California Effectively bans transgenic aquatics

Katman · Post by **Katman** » 29 Nov 2003, 19:37

The California Dept.of Fish and Game has implemented regulations that require a permit
to import,possess,transport or culture live,transgenic aquatic species.
Transgenic species are those organisms that include genes from dissimilar species.
Permitting will be difficult and involve strict requirements to prevent escape or theft.
Violations may invoke a civil penalty of up to $10,000,additional investigation and attorney fees,and potentially other severe criminal penalties.

Copied from Florida Aquaculture news letter Sept 2003

Post by **Silurus** » 29 Nov 2003, 19:42

Hmm...does that include hybrids? They are effectively transgenic animals.

Katman · Post by **Katman** » 29 Nov 2003, 20:13

For additional information,contact Edmund Pert,Chef,Fisheries Program Branch,California
Dept.ofFish and Game,1416 Ninth St. Sacramento,California 95814 or telephone 916-445-3616
Sorry that is all the info I have at this time.

S. Allen · Post by **S. Allen** » 29 Nov 2003, 20:28

wow, california does something right for once... impossible to enforce though, just like their low emmissions vehicle rules.

Katman · Post by **Katman** » 29 Nov 2003, 23:48

There is a international law called The LACEY ACT ,The penalties make the California
law like a slap on the hand. The Lacey acts states if an animal is protected , endangered
or not legal to possess in a area ,anyone,and everyone shipping to a area where it is
not legal or out of a area that it is protected is guilty.

Example ,, If you live in california and I ship you go transgenic fish and they go through
five trans shippers before they get to you and you don't have the proper paper work
everyone in the chain can be fined $50,000 each.
I know people that have been fined because they were shipping Gar fish to the far east
and the transhipper took the fish off the airport to repack the fish. Gar fish are not legal
in California.
If nothing else this makes the penalties and getting the paper work not worth the trouble.

Post by **Rusty** » 30 Nov 2003, 02:50

A bit of googling turned up the exact newsletter. Flip to page three in this PDF. Guess you won't be seeing any GloFish in California...

Rusty

Post by **Shane** » 04 Dec 2003, 23:38

It gets crazier!

From the producers of Glofish TM.

"Because fluorescent fish are unique, their sale is covered by a
substantial number of patents and patent pending applications. The
providers of GloFish TM 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 them not originally distributed by Segrest Farms, is strictly
prohibited."

So, if you live in a state that allows "Glofish" (they are just zebra Danios) and you spawn them (not rocket science). You could be sued! Watch out fish clubs that these things do not turn up at auctions.

My research also turned up that several fish farms are now zapping fish with radiation in order to casue a higher ratio of deformed (or "FANCY" if you prefer the term, I would hate to offend anyone) fishes. The goal is to determine what types and levels of specific radiations will cause specific changes such as "long fins" and "balloon" fishes or to up the chances of deformed (or Fancy) fishes hatching that could then be spawned to each other to produce a new line of deformed (or Fancy) fishes.

I await with baited breath for the first long-finned, balloon, bubble eye, GLOpleco (TM, of course) .
-Shane

spiny · Post by **spiny** » 04 Dec 2003, 23:59

This radiation of fish should be a case for greenpeace or animal rights groups! If someone has contacts, please give them a hint.

In Japan (and other places I'm sure) they use chemicals to alter plants and animals genes, to increase the mutation rate.

It would be kind of funny to mutate these scientists, and make them glow and get balloon eyes, and long fluffy arms. If someone has contacts please give someone a hint...

In the most scare movies we can imagine, these evil aliens carry out experiments on humans... and we think this is the most evil stuff we have ever seen!

The truth is that we, the humans, are such evil creatures experimenting on other life froms that we do not respect.

A proper respect for other life forms, or species, should be a minimum!

Gloing H*ll TM

Post by **Rusty** » 05 Dec 2003, 00:06

Shane wrote:I await with baited breath for the first long-finned, balloon, bubble eye, GLOpl*co (TM, of course) .

You can always refer to that post as prior art when you sue for patent infringement

But seriously, if Liposarcus can survive in Florida canals, I can't see why Zebra fish can't. There was some talk of the USDA or FDA regulating these... any word on that? To those of you in the US, it may be worth writing to your congressional representatives or state legislators/authorities to press for regulation.

Rusty

S. Allen · Post by **S. Allen** » 05 Dec 2003, 17:49

why regulate them any differently than regular zebra fish from an ecological point of view? they'll do no more damage than a regular zebra fish. eat the same, attain the same size, breed the same, behave the same, they're just different colors.

;) I will say banning them is a step in the right direction, no matter what the reason behind the laws are.

oh, and BTW, California is citing ethics as the reason they won't allow them for sale, not fear of introduction into waterways.

spiny · Post by **spiny** » 05 Dec 2003, 18:21

It is a scientifically proven fact that genetically engineered food does something with the organism that eats it. The US gov might not agree on this, but then you have to consider the convincing argument of money; US genetic industry have huge economic interests in genetic science. normally the money-argument is colouring important debates. Even tobacco: till recently the tobacco industry denied that tobacco could damage your health.

If these gloing fishes should somehow end up in nature, by being spoilt down the toilet, or released by people in nature that felt sorry for the fishes, and gave them a new natural home (happened lots of times). what would happen? They would be part of the food chain.

In Europe at the moment there is a huge fight with US authorities to ban genetically engineered organisms. Europeans dont want these organisms, and the US government is threatening with sanctions if we do not import different crops, meat and organisms. The one part that say those organisms do not have a negative inflict, is also the part that has the economical interest...

What do you think about fish with tomato genes? It is a reality. At least in the labs.

In Ireland giant Salmon have been produced, growing to several times the size of normal atlantic Salmon. What if these escape? And survive?
Another Lake Victoria story?

Future will show! Maybe you wont need lighting anymore; glowing Panaques are hanging on the tank walls, giving light to the plants... Maybe one could make plants that produced their own light? And, what about viruses that can "steal" other organisms dna? If they "kidnap" these engineered genes? Gloing flu?!
Beware of the future...

I'd better have a beer...

MackIntheBox · Post by **MackIntheBox** » 05 Dec 2003, 18:53

spiny wrote:In Ireland giant Salmon have been produced, growing to several times the size of normal atlantic Salmon. What if these escape? And survive?
Another Lake Victoria story?

Never heard of that before, do you have a link to an article or something? I dont know what thets referring to.

Im not sure where I stand on genectic engineering, this seems like apretty silly thing to do, make custom colored GloFish and such, seems like a waist. If genetic modification can help us produce larger crops, larger or better food sources, it seems like a good idea. But then I think about the impact to the environment if something were to get loose, some things can have little impact, others can have a larger impact. there is an up side and a down side to modification, and im not sure where i stand on it right now.

spiny · Post by **spiny** » 05 Dec 2003, 23:54

Those giant Salmons in Ireland have been in reported lots of times in norwegian newspapers and science magazines. I'll try to find it. I'm sure I have those articles in my house somewhere.

Hot topic in Norway, as we have all these Salmon rivers, and also a lot of Salmon production.

Caol_ila · Post by **Caol_ila** » 06 Dec 2003, 03:02

and you spawn them (not rocket science)

maybe im not well informed but to my knowledge these fishes are supposed to be 100% infertile, to prevent people producing them at home...

make custom colored GloFish and such, seems like a waist

Im absolutely against these sort of animals, but the main reason why they appeared is that they were engeneered to be a (bad) water indicator. At least thats what was reported in german media.

ive heard from quite reliable sources that via Israel shipments of 600 fish have allready arrived in Italy and France...no matter how illegal it is therell always be a backdoor...

spiny · Post by **spiny** » 06 Dec 2003, 03:13

Science should now have learned that it is very very dangerous to thrust that a species should be infertile.
So many such mistakes are already made, and the thing is that even hybrids that are considered infertile, will sometimes be fertile. Like they say, nature finds its way...

In some lakes here in Norway, they released huge Canadian Char/Trout, males only, to eat down the huge populations of Cyprinid species, that through all their poo and huge numbers made perfect conditions of algae growth, and this reduced the waters quality as drinking water.

The fishes were released, and it worked very well! Clearer water, and less cyprinids. But what they thought was a controlled release was not; obviously some of these males went crossdressing and became females! And spawned successfully.

And, if you cross a horse and a donkey, you get the infertile mule. At least most of them are infertile. But, one of maybe a few thousand are FERTILE, and this is the case with so many species. Mutations and changes occur, and there are no specimens exactly similar.
Science has lots and lots of examples, but these are mostly not mentioned when new ideas occur. Why not? MONEY! Commercial considerations. If we shout out a warning, who will listen?

S. Allen · Post by **S. Allen** » 06 Dec 2003, 04:32

Caol_ila, actually this fish is not infertile, they are able to produce similar offspring.

http://www.glofish.com/science/NUS%20Fl ... 0Study.pdf

and for spiny, there is a piece on the toxicity of these fish

http://www.glofish.com/science/Cubitt%2 ... xicity.pdf

CommonPl*co · Post by **CommonPl*co** » 08 Dec 2003, 09:30

The "power we have over life" line is scary, even within this context.

I always have to try to load CNN's pages about 3 times before they open correctly. So, if at first you don't succeed...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12 ... index.html

California Effectively bans transgenic aquatics

California Effectively bans transgenic aquatics

Gloing h*ll

gloing crime

Re: gloing crime

Gloing fish

Gloing fish

CNN article