Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Government The Courts Science News

Lawsuit Filed Against Unregulated GloFish 438

Posted by michael from the chinese-needle-snake dept.
purduephotog writes "You may remember the infamous poll on glowing pets posted in response to the marketing of GloFish. The Center for Food Safety has filed a lawsuit asking to halt all sales of said fish until the government can properly regulate it. More information at ABCNews.com."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawsuit Filed Against Unregulated GloFish More

Lawsuit Filed Against Unregulated GloFish

Comments Filter:

  • The Sky Is Falling! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:28PM (#8001624) Homepage Journal

    The suit alleges the hidden genes can threaten human and animal health if the biotech fish are released and consumed by other fish that eventually are eaten by humans.

    I'm not a big fan of GM food but we've been monkeying with the food supply at a higher level for years: pesticides, fungicides, seedless fruits, selective breeding. More recently we have Monsanto and their 'Terminator Gene' [bbc.co.uk], etc.

    Worrying about fish that may make it to the wild and into the food chain seems pretty tame in comparison.

    (just had a thought.. someone with these GloFish(tm) should feed a few to their cat and watch for ill effects. I'd wager the only interesting bit would be the ability to scoop the litterbox in the dark. :))

    • Re:The Sky Is Falling! (Score:3, Informative)

      by hesiod ( 111176 )
      > the ability to scoop the litterbox in the dark

      Well, use a UV light. Feline urine is UV reactive. I wonher if dried cat pee is too? This is assuming your cat never "poos"...
    • you're right, but I'd consider this a good start. We still don't know the consequences of what we're putting out there and it wouldn't be the first time if/when we get screwed by it (ddt, cane toads, carp, etc).

    • A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") (Score:5, Interesting)

      by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:56PM (#8001966) Homepage Journal
      If you follow the link, you'll find that Monsanto, for whom I have no great love either, has abandoned the project.

      A friend thought of a genuinely interesting use for a crop with terminator genes:

      Erosion control.

      There are several species of fast-growing plant what would be very useful for preventing (say) an hilly area whose forest cover burned away from eroding, but who are also dangerous "alien" species.

      Kudzu is one example; more subtle is the bizarre-looking "ice plant" that was imported to California for erosion control along railways but has become a pest.

      It might be worth a research project to look into whether a fast-growing erosion control plant equipped with terminator genes could stabilize a burned-out area, retaining the soil for long enough for native plants to get a toe-hold. And then die out . . .

      Stefan
      • The Eucalyptis tree is similarly a problem in Hawaii. It was brought in to solve erosion and weather problems many years ago after the rainforest was cleared to harvest sandalwood; however, being an alien species and highly monotypic, it is now preventing the native plants from growing back. The guy who brought the tree in said something to the effect of "you'll laud me now but hate me later." I agree that it would be good to have such a plant that can be used in this manner as an environment booster and th

      • Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @06:06PM (#8003382) Homepage
        All the Terminator gene does is sterilize the seeds, but Kudzu (and similar) is such a fast growing plant exactly because it has no need to go through a seed cycle. It simply spreads and roots and spreads and roots - potentially one monsterously large plant covering a hundred acres. Whoops! :D

        P.S.
        Genetic engineers are number five on the Top Ten list of People You Do Not Want To Hear Say "Whoops!"

        -

    • Re:The Sky Is Falling! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pavon ( 30274 )
      This bothers me a little more because GM food has been tested and approved by the FDA so at least we know there are no obvious problems.

      I think that the odds of this getting into the food chain are high. Like the funny post below pointed out, you know that some wise-guy will think that it would be awsome to dump a bunch of these into the local lake, and suddenly you can't fish in that lake anymore, for a while a least. Heck I wouldn't put it against some crazy PETA-like people to "protect" the fish populat
      • If you really think that GE food has been tested and approved by the FDA, you're seriously deluding yourself. The FDA considers GE foods to be substantially equivalent to conventionally grown foods, hence why they do not require any labeling or real testing. The only real regulation is that you can't use genes from certain foods with significant allergenic properties (i.e., peanuts) in your experimentation with our food supply.

    • Re:The Sky Is Falling! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 )
      This is typical beauraucratic "extension of mandate."

      If allowed it essentially says that American food safty regulations can encompass anything in the universe, since something somewhere might eat it and that something in turn get eatten by an American.

      If I may quote their website, top 'o the page:

      "Center for Food Safety works to protect human health and the environment. . .

      Emphasis mine.

      Hey guys? Yeah, you food Nazis, I'm talking to you.

      We already have and agency to protect the enviroment and provi

  • Food Safety? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hesiod ( 111176 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:29PM (#8001630)
    Who the heck is eating any fish that glows? So, what does "food safety" have to do with anything?

    • Re:Food Safety? (Score:5, Informative)

      by acramon1 ( 226153 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:34PM (#8001705) Homepage
      "The FDA said last month it will not regulate the fish because it is not intended for human consumption. A spokeswoman said Wednesday the FDA stands by that statement." - from the ABCNEWS.com article.

      It seems the FDA doesn't think anyone's going to eat glowing fish either.

      • Re:Food Safety? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by originalTMAN ( 694813 )
        no one consumed ddt, cfc, cane toads or asbestos either... I for one don't like the idea that we're messing around and marketing something that we don't really understand.

        • Re:Food Safety? (Score:3, Informative)

          by jdhutchins ( 559010 )
          The FDA wasn't the one who regulated ddt, cfc's, etc. It was the EPA. The EPA would have to be the ones to regulate this, but they're pets, so I don't know if they really care.

        • Re:Food Safety? (Score:3, Informative)

          by hesiod ( 111176 )
          > I for one don't like the idea that we're messing around and marketing something that we don't really understand.

          That's fine and I even agree, to a point. Maybe I should have been more clear: my problem is not that someone is bringing up a perfectly valid fear, but that it is some organization on "food safety." No one (AFAIK) is suggesting these should be eaten. Just because something lives, it is not food -- have they made lawsuits about the dangers of eating rare sea urchins? There are more of th

          • Re:Food Safety? (Score:5, Informative)

            by DzugZug ( 52149 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:13PM (#8003901) Journal
            I for one don't like the idea that we're messing around and marketing something that we don't really understand.

            Perhaps, but, I for one don't like the idea of people suing to stop things that they don't understand. The same goes for slashdot posters being afraid of things they don't understand. As one of the minority of biologists who frequent slashdot, I feel a small primer on GM technology is in order. I appologise in advance if this sounds preachy.

            First, gene's consist of two parts: a coding sequence (which defines the protien produced by the gene) and a promoter (which controls when and where that protein is made). Think of it as event driven programming -- when the promoter is activated, the protein is made. One good example is Heat Shock Protein (HSP). When the temperature of a cell get's too high, HSP changes shape and can then activate other genes' promoters. These genes mediate the cell's response to thermal stress. Green Flourecent Protein is a protein that occures naturally in a species of jelly fish (Aequorea Victoria) and it happens to be flourecent, i.e. when put under UV light it glows green. Scientists have known about GFP for a while and have created versions of it such as Red Flourecent Protein (RFP) or Cyan Flourecent Protein (CFP) that, after small changes to the coding region glow in different colors.

            Say, you want to study development. Early in animal development, there are three tissue types: endoderm, ectoderm, and mezoderm and all internal organs are decended from one of these three embryonic tissues. If you are interested in finding out which organs come from which early tissues, you could do it with transgenics as described below.

            Now, how to make a transgenic (GM) animal? First, using biochemical techniques you take the GFP gene and attach it to a promoter for a gene that is expressed (or turned on) in the endoderm. Then you put that construct into a small peice of DNA called a plasmid. The plasmid has some other genes also, such as a replication origin (which allows the plasmid to be coppied in bacteria but not in animals) and a neomycin (antibiotic) resistance gene taken from bacteria that are resistant to neomycin. Then you transfect bacteria (usually a non-pathogenic strain of E. Coli) with the plasmid. That is, you get the plasmid inside the E. Coli. Only a very small percentage of the E. Coli are transfected, so you grow them in media that contains neomycin -- that way you know all of the surviving bacteria cary the plasmid. Using this technique you can "grow" a lot of plasmid. Then, using a little biochemistry, you can isolate the plasmid from the bacteria and inject it into zebrafish embryos. Again, only a very small percentage of the zebrafish will incorperate the DNA into their genomes. Those that do, are transgenic.

            The entire process can then be repeated with RFP and the promoter for a mezoderm gene. Now you have a transgenic fish in which some organs glow green and some glow red. This is basically what the GloFish is.

            Note that all of the gene's present in the zebrafish are present elsewhere in nature. All that has happened is the scientists have moved a gene from one species to another. Note also, that the gene has become incorporated into the genome of the zebrafish and is not just floating around. A larger fish that eats this zebrafish is no more transgenic than you are a cow for eating beef. The larger fish will not make the protein and it is not possible for the transgene to become incorporated into the genome of other fish it comes in contact with.

            Likewise, the neomycin (or other antibiotic) resistance gene is not in bacteria and there is no way for it to get into bacteria. Only the zebrafish are neomycin resistant and (being vertibrate) neomycin never would have hurt them anyway.

            This lawsuit is spreading an example of the classic fear, uncertainty, and doubt that is spread by those who oppose any genetic modifications. I agree that we need to have a substantive debate about

    • Re:Food Safety? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by viniosity ( 592905 )
      Who the heck is eating any fish that glows?

      C'mon now - this the same country that has warnings designed to prevent people from accidentally swallowing photocopier toner. What do you think would happen if somebody actually ate one of these and got really really sick? (hint: the answer contains the words law and suit)

      • > What do you think would happen if somebody actually ate one of these and got really really sick?

        So they are bringing a lawsuit to make sure no one sues the company? Okay, tattoo a warning label on all GloFish saying "not for human consumption." :)

    • Re:Food Safety? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pyros ( 61399 )
      Who the heck is eating any fish that glows?


      potentially the fish that we do eat.


      So, what does "food safety" have to do with anything?


      I don't want to eat anything that's eaten something harmful to me, as that substance could be present in high enough concentrations to make me sick, or dead.

      • Re:Food Safety? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Lobsang ( 255003 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:55PM (#8001950) Homepage
        I don't want to eat anything that's eaten something harmful to me, as that substance could be present in high enough concentrations to make me sick, or dead.

        Even though I agree with you that fish we eat may eat the GloFish (and this is bad), I also think that if we go down your road we'll starve to death. Name something that is not fed/irrigated with something harmful or at least questionable these days...
      • Well, hopefully you aren't being fed fish that were found already dead of unknown causes, i.e. the fish were alive before being killed to turn them into food for you (and gutted, so any undigested GloFish won't be in your food either).

        Me, I have no compulsion towards eating fish every Friday, or any other day for that matter.

        I don't want to eat anything that's eaten something harmful to me, as that substance could be present in high enough concentrations to make me sick, or dead.

        Better steer clear of a

      • Re:Food Safety? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by C10H14N2 ( 640033 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @04:44PM (#8002546)
        I would highly recommend that you do not eat crustaceans from the Chesapeake bay then, despite the fact that they are delicious. In fact, all crustaceans would be verboten in that case as I doubt that putrid decaying animals and fecal matter would be things you'd want to eat yourself.

    • Re:Food Safety? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:44PM (#8001820)
      Who the heck is eating any fish that glows? So, what does "food safety" have to do with anything?

      What if a GloFish is released into a fishing pond? Where it's likely to either be eaten by another fish, or worse, mate. We need to figure out if this GloFish has to be considered a polutant...
      • or worse, mate

        Aren't those fish sterile (on purpose)? I believe a read something like that when the news about them first came out.

        • Re:Food Safety? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by pyros ( 61399 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:52PM (#8001913) Journal
          or worse, mate

          Aren't those fish sterile (on purpose)? I believe a read something like that when the news about them first came out.

          That actually brings up another concern. If an animal is genetically modified, including sterility, and it gets into the wild. There is a chance that the rest of the modifications will give it a reproductive advantage (like salmon made larger so we get more food out of them). So then you have all these sterile animals who are 'mating' with all the females, and no offspring are produced, which has a pretty bad effect on that population.

          • The makers claim that, so more likely than not it's true. However, who's doing the audits on those claims? That's why the government needs to come up with a regulartory structure for these things fast, because even if this maker is honest, the next one to come out of the woodwork might not be.

      • Re:Food Safety? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by hesiod ( 111176 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:58PM (#8001989)
        > What if a GloFish is released into a fishing pond?

        Then it is a matter for the EPA, not Food Safety. And yes, I know other fish will eat them. Those fish will eat and/or be affected by just about anything thrown into the pond. That's EPA, why isn't this?

      • Re:Food Safety? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Yet Another Smith ( 42377 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:26PM (#8003998)
        What if a GloFish is released into a fishing pond? Where it's likely to either be eaten by another fish, or worse, mate. We need to figure out if this GloFish has to be considered a polutant...

        A) As another poster pointed out, that would be a matter for the EPA, not the FDA, but for some reason these guys are suing the FDA. The FDA doesn't regulate PCBs, yet you don't want to eat fish that ate them.

        B) As to wether the EPA should ban them, there's little reason to ban these any more than any other aquarium fish. GloFish are tropical (I think zebra?) fish. If GloFish are likely to get into the population, then so are all sorts of other pet fish. The fact is that they don't. Asiatic clams are an issue. Tropical pet fish are not. These are not Snakeheads we're talking about.

        C) Even if they were likely to get into the wild and survive, could they be dangerous? It is extremely unlikely. Numerous bioluminescent organisms currently live in our environment. Fireflies, certain fungi, lots of things are bioluminescent. Lots of things eat them, which could then get into the game-fish population, and nobody gets sick. These fish would use the same biological processes, and are therefore overwhelmingly unlikely to be harmful.

        I'm all for caution. There is a good argument that some GM organisms may be bad. But there are so many threats to the environment that are much much more important than GloFish that these people are wasting resources that could be used to fight important battles. As such they are actually harming the environment by slowing down legitimate cases. Hell, their own suit regarding GM salmon is much more likely to pan out as a legitimate concern, and I support intelligent questioning of GM salmon. But if these guys are wasting their time on this, I begin to doubt whether any of their lawsuits are based on anything other than reactionary anti-GM nay-saying, with no basis in a real threat to the environment or people.

  • screw that (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:30PM (#8001643)
    I say buy a whole bunch of them and release them into the wild. The aquatic equivalent of fireflys. Too awesome.

    Just don't make any with frickin' laser beams, and I think we'll be just fine.

  • I feel sorry for that Glofish... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Microsift ( 223381 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:31PM (#8001663)
    probably can't find a lawyer who'll work for fish food and colored light.

  • Misguided (Score:5, Funny)

    by loserbert ( 697119 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:31PM (#8001665) Homepage
    Why does the Center for Food Safety want to regulate my aquarium? How broke do they think I am?

  • interesting uses for glo-fish (Score:3, Informative)

    by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .ettexut.> on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:31PM (#8001670) Homepage Journal
    I just read this article [ananova.com] about an accidental genetic engineering of a two-headed fluorescent zebrafish. The hope is to use research results to develop drugs to cure muscular dystrophy.

  • But I want my day-glo sashimi! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pu'u_bear ( 137654 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:32PM (#8001680)
    Seriously though, in the 50 years (wild guess) that zebrafish have been imported for aquariums, not to mention all of the developmental biology research done on them, no one has found a zebrafish invdading a non-native watershed. Besides, I have to think that them glowing would lead to rapid predation.
    • > them glowing would lead to rapid predation.

      No doubt it's not the best choice for surviving natural selection, I agree. If Bass like shiny metal spinners, imagine how much they'd like an entire glowing fish.

  • Next up to bat...PETA (Score:5, Funny)

    by GeneralEmergency ( 240687 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:32PM (#8001683) Journal


    Since the Center for Food Safety is suing to stop people from owning glowing pets, shouldn't PETA now sue the Center for Food Safety because they are advocating that people routinely eat their pets?

    No really.

  • Recall that... (Score:3, Informative)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:33PM (#8001696) Homepage Journal
    California had already banned the genetically engineered fish according to this old Slashdot story [slashdot.org].

    Wonder why the poster/editors didn't backlink to it.

    • California had already banned the genetically engineered fish according to this old Slashdot story [slashdot.org].

      Wonder why the poster/editors didn't backlink to it.

      They were going to repost it as a new front page article tomorrow, and link back to this one in the repost of the old one.

  • Frankenfoods (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mieckowski ( 741243 ) <mieckowski@@@berkeley...edu> on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:35PM (#8001714)
    They probably think it is radioactive because it glows.

  • Lawsuit (Score:5, Funny)

    by daeley ( 126313 ) * on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:36PM (#8001726) Homepage
    I can see the adverts now:

    One Fish, Two Fish
    Red Fish, Blue Fish

    Wouldn't you like
    A mutant GloFish?

    (with apologies to Dr. Seuss)

  • Glo-Fish Don't Glow in the dark (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Merlinium ( 678576 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:40PM (#8001770) Journal
    ok obviously to many people are taking things literally to much, they only glow when there is a Light source that shows the transplanted Gene, ie a Black light or a infrared light, they do not glow in the dark, they do not emit light at all. under normal light they appear to be normal Zerba striped fish. so all this glowing poop and firefly fish is utter nonsense. Sheesh no wonder they got people like those that are sueing for regulation of these fish. The unfortunate part in all of this is that their parents were not sued and stopped from creating such a whining ass Tard as they have become. The worlds population is doubling every 40 years, what a shame the intelligence factor is not keeping pace.
    • Which brings up an interesting point... they're not emitting light (as a firefly can) but they simply reflect a rather unusual color.

      Still, we've used GM to create a fish that hasn't occured in the wild... no natrual zebra fish comes out with that color. Was anything else changed in the process? We're not sure about that...
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Can anyone verify this quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JustAnotherReader ( 470464 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:40PM (#8001778)
    The suit alleges the hidden genes can threaten human and animal health if the biotech fish are released and consumed by other fish that eventually are eaten by humans.

    Is this even possible? I mean, if I eat meat from an animal that has a genetic pre-disposition to being diabetic it doesn't mean that I will become diabetic. Is there any evidence at all that eating a genetically altered animal will in any way effect the genetics of the animal that consumes it?

    Does anyone here have the background to clear this up? It seems that this is the crux issue. If it's not possible to transport any genetic information (and I would think that it's not) then this is a total knee-jerk reaction with no science to back it up.

    • I'm not a biologist, but I think there is a remote chance of a gene you eat getting into one of your cells. I'd imagine the odds are exceedingly slim, and the odds of it getting to cells that create your offspring is approximately zero - but not actually zero. I'm way out of my field on this anyway.
    • IANAB but this is one of the issues behind BSE (Mad Cow Disease). It is _believed_ to be a mutated form of a disease which affects sheep (scrapee), and was contracted by cows after they were fed on food derived from dead sheep. The next logical step is for people to eat the cows, and get ill themselves. CJD is a brain disease in humans which is again similar to BSE, and again the belief is that people may be able to contract it by eating beef from infected cows.

      Now I realise this isn't quite the same as tr
      • vCJD is variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.

        The nature of the TSE agent is being investigated and is still a matter of debate. According to the prion theory, the agent is composed largely, if not entirely, of a self-replicating protein, referred to as a prion. Another theory argues that the agent is virus-like and possesses nucleic acids which carry genetic information. Although strong evidence collected over the past decade supports the prion theory, the ability of the TSE agent to form multiple strains
      • No... the leading theory on both BSE and CJD are that a protein gets folded in the wrong way, and becomes a catalyst for folding other proteins in the same (wrong) way. This is called a prion. The only association with genetic structure (other than the protein modeling tools used to study both) is that there might be a genetic pre-disposition for a lack of mechanism that helps prevent the bad folding for happening in the first place.

        I will stress that this is all theory, and there are lots of scientists ou

    • Re:Can anyone verify this quote (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fireduck ( 197000 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:58PM (#8001988)
      a number of organisms exist that glow or luminesce (various bacteria, fireflies, some squid, etc.). their predators do not glow or luminesce. hence, it's fairly obvious that if little timmy eats the glofish, he's not gonna glow.

      For a more scientific perspective, I am currently researching the potential for DNA transport in the environment and its potential danger--think dead plants that have been modified in some way, (say pesticide resistance), and bits of their DNA being incorporated by bacteria. While the process can occur, i.e., bacteria can pick up DNA from outside the cell, the frequency with which it occurs is very small (this is called transformation).

      We're not bacteria, and I don't have much knowledge of transformation in higher organisms, but a quick look at a microbiology book says that eukaryotic sells have a different mechanism (transfection), which seems to have an even smaller chance of success.

      so, bottom line, it's a nonissue, at least in terms of people eating them. bacteria picking up the genes, however, is a bigger issue though...
    • Is there any evidence at all that eating a genetically altered animal will in any way effect the genetics of the animal that consumes it?

      No, but it is possible that a genetically altered animal might produce proteins that would be harmful to animals that eat it, or people that eat those animals. If you don't believe me, look up prions [wikipedia.org] for an example of a harmful protein that can be passed on in this way.

      A more likely harmful situation would be for a genetically altered creature to produce compounds that

  • This had better not dash my dreams . . . (Score:4, Funny)

    by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:42PM (#8001800) Homepage Journal
    . . . of owning a GMO Border collie [amazon.com] with prehensile paws [amazon.com] and a obsessive compulsive disorder that compels him to pair up my freshly laundered socks and keep my bookshelves in order.

    If he can herd those damn neighbor kids off the lawn between laundry loads, so much the better. If he has any spare time after that, he's free to play cards with the neo-ferret [sjgames.com] who inspects the cable runs and cleans out the air ducts.

    Nyahhhh, rotten kids and their goddamn glowing green racing llamas.

    Stefan

  • The suit alleges the hidden genes can threaten human and animal health if the biotech fish are released and consumed by other fish that eventually are eaten by humans.

    because I've been doing a bit of reading on the Mad Cow disease lately. The disease, has a dormant time of a few years in cows (it can go unnoticed for about 10 years), and for an equivalent period in humans as the CJD disease. As a result, it's possible that a large number of humans contracted the disease about a decade ago, due to a cow

    • What? Mad cow has exactly NOTHING to do with GM foods! BSE is currently thought to be caused by a specific protein that inhabits the spinal cord and brain of infected cattle. This is not a result of cows eating GM cows - nor is it punishment for some sort of animistic cannibalism. The ban on cows eating cows was related to cross contamination - ie a healthy cow eats a sick cow and subsequently gets sick - of BSE. BTW - nice try with AIDS too, but again, it has NOTHING to do with GM unless you buy into

    • -1, Uninformed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tim ( 686 ) <`ude.notgnihsaw.inmula' `ta' `rmit'> on Friday January 16, 2004 @04:24PM (#8002303) Homepage
      My point is: using genetically altered food, and generally exploiting nature in unnatural ways has been found to result in long-term genetic and other problems for humans (can anybody tell me how the first case of AIDS is believed to have occurred). Putting genetically modified fish in the food-chain is not a good idea, unless it's *very* strictly controlled to make sure the fish aren't eaten by other animals.

      You don't know what you're talking about. This wouldn't be bad, except for the fact that you're propagating your silly, sky-is-falling rhetoric to other people, who will hear you use factual-sounding words, and therefore think that you have some knowledge of the subject and possibly listen to you.

      One of the first errors you make is in the assumption that the modification to the glowfish is poorly understood. In fact, the protein that is responsible for this was isolated from a living organism, is widely used in biomedical research (even to the point of modifying living human cells), and is extremely well-characterized. Contrast this to the protein that is hypothesized to cause vCJD: we don't even know what it is with any confidence, let alone how it works. Apples and oranges.

      Furthermore, you confuse (purposefully?) a naturally-occuring disease (vCJD) with the results of genetic engineering. Let me reiterate: vCJD has nothing to do with genetic engineering. The prion assumed to be responsible for vCJD has occurred spontaneously in nature for a very long time. Similar mutant proteins spontaneously occur in elk, deer, and, yes, humans. Equating Mad Cow with genetic engineering is just a cheap scare tactic. (Ditto for your AIDS reference -- HIV has a long evolutionary history, and is known to have evolved from other viruses in other organisms. No genetic boogeymen involved.)

      In short, your conclusion is completely unfounded. Genetically altered food has never been implicated in long-term genetic or medical problems for humans. It may be true that the long-term health effects of particular mutations haven't been studied adequately, but that doesn't support your assertion. And, ultimately, compared to the genetically-modified organisms being sold into our food supply every day, the Glowfish is extremely well-characterized and inert.

      • Re:-1, Uninformed (Score:3, Interesting)

        by oliphaunt ( 124016 )
        Phew, thank goodness someone else said it first. Here's links to a couple of articles about the active chromophore [jbc.org] in the fish, vs. the active prion [pnas.org] that causes BSE/vCJD. Good images [jbc.org] in the flourescent protein article.

        Repeat after me, everyone: Eating GM food will not cause my genes to be modified.

  • They don't GLOW! They are just bright colored. : ( (Score:3, Informative)

    by osjedi ( 9084 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:45PM (#8001828)

    These are not "glowing fish". They do not emit light. They are just brightly colored. BORING.
    • In fact, they do emit light. They are fluorescent, meaning that they absorb photons of one wavelength (in this case in the UV band, I believe) and re-emit photons of a different wavelength (in the visible). They won't glow in the absence of any UV, but they most certainly can emit visible light even in the dark.

  • Anti-GM Luddites (Score:4, Informative)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:46PM (#8001837)
    Center for Food Safety works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the proliferation of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. CFS engages in legal, scientific and grassroots initiatives to guide national and international policymaking on critical food safety issues.

    CFS doesn't want genetically modified food, period. It's closely associated with Jeremy Rifkin of Foundation on Economic Trends, which pretty much says it all regarding where CFS comes down on the political/technological issues.
  • did anyone read this?

    These fish have already existed for several years and were developed to help fight pollution. By breeding these existing fish, we will allow people to have their own fluorescent fish while promoting the beneficial scientific goals behind their development. In fact, a portion of the proceeds from sales will go directly to the lab where these fish were created in order to further their research--research we hope will help to protect the environment and save lives.

  • Pertinent information (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mieckowski ( 741243 ) <mieckowski@@@berkeley...edu> on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:49PM (#8001886)
    Taken from web site: FAQs What will happen if a fluorescent zebra fish escapes into the waterways? Zebra fish are tropical fish and are unable to survive in non-tropical environments. They have been sold to pet owners worldwide for more than fifty years. Despite all these years of aquarium ownership, zebra fish are only found in tropical environments, such as their native India. However, it is important to remember that GloFish(TM) fluorescent fish are intended for use as aquarium fish only, and should never be intentionally released into the wild. What if a fluorescent zebra fish is eaten in the wild by another animal? For an animal in the wild, eating a fluorescent zebra fish is the same as eating any other zebra fish. Their fluorescence is derived from a gene that is already found in nature and is completely safe for the environment. Just as eating a blue fish would not turn a predator blue, eating a fluorescent fish would not make a predator fluoresce. However, please remember that fluorescent zebra fish are NOT intended for human consumption. What will happen to me if I eat one of these fish? Fluorescent zebra fish, like all ornamental fish, are NOT intended for human consumption; they should never be eaten.
  • until the government can properly regulate it

    and by regulate, you mean make money off of, right?

  • When GloFish are outlawed... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sowbug ( 16204 ) * on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:51PM (#8001898) Homepage
    only outlaws will eat GloFish.

  • And here I was all set to open a Sushi joint. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:51PM (#8001901)
    And here I was all set to open a Sushi joint. I was gona call it Chernobyl Zushi.

    Ah well.

  • Mmm! (Score:2)

    by El ( 94934 )
    Sushi you can eat in the dark!

  • GoFish for GloFish... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dexterpexter ( 733748 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @03:53PM (#8001924) Journal
    *laughs*

    Well, considering the amount of ridiculous trademark infringement cases [slashdot.org] we have seen in the news recently, I am suprised that the Go Fish Card Game People [thehouseofcards.com] have not sued the GloFish people for infringement. Hey, if people can confuse Lindows [lindows.com] with Windows [microsoft.com], then why not?

    I, for one, welcome our new GloFish Overlords...

  • What a waste of effort (Score:3, Insightful)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @04:18PM (#8002223)
    "They" are exposing our food to radiation and not telling us about it on the package. "They" are feeding us Frankenfoods and not telling us about it (in the U.S.) Even with all the known dangers of Mad Cow, "they" feed rendered cows to chickens, and then turn right around and feed "chicken scratch" (which includes stuff that has not passed through the chicken as well as stuff that has) back to the cows in the U.S. This and hundreds of other much more serious issues go on all around us, but these people are wasting time (and environmental crediability) by fighting little fish (that don't really glow without the help of a black light, by the way)! Sure, these fish might get out. So might any of the other tropical fish in the hobbly. Most, like these fish, would not survive. Heck, regular zebra fish have a much better chance to survive in an echo system as an alien species and affect it than these toys do.

    I'm not crazy about a world of genetically modified creatures, but there are more important things that already affect our lives that these people should be going after, not likely harmless little red fish.

  • Frankenstin? (Score:3)

    by gone.fishing ( 213219 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @06:41PM (#8003645) Journal
    For the love of God will somebody please explain to me how "genetic engineering" is going to destroy the earth? I don't get it. Really, it isn't obvious to me.

    Every day we eat foods that are genetic modifications of the originals. The corn we eat today bears very little resemblence to the maize eaten by the indians and original settlers. Apples, like the Red Delicious are hybrids - it hardly seems to be the same thing that comes from the apple tree in my back yard. Today's cattle are larger and better than those grown in the '30's & 40's, same thing goes for pigs. Turkeys and chickens produce more white meat today than they did even a few years ago. They are all GENETIC MUTATIONS! Should I stop eating them? No. They are better than the originals.

    Genetic engineering is a science. These people understand what they are doing. They are ethical people who do their best to deliver safe, reliable, beneficial products to market. The companies that employ them expose themselves to great liability so they test these products thouroughly.

    I'm not ready for scientists to graft human DNA into apes to create a ready supply of transplantable organs but that goes more to ethical questions than it does to the science.

    Science is all about discovery to bebefit mankind. Engineering is all about the application of science to benefit mankind. It is a good thing to have oversight of these processes but there are far too many out there crying wolf!

    Thinking that there are mad scientists out there creating evil things to benefit themselves is largely a product of Hollywood. The people that can't seperate Hollywood fantasy from reality are the ones screaming that mad scientists will create a genetic mutation that will destroy humanity.

  • Okay. This is just fundamentally wrong. (Score:3, Informative)

    by porkchop_d_clown ( 39923 ) <mwheinz.me@com> on Friday January 16, 2004 @06:50PM (#8003702)
    They filed a lawsuit because they want a law passed?

    Haven't they heard about the separation of powers? Jeez.

    You know, we used to teach kids that if you want a law passed, you talk to your local representitive with the legislature. You know, the group that's supposed to pass the laws?

    The judiciary is supposed to interpret the existing laws, not go around making up news ones!

Slashdot Top Deals

To the landlord belongs the doorknobs.

Close