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 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,
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.
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 ]
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
> > fish will mutate into a super fish and do things like file patent lawsuits?
> You obviously haven't been to many drunken parties in your life.
I've been to drunken parties, but no amount of alcohol has made me want to file a patent. *shudder*
They probably think it is radioactive because it glows.
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.
I had the same reaction, but you know someone is gonna do it anyway.
Too bad they can't solve this by putting a warning label on 'em...
Then again, if you're stupid enough to eat one you deserve what you get. That's just me, though. I mean, you can buy all sorts of dangerous pets and there's no law protecting you if you stick your hand in the cage, right? So what if they're genetically engineered, they're for looking not eating.
=Smidge=
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
I think there are bigger threats to the survival of mankind than some glow in the dark fish.
You're probably right. But, on the other hand, we realy have no way of knowing what the long-term effects are and that is the nut of the matter.
John Q. Public buys glowing fish for his kids, gets tired of feeding them and tosses them in the local river where they become part of the food chain.
AIDS is such a scourge because it can spread quietly for years before it shows itself in symptoms. What if it takes twenty years of eating genetically-modified foods before poisonous levels of some protein are developed in the body? The sciense we're relying on to tell us this is safe has largely been funded by the people who stand to make a profit off of it. Are you ready to roll the dice now?
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
only outlaws will eat GloFish.
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
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.
EEEEEH!!! Wrong!
4 .h tml
h .r eut/
Just because a company says that a product it is selling is safe does not mean it isn't. Point me to one study that justifies a lawsuit.
I'll point you to some evidence that your statement is wrong:
Right off the bat, I can show you just spoke out of your ass:
"There is no evidence that these genetically engineered zebra danio fish pose any more threat to the environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been widely sold in the United States. In the absence of a clear risk to the public health, the FDA finds no reason to regulate these particular fish."
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW0099
In fact:
"The zebra fish were originally developed to detect environmental toxins, but Alan Blake and colleagues at Yorktown Technologies, L.P. licensed them to sell as pets."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/11/21/offbeat.glofis
Please, point us to a single study that says they aren't safe. A real study, not just someone being irrationally paranoid about the mystical evils of genetic engineering.
We all saw Jurassic Park, but that's not a reason to go freaking out about a cool invention.
When an organism eats this GM fish, it will be full. Nothing else. Why would it be any different than eating the anemone that the gene is from in the FIRST place?
Seriously, no higher organism sucks up genes from its diet and adds them to its genome, it just doesn't work like that.
... 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?
I imagine any study I point to will be immediately dismissed by you as being "irrationally paranoid" so you'll have to excuse me for not wasting my time doing a Google search.
I did one for you, I didn't see any. I found the ones I pointed to though. Please use real studies, facts, and logic to justify lawsuits. It's your line of thinking that has led to this horrible overlawyered situation we have today. You gave absolutely no reason why these fish are a menace to society, you just assume they are because rich people created them.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done, especially when the only gain is to make someone enough money to buy their second Hummer, "cool invention" or not.
Rich people have done more for this world than whiners like you ever will. It's because of the rich people in this world who work their asses off to invent things that you can sit in front of your computer typing pointless messages on
If you pointed me to a real study, done by an unbiased third-party, that justified your claims, I would not call you irrationally paranoid, instead I might learn something.
But obviously I'm not going to learn anything from you today, and that's disappointing.
I wish people would stop suing and trying to regulate everything just because they don't trust it, for some reason they can't put their finger on.
In the meantime, the only people calling this product "unsafe" have no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. Again, please point me to some if you have some inside knowledge. But I'd hate for you to "waste your time" by doing a 2 second google search.
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!
While I agree with your point about other animals, funnily enough I think that where humans are concerned, genetic engineering is the only possible next step.
Why?
Because evolution, for humans (at least in the western world), has in effect come to a standstill. The sick don't die, and even when they do die they often have time to reproduce first (except for a very small minority). The weak don't get eaten by predators. The stupid don't get eaten by predators as well, though their country does... but that's another topic. Anyway so my point is that there are no selection factors that are able to affect humanity at large, because there's too many of us and we're too well protected from our environment. Note that I think it's great that we're not playing that game anymore, because that game is not one that is acceptable for us, intelligent, thinking human beings.
So then, the only way to continue evolving as a species is to drive our own evolution. There are several ways you can do that. You can use the nazi way of selective breeding (or rather selective killing), only let people with 'good genes' have kids... but what a terrible world that would be. Or you could use a bit of genetic engineering to nudge things forward. The latter needs to be done with great care to avoid all the potential dangers, but it is clearly a better solution than the former, and a better solution than simply doing nothing and stagnating forever (or until we kill each other with nukes or pretzels or whatever).
Daniel
Carpe Diem