GloFish

ronsterrc · Post by **ronsterrc** » 07 May 2004, 03:08

These fish are now for sale in the US. I reckon it will catch on in the catfish world too unless we stop buying them. I wont buy something that has been genetically modified.

What does everyone think?

Ron

Post by **Barbie** » 07 May 2004, 03:22

You might do a search, they've been available here in the US for months and this has been discussed a few times

Barbie

Dave Rinaldo · Post by **Dave Rinaldo** » 07 May 2004, 03:27

http://www.planetcatfish.com/core/search.htm

Suckermouth · Post by **Suckermouth** » 07 May 2004, 03:43

BTW, Glo-Fish were not originally made for selling as aquarium fish; this is part of their funding of a scientific project (why they're so expensive). They're trying to create a fish that will glow different colors in the presence of a pollutant. I highly doubt and hope that it doesn't catch on; it's nice, but I hope it doesn't become a fad.

kwalker · Post by **kwalker** » 07 May 2004, 03:51

Not that i want any, but i am almost certain i read an article stating that these fish are sterile and can't reproduce. Can anyone verify that?

ken

ronsterrc · Post by **ronsterrc** » 07 May 2004, 11:18

I cant find anything when i search for "glo fish" or "genetically modified fish"

Tell me what words to search for and i'll believe you when you say this has been discussed before.

Post by **Rusty** » 07 May 2004, 13:14

http://forum.planetcatfish.com/viewtopic.php?t=4201

I could have sworn there was more than one topic on this, but I can't find them. They've been showing up for a while over on this side of the pond, and it looks like they're actually selling.

Rusty

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 07 May 2004, 17:49

KWALKER Wrote:

Not that i want any, but i am almost certain i read an article stating that these fish are sterile and can't reproduce. Can anyone verify that?

ken

Nope, they are fertile and have been bred by aquarists already (Ken, someone you and I both know). Same fecundity and ease as the natural form. The funny thing is, by the terms of their patent/trademark, in the U.S. NOBODY ELSE CAN SELL THEM, or breed them to sell!

Taratron · Post by **Taratron** » 07 May 2004, 18:35

Yes, but you are free to -give- them away. ;)

Not that I, or anyone I know, would take them....I'd sooner keep an Oscar in a fishbowl!

Suckermouth · Post by **Suckermouth** » 08 May 2004, 03:18

A sterile glow in the dark fish were being developed by a Taiwanese company, but they were forced to confiscate them all.

fishypoo2 · Post by **fishypoo2** » 08 May 2004, 21:10

http://www.glofish.com

Zanmato · Post by **Zanmato** » 08 May 2004, 23:26

[quote]GLOFISHâ?¢ FLUORESCENT FISH LICENSE NOTICE

The GloFishâ?¢ fluorescent ornamental fish are intended solely for visual enjoyment as aquarium fish by end users who have purchased these fish from authorized resellers, and not for commercial reproduction. These fish are the subject of various intellectual property rights owned or controlled by Yorktown Technologies, Inc. (â??Yorktownâ?

Teelie · Post by **Teelie** » 09 May 2004, 04:27

I don't see anything wrong with them. Unlike dyed fish, there's nothing cruel about the practice and the fish are otherwise normal. Of course there's a plethoria of reasons it's "bad" but none of them hold water IMO.

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 10 May 2004, 22:39

Teelie Wrote:

Of course there's a plethoria of reasons it's "bad" but none of them hold water IMO.

Teelie,
Do you have a background in Molecular Biology? I am curious as to why you would post such a reply. I would also like to hear some of these reasons you refer to.

A little technical background on the process: In order to isolate the desired gene and it's promoter segments, DNA (in this case from a jellyfish) is spliced into the DNA of bacteria (and possibly into viruses later in the process).
The "scissors" used to snip this DNA strand from a Jellyfish is a Restriction Enzyme digest. Restriction enzymes snip DNA chains in a highly predictable manner, clipping the strand where a specific base-pair sequence is present.
In order to separate each segment of DNA, the soup of various sized pieces of DNA are run through Gel electrophoresis which separates them by size (not by function).
The screening process for an appropriate recombinant clone is based upon expression of the desired trait not by any addition or NOVEL protiens that may be expresses as a by-product of the overexpression of the desired gene. Addition expressions may be expected and depending on the screening process would even possibly be likely, but so long as they are not lethal to the model organism, they would not be selected out through the screening process.
So, now not knowing what additional novel protiens are coded by the newly connected DNA strands or even if those strands are ALL of the desired protien (and not some cytotoxic materials since they were ONLY SORTED BY SIZE) you literally have an "unknown" organism on your hands. You do not know what additional processes may be occuring in it's cellular chemistry and you don't know what effect that chemistry may have on other organisms.

This BIG "Unknown" is the reason why every molecular biology laboratory has strict protocols for the destruction of every recombinant organism leaving the control of the facility.

Is this policy overly cautious?: Depends on your perspective.

Is this reply and the containment policies alarmist?: Yeah a little bit, but the policies have a sound scientific basis and as such, I think that it is pathetic that they (the company marketing these fish) are going to overlook these types of controls (and chooses to accept/impose the associated risks on us) for the expressed purpose of an ornamental fish!

Is this arguement "holding water" cause I am getting tired of typing?
Comments?

jswledhed · Post by **jswledhed** » 10 May 2004, 22:58

Glofish have been for sale in my area for some months now. I'm not sure what the draw is. The fish don't glow in the dark. All they do is kinda fluoresce under a black light. Not exactly amazing. I'll pass.

Teelie · Post by **Teelie** » 10 May 2004, 23:53

It's so far the only arguement I've seen to hold water and the fish still got the approval of scientists to release these fish as pets, and pets only. I doubt this was overlooked or ignored by the scientists who work for the governments and okay'd them. No one is suggesting they get released into the wild nor is it even legal in most places (though I know that makes little difference to some people).

As to what unknown quantities are in the DNA, if they were anything as dangerous as that, after 10 years plus of research I'm sure something would have come up by now and so far no one's made a peep about any abnormalities I've seen.

So while it does hold water, it's still not enough to justify banning the fish based on a science that doesn't even have all the facts itself. For all the scariness it's meant to instill, it doesn't have the weight to back up banning the fish. It's sensationalism based on sicence but it's incomplete.

It's little different than genetically modified foods, isn't it? People consume that on a regular basis. This isn't something whilly nilly done by scientists just for the hell of it either. It's been researched and looked at carefully and I don't see any government allowing their sale to the public if they thought there was a chance of contamination by the fish.

Caol_ila · Post by **Caol_ila** » 11 May 2004, 00:05

It's little different than genetically modified foods, isn't it? People consume that on a regular basis

Youre maybe talking for the US but in Germany at least the custumers have decided against ge foods...so the companies havent started bringing it on the market. In EU law it also has to be labeled as GE food. People here just dont want that crap and thats what hinders gene soj or corn from blemishing our markets.
They tried to introduce Butterfinger some years ago and had to abort that cauz nobody bought it.

Teelie · Post by **Teelie** » 11 May 2004, 01:32

People as a whole are always afraid of new things. GE foods are no different and GE fish are definitely right up that alley of paranoia over something new and not understood. The pattern is clearly definiable by looking at any number of innovations that initally scared the crap out of people but now can't be parted with in modern society.

GE foods eventually will make a big part of the world market. It might be 50 years but eventually people will accept GE foods unless there's some shocking danger hidden away that no one knows about. I doubt that though.

Caol_ila · Post by **Caol_ila** » 11 May 2004, 01:41

In case there is a hidden danger im on the safer side...my guess is that you live next to a nuclear plant denying the dangers and drive to the supermarket next block with your SUV and leave the motor running while you shop...just 2 of the "great" inventions that people were afraid of and now form our societies.

Teelie · Post by **Teelie** » 11 May 2004, 02:15

Wow, what an ignorant assumption.

Let's see. No nuclear plants here, don't own an SUV, or indeed any gas guzzler, and I'm not paranoid of every new innovation to come out. I'm surprised some of you trust computers and come online.

Great way to treat new members too. No wonder this place is so dead.

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 11 May 2004, 03:55

Teelie Wrote:

Great way to treat new members too. No wonder this place is so dead.

Please... ... get over it.
If you can't engage in a debate, why post an opinion?

I still remain curious as to the other arguements that, in your words "don't hold water".

Besides, comparing an ornamental object to GE foods is not a valid arguement IMO although I believe we can find plenty of "NEW" foodstuffs already available in NATURE (AS WE CAN IN THE DIVERSITY OF FISHES).

Here we as humans refuse to accept change by altering crops to fight pathogens/pests. When all the while it's the monocultural methods of raising crops that left them susceptable to pathogens in the first place. Who is resisting change here?

Regarding the threat and a companies ability to assess that level of threat?
The "Starbright" corn that got accidentally released into the food supply here in the U.S. a couple of years ago was actually modified to produce a protien toxin that killed cutworms and other common corn pests. This was planted (and likely still is) in thousands of acres of cropland. Cutworm is only one species (actually several species involved) of an intire family of insects. Do you honestly think the producers of this, or any other GE crop could possibly assess the potential environmental impact of the distribution of this transgenic?
And do so on a Worldwide scale? They couldn't possibly commit that kind of capital. If they don't sell it on a large scale, they loose the millions of dollars invested in the development. Who you gonna trust?

Look, spending millions of dollars to create a genetically altered organism to fill our specific short term need is fundimentally flawed. The pathogens/pests WILL adapt to overcome the obsticles. It is yet another example of "short term thinking" so common in human society. Meanwhile we overlook the genetic diversity of our foodcrops the world over. Diversity that offers resistance to the pathogens and pests that we are seeking a reprieve from in the first place.

Just a little sidebar to close:
Grain amaranth on a per acre basis yeild more bulk plant protien than ANY other foodcrop. The seeds are full of the same healthy fatty acids as soy. The leaves and stalk are edible. It's heat, cold and drought resistant. It suffers from very few insect pests or pathogens. When did we discover this? Oh, say during the age of Mayans! Do we cultivate this in any meaningful quantity?... (fill in your own answer).

My main point from the previous post is this: ANY amount of risk associated with the marketing of Glowfish is far too much. IT'S A FREGGIN' ORNAMENT! A TRINKET, NOTHING MORE. In the laboratory it serves a purpose, in your tank it's so much less than any of the wildform fishes you may keep.

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 11 May 2004, 04:18

Teelie Wrote:

As to what unknown quantities are in the DNA, if they were anything as dangerous as that, after 10 years plus of research I'm sure something would have come up by now and so far no one's made a peep about any abnormalities I've seen.

Actually per my first long post, no, it wouldn't if it were not lethal to the model organism. That's the screening criteria in the laboratory.
It's not the health of the fish that I would be concerned with. It's the health of the environment it's being released into. Despite the fact that an aquarium is somewhat contained, it can hardly be considered a closed environment.

The wide scale distribution of this fish compounds ANY risk, regardless how minute.

Damn and all I wanted to do was check my email before doing a couple water changes! So much for that plan!

Teelie · Post by **Teelie** » 11 May 2004, 04:22

pturley wrote:Teelie Wrote:
Great way to treat new members too. No wonder this place is so dead.
Please... ... get over it.
If you can't engage in a debate, why post an opinion?

Debate? I'm sorry. In a debate, there isn't childish remarks like Caol_ila made. If you want to debate, I'll debate, otherwise I'm not going to stick around to listen to crap like that.

Post by **Barbie** » 11 May 2004, 07:27

In the future, if there is a problem with a comment that is made, please report said comment to the moderators. We are unable to babysit the forum on a constant basis 24 hours a day, and there usually is no need to. I will expect NO further abuse of the board or its members from this point in the thread forward. I also personally find stereotypes aimed at people's perceptions of life in the US quite distasteful, but that in NO way justifies the type of comments being made in this thread. Hurling insults serves no purpose whatsoever, no matter how veiled or brazen. Everyone is welcome to an opinion here. Hopefully I've made myself clear.

Barbie

Caol_ila · Post by **Caol_ila** » 11 May 2004, 08:40

whatever