Sean Owens, DVM, Diplomate ACVP, Medical Director, UC Davis Veterinary Blood Bank
SPCA Fiji Islands
St. John Creative
Wildlife Generation
Women United for Animal Welfare

OPPOSITION

:

California Veterinary Medical Association (oppose unless amended)

Hemopet (oppose unless amended)

-- END --