WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 536

PUBLIC PEACE, HEALTH, SAFETY & WELFARE

2025 Regular Session Introduced by George Muñoz

Maryland would limit dog and cat testing by facilities, require use of non-animal methods when available, and require annual reporting with penalties for noncompliance.

action postponed indefinitely
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 536

SB 536 — Research Facilities and Testing Facilities That Use Animals (Maryland)

Status: Introduced Jan 23, 2025; assigned to Education, Energy, and the Environment. Hearing scheduled Feb 27, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. Sponsor: Sen. Kramer.

Purpose / Intent

The bill establishes detailed requirements, prohibitions, reporting, and penalties governing the use and treatment of animals — chiefly dogs and cats — by research and testing facilities in Maryland. It aims to reduce use of dogs and cats in testing, encourage validated non‑animal alternative test methods, protect animal welfare, and increase transparency through annual reporting.

Key provisions

  • Definitions: Creates/clarifies terms including “research facility,” “testing facility,” “alternative test method,” “traditional animal test method,” and “canine or feline toxicological experiment.” Notably, “research facility” excludes schools and institutions of higher education; testing facilities explicitly include public and private entities that use animals for testing chemicals, drugs, vaccines, products, or formulations.
  • Reduction and alternatives: Facilities must reduce the number of dogs and cats used to the smallest number practicable and use scientifically reliable non‑animal methods where available.
  • Specific prohibitions:
    • May not use for research/testing: (1) dogs sold by a Class B dealer under the federal Animal Welfare Act; (2) dogs or cats obtained from persons who did not breed and raise them (including auctions, flea markets, shelters); or (3) dogs or cats that have been devocalized.
    • May not perform devocalization surgery on dogs or cats.
  • Euthanasia: Dogs or cats may be euthanized only by lethal injection of sodium pentobarbital administered by or under the direct supervision of a Maryland‑licensed veterinarian.
  • Traditional vs. alternative test methods:
    • Facilities may not use a traditional animal test method if the federal/state regulatory agency for that product/activity has approved an appropriate alternative method or granted a waiver.
    • If no alternative or waiver exists, traditional methods may be used only using the fewest animals and minimizing pain/stress.
    • Exception: biomedical research is carved out from certain prohibitions.
  • Canine/feline toxicological experiments: Generally prohibited for non‑biomedical testing unless narrowly justified (e.g., explicit EPA or FDA requirement, certain waiver/waiver‑supporting purposes, or product intended for beneficial use of dogs/cats).
  • Adoption requirements: Existing law requiring research facilities to take reasonable steps to facilitate adoption of dogs/cats no longer needed is extended to testing facilities; however, the modified definition of “research facility” means higher‑education research labs are no longer covered by those adoption provisions.

Reporting, enforcement, and penalties

  • Annual reporting (due Jan 31 each year): each facility must report for the prior 12 months — animal counts by species, number of dogs/cats released to rescue organizations (and names), counts/type of alternative and traditional methods used, number of waivers used, and purpose of tests. The Secretary of Agriculture must aggregate and publish an annual report.
  • Penalties: fines up to $1,000 for a first offense and up to $5,000 for second/subsequent offenses.
  • Regulations: requires the Department of Agriculture to adopt implementing regulations.

Who is affected

  • Direct: research and testing facilities operating in Maryland that use animals for testing, research, education, or experimentation (public and private). Facilities that provide only beneficial veterinary services (e.g., spay/neuter) and schools/institutions of higher education are excluded from the “research facility” definition; testing facilities similarly exclude higher education.
  • Indirect: entities submitting products for regulatory testing, animal rescue organizations (as potential adopters), veterinary staff, and regulators.

Fiscal and practical impacts

  • Fiscal note: State implementation expected to be handled with existing resources; penalty revenue not expected to materially affect state finances. The fiscal analysis flags a potential meaningful impact on small businesses (costs to adopt alternatives, compliance, and reporting).
  • Practical impacts: likely reduction in canine/feline testing where validated alternatives exist, administrative burden for facilities to document compliance and submit annual data, and potential costs to develop/validate alternative methods or secure waivers where required tests remain.

Next steps / Timeline

  • Hearing scheduled Feb 27, 2025 (1:00 p.m.). If advanced, the bill would proceed through committee action, potential amendment, and floor consideration. The Secretary of Agriculture would later develop regulations if the bill becomes law.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.