california outlaws gloFish

[MAM]

Infact I am willing to trust them and eat one myself (when they come out).

you let us know how that works out for you

 

[Opcn]

no really ken I hadn't grasped that.
I was simply comenting that if they could talk they wouldn't say that Don't pick at the very fringes of an argument if you know that they are the very fringes.

 

[Cian McLiam]

. Infact I am willing to trust them and eat one myself (when they come out).

Any opposition to that.

Opcn

No opposition here. I think it would be a far better exercise to see what happens after you eat a genetically engineered fish with genes from jellyfish, than creating the poor fish in the first place.

I refuse to live my life being spoonfed my morality and ethics from companies that stand to make a profit from bending their very principles. If this company is so concerned, why did they shut down their forum after only ten posts? They said it was because of huge interest. Millions wanting to thank them and wish them well for giving us freaks to take home and play with. I dont think so for some reason.
Face it, this was most likely a lie to cover up protest to their antics. I have yet to recieve a reply to the email I sent them.
Have you not read what the Californians said at all?

Ken

 

[Opcn]

You know that they got atleast 10 posts you don't know that google got that info from the last millaseconds before they shut it down (nor is there reason to assume so unless you start out not to give this company a chance)

Opcn

as far as what the californians said they say alot of things and many of them contradict Each other (Here I get alot more of what californians are saying than you do online or on Irish TV or Radio)

 

[Cian McLiam]

as far as what the californians said they say alot of things and many of them contradict Each other (Here I get alot more of what californians are saying than you do online or on Irish TV or Radio)

True, you may hear more but:

Given California's extensive review, proponents had looked to its approval to dampen any concerns from other states or consumers that the fish might be harmful to the environment or if consumed by wayward pets or children.

Extensive review? It seems they weighed up the pros and cons a lot more than you have, with ALL the facts, and have made the only decision they could.

Ken

 

[guppymonkey]

I am glad that California has decided that glofish are wrong. While morally I am against modifying any animal for any reason, from glowing fish to adding growth hormones to animals, I can understand the other reasons that they outlawed these fish. Thousands of fish are released into the wild by owners that get bored with them. Most fish are versatile and can survive in many environments. So, like rats and rabbits introduced by early explorers these fish can take over an area where they have no natural predators and displace the natural inhabitants. I have read about lionfish being released on the eastern coast of the United States so that now there are pockets of them living in areas where they should not be. I read about a pacu being found up in my area (the Northeast) where they obviously should not be. Imagine if someone had release piranhas instead of their much more docile vegetarian cousin? But California is different than New York. The piranhas would die in the winter up here, in California it is no where near as cold. In some areas released tropical fish could survive and that is the fear about the glofish. These fish are not natural and I don't think we really need to find out what kind of impact they would have on the natural environment. Just because some scientist says that they wouldn't impact the environment doesn't make it a definate. Those scientists work for a company that sells those fish, of course they are going to come to the conclusion that their company wants. Just because the company says its safe doesn't mean that it is.

 

[FanOFish]

I am glad that California has decided that glofish are wrong. While morally I am against modifying any animal for any reason, from glowing fish to adding growth hormones to animals,

Guppy...when you say you are against modifying any animal for any reason does that include people?

 

[Cian McLiam]

FanOFish,
You have just pointed out the fundemental argument here. People are free to choose how and what they want to do with their bodies. They must also accept the consequences of this. I dont see people qeuing up with their kids saying 'make them glo, make them glo!'
These animals genetic code, despite what others here feel, are not for us to do with what we want. Nature has evolved it into what it is and what it needs to be.
We, with our limited understanding are attempting to re-arrange all this in a 'wait and see' approach that some maybe willing to accept, but I am not.

Ken

 

[basenjib123]

I don't like the Glo-fish but what I like even less is governments telling me what I can and cannot purchase, especially something like a fish!

 

[ste2k3]

I dont see people qeuing up with their kids saying 'make them glo, make them glo!'

just you wait 5 years!

 

[Opcn]

well before there was a company to hire these scientists they said that male glos only mate 90% as often as regular zebs and females lay 50% as many eggs and It is undisputable that they are much more visable and that they act like fish. So assuming that they are nontoxic (which we will find out after they come out) stands to reason that a population of regular zebras would do more dammage seeing as how the two species are symilar enought to fool each other.

Opcn

Oh and I've already heard people talking about haveing genes added to there children to make up for family traits that they lack (Like making sure your kid does not have o- blood).

 

[ste2k3]

Ok, then what would happen if these "glowing fish" escaped and bred with the normal danios. what would the 10th generation look like. i say don't tamper with something that could go soooooooooooo wrong

 

[Opcn]

Okay that is a concer but it is just one gene so they get it or they dont. The only concern (That anyone mildly informed has) with genetic engineering is that the one gene you put in will not mesh with other genes. That or that they will out compete native spicies(and that it is moraly wrong of coarse). Fortunatly the wild zebras are (in every mater of difference) more equiped for life in the wild as I have stated before. If you read the other post (the one with 92 replies and 8** views) I already addressed that concern. And california has no Wild zebras anyway (they may have some farrel ones but hurting those populations is a good thing)

 

[Opcn]

Also The big project that got people concernd about genetic was the fast grow salmon That out competed the wild fish for mates but didn't survive as well

Opcn

 

[Sea_Monster87]

The fish are cute, but I don't really trust them.