Old Topic - Glowing Zebra Danios

[RedForeman ©®]

Now in Red...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031202/480/ny11412021855


--

RedForeman ©®

[Dinky]

> wrote in message
...
> >Now in Red...
> >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031202/480/ny11412021855
>
>
> Well it's better than injecting them with dye I guess... I have 5 ghost
catfish and can't imagine
> why someone would want the dyed versions of these fish. They are so neat
being see-through.

I read recently that the "glofish" are less resistant to cold water than
thier non-messed-with brethren. Makes me feel a little better, if true, but
the whole "opening of the floodgates" issue still terrifies me.

billy

[Eric Schreiber]

"RedForeman ©®" > wrote:

>Now in Red...
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031202/480/ny11412021855

I'm glad someone started a new thread about them. I'll put aside for
the time my objections to these fish, in favor of asking about this,
from the Segrest FAQ:

"Why are GloFish™ the only fluorescent fish that can be sold in the
United States?"

"Because fluorescent fish are unique, their sale is covered by a
substantial number of patents and pending patent applications. The
providers of GloFish™ fluorescent fish are the only distributors that
have the necessary licenses to produce and market fluorescent fish
within the United States. The production of these fish by any other
party, or the sale of fluorescent fish not originally distributed by
the authorized providers, is strictly prohibited."


This doesn't seem quite right to me. Certainly Segrest and the related
companies hold the patent to *this* particular fluorescent fish, but
the way this statement reads, some other company that came up with,
say, fluorescing blue plecos, couldn't market them. Offhand, that
sounds like utter BS to me.

Also, can these fish breed? I couldn't find any official statement
about it, just conflicting second and third hand comments that yes,
they can breed, and no, they are sterile. Does anyone have a link to
an official answer?

And assuming the official stance is "they are sterile", I have to ask
"Wanna bet?" One little slip by the QA department (and it will happen)
and someone will breed them. Once individuals are breeding them in
their own home tanks, does Segrest think it'll actually be able to
stop hobbyists from selling their excess stock?

I see another court case coming about if someone can actually lay
intellectual property claim to a species, especially if there proves
to be a profitable market in GM pets.

--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Dinky]

"Eric Schreiber" > wrote in message
...
> "RedForeman ©®" > wrote:
>
> I see another court case coming about if someone can actually lay
> intellectual property claim to a species, especially if there proves
> to be a profitable market in GM pets.
>


This one is inevitable. Companies are going to invest serious cash into
producing GM animals, and you can bet your little red fishies they'll want
to patent them.

[TYNK 7]

(snipped)
>Subject: Re: Old Topic - Glowing Zebra Danios
>From: Eric Schreiber
>Date: 12/2/2003 5:51 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <up8qsvgu2f0ddt8a6bdo6

>Also, can these fish breed? I couldn't find any official statement
>about it, just conflicting second and third hand comments that yes,
>they can breed, and no, they are sterile. Does anyone have a link to
>an official answer?
>

On their website for these fish is clearly states that the fluoresence is
passed down to their offspring.
That would tell me yes.
I had somebody arguing with me in a chat about this very topic, saying no, that
they were sterile. I copied and pasted their paragraph where it says it's
passed down to offspring....they wetn back and read it for themselves and came
back and said sorry.
It's easily missed and they don't go on about it.

[RedForeman ©®]

In the original statement, posted over a year ago, something was said about
them being sterile, but not sure if that was in the original article, or if
it was in a post somewhere...

--

RedForeman ©®





"TYNK 7" > wrote in message
...
> (snipped)
> >Subject: Re: Old Topic - Glowing Zebra Danios
> >From: Eric Schreiber
> >Date: 12/2/2003 5:51 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <up8qsvgu2f0ddt8a6bdo6
>
> >Also, can these fish breed? I couldn't find any official statement
> >about it, just conflicting second and third hand comments that yes,
> >they can breed, and no, they are sterile. Does anyone have a link to
> >an official answer?
> >
>
> On their website for these fish is clearly states that the fluoresence is
> passed down to their offspring.
> That would tell me yes.
> I had somebody arguing with me in a chat about this very topic, saying no,
that
> they were sterile. I copied and pasted their paragraph where it says it's
> passed down to offspring....they wetn back and read it for themselves and
came
> back and said sorry.
> It's easily missed and they don't go on about it.

[Eric Schreiber]

(TYNK 7) wrote:

>On their website for these fish is clearly states that the fluoresence
>is passed down to their offspring. That would tell me yes.

Well, clearly the fish can breed, otherwise production costs of doing
GM manipulations to each batch of eggs would be high. I asked the
question poorly - it should have been "are the fish being sold to
consumers able to breed, or have they been rendered sterile"?

I saw a number of people (Nth level hearsay) commenting that the fish
were irradiated to make them sterile before sale. From a business
standpoint, this might make sense - after all, if any competent
hobbyist can breed them (and danios are apparently easy to spawn) then
the original distributor can quickly lose control of the market.


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Dan Drake]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:51:40 UTC, Eric Schreiber
> wrote:

> "Why are GloFishÍ the only fluorescent fish that can be sold in the
> United States?"
>
> "Because fluorescent fish are unique, their sale is covered by a
> substantial number of patents and pending patent applications. The
> providers of GloFishÍ fluorescent fish are the only distributors that
> have the necessary licenses to produce and market fluorescent fish
> within the United States. The production of these fish by any other
> party, or the sale of fluorescent fish not originally distributed by
> the authorized providers, is strictly prohibited."
>
>
> This doesn't seem quite right to me. Certainly Segrest and the related
> companies hold the patent to *this* particular fluorescent fish, but
> the way this statement reads, some other company that came up with,
> say, fluorescing blue plecos, couldn't market them. Offhand, that
> sounds like utter BS to me.

Indeed it sounds like utter BS. But never underestimate the stupidity of
patent law and its enforcers or the malice of patent holders. I haven't
seen the patent and I'm not going to, but they may have tried to patent
the whole idea of a fluorescent fish, and the examiners may have let them
get away with it. As someone has already said, this may mean big-time
litigation if a market develops. Be careful aobut placing any bets on how
the litigation comes out.


--
Dan Drake

http://www.dandrake.com

Human rights in Cuba: 600 prisoners held 18 months and more,
without charge, without bail, without counsel, facing trial by
secret special tribunals with power to impose the death
penalty. And that's just one place. Guantanamo.

[Charles]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:16:20 -0500, "RedForeman ©®"
> wrote:

>Now in Red...
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031202/480/ny11412021855


Illegal in California

From today's LA Times



Dim View of GloFish, Bans Sale
By Kenneth R. Weiss
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.

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.




--

- Charles
-
-does not play well with others