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."
> 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"...
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...
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
"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.
Ever seen an Aligator Gar? People get these fish as pets, when it gets too big (or little Johny doesn't want the fish any more) they find their way into the river or lake. I forget the name but there were a couple of cases of these fish last summer that bite and are dangerous (from Asia somewhere) turning up in US lakes.
I don't think they need to be illegal but laws about not releasing into the wild have failed miserable before.
The Center for Food Safety? People eat the glowing fish?
:-)
LoL, good one
On a serious note,
It has to do with consequences if these fish would have if they ended up in your streams and lakes.
Steve
Candle burns its brightest in the dark
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.
> 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 those than GloFish, but this one just happens to be "man-made" (well, man-spliced).
Studies have shown that this genetically modified fish is in no way dangerous to humans, even if consumed... The exact quote from the article was "The company's chief executive, Alan Blake, said scientific studies have shown the fish are safe and the lawsuit is without merit."
I went to the city because I wished to live without deliberation.
If I remember correctly, these fish are also modified to be sterile. Therefore, even if the fish escape to the wild, they would not reproduce and spread their artificial mutations.
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.
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.
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.
You must be refering to the snakehead fish (native of china) found in maryland.
These are meat-eating fish, which eat other fish. Some local dude, got them as pets and then threw them in a pond (hundreds of them), once he got bored.
There was a lot of fear, of these fish disturbing the fish eco-system of eastern USA
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
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.
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
IAAL but this isn't legal advice.
"Worrying about fish that may make it to the wild and into the food chain seems pretty tame in comparison."
The complaint of the CFS seeks regulation, or at least oversight - the point of the injunction is to stop something irresponsible before it starts, rather than waiting to see irreversible results before condeming them. It is true that GM food is an everyday part of our life, but the production of those crops is regulated, and with good reason. Additionally, this seems different than the life-saving potential of greater food production - if it's merely making money from entertainment value associated with the Nemo fad, then perhaps it should be looked at more seriously. These fish will make it into the wild one way or another, and the same concerns they have with Salmon (a food crop) shouldn't be ignored just because this is a toy.
Not to mention the fact that some kid or college student will inevitably eat one of these.
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
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 out there with other theories.
oh thank GOD someone knows what they are talking about, cause the genetic scared FREAK certainly dont
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
heh, you're getting funny.
There's nothing "blind" about my "worship" of the rich. I admire what a lot of rich people have done with their lives and the good it has done for all of us. I spelled out my reasons very clearly. That isn't blind. I hope to be one of them in the (near) future.
What strikes me as rather "blind" is your hatred of the rich, so much to the point where you seem to think this lawsuit is a good idea, but you can't tell me why.
You think they have no right to profit off something they have invested time and money in, because it might be dangerous, but you can't tell us why it is dangerous, and you are contradicted by several studies including one by the FDA.
I'm having fun with you here, but I'm going to have to stop replying until you point me to a single study that justifies suing the people who invented this product.
Government regulation is a serious thing, that costs businesses a lot of money and leads them to invest less money in R&D and EMPLOYING PEOPLE.
I pointed out how you were wrong with your original statement (The only people who have determined this product is safe are the ones selling it) by pointing out other people who were saying it. You admitted you were too lazy to do a google search to do me wrong, or you lied, did one, found nothing, and claimed laziness instead of admitting you were wrong or being quiet.
You blindly hate rich people, innovation, inventors, etc. You've shown that through your posts. So please, don't call me blind. I gave my reasons for everything, if you are illiterate there is nothing I can do to help you....
Until then, I'd love to hear some evidence from you justifying the lawsuit you support against a very innovative company. Or at least some teeny-tiny reasons for why you believe what you "believe".
Until then, you sound silly. But hey, maybe SCO is hiring!
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.
fuck you.
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
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
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.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
While it's a good theory, the transmission path has never been proven.
Clear, Dark Skies