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."

Comments

The Sky Is Falling!

[grub]

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. :))

Food Safety?

[hesiod]

Who the heck is eating any fish that glows? So, what does "food safety" have to do with anything?

Re:Food Safety?

[acramon1]

"The FDA said last month it will not regulate the fish because it is not intended for human consumption. A spokeswoman said Wednesday the FDA stands by that statement." - from the ABCNEWS.com article.

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

Re:Food Safety?

[pyros]

or worse, mate

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

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

Re:Food Safety?

[C10H14N2]

I would highly recommend that you do not eat crustaceans from the Chesapeake bay then, despite the fact that they are delicious. In fact, all crustaceans would be verboten in that case as I doubt that putrid decaying animals and fecal matter would be things you'd want to eat yourself.

Re:Food Safety?

[DzugZug]

I for one don't like the idea that we're messing around and marketing something that we don't really understand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Food Safety?

[Yet Another Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

screw that

[Tumbleweed]

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.

Misguided

[loserbert]

Why does the Center for Food Safety want to regulate my aquarium? How broke do they think I am?

But I want my day-glo sashimi!

[pu'u_bear]

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.

Next up to bat...PETA

[GeneralEmergency]

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.

Re:Its only an aquarium fish!

[hesiod]

> > 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*

Lawsuit

[daeley]

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)

Re:Its only an aquarium fish!

[Smidge204]

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=

Glo-Fish Don't Glow in the dark

[Merlinium]

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.

Can anyone verify this quote

[JustAnotherReader]

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

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

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

Re:Can anyone verify this quote

[fireduck]

a number of organisms exist that glow or luminesce (various bacteria, fireflies, some squid, etc.). their predators do not glow or luminesce. hence, it's fairly obvious that if little timmy eats the glofish, he's not gonna glow.

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

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

so, bottom line, it's a nonissue, at least in terms of people eating them. bacteria picking up the genes, however, is a bigger issue though...

When GloFish are outlawed...

[Sowbug]

only outlaws will eat GloFish.

A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?")

[StefanJ]

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

Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?")

[Smallpond]

That's right. The plants that pick up the gene would be unable to reproduce and would all die out! Pretty soon all you would have left would be the plants without the gene!

Oh, wait...

Re:Let me get this straight...???

[justin_speers]

EEEEEH!!! Wrong!

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/NEW00994 .h tml

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.glofish .r eut/

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.

Re:Its only an aquarium fish!

[JDevers]

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.

Somewhere in America ...

[FreeUser]

... 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.

-1, Uninformed

[Tim]

My point is: using genetically altered food, and generally exploiting nature in unnatural ways has been found to result in long-term genetic and other problems for humans (can anybody tell me how the first case of AIDS is believed to have occurred). Putting genetically modified fish in the food-chain is not a good idea, unless it's *very* strictly controlled to make sure the fish aren't eaten by other animals.

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

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

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

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

Re:Let me get this straight...???

[justin_speers]

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 /. They invented that car you drive around, and they bought up all the expensive new inventions to drive the price down so people like you could buy glowing fish.


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.

Re:Hook, line, and sinker

[KDan]

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