Hello,
Thanks for letting us know about your concerns regarding GloFish fluorescent
zebra fish. Please know that every possible environmental and ethical care
has been taken to assure that GloFish fluorescent zebra fish are healthy,
for both their quality of life and for the environment we all share.
The GloFish fluorescent zebra fish were originally bred to help fight
environmental pollution at the National University of Singapore by Dr.
Zhiyuan Gong. Using these "proof-of-concept" fish, Dr. Gong is now working
to make fluorescent fish that will signal environmental trouble by
selectively fluorescing in the presence of toxins. In order to further this
research, a portion of all proceeds from the sale of GloFishT fluorescent
fish sales will go directly to Dr. Gong's facility.
We appreciate your input regarding GloFish fluorescent zebra fish and invite
you to use this email address to pose further questions that our FAQ section
may not address.
Thank you,
Kevin
GloFish Support Team
----- Original Message -----
From: GloFish Info <
[email protected]>
To: <
[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:16 PM
Subject: GloFish.com Contact - Glofish Ethics
> Description: Retail Customer
> Name: Ken Williams
> Email: > Subject: Glofish Ethics
> Comments: Hi,
> There has been great debate about the recent appearance of the Glofish to
> the aquarium hobby. I have given my own opinions to these fish in one such
> debate (details below) but in the interest of fair hearing, I am
forwarding
> my opinion for your consideration and would like to hear your response to
> the issues raised. I realise that you perhaps recieve dozens of such
request
> every day but I am afraid that assumptions I have made are incorrect, so
> would appreciate some more information to satisfy my doubts. Should such
> information be available, I would have no hesitation in withdrawing my
> remarks.
>
> Yours Sincerely,
>
> Ken Williams
>
> I agree everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the fish concerned
> however seems to be exempt from this, as is usually the case with humans.
We
> somehow have come to believe that every other living thing on the planet
has
> no right to its own dignity no matter how small or large. We have become
so
> egotistical to believe that modifying millions of years of evolution in
one
> stroke is not only a possibilty for us, but somehow our right, even if it
is
> for superficial and commercial purposes like this. Fish have evolved many
> striking colours and patterns for themselves, this must be for a specific
> purpose as fish that live in zero visibility have not. I think colouring a
> fish genetically or mechanically is a perversion of this.
> Besides, it takes all the wonder out of it. Compare the two cases,a fish
> that has evolved over millions of years such beautiful colours is a thing
of
> wonder that should be respected as such and admired, these fish are
coloured
> by artificial means for no other purpose except money grabbing, probably
in
> a greasy back alley in Singapore. Where is the wonder and fascination in
> that?
> Personally I appreciate the fish for being what they are, not for what I
> want them to be.
> Comparing these coloured fish with fancy bred varities is not a vaild
> argument. The fancy coloured varities were allowed to perfrom their
natural
> breeding patterns, we simply arranged a partner for them. Unfortunately
even
> this has become corrupted with horomone treatment, which I personally find
> abhorrent also, except in dire cases like that of the red tail shark which
> is extinct in the wild and can only be bred succesfully in numbers using
> this method.
>
> While it may seem to some reading this that I am over-reacting, what I am
> concerned about is this:
> When we tire of these coloured fish, what will they do next to come up
with
> something new and amazing? Not in my name, thank you very much.
>
> If these fish do not catch on, or are even completely shunned by
consumers,
> what will be their fate? Down a toilet bowl if they are very lucky is my
> guess.
>
> My feeling is, if you want an amazing glow in the dark 4 headed fish with
> legs, please let a japanese marketing company know so they can create the
> perfect computer controlled super fish for you, leave mother nature and
the
> danios alone.
>
> Ken
>
>
> QUOTE
> Just to clarify: The GloFish wasn't originally created for commercial
> purposes. As some other people have pointed out, it was created for
> environmental research. I can understand it still doesn't make it right
for
> everyone, but people who talk about consumers getting tired of GloFish and
> demanding more seemed to be under the impression it was created for
> commercial purposes only. They only figured people might like it as a pet
> after they'd developed it.
>
>
>
> Does this make it ok to subject more fish to this treatment to satisfy
> consumer demand? I sincerely doubt any of the fish available in the shops
> were ever used for testing purposes, they took a dubious research idea and
> commercialised it for gain, pure and simple. I was also refering to the
> 'painted' fish available, there is no medical or enviornmental argument
for
> injecting fish bound for the aquarium hobby with dyes.
> According to the Aquaolg team there is upwards of 40,000 species of fish
on
> the planet at a rough estimate, if not one of these is enough to satisfy
you
> as a fishkeeper that you have to turn to artificially enhanced fish, then
I
> really believe that fishkeeping is not for you.
>
> They cloned a sheep some years ago, is it ok then to sell cloned sheep
with
> luminous pink hair just because it may or may not be achievable.
>
> I have a strong belief that when you take a wild animal from its habitat,
> undertake to breed it or just keep it in your home, you have also taken on
> the moral responsibilty to look after its welfare and wellbeing. Without
> this fundemental moral responsibility, keeping any animal captive is
> barbaric and reprehensible. I think subjecting these animals to this kind
of
> treatment is a breach of this responsibilty and starts us on a very slippy
> slope where the value of life itself becomes a cheap commercial interest
> rather than a fundemental right for every creature.
>
> Ken
>
> Submit: Submit
>
It sounds a lot like a form email. They just have one copy, and send it off to anyone who emails them. They didn't even mention Ken's name! 
