Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Filed Against Unregulated GloFish
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."
Sheesh! Its not like people are going to be eating these fish. They could at least make it against the law to release them into the wild & some export restriction. Do they think that there will be some mishap and the fish will mutate into a super fish and do things like file patent lawsuits?
It ends when Mr. Burns come over for dinner and gets served the GloFish.
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', 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.
Trolling is a art,
Your teeth! They're brigher... but not exactly whiter... What is it? They're glowing! What is it?
Fish! I eat Glo-Fish. And now I also use Glo-Fish Toothpaste to keep up the glow-in-the-dark tooth brightness!
Who the heck is eating any fish that glows? So, what does "food safety" have to do with anything?
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.
Show of hands, how many /.ers think glowing fish and then think "Yummy!"?
The Center for Food Safety? People eat the glowing fish?
When by little brother was 6 he stuck an LED down his goldfish's throat, now that is what I call a GloFish!
I've already said all that I have to say.
probably can't find a lawyer who'll work for fish food and colored light.
My other sig is extremely clever...
Why does the Center for Food Safety want to regulate my aquarium? How broke do they think I am?
[ Don't reply to this ]
Argh. Half the news posts on /. these days are about lawsuits. Since when did filing suit against someone become a viable means of effecting action?
I just read this article 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.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
I think there are bigger threats to the survival of mankind than some glow in the dark fish. For example, how about the consumption of fossil fuels? Or what about the sheer volume of landfill waste created daily?
Of course I'm just some nutball hippie. We've got plenty of oil and land to occupy [in more than one sense!].
I'd say to the advocates "take your energy you are wasting on this GM fish and use it to fight real crimes against mankind".
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
--You're BOTH right. It's a floor wax AND a desert topping!
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.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Did they ever become available for sale?
Wow! I was under the impression that the federal government regulated absolutely everything. Thanks for making us aware of this shocking oversight.
FDA took my fishies away. I wanna be sedated!
Well, I guess Go Glo is not really a good slogan then. U-oh
Free XBox, PS2
Thanks to whoever modded this fucker down. Out of all the unfair and unjust mods, this one truely deserved it.
I don't really see the problem here.
:). Bioluminescent fish do exist yes, but they can turn it off at times of danger (from what I remember) ... these fish can't ... they are evolutionary mistakes. Selection of the fittest will take care of it. Mind you I'm very wary of importing fish etc because what seems like a harmless thing can end up in your rivers as a self reproducing curse ... but that's almost another issue.
I mean just think about if for a second. Glowing fish. Now how long do you think you're going to survive if you're glowing like a neon sign saying "Eat Me" (this is where Slashdot should support the blink tag
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
Wonder why the poster/editors didn't backlink to it.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
They probably think it is radioactive because it glows.
Let's see. Declaration of Jihad. Hate speech. Threat of attack. Description of targets. I think this qualifies under the USA Patriot Act for a rubber-hosing by Homeland Security.
I hope these fish don't come into the humen foodchain. Glowing people won't be a good idea(not that that will happen). Altough, glowing sperm, a very small change, sounds cwl.
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)
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
> Is this good or is this not so good?
Yes.
Seriously, Good & "not-so-good" are just interpretations made by people: there is nothing that is inherently good or bad.
Glowing fish may be useful for some underwater something-or-other. Or maybe you want your aquarium occupants to light your room, saving electricity. Of course, the cost of purchasing them may more than make up for any savings.
Studies have shown that this genetically modified fish is in no way dangerous to humans, even if consumed...
Maybe I have a difference of opinion with "The Center For Food Safety", but to me a Government should "properly regulate" a product that has been determined SAFE by letting it out there on the free market and letting the people decide if they want it or not.
Let's see here:
1 - Scientists create something cool, in this case a bad-ass glowing fish.
2 - California bans it.
3 - Some group sues someone.
4 - More regulations and taxes.
5 - Profit! (for the Government, not us)
how many jokes about dimmers and potentiometers connected to those fishes will we see in the next few hours.
I have no problem with genetic engineering, but I agree that proper testing needs to be done to make sure there are no adverse side effects when these genes start to mix in with nature. Not only could the resulting fish have an advantage in nature, possibly killing off other species, but consuming these fish later unknowingly could pose health issues for us. Not saying any of this will happen but it is a possibility and should be looked into.
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.
If firefighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime, what do Freedom fighters fight?
These things are puny! You could eat no sooner eat these than you could a goldfish (not the cracker).
I suppose they are also suing to regulate the consumption of sea anemones, from which the 'glow' gene comes.
And lets make sure that nobody's eating rocks or twigs while we're at it!
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.
As much as I disagree with the idea of a genetically altered pet I see no harm in them if you want one. I doubt the gene transplant would start a plague. But then again I'm not an expert in the field.
Maybe a few experiments are in order to do determine whether the fish can carry any potential health risks. As long as the fish isn't in any pain and nobody is in danger there shouldn't be a problem.
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 who inspects the cable runs and cleans out the air ducts.
Nyahhhh, rotten kids and their goddamn glowing green racing llamas.
Stefan
you must work for moveon.org!
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 which got it about two decades ago. There's speculation that some older people being misdiagnosed with other debilitating brain disorders, are actually CJD patients.
Mad cow disease is originally believed to have been caused as a result of feeding beef/other meat products to cows. After the US passed a law saying that cows could not be fed food based on beef, lawyers found a way around it (no time to dig up link right now): they started feeding beef products to chicken and chicken based products to beef.
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.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
These are not "glowing fish". They do not emit light. They are just brightly colored. BORING.
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
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.
I know it was a seemingly innocent question, but unfortunately, YHBT. See "Is this good or is it whack?" for details.
after all, domesticated animals have been 'genetically engineered' for years... although through old-world methods such as selective breeding.
Yeesh... where do you draw the line?
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
They are concerned about Otto's health.
Wanda
(This sig intentionally left blank)
if you want your spunk to glow, just install a black light above your monitor.
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?
only outlaws will eat GloFish.
Ah well.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Sushi you can eat in the dark!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The IQ of any group is defined thus:
Let i represent the IQ of the group
Let n represent the number of people in the group
Let s reprent the sum total of the individual IQs of each member in the group
i = s / n ^ 2
Or in words, i is equal to the sum s divided by the square of the number n in the group.
*laughs*
Well, considering the amount of ridiculous trademark infringement cases we have seen in the news recently, I am suprised that the Go Fish Card Game People have not sued the GloFish people for infringement. Hey, if people can confuse Lindows with Windows, then why not?
I, for one, welcome our new GloFish Overlords...
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
You can bet your butt that nobody on that board of directors has ever had trouble growing enough food to feed their families.
Maybe at least they'll become obsessed with harassing the GloFish people instead of somebody doing something really productive.
GM foods, or stop having kids, these are your choices. Welcome to the future suckers.
Ah, that explains it!
No wonder the world's IQ is rapidly approaching zero as the population expands.
And that's why the company I work for has a board of directors that acts like it doesn't know which way is up.
> unfortunately, YHBT
Excuse my ass-itude, but "no shit."
I realize no one with anything to say would post something that simple. I'm just being stupid (I haven't got much choice in that).
If it was the right spiecies. Trout are good, so I'll try a glowing one. I don't like northen pike, so I wouldn't try a glowing on.
Now for the fine print: it would be raised on a diet where attention was paid to preventing things like heavy metal and other toxin build up. I'd look a lot closer at what made it glow, and make sure chemicallly it wasn't going to be harmful. I'd make sure I'd cook it right.
I'm not against eating glowing fish. However I'm not going eat one without understanding the risks. Right now I know of no risks, just some luddites scared of them. IF there is hard science one way or the other about how harmful glowing fish are it will make my mind up about eating them. If there is not hard science (which is what I suspect, after all they are not making these for people to eat) then no I will not eat one.
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
Plz remove them from the net.
thx!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
They are native to America. You linked to a Google page, but didn't read any of the pages? Jeesh.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
If the government regulated every bad thing that could potentially end up down my toilet, i'd be in deep sh*t. Literally.
Along comes some domesticated fish alternative that could really take the pressure off of endangered species, and we're knocking it down because the public is ignorant about how evolution works and the over exaggerated risks of Gene Manipulation. I suspect a large undercurrent here is not the danger, but the Christian backlash at altering God's creatures. How unnatural.
Letter To Iran
besides as everyone has pointed out
a) they are nothing new, zebrafish have been turned into "Glo-fish" for years by scientists
b) ITS NOT FUCKING FOOD SO THE FDA, YOU KNOW THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION CANT DO SHIT!!!
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
It's the same as the anti-smoking folks who want The FDA to 'regulate' cigarettes as a nicotine-delivery vehicle. This 'regulation' would destroy any market for these fish just like they want to destroy sales/marketing of cigarettes. If you want to ban something stand up for a ban! Using the weasel word of 'regulation' when you really mean 'ban' just shows they are spineless liars.
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.
Yeah, not only that... the $5 fish "glow" +significantly+ less than a 99c neon tetra.
vCJD is variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.
n /
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 is more easily explained by a virus-like agent.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs180/e
These fish are created by inducing mass genetic mutation with a specially bred virus which alters the DNA of the cells which it infects. The virus itself is benign enough to initial observation. The concern is that these fish, by definition, have been affected by the virus.
If one of these fish was released into the wild, there is potential that the virus would also be released into the wild. When that occurs, the aftermath could be catastrophic. Or it could also be completely benign. The suit is demanding that this question be determined before the fish are released to people in general.
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
And once I combine this gene with the Babelfish, my life's work will be complete!
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
... there is an idiot stupid enough to eat cochroaches. Or automobile tires. Or used condoms.
These people exist. Usually nature is somewhat effective in removing them from the evolutionary process, if the species is lucky enought to have them engage in their favorite passtime prior to producing progeny.
In any event, whether or not the species is fortunate enough to have such fools removed from the gene pool prior to procreation, one thing is certain. No one is stupid enough to propose the FDA regulate cockroaches, automobile tires, or used condoms.
But apparently some anti-genetic science luddites are stupid enough to think the FDA should regulate the genetically modified equivelent of gold fish. Alas, such idiots are not so accomidating as to remove themselves from our collective gene pool, more's the pity.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I knew they were evil!
Glowing fish. Pure evil.
Not true.
We have a couple GFs, and some Neon Tetras in our tank, and the GF Zebras are brighter than the NTs.
Plus, they were only $2.99.
... and the first thing she thinks when she sees any type of fish is "I wonder what it tastes like."
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.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It's been awhile, but I seem to remember Monsanto's justification for the terminator gene is just what you're talking about - the modified plants can't spread (at least not much), because the successive generations are sterile. They can't cause any serious impact on wild, unmodified version of the plant, because they'll die out so quickly. And if you think one field of self-terminating crop is going to somehow pollinate every plant of the same species in the country... well, nevermind. Think that if you want.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
the parent is completely full of shit. mad cow doesn't have a goddam thing to do with gm foods. see the first reply to the parent...
1) It's likely that these fishes (will) suffer from some new chronical disease (maybe some nice anti-glow cancer) that will simply exterminate them.
2) We humans have exterminated lifeforms that were less attractive (to our human standards) than a fish that glows.
3) And glowing fishes are easier to target by other predators.
4) Maybe as a side-effect these fishes develop some new hormons or other elements in their system that can help to cure diseases or give other insights.
I think this irrational fear of everything genetically-enhanced is due to movies where radioactive mutant spiders bite people who then become "spider-men" and other such nonsense. Sure, those movies can be entertaining, but when hollywood pseudo-science becomes a basis for public policy discourse we've taken a step backwards. Rather, a giant leap backwards for mankind. Dumb people watch too many movies and have no concept of what is realistic and what is fantasy. The same people who want to ban glo-fish are the same ones who want to ban Harry Potter. Democracy doesn't work when the least educated are the most politically active. Oh well.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
"but grampa said all the dinosaurs were girls"
whoops. forgot that amphibian DNA Deus Ex Machina.
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.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Outlaw GloFish, just wait until I start selling GloDogs.
Maybe they taste good? Real good.......
Finally his fellow worker and friend could not put up with the charade any longer. He decided to confront him....
"Fred, I think you might have a problem"
"Wh...What do you mean, problem...I got no problem...Your the one with the problem!" Fred replied, with florescent sweat collecting on his forehead and glowing eyes darting back and forth as he slides the garbage can full of GloFish bones under the desk. Panic stricken, he decides to go for the revolver in his desk, put there only days ago as a quick release from this crazy crazy world. Why didn't he follow the damn warnings on the package. Damn him, damn him to hell.
is why the government thinks it has to meddle in EVERYTHING, we dont need them to do anything but run the government, ie. keep our country safe from terrorists (see my sig) and mediate in matters when absolutly nessecary. thats it. we dont need welfare and all the other government JUNK thats out there.
Like ben franklin said to a woman who asked him what type of government we have, he said "a limited republic, if you can keep it" well it looks like we have already lost it.
go ahead, look up what a "limited republic" should be.
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
I for one, welcome our new Glo Fish Overlords! Ought to keep the damned cat amused 'til it can figure out how to stage a coup.
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Freedom for the glowing fishies! I might be getting some of those now that they're illegal. War on drugs. War on terror. What's next? War on glowing pets?
funny all I got was porn today, having the democrats spam would have been a nice change...
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
While I'd agree that most of those are also big concerns (and I would also point out that most of those are regulated), you have fallen for one piece of industry propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
The idea that genetically modified food is just one more step in the long journey of selective breeding is simply a lie.
There is no relationship between the process of selective breeding and genetic engineering. They are totally different processes.
When you selectively breed, you identify a characteristic that has already naturally occured, and you try, through breeding, to increase the frequency of this naturally occuring characteristic.
When you genetically engineer something, you identify a characteristic that you'd like a species to have, determine a gene sequence that is likely to produce that characteristic, and you modify the genes--thus producing a combination of genes that has never naturally occurred.
So in the past, we've been changing the quantity of an organism that already exists in nature (and we can observe how well it interacts with its environment). Genetic engineering allows us to create organisms that are entirely new, which we won't know how well they interact with their environments until we make them. Now I'm not saying (but I am strongly hinting) that one is more dangerous than the other. But it is simply a fact that these two processes are not even closely related.
Of course, if they can do this, then it's just a short step from here to sharks with lasers attached to their heads.
"generally exploiting nature in unnatural ways has been found to result in long-term genetic and other problems for humans"
There are so many things wrong with this statement.
First, what the heck do you mean by "unnatural". If nature includes everything and we are part of nature, then how do we act "unnatural"? Remember, nature includes all things - even nuclear waste. It's not just trees and butterflies and such. I mean, man doing ANYTHING should be considered natural -- because man is part of nature. So what exactly is unnatural about man trying to use nature to his benefit? Seems to me that every animal on the planet does that.
Second, please provide proof for your wildly speculative claim about long-term results. I am quite sure that - at best - the jury is still out on this. I can think of lots of examples where "unnatural" monkeying by man has resulted in FANTASTIC advances for all of the mankind and the planet. One that comes to mind off the top of my head is the creation of oil-eating microbes by Exxon back in the 80's.
The simple fact is that science, in and of itself, is exploration. Yes, there are unintended consequences from time to time. However, making sweeping claims about the good or bad of a given technology is just crazy until there is enough ample evidence to support your claim.
Now that would be useful, as one of the major concerns about GM crops is that they pollinate neighboring fields. This leads to:
(a) The spread of whatever new genes the GM crop contains to other fields and possibly other species.
(b) The neighboring farmer will no longer be able to sell his crop as non-GM. (This is a big issue in Europe, where products with GM-labels are expected to sell badly, once they finally hit the markets. It is enough for the grain to contain the modified genes, not the plants themselves).
(c) The owner of the GM patent could theoretically sue the neighboring farmer for patent infringement and demand license fees. Sounds idiotic, but as far as I know (IANAL), this is legally possible. And don't tell me that the big companies are too ethical to do this.
Therefor I propose that GM crops should only be allowed if they produce no viable pollen. This should be technically feasible (but it probably takes some effort breeding plants that cannot pollenate...)
"...Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
As a scientist and as an educator, I have to remind people about the possible side-effects involved in tinkering at this level. While Glo-fish are a fad, the original fluorescent zebra fish provide an invaluable tool to study developmental biology, as do green and red mice that are not sold as pets. The bad efffects of not having regulation on these fad pets is that anyone can get these as pets. And I know how people treat pets. Noone says that we have to worry about eating Glofish and ingesting the foreign genes. The real problem comes from the possibility of horizontal transmission of the antibiotic resistance gene. As with any GM food/organism, you simply don't want to introduce exogenous genes into the general population. Some government agency should be regulating these novelty items.
WE GOTTA GET RID OF THAT SCARY GENETIC ENGINEERIN!!!! WHO KNOWS WHAT KIND OF GLOWIN' FARM ANIMULES THEY'LL MAKE! GLOWIN' COWS!!! IT'LL BE TOO EASY FOR THEM THAR FLYIN' SAUCERS TO PICK UP COWS TO MUTILATE!!
I SEEN 'EM! I SEEN 'EM!!
--
On another note, why hasn't any of these "Environmentalists" noticed that humans have been "genetic engineers" for as long as we've domesticated flora and fauna? It's the same bloody thing, except with lab equipment.
Oh, I get it. "Humans are evil." (TM)
--
Dan
Interesting. Could have fooled me.
FWIW, you are whack. Not good.
instead of traditional goldfish swallowing what should happen if kids now have glowfish swallowing contests...
could and probably will happen.
I'd be more worried about the mercury my dinner is eating than it eating a pet that gets released into the ocean. Okay, I'd be more worried about the moon falling onto the earth than genes being spread through eating. Anyway, couldn't fish eat the sea anemone which originally had the gene that glows?
The center for food safety?
:-) (And for some of the stupider bicyclists...)
People (other than a few drunken freshmen) won't be eating these glofish...
Worried about the genes being incorporated into another species by consuming the glofish, and in that roundabout method, afflicting humans... Most people throw away the stomachs of fish when they clean them, other than that, there isn't an 'gene-jumping'... Except in cheesy sci-fi-horror flicks. If that were a real issue, the entire world would be one giant chimeric soup.
Although humans that glow in the dark could be cool at midnight raves
It's amazing how phobic the scientifically stupid can be. Down with ignorance!
Hopefully the judge will tell them, hey, get you head outta your a@@ and stop wasting our time.
> Interesting. Could have fooled me.
> FWIW, you are whack. Not good.
Evidently, I fooled you without trying. I am whack? I had no idea. Thanks! "Not good" as in "I'm Baaaaad?"
Look, get over it. It was about as good as any place to say what I said, big effin' deal.
It's true that the fish probably pose no risk to the environement. I heard an interview with one of the guys responsible for banning the glowfish in California (from the CA fish and wildlife board) - he was refreshingly candid and said they appraised the risk to the ecosystem (due to release into the wild) as next-to-nil (pointing out that the fish freaking GLOW so they'd probably be eaten by preditors long before they could become any kind of problem). He said, however, that the board has a moral as well as technical responsiblity and he felt casually toying with gene manipulation to make interesting pets is simply a Bad Idea (tm) and thus they banned 'em from CA.
I totally disagree but at least he was honest about why they were banned!
closed minded is as closed minded does
I'll do you one better.
0 58 yU5KeSekWz1fm5XTl34-qN586X9NvsOGO7U5XTAvtHk82FWCvx p0b
0 ov P4obQOQqFH6ifopIx5ns-2ovGpj2DlrcrW4opITDVLqveaFSDu E0a
0 JL ClJz-W-DbMePyJOjoIx3wkJLQO6kZ5FUFKlJOj9ZcRDLq8b7Zg r09
0 C1 bfCEJLJjhN5FWCv4PYiVtTC1ovlT6yZgZRfCv4U6u2j1IdhH6X D08
E lu qMCuacEcQNvtHzuho7xS4U6uqVhJme0y-P1VM2vxM55
This was in my spamtrap box today:
===
Dear Friend,
Sign up now to join the Democratic Party's free e-newsletter and
action alerts! Get involved by getting connected.
http://clk.go2lnk.com/r/r0.4?xkiquaQgVh7IbujM4e
Our goal is to sign up 5,000 new members this week to receive our
free email newsletter and action alerts.
The 2004 election is only months away! To stop George Bush and his
corporate giveaways, it's going to take ALL of us.
That's why the Democratic Party is counting on YOU and thousands
of others across the country to get involved by receiving important
news updates, action alerts, campaign and rally information,
petitions -- whatever it takes to beat George Bush!
It's free, fast and easy -- and it's only one click away.
http://clk.go2lnk.com/r/r0.4?xkiquaQgVh7IbujM4e
So please, join now, get connected, and help us reach our goal!
http://clk.go2lnk.com/r/r0.4?xkiquaQgVh7IbujM4e
Remember, whether it's the economy, the environment, foreign policy,
civil liberties, education, protecting our seniors, health care,
jobs... George Bush has taken America in the WRONG direction. And
it's TIME FOR CHANGE. Join now!
http://clk.go2lnk.com/r/r0.4?xkiquaQgVh7IbujM4e
-
You recently registered with a network website and opted in to
receive specialonline offers like this one. To no longer receive
messages, please use this link to remove your subscription.
http://clk.go2lnk.com/r/r0.4?lafkxFeotRnTKx9iU2
Your information has not been given or sold to the Democratic
National Committee, and you have not been added to any mailing
lists owned by the:
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
until the government can properly regulate it
Who says the government has the power to regulate things like this, much less that it is "proper" for them to do so?
[ home ]
This press release is worth a laugh, especially if you now someone who works for the company9 03.htm
http://www.jwce.com/company/newsroom/060
I lived in the Bay Area for several years, and know about the alien species problems.
If this scheme works, you'd want the temporary cover to grow like mad. It would be there to prevent runaway erosion and mud slides, which are both dangerous to people and destructive of the ecosystem.
It's a suggestion that might be worth trying, and an example of how something that many consider awful and ungodly might be put to constructive use.
Note that the last people I'd want to be involved in the trial would be Monsanto. Those arrogant clowns are responsible for much of the mistrust of GMO crops.
These are not "glowing fish". They do not emit light. They are just brightly colored. BORING.
Wrong, they glow under uv light.
It should be plainly obvious that this kind of commercial practice is extremely dangerous to our environment and sets a poor precedent. Who are we to say that this species is harmless? Please don't tell me that they understand the consequences of such a fish getting into the wild! Hell, it need be only slightly less pallatable to predators and (eventually) you can kiss the 'pure-bred' version goodbye.
Perhaps I am simply nostalgic, but I'd prefer leave the ecosystem to successive generations more or less how I found it. I don't want the ocean to look like a rave.
Is it really necessary to assume these kinds of risks and meddle with nature simply for people's amusement?
That's the kind of feed back I like to see . . . from someone who works in the field.
What DO forestry folks due, if anything, after a big fire? Any plantings, etc.?
Yeah...these are totally weak when compared to the GloWorm!! They never filed a lawsuit against it...
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
There are three potential biological dangers here.
One: can the genes be transmitted?
Answer: No. Bacteria can "infect" other bacteria with genes (see jumping plasmids), but multicellular organisms are pretty much limited to passing on genes by breeding.
Two: Will the new gene cause the animal to produce a toxin that can potentially bioaccumulate?
Answer: Depends on the gene. In this case, green fluorescent protein and its analogues are basically an expressed protein that folds and has a minor chemical reaction to produce a small, harmless fluorophore. Pretty inert. So, no. In other cases: maybe. Pretty slim chance, unless you are intentionally inserting sea snail poison genes (which wouldn't bioaccumulate anyway) (note that for food crops, Monsanto does insert toxins aimed at insects - see Bt Maize). Maybe you could weaken an animals immune system and make it a host for breeding viruses and other illnesses.
Three: If the animal escapes into the wild, can it breed and imbalance ecosystems.
Answer: Depends on the gene. With GFP, an escaped zebrafish in a region that is hospitable to zebrafish - quite possibly you might spread the gene around. It wouldn't imbalance ecoystems though. With inserting insect toxin genes into crops - oh, yeah, it could potentially be a problem.
So, to sum up: GFP zebrafish: Mostly harmless. Other gene modifications: It depends. However, what we need is a consistent system for evaluating these modifications, and some bureaucracy to administer it. Yes, bureaucracies are a pain, but you know - I like the fact that food poisoning is pretty rare, that medicines go through rigorous trials before they reach the shelves, etc. etc. and sometimes it requires being overly cautious about safe advances in order to catch the nasty ones (thalidomide).
(And yes, you can develop similar dangers without high tech gene insertion: see africanized bees. It might not be a bad idea to include serious cross-breeding in this sort of review).
-Marcus
Surprise, surprise, another Rifkin organization!
Oh for crying out loud, for a post of such a short length, there are so many logical and factual errors that I'm astonished, even for Slashdot! The only thing missing is the CAPITAL LETTERS and rants about the CONSPIRACY run by the GOVERNMENT to export GM food to third world countries to GUARANTEE US DOMINATION!!!!!
If I were Glofish, I would countersue the Center for Food Safety for compensation for the lost sales due to the time required to resolve the lawsuit and/or time required to impliment federal regulations.
If I were a lawyer, I would be contacting Glofish right now, offering to take the case on a pro-bono basis.
This is clearly an attempt at restraint of trade.
Give me a break.
How about "If God didn't want small children to be killed in drive-by shootings, he wouldn't have made bullets out of lead, gunpower out of explosives, or small children out of soft tissue."
"The government's view of the economy... If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
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.
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!
Clear, Dark Skies
welcome our new Mrs. Paul gloing fish stick masters!
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I heat, treat and condition the water and I carefully measure the food, but I can barely keep the fish in my tank alive.
But you're telling me some gold fish is going to jump from my tank and magically infect the world with it's evil abilities?
Clear, Dark Skies
Transgenic mutations (transplanting a gene from one species' genome into another's) are less stable in the new genome than the other genes. They are more likely to mutate in the new genome, and even to transgerminate again, infecting a new species' genome, for example after a transgenic organism is eaten. So these GloFish are a risk for 1> cruelly increasing cancer rates in their own species, 2> spreading the glowgene into other aquatic species in their shared water environment, and 3> spreading the glowgene through the foodchain, eventually including humans and other animals (especially considering the tremendous amount of fishmeal fed to farmed animals and plants). Each infected species runs an increased risk of not only glowing in the dark, but also getting various cancers.
The FDA has a responsibility to regulate the content of farm feedstocks to reduce these risks. But they don't even enforce the existing laws protecting US cattle from mad cow disease, as we've seen this Winter with our first cases here. Let alone enact new laws as the epidemiological landscape changes. The Department of Agriculture has the overall responsibility to protect our foodchain, but they're even more politicized than their FDA division. What else do you expect from the rest of the ranchers, who own the cowboy image that Bush Junior has adopted as his identity? The whole gang prefers short-term "stay rich quick" schemes to any longterm business prudence. So GM crises will begin to sprout, and occasionally the government will attempt to close the barn door after the mutants have already escaped. Or we can support these consumer groups, whose preemptive legislation through litigation is doing more to protect us than our political representatives.
--
make install -not war
Or are you just happy to see me?
Clear, Dark Skies
And unless Congress authorizes it, the federal government doesn't have that authority, either.
Clear, Dark Skies
I would like you to provide some proof that any animal more complex than a bacteria has ever taken up the DNA of a creature it consumed.
What complete fear mongering.
Clear, Dark Skies
Sorry - the correct route is to introduce a bill in Congress, not sue random agencies (Health and Human Services?!?) for not violating their own charters.
Clear, Dark Skies
They don't "glow", they fluoresce. The same way a black light poster fluoresces. In order to "glow" they would have to generate their own light, the way deep sea fishes do.
Clear, Dark Skies
glow
Clear, Dark Skies
You can't sue anyone if no law has been broken!
If you don't want these fish on the market, you have to get Congress to pass a law banning them. You can't just sue someone for doing something you don't like!
Clear, Dark Skies
Since you seem to know a bit about this.
How do the prions get across the blood-brain barrier?
Clear, Dark Skies
is wildly different from cross-species DNA transmission.
If it was so easy to move DNA from one species to another, why do the pharma companies spend billions trying to do it?
Clear, Dark Skies
While it's a good theory, the transmission path has never been proven.
Clear, Dark Skies
Viruses are routinely ingested by hosts which are then infected with their genes. Even mad cow prions infect through ingestion. Try Googling for transgene mutation. And remember, with GM, the best is yet to come.
--
make install -not war
Yeah, that's pretty much how viruses spread, isn't it? By infecting hosts, which involves invading cells, injecting RNA and reconfiguring the host cell to produce more virus.
On the other hand, as I said before show me one example where a creature more complex than a bacteria has taken up DNA from a creature it has consumed.
Otherwise just give up and admit you're spouting bullshit.
Oh, and a bonus question: show me a viral infection that alters the germline DNA.
Clear, Dark Skies
I don't think there is any food we really fully understand.
There is food we're used to, but that's a whole other thing, as proved by how we keep discovering that stuff we've eaten for generations can give us deadly diseases - or help cure them.
Ummm dude?
did you notice that my original post wasn't replying to you, but to HaveBlue?
So, in effect, you attacked me for defending you?
And you accuse me of not reading?
Clear, Dark Skies
When tropical fish are outlawed, only outlaws will have tropical fish.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Unfortunately the supreme court rejected the argument that requiring one to do so would violate the 5th amendment's clause about selfincrimination
There's a reason fish are generally dull silver things with at best some green or brown or black, it's camoflage. Xanthic mutations ("yellow fish") or albinos occur sporadically in aquaria but are never found in nature.
Why? Is it because they never occur in nature? No, of course they do. They just get eaten very very quickly because they stand out.
Now, obviously there are exceptions to this, coral reef fish, some killifish, Amazon fish such as neons are all brightly colored, but they are the exceptions not the rules and tend to more or less keep to themselves and don't have the predators other fish do.
So, if you release some glowfish into the wild I would certainly expect them to get eaten, and very very quickly, but I would doubt very highly they could actually establsh a population in the wild. These fish are expensive. How many are supposed to escape into the wild at any one time? 2? 4? We really care about this?
One thing that's unclear to me, and perhaps somebody who knows better than me can explain this, where does the bacterial and viral genes enter into this? From what I've read (and I've read what I can about these, I write for a tropical fish magzine (TFH) and these things are definitly causing a big buzz) the glowiness comes from anemone genes.
I'm much much more concerned with random gene folding in GM soy than I am about a bunch of stupid Zebrafish.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Just to reiterate a couple of points above which are worth repeating... When you eat something, parts of its genome DO NOT become part of your genome. Also, proteins (such as the fluorescent protein which is being expressed in the fish) are digested in your stomach and intestine, hence they can't get into your blood, or anything like that, and make you glow.
Heck, let's file a suit against the 50% mutant soybeans we're eating, the corn, etc.!
Do scientists have every genome and every spontaneous mutation mapped out for everything we eat? Of course not.
These fish are sterile so if they do get into the wild waterways NOTHING will happen except bigger fish will have more food.
This, like most other things year hear from the reactionary left, is based on Junk Science.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Witness! Fellow slashdotters; the Ad hominem attack!
ooohhh aaahhh
See for yourself, marvel at the absence of reason as our frind John Jorsett uses the tools of Propaganda101 to amaze and influence, decieve and misdirect.
Accept no substitutes!
Couldn't be any more hazardous than fugu, and more fun than vodka and red bull
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
It took a number of years before feeding cattle parts to cattle resulted in Mad Cow Disease, then some years thereafter before it was known that Mad Cow Disease could jump species and affect humans. By this point, many thousands of cattle were affected and a hundred or so humans were dying a ghastly death.
Same with AIDS, a virus that jumped from primates to humans decades ago, caused a little noticed disease, then under the right conditions mushroomed into the human population
It was not reasonable to expect AIDS would result from human-monkey interactions in equatorial Africa in the 1960s, much less that the disease would become a global pandemic. It was also not reasonable to expect that feeding inadequately treated cattle parts to cattle in the UK in the 1980's would result in a few years in the decimation of the UK cattle industry.
The original post was suggesting we take heed of these examples and be careful about making genetically modified organisms widely available.
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
"The federal suit, filed in Washington, D.C., alleges the benign fluorescing gene was inserted using other genes derived from animal and human viruses as well as antibiotic resistant bacteria." This is true. It's also one of the most asinine thigns to say about genetic engineering. The bulk of genetic modification is accomplished using bacteria mediation. In plants it's usually Agrobacterium tumefaciens, in animals a number of different bacteria and retrovirii. Aside from biolistics (which, yes, does in fact involve shooting cells with a gun that is loaded with DNA segments) ALL genetic modification uses bacteria or virus-derived methods. This is not news and anyone familiar with the technology should be appalled that this trivial bit of knowledge is being used for such blatant fearmongering.
AIDS is believed to have come from cross-species contamination (probably unsanitary butchering and eating) from chimpanzees in central Africa sometime in the early part of the century. There is a simian version of HIV called SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), that shares sequence similarity with HIV. HIV is not caused by genetic manipulation.
The first confirmed case of HIV infection was from a patient who gave a blood sample in 1959. The infection wasn't discovered until the 80s, however, when they finally knew what to look for.
First AIDS case
I'm not sure what you mean by "generally exploiting nature in unnatural ways". The spread of HIV/AIDS may have been exacerbated by vaccination programs in central Africa during the 60s, where syringes were used repetedly. Does a vaccination program count as unnatural exploitation?
Fluorescent zebra fish, like all ornamental fish, are NOT intended for human consumption; they should never be eaten.
And if you did, they are almost certainly completely harmless. But we have no intention of wasting a couple of million dollars proving it.
out
The first is a hypothesis about something that would have happened billions of years ago (when eukaryotes were still single-celled creatures) but it's still a fascinating paper.
Thanks!
Clear, Dark Skies
Yet, if that happened, wouldn't we expect it to happen every day, with natural DNA?
Any evidence that SARS has transmitted cat DNA to the infected humans, or AIDS transmitted monkey DNA to people with that disease?
Clear, Dark Skies
It has long been the theme of Toho's Godzilla series that the atom and later the cell are sacred fires man is not to touch, let alone steal from the gods. The theme of scientific responsibility, so eloquently expressed in "Jurassic Park", is but an echo of a movie from fifty years ago about another dinosaur: "Gojira"!
In the original Japanese version of that movie, Dr. Serizawa chooses death rather than take the risk that his accidental discovery would be used as a weapon by some nation. He had experience with the Nazis that cost him his eye, and that convinced him that he could be tortured into revealing his discovery. He could trust no nation, on either side of the Cold War. The only way to save Japan from Godzilla and protect the world from his discovery, was for him to make one weapon, destroy his life's work, and then die with Godzilla.
His shining example shames the irresponsible corporate scientists of today, as much as it shamed the Manhattan Project scientists.
"Our people.. stricken with disease.
You.. you played with the fires of the gods.
And you dare to come here and ask us for help!
You betrayed us! You expect us to trust you after what you have done?"
Infant Island Chief, "Godzilla vs. Mothra" (US Version), 1964
(Giving voice to the Marshall Islands people, on the tenth anniversary of the H-bomb Bravo, which also created Godzilla.)
there is such a thing as relevance. It is actually surprisingly fundamental to analogy.
It seems to me that the practice of eugenics is a fairly relevant point when discussing why HItler was bad.
lysergically yours
Let me get this straight... Your girlfriend owns zebra's that are smarter than a NT workstation?
I hadn't heard that leukocytes could pass the barrier - I thought perhaps prions were small enough to pass thru.
Interesting.
Clear, Dark Skies
If the GFs are brighter then you probably have a water quality problem.
From the New York Times today: "No Foolproof Way Is Seen to Contain Altered Genes". We're just getting started with the research on trasngenes, but we're releasing them into the wild, into our foodchain. Do you want your diet at the same beta-test quality as your browser? In the US, we test food and drugs to determine that they're safe for human consumption. We don't just assume that they're OK until the pestilential cat is out of the bag. Now just admit you're getting your checks from the agri-engineering biz, or just give up and join the sane skeptics before it's too late to know *what* you're putting into your mouth.
"Eeeww, Beta." - Homer Simpson
--
make install -not war
Since the article only discusses engineered animals and plants possibly out performing native life forms. It says *nothing* about mutant genes somehow infecting other animals or people.
And for good reason, too.
Clear, Dark Skies
Yes, the good reason is that these transgene techs are unproven. As we're starting research, we're identifying the risks. The article is referring to "transgene escape", where a transgene gets into other genomes through breeding. As I continue my amateur, part-time research, I continue to add to the research suggested by others, more professional, in this thread. Meanwhile, it's clear that we don't know enough to be safe, and the more we find out, the greater the risks. Let's not play Mendel Roulette with our diet - let's test these on professional guinea pigs, instead of involuntary beta test on our food web.
--
make install -not war