Virtual Testimony Before the Maryland Legislature to Support Senate Bill 761

By Sherman McFarland | April 4th, 2024

On March 8, I testified in support of Senate Bill (SB) 761 before the Education, Energy, and the Environment (EEE) Committee of the Maryland Senate via Zoom. SB 761 was sponsored by Senators Benjamin Kramer, Clarence Lam, Karen Lewis Young, and Jeff Waldstreicher. The legislation has support from the Humane Society of the United States.  

Among other goals, SB 761 was introduced to require each testing facility in Maryland to be licensed by the state Department of Agriculture if it wants to use animals in research, education, or testing; establish requirements for the use and treatment of dogs or cats by a testing facility; prohibit a testing facility from using certain dogs and cats for research or testing purposes and performing certain procedures on dogs or cats; prohibit a testing facility from using traditional animal test methods under certain circumstances; and prohibit a testing facility from conducting a canine or feline toxicological experiment under certain circumstances. 

In addition to providing oral testimony, I submitted written testimony in support of SB 761 the evening prior to the March 8 hearing. Here is a copy of the written testimony:  

“Hello, my name is Sherman McFarland. I am a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, and I have a Juris Doctor from the UC-Davis School of Law. I am testifying in support of SB 761 because it prohibits testing facilities from using dogs and cats to test the safety or efficacy of chemical substances, drugs, vaccines, ingredients, products, and product formulations, unless required by federal law. SB 761 should also reduce the use of animals in experiments because, under the language of the bill, testing facilities may not use a traditional animal test method if the agency responsible for regulating the specific product or activity for which a test method is being used has approved an alternative, non-animal test method. 

Furthermore, SB 761 prohibits testing facilities from using, either for research or testing, a dog or cat obtained from an auction, flea market, or animal shelter, or from a person that did not breed and raise the dog or cat. Testing facilities are also prohibited from using dogs sold by Class B dealers licensed under the federal Animal Welfare Act, and from using dogs or cats that have undergone a devocalization surgery. Furthermore, SB 761 prevents testing facilities from performing a devocalization surgery on a dog or a cat. 

In addition, SB 761 requires that, every year, each testing facility that uses live animals for research, education, or testing shall report the following to the Maryland Secretary of Agriculture: (1) the number of each species of vertebrate animal owned and used by the facility; (2) the number of dogs and cats released to animal rescue organizations; (3) the type and number of alternative test methods and traditional animal test methods used; (4) the purpose of any tests performed using alternative test methods or traditional animal test methods; and (5) the number of traditional animal test method waivers and canine or feline toxicological experiment waivers used. This reporting requirement should enable the enforcement of SB 761’s requirements and goals. 

Moreover, SB 761 allows the Maryland Department of Agriculture to enter into an agreement with an animal welfare organization, local animal control agency, or other similar entity to conduct the inspections that the State Inspector of Animal Welfare must perform under the language of the bill. 

In conclusion, I believe that this bill will spare the suffering of animals in Maryland. Dogs and cats will be spared from being experimented on for drug, vaccine, ingredient, product, product formulation, and chemical substance safety and efficacy tests, unless required by federal law. Dogs and cats will also be spared from devocalization surgeries. In addition, SB 761 advances the use of alternative, non-animal test methods, and is designed to ensure animal welfare. SB 761 represents a humane step forward for Maryland, and I encourage the legislature to pass it on behalf of the welfare of animals in this state.

Thank you very much for allowing me to testify in support of SB 761 today. If you have any questions about my testimony, or need more information, please contact me via email at smcfar13@jh.edu

Please be aware that I am submitting this testimony in my individual capacity and that the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Johns Hopkins University or the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. ”

Here also is a link to my oral testimony. My testimony begins at 1:49:40. Testimony in support of SB 761 starts at 1:32:49. 

The EEE Committee did not vote on SB 761 by the March 18 “crossover” deadline for bills to advance from one chamber of the legislature to the other. Therefore, SB 761 did not advance past the Senate.    

Like the bills covered in my previous blog posts, Three State Bills/Laws That Don’t Go Far Enough To Reduce And Replace Animals Used In Testing (Parts 1 & 2), SB 761 can be improved and should include provisions that better protect animals used for research, such as tasking a state agency with the responsibility of validating and accepting alternative test methods for use, creating a list of those validated and accepted methods, and making that list publicly available on said agency’s website. The bill should also require testing facilities to submit monthly reports about the use of animal and non-animal test methods, the state should make those reports publicly available online, and the state should ensure that the state agency or agencies tasked with reviewing these monthly reports have the resources to do so. Furthermore, SB 761 should increase the fines levied on additional violations, and use the “animals in research fund” to fund non-animal test methods in Maryland. Finally, SB 761 should eliminate the exemption for biomedical research, increase the rate of state inspections of testing facilities, and eliminate all testing on dogs and cats. Nevertheless, the bill represents a humane step forward for animals in Maryland—in particular, cats and dogs—and I hope that it becomes available for reconsideration soon.  

The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Johns Hopkins University or Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.