NANFA-- News: GloFish in the news

Sajjad Lateef (
Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:01:08 -0800 (PST)

(URL is split into two lines.)

Some see fluorescent fish as neon signs of trouble

By John Keilman
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 12, 2004

Past the shark lagoon and piranha tanks at a Park Ridge pet store dart
tiny fish that some consider far more alarming.

The glowing red and green swimmers at the Living Sea Aquarium represent
the vanguard in the brave new world of genetically engineered pets
being sold across the United States. Marketed under such names as
"Night Light Fish" and selling for up to $30 apiece, they gleam like
inch-long neon signs, thanks to DNA transferred from sea coral and

The fish have existed for years and have been deemed safe by numerous
scientists and government agencies. But their recent introduction to
the American public--and the lack of regulations covering them--makes
some people worry what other manmade critters might follow.

"Not to make a pun, but I think it's shedding a light on serious
regulatory and safety issues that are not getting much attention," said
Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of
Pennsylvania. "This is going to be a very important issue. The fish is
just the first wave on the beach."

The species that has jump-started the debate over genetically altered
pets is the GloFish. Yorktown Technologies, an Austin, Texas-based
company, has sold it for a month and rolled it out nationally last week
at a suggested price of $5 per fish.

The GloFish's red glimmer comes from a coral gene that was added to the
embryo of a normal zebra fish, said Alan Blake, Yorktown's chief
executive officer. Scientists in Singapore came up with the idea to
monitor water quality, trying to get the fish to glow in the presence
of toxins.

Yorktown got the right to sell the fish in the U.S., but consulted with
scientists and federal agencies for two years before offering it to
hobbyists, Blake said.

FDA passes on fish

Food and Drug Administration officials said they didn't need to
regulate the fish because people would not eat them, and because there
was no evidence of an environmental threat. Scientists who reviewed
research for California's Fish and Game Commission said the fish, if
released into the wild, was unlikely to survive in the state's
relatively cold waters.

Despite those findings, the commission last month still refused to
exempt the GloFish from California's ban on genetically engineered
aquatic creatures, imposed in May. Commissioner Sam Schuchat wrote that
"creating a novelty pet is a frivolous use of this technology. No
matter how low the risk is, there needs to be a public benefit that is
higher than this."

Blake responded that GloFish were a byproduct of serious research, and
that some of the proceeds would fund further studies, though a company
spokesman declined to say how much.

"We absolutely recognize that genetic technology carries with it
incredible potential and incredible responsibility," Blake said. "We
take that responsibility very seriously."

The potential environmental effects of the other genetically engineered
fish available in the U.S.--a rice fish whose implanted jellyfish DNA
causes it to glow green--have proven worrisome elsewhere in the world.
The Japanese government last year raised concerns that it could disrupt
native species.

Fish may be the first genetically altered creatures to reach the
marketplace, but others may not be far behind. A New York company is
trying to use gene splicing to create a cat that does not inflame

The cloning expert doing the research, Dr. Jerry Yang of the University
of Connecticut, said funding problems have slowed the work but that
initial results are promising. He's been able to create embryos that
are missing the allergen gene.

He said his project was different from the glowing fish because
allergen-free cats can occasionally be found in nature.

"We don't think we're creating anything new," he said. "We're creating
existing animals."

Though Yang said his work is reviewed by university panels and animal
welfare inspectors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, critics say
the government is not paying enough attention to genetically engineered

No single federal agency regulates transgenic animals, though USDA
officials say they are evaluating whether they should play a role.
Craig Culp of the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group that works
to curb technologies it says are harmful to health, worries that
indifference could allow some altered species to get loose, wreaking
havoc on the environment and food supply.

"We're buying a fish that's been genetically engineered for our
amusement and putting it into our kids' bedrooms without thinking of
the ethical dimensions," he said. "It staggers the mind to think of
what could come down the pike."

States concerned

Such concerns prompted California to restrict transgenic aquatic
animals to research use, and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has three
bills on her desk that would allow the state to outlaw certain
genetically engineered creatures.

"The GloFish is not our issue, but this technology could conceivably
create species that would threaten our native fish stock," said
spokesman Brad Wurfel of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources is not considering a
similar step, officials said.

Some scientists fear that a public furor over transgenic pets could
harm more serious inquiries. "There is the potential of the public not
seeing the full application of genetic research," said Richard Winn, a
University of Georgia professor who uses genetically engineered fish to
examine the effects of pesticides and other chemicals. "If it seems
trivial or unnecessary or a Frankenfish, it makes people turn off or be
afraid of it."

The GloFish has been selling briskly around the country, according to
Yorktown Technologies. Sales of luminous fish have been good but not
overwhelming at the Living Sea Aquarium, where a tank aglow with blue
light accentuates their blazing color.

"I see it as a popular color variation, but I don't see it dominating,"
said manager Daryl Szyska. "There are so many species, why would you
limit yourself to one?"


Sajjad Lateef   e-mail: 
Note: Any e-mail to me with my first name in Subject  or
without a subject line is automatically filtered out 
and discarded as  s p a m .
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,