A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 1 of Chapter 65 of Title 3.2 a section numbered 3.2-6502.1, relating to Virginia Cooperative Extension Service; cats and dogs; list of toxic houseplants.
HB1016 requires the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service to create and maintain a public list of common houseplants that are toxic to cats and dogs. The list must be completed by November 1, 2026, and then updated at least once every four years. The Department is also directed to make the list available on its website.
The bill is a consumer- and pet-safety measure aimed at helping Virginia residents identify plants that may be harmful to household animals. It does not regulate the sale or possession of plants, but instead creates an informational resource intended to reduce accidental poisoning incidents involving pets.
The bill would add a new section to Title 3.2 of the Code of Virginia governing the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. It imposes a new administrative duty on the Extension Service and the Department to research, publish, and periodically update a toxic houseplant list. The practical effect is to create a state-maintained educational resource for pet owners, veterinarians, and retailers, without directly imposing penalties or restrictions on cats, dogs, or plant ownership.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was noncontroversial and received favorable consideration, as reflected by its unanimous 15-0 vote in Finance and Appropriations before being continued to the next session. No committee transcript is available, but the measure’s narrow public-information purpose and lack of regulatory burden indicate generally positive or neutral sentiment among lawmakers.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials. Potential issues, if raised, would likely concern the administrative responsibility placed on the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, the cost of maintaining and updating the list, or whether the state should be involved in publishing pet-safety guidance. However, the vote history shows no recorded opposition, suggesting little or no substantive disagreement.