ebbandflow

I was wondering what people here think about this. I went to my LFS today and asked about glo-fish cuz I really wanted to get some after looking at the link from another thread. Shipping charges are kind of expensive so I went to the local store to see if they ever got them in or would order them for me. The guy at the lfs told me that he wouldnt order them and considered them the same as painted fish as far as altering fish is concerned. I personally hadnt even thought of the fact that there could be a moral problem with them. As far as I understand they go through no pain and at this point are bred just like any other fish... from others of the same species. Am I incorrect? What does everyone think?

Marc

From what I can gather, they are just genetically modified - they altered the DNA in a way that they would reflect the light. They are altered but they go through no pain in the process as it's done when they are just eggs.

Isabella

Marc, I don't think they're being altered when they're eggs. It is a whole new breed created. That means that there were some genetically modified parents at some point, but after that point, all of their offspring are being born this way, as a wholly new breed. So, yes in a sense they are genetically modified, but it's their parents' genes that are already modified. Nothing is being done to the eggs. This is what I gathered from the article appearing in Richard's post and to which Ebb is referring. If I misunderstood this article, then if the eggs are being altered - this INDEED IS an ethical problem which is the same as fish dying as the eggs are already living beings.

mistycheri

How exactly are fish dyed?

Isabella

Cheri Ann, you should read this: http://www.fishlore.com/Forum/index.php?topic=611.0

ebbandflow

But if it was unethical to have changed their parents (I'm not saying it was... I havent decided yet) then wouldnt the whole thing be unethical? I mean, just because your fish in particular wasnt altered does that make it ok? The whole process would seem to be tainted then right?

0morrokh

I don't know much about glo-fish, but as a rule I stay away from artificially colored fish because there tends to be something more or less unethical involved. Also I don't know if anything besides color is affected with the glo-fish, like I know dyed fish don't tend to live as long. There may be other side affects to the genetic modification.

vin

Check out the thread - Glo Fish Explained.....Weird.....

Butterfly

There has been quite a bit of controversy over glofish.
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.u...article_id=119
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3967179
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science...scent.fish.ap/
Carol

ebbandflow

Thanks those were real informative. I still have no idea where I stand on this one... but when I'm reading about them all I can think of is "holy i want these fish!"

Richard

Wow guys,I had no idea such unethical practices as injecting dye into fish existed!..I'm planning to do a little investigating of my own to try to find out the true origins of those green fish(I still hesitate to call 'em Glo-fish,because they are not Zebras and anatomically speaking,in no way related)..I'll let you know what I unearth..although at a guess,a number of the breeders and dealers here in Trinidad are of Asian heritage still maintaining ties with their countries,so these little fellows could very well be an even newer breed of genetically altered fish available in that part of the world.
I have to admit,a lot of what I've read has left a slightly queasy feeling with me..and this is a case of if I knew then what I know now,I mightn't have bought those fish without knowing more about them...HOWEVER they are swimming away happily and healthily in their tank,and so they will continue to get from me all the care and attention they need to be in good spirits..green or not I could do no less for them and all the other species I have,for all the happiness and relaxation they've given me since I bought my first aquarium.

mistycheri

Thanks for the info Isabella, it was very informative on the subject. I think it's a cruel thing to do, just like the poor rabbits and baby chicks that get dyed at Easter just to make money.

0morrokh

Once again humans try to do things to animals to get more money. Sounds like it can be debated whether those GloFish don't have side affects to the modification. I'd like to know what those poor fish go through during sterilization.

ebbandflow

before you get too critical id like to point out that humans have been modifying animals for a loooong time. selective breeding is a type of modification and though it may take longer, genes are still altered in an unnatural way in this process. It started out for practical purposes such as stronger animals for plowing fields and things like that. It moved into making money much more recently (an example very close to all of our hearts being the betta!) Bettas would not be so popular if they did not look so good, and there looks at this point are not "natural" in a pure sense. Even natural breeding, as we can see by what ive heard about hardiness of certain tetras, can negatively effect health and lifespan of animals.

Its a complicated issue... but I guess what im trying to say is i dont think the modification in and of itself is wrong. its more the "side effects" of the alteration.

Even dogs have been bred over the years to be more passive and to hold their younger characteristics for longer so as to appear cuter. Having pets in todays world is very hard if you want to avoid any modification that has been done to make animals more appealing to people or easier to take care of. In my opinion at least.

fish_r_friend

thats how bettas got so manny fin configurations to selctive breeding

ncje

Apart from the unethical practice of mutating live fish by injecting colours etc, I am completely against any type of fish hybridisation. The farthest I think is acceptable is breeding strains from non altered parents such as the practice with guppies and angels.

RudeeRu

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but genetic alteration is here to stay! Everything from the vegetables (example the fresh corn we like to eat and the year-round strawberries don't just happen just because...) we eat to the meat that we consume (if you like meat) is either already being genetically altered or will be. Not saying that it is right (to each his own on that one), but it is happening and is going to happen.

While selectively breeding is not exactly the same as genetic alteration (actually going in and manually changing the DNA), practically all domesticated animals have been selectively bred over time (example aritificial selection), and the consequences of that have not been good either--look at the English Bulldog, it has so many medical problems and doesn't even resemble the Old English Bulldog of before, or look at these cats called Munkins (think of cats with the legs of dachsunds), what purpose does that serve except to make an animal that is more prone to injury (my opinion). We humans just can't keep our hands-off of trying to change things for our liking! Up until today I had not heard about the glo-fish thingie, but I want to do more research into it now out of sheer curiousity! Ebbandflow pretty much summed it up that you can't own some type of pet today without some type of alteration having had been done, whether in our generation or many generations ago. And while we learn more and more about genetics and gene/DNA modification, we will experiment more and more. And while there are some of us who want to use the information and the knowledge for good, there will always be those who use it for money, or for some selfish reason.