![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What the?!
Jan. 16th, 2004 05:52 pmThis is an article copied from The Associated Press
Sacramento, Calif. -- Two public interest groups sued the federal government Wednesday, seeking to block sales of the nation's first biotech household pet.
The suit filed in Washington, D.C., federal court says the trademarked GloFish should be federally regulated. Sales currently are legal everywhere except California, which banned the fluorescent zebra fish last month.
The suit asks a federal judge to order the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services to regulate the genetically modified fish, and to halt sales by Austin, Texas-based Yorktown Technologies LLP until the government acts. Sales of the Florida-grown fish began this month everywhere except California.
The commonly black and silver zebra fish glow bright red under black or ultraviolet light thanks to a a (sic) gene transplanted from a sea anemone.
The suit alleges those genes can pose human and animal health hazards if the biotech fish are released into natural waterways and consumed by other fish that are eaten by humans.
This raises several questions in my mind. First of all, who are these "public interest groups" and why don't they have names?
What do these people think these genes are going to do if they're eaten? Eating the fish (and gene) would result in it's digestion and inactivation, along with every other gene in the fish. Are they expecting these fish to somehow make humans glow? That's about as logical as expecting that we all grow fur, scales, feathers, or leaves from the other things we eat.
Or are they worried about the impact on the wild zebra fish population? The chances of these glofish even surviving (let alone breeding) if released in the wild are fairly slim unless they're released in the natural area of zebra fish (Ganges River, India), or somewhere with similar conditions. Even then, unless the glow gene gives them some competitive advantage, they're unlikely to make a significant difference in the zebra fish population. So how do these unnamed "public interest groups" expect the fish that humans eat to encounter a significant number of glofish anyway? Nobody's going to be releasing them by the hundreds...since each fish costs about $5, that would add up to a pretty hefty bill.
Why do the "public interest groups" think the FDA should be involved in this? Humans do not eat zebra fish--they're only an inch or two long. Regardless, the FDA did release a statement addressing this, (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00994.html) saying they have "no reason to regulate these particular fish."
For more information about the fish, including several environmental risk analyses, see www.glofish.com.
Sacramento, Calif. -- Two public interest groups sued the federal government Wednesday, seeking to block sales of the nation's first biotech household pet.
The suit filed in Washington, D.C., federal court says the trademarked GloFish should be federally regulated. Sales currently are legal everywhere except California, which banned the fluorescent zebra fish last month.
The suit asks a federal judge to order the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services to regulate the genetically modified fish, and to halt sales by Austin, Texas-based Yorktown Technologies LLP until the government acts. Sales of the Florida-grown fish began this month everywhere except California.
The commonly black and silver zebra fish glow bright red under black or ultraviolet light thanks to a a (sic) gene transplanted from a sea anemone.
The suit alleges those genes can pose human and animal health hazards if the biotech fish are released into natural waterways and consumed by other fish that are eaten by humans.
This raises several questions in my mind. First of all, who are these "public interest groups" and why don't they have names?
What do these people think these genes are going to do if they're eaten? Eating the fish (and gene) would result in it's digestion and inactivation, along with every other gene in the fish. Are they expecting these fish to somehow make humans glow? That's about as logical as expecting that we all grow fur, scales, feathers, or leaves from the other things we eat.
Or are they worried about the impact on the wild zebra fish population? The chances of these glofish even surviving (let alone breeding) if released in the wild are fairly slim unless they're released in the natural area of zebra fish (Ganges River, India), or somewhere with similar conditions. Even then, unless the glow gene gives them some competitive advantage, they're unlikely to make a significant difference in the zebra fish population. So how do these unnamed "public interest groups" expect the fish that humans eat to encounter a significant number of glofish anyway? Nobody's going to be releasing them by the hundreds...since each fish costs about $5, that would add up to a pretty hefty bill.
Why do the "public interest groups" think the FDA should be involved in this? Humans do not eat zebra fish--they're only an inch or two long. Regardless, the FDA did release a statement addressing this, (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00994.html) saying they have "no reason to regulate these particular fish."
For more information about the fish, including several environmental risk analyses, see www.glofish.com.
