California to ban the sale of "GloFish"

[John_Brandt]

State Takes Dim View of GloFish, Bans Sale


By Kenneth R. Weiss
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 4, 2003


California's Fish and Game Commission on Wednesday refused to allow the sale of the genetically altered GloFish in the state, with one commissioner saying that it seemed frivolous to tinker with an animal's genes to create a pet that glows red.

The 3-1 vote to reject a petition by biotech entrepreneurs makes California the only state that has banned the sale of GloFish, a trademarked tropical zebra fish infused with the red fluorescent gene of a sea anemone.

GloFish are implanted with a gene from sea anemones. (PR News)


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has jurisdiction over bioengineered animals, has not indicated whether it will step in and regulate the pet fish, which are due to go on sale next month.

"We're going forward with sales elsewhere on Jan. 5," said Alan York, executive officer of Yorktown Technologies of Austin, Texas. "It's unfortunate that consumers in California will be the only ones in the country that will not be able to enjoy these fish."

To approve the sales in California, the commissioners would have had to make an exception to rules adopted earlier this year that restrict transgenic fish to scientific researchers who obtain permits and prove that their gene-alerted fish cannot escape into the wild or pose a danger to the environment.

The commissioners seemed less concerned about any environmental risk than the ethical concerns of altering the genes for the pleasure of pet owners.

"For me, it becomes a question of values," said Commissioner Sam Schuchat. "Under what circumstances do we want to monkey around with the genome of an organism? It seems OK to me to do it for medical research or, say, to create an improved type of rice that has Vitamin A. But to do it for a pet seems rather frivolous."

Schuchat and other commissioners did not express concerns about the environmental consequences if the zebra fish escape. The freshwater fish, which come from the tropical waters of the Ganges River in India, do not easily survive in the cooler waters of California's lakes and streams.

California adopted its regulations for fear that transgenic farmed fish, such as salmon, could get loose and devastate the state's wild populations. The normally black-and-silver zebra fish were inserted with genes from sea anemones or jellyfish to turn them red or green, and glow under black or ultraviolet lights.

The commissioners acknowledged that Californians could readily buy the fish in any neighboring state and bring them home.

"We might be the only state that doesn't do it because we're the only smart ones," Commissioner Bob Hattoy said at the meeting in Sacramento. "We're trying to regulate a whole new field of science."

Schuchat and Hattoy said they were lobbied more heavily by GloFish opponents and proponents than on virtually any other issue.

"Welcome to the future. Here we are, playing around with the genetic bases of life," Schuchat said. He said he even consulted his rabbi, among others, before reaching his decision. "At the end of the day, I just don't think it's right to produce a new organism just to be a pet.

"To me, this seems like an abuse of the power we have over life, and I'm not prepared to go there today."

Commission President Michael Flores was the only member to support the exemption.

California residents buy 25 million of the 200 million ornamental fish sold across the nation each year, Blake said. He estimated that Californians might have purchased 2 million of the genetically altered fish each year.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-glofish4dec04,1,7089423.story?coll=la-headlines-california

 

[liquid]

Glad to see they did it. Last thing I want to see is them somehow get out into the wild and gain a foothold... :?

Shane

 

[Anonymous]

I have read on this board that these fish were sterile and could not produce naturally.

I do like this quote "We might be the only state that doesn't do it because we're the only smart ones," Commissioner Bob Hattoy said at the meeting in Sacramento. " Just one more reason for the US to hate us Californians

 

[RandyO]

If they think all of their pets are naturally occurring animals, then they really are the "only smart ones"

 

[Anonymous]

There is a related thread in The Sump. Some of you many want to read it too.

 

[Anonymous]

Here:

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=41177

 

[Anonymous]

I'll repeat what I said there as well:

"At the end of the day, I just don't think it's right to produce a new organism just to be a pet."

One could easily argue that *Canis domesticus* is a new organism, and created by humans. It's OK, though, because we created the organism over millenia rather than instantly in a lab.

I think there's pretty much no chance this thing could live in the wild. It's too easy of a prey item for predators. Ya know, food fish farmers have fish that are genetically modified to grow faster, and no one seems to have a problem with it!

I'm not condoning this whole thing, I'm just saying the precedent has been set already. If we're Ok with eating genetically modified animals, what's the problem in having them as pets?

 

[liquid]

I think there's pretty much no chance this thing could live in the wild. It's too easy of a prey item for predators.

I've seen this echoed before on different subjects and people were wrong with devastating effects occurring to native species. If even one native species is crowded out by a non-native, that's one too many for me.

Ya know, food fish farmers have fish that are genetically modified to grow faster, and no one seems to have a problem with it!

Depends on who you talk to. I have a major problem with some of the genetically modified crops that are being introduced into the worlds food supply.

Shane

 

[GSchiemer]

No wonder California has a budget crisis. I can't believe they spent this much time and money on such a trivial issue. And to top it off, the issue had nothing to do with environmental concerns. The decision appears to be based on their own distorted ethics, which shoudln't be a factor.

 

[John_Brandt]

I'll repeat what I said there as well:

"At the end of the day, I just don't think it's right to produce a new organism just to be a pet."

One could easily argue that *Canis domesticus* is a new organism, and created by humans. It's OK, though, because we created the organism over millenia rather than instantly in a lab.

I think there's pretty much no chance this thing could live in the wild. It's too easy of a prey item for predators. Ya know, food fish farmers have fish that are genetically modified to grow faster, and no one seems to have a problem with it!

I'm not condoning this whole thing, I'm just saying the precedent has been set already. If we're Ok with eating genetically modified animals, what's the problem in having them as pets?

Matt,

Your domestic dog analogy reveals misunderstandings. The process by which humans have created genetic varieties in dogs (BTW, Canis familiaris) is by selective breeding for the purpose of establishing desired traits. With genetic modification a technician literally goes into the genome and physically inserts (and/or removes) genes (and/or multiple gene sequences) to create desired traits. This allows the 'creator' to mix and match genotypes that would be impossible by way of selective breeding.

The GloFish is a zebra danio with anemone (jellyfish) gene material inserted into its DNA. You could not arrive at a danio-anemone hybrid by selective breeding.

Immediately one recognizes that there are important scientific and ethical questions that arise when humans have this power (and it is a new power). The debate has taken on a massive popular dimension and nearly everyone has an opinion on it. It is often a mixture of fact and fallacy, knowledge and ignorance that runs through the arguments. Like many human inventions, GM probably can range from safe and beneficial to dangerous and destructive.

It is difficult for me to imagine sterile, glowing zebra danios as representing any more danger to the world than do normal zebra danios. However one has to be quite imaginative to take in the full scope of what could occur if they escaped into the wild. I'm still pretty tentative about my thoughts on GM. I think that it has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I don't think that GM should necessarily be broadly condemned.

 

[leftovers]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid...reshold=5&mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Change

read here for more discussion about how silly this ban really is

 

[Dewman]

I'm going to just say it...

I will probably buy some of these if they are for sale in my area. I know many of you don't agree with it, but, oh well...

I read about Tobacco plants that were infected with a bacteria (Agrobacterium tumefaciens ). The bacteria had been genetically altered by implanting a bioluminescent gene from the Firefly (luciferin). After the plant is infected, it continues to use the bacteria DNA.
The Luciferase the gene creates, reacts with the ATP by producing light.
As long as ATP is being produced, they will glow. So as long as the plant is alive, it glows. Wouldn't this be an amazing sight to see... a whole field of glowing plants...

You could plant a hedge row in front of your house and it would glow, showing the path of the walkway in the dark... so many uses for this .

 

[Anonymous]

John,
I understand the difference. I've created bioengineered bacteria in the lab, with resistance to two types of antibiotics rather than just one. That's what the world needs, eh?

I just don't see much of a fundamental difference between the two--both are instances of humans messing around with nature, IMO.

Shane, back to your point about non-native species...do you have any objection to wild type zebra danios being sold here? I mean, if Glofish could conceivably escape, then most of the tropical fish that FW hobbyists keep could too, right? Seems like wild type animals could just as easily push out a native species as the GM ones.

Just my 2 cents, Matt

 

[cdeakle]

Im glad they said No.

They did the right thing but for the wrong reasons!

As always, another just reason to hate Californians...

 

[cdeakle]

"We might be the only state that doesn't do it because we're the only smart ones," Commissioner Bob Hattoy said at the meeting in Sacramento. "We're trying to regulate a whole new field of science."

 

[liquid]

Shane, back to your point about non-native species...do you have any objection to wild type zebra danios being sold here? I mean, if Glofish could conceivably escape, then most of the tropical fish that FW hobbyists keep could too, right? Seems like wild type animals could just as easily push out a native species as the GM ones.

Just my 2 cents, Matt

Already seen it locally but w/ species other than zebrafish. :? A buddy of mine is on the NANFA BOD (North American Native Fish Association).

Shane

 

[Anonymous]

Let's not forget lionfish off the Florida coast too...

 

[esmithiii]

A couple of points:

First, the California Fish and game commission has no business regulating this on the basis of ethics. That is not their charter nor their place. It seems hypocritical that they would ban this on ethical grounds yet allow hunting and fishing for sport. Personally I have nothing against hunting and fishing (I have personally enjoyed doing both) but it seems odd to me that they would claim the moral high ground in a situation like this.

Secondly, I seriously doubt that the colored variety of zebra danio is any more of a threat to local fauna than the normal zebra danio which is one of the most widely sold tropical fish in the US and in Ca. Why would one be more dangerous than another?

As for the difference between selective breeding and GM, the means is the only difference, not the end.

"We might be the only state that doesn't do it because we're the only smart ones"

This statement is precisely why the rest of the US hates California.

Ernie

 

[John_Brandt]

The sterile GloFish probably does not pose any meaningful threat to California's waterways, even if it were deliberately released. But the thing is carrying around a jellyfish gene that fish don't normally have, producing proteins that fish don't produce. An ecologist has to practically be a psychic when imagining what would happen if they entered the wild. What if the 'glow protein' is toxic to any fish that would eat a GloFish? I'm not suggesting that this is a problem in this case, but this is an important question.

Genetic -modification is significantly different than selective breeding. It is immediately apparent that selective breeding has important constraints that GM does not. To develop desired characteristics in danios you are forced to breed danios with danios. If you want them to glow like jellyfish it may be impossible to achieve this by selective breeding. But with GM you just take a gene from a jellyfish and slip it into a danio. It's the instantaneous creation of a bizarre organism that no evolutionist would predict that is most striking and dangerous.

GM foods have been given the slang term "Frankenfoods", suggesting that they are like Frankenstein's monster. But the legendary Frankenstein was made up of various human parts sewn together. A GM organism can be assembled from a whole range of distantly related creatures. If Frankenstein were GM he could have had tiger claws, run as fast as a horse and have a 200 year lifespan.

When you begin to imagine the possibilities of GM you can see the truly exotic and shocking things that could be produced. Why not keep novice divers from touching reefs by placing deadly box jellyfish toxins into the nematocysts of common corals? How about a mouse with poison dart frog toxins secreted from its skin? How about a krill with a plant gene that produces cyanide? How about herring with pufferfish toxin in their tissues? How about a pitbull terrier with pirahna teeth and a prehensile tail?

You begin to appreciate that the means and the end product of GM is meaningfully different from that of selective breeding.

California does not have to outlaw GM strictly on ethical grounds. The State can easily claim that GM has not been shown to be universally safe for the world under all circumstances.

 

[esmithiii]

California does not have to outlaw GM strictly on ethical grounds. The State can easily claim that GM has not been shown to be universally safe for the world under all circumstances.

Nothing is "universally safe for the world under all circumstances," least of all petrolium products, yet they are not banned as this fish was. I think the ecologist/geneticists can make a fairly strong argument that this fish would not have substantial negative effect if it were released into the wild in California.

The major problem with your statement is that the California Fish and game commission did, in fact, ban the fish based on ethical reasons, not because they claimed that it was unsafe.

Schuchat said: "At the end of the day, I just don't think it's right to produce a new organism just to be a pet."

From an ethical point of view, I see no difference between GM and selective breeding.