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."
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!
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!
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)
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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
> 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?
... 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
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?
As has been said elsewhere, they fluoresce. That means they absorb light of one wavelength (UV in this case) and emit light of another wavelength (green). So they emit light just like fireflies. It's just that they need to absord light first before emitting it; while the luciferase in a firefly gets the energy for its light emission from an oxidation reaction, so it works in the dark.
The protein that creates this fluorescence, GFP (green fluorescent protein) is an all-natural protein found in undersea organisms. Inserting its gene into the zebrafish genome caused no other changes. We can be as sure about that as I can be that you weren't born with two heads (i.e. almost certain, but there are no absolutes in biology).
It's true that you don't find fluorescent zebrafish in the wild, but then I don't see any poodle-wolves or siamese-lions in the wild either. Every domesticated animal has undergone far, far more extensive genetic modifcation than any molecular biologist can even begin to comprehend. To say nothing of domesticated plants. You think corn looked like that when it was a wild plant? You think bananas didn't have seeds? But instead we worry about adding a single harmless gene to an aquarium fish?
Not just stop having kids, you have to be willing to force other people to stop having kids. Population growth in th "West" is nil or less...
It's those dang poor people in Asia and Africa, with their alternative cultural beliefs about the role, meaning, and appropriate usage of kids.
If you're reliant on your children for sustainance in your old age, then by golly, you're going to be motivated to have a bunch of them. The more you have, the better off you'll be!
So... if you have a problem with globalization submarining "local culture", but you also have a problem with "overpopulation", then you've got a REAL problem. The solutions to these two issues are fundamentally at odds.
Unless... you're willing to cut off ALL contact with them, including denying them modern medicine. Presumably, ol' Mother Nature would thin out the population for them then. Though maybe not- they've already learned basic principles that Western medicine is based on, and what one man can do, another can do, so maybe they just replicate the most critical pieces of Western medicine locally? (Think vaccines and clean water) Or maybe not. They don't seem to be getting the clean water thing down on their own...
Oh the conundrums that face the modern liberal!
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
That's not even half the problem. Without the selection, the gene pool actually gets progresively weaker! People with bad immune systems (e.g.) can take drugs to prolong their life. If the disease is genetic, then it won't be getting filtered out at all, and it will propagate if they have children. Within X generations, the majority of the population will carry serious flaws from the miriad of things that can go wrong with the human body.
Take bad eyesight as a simple example, assuming it was genetic. 1000 years ago, you would be a shit hunter or forrager, and your genetic seed would not prosper. But now, with corrective lenses and recently surgery, it's a non-issue to your prosperity. Who's to say that in a couple hundred years, all humans in the developed world may require corrective eye surgery? I think it's pretty likely.
Childbirth is the same. Several hundred years ago, you'd have at least ten kids, with maybe 2-3 making it to adulthood, basically the strongest ones. Evolution. Most would die in the first year. England has published some really old data on the net, such as the birth and death registrars. It's really scary and tragic to take a browse through them, as you can see clear evidence of the infant mortality rate. Now, every child saved nowadays from a random complication is a score for human progress. But every genetic problem we workaround is a potential problem for the following generations.
This has been on my mind for years. Evolution hasn't stopped; it's regressed. It pretty much stopped the moment we learned to read and write, although in reality we've just changed the rulebook, as you say yourself. Physical (i.e. genetic) attributes are now a side-note in our success in staying alive long enough to reproduce, and alcohol completely trashes the good looks==good health instict we have! The biggest factor now is simply how many babies each set of parents is willing to churn out. And in many cases, that's an entirely wrong metric, as a set of unresponsible parents can kick out another uncared-for kid almost every year, while families that actually rear their children into responsible adults tend to be smaller. Social de-evolution.
The solution? I wish I had one, I'm just pointing out the problem. The obvious ones are all morally rehensible and total non-starters, and some have been tried before, even in civilised countries. After much thought, the only one I can see is "live with it". I just hope our healthcare keeps up. The economic factors in access to healthcare could be come a key part of your evolutionary score in future, which will favour the rich. Which in it's own way is going back to basic evolution. It's a messy subject!
Any non-Nazi style solutions would be welcome!!