GloFish... Unethical or awesome???

See no problem with 'em from an ethics standpoint, myself, as opposed to fish that have been injected with dye or tattooed.

As personal preference, think they're tacky and would never buy one, no matter how much the kids and wife tell me how purty they are. :)

WYite
 
Banned because they could survive, and thrive in California waterways. Some of which are not polluted by tropical fish releases like some other Southern states.

Yeah, but normal danios could survive too so it's not just that, it has something to do with the GMO. Maybe they think the gene for fluorescent protein would move into other fish species through hybridization. It's happened before with plants and various modified for expression of insecticides and herbicide resistance.

ETA - aha. The wiki page on this is actually quite useful, and the sources check out. CDFG had a ban on all GMO fish even before glofish were released. They did finally say that the ban could be released but the state said the change in rule required preparation of an EIR under CEQA - the California Environmental Quality Act. It costs several hundred thousand dollars to hire the consultants to do an EIR. Case closed.
 
Last edited:
The state of California is always more cautious about such things, probably rightly so. Without knowing the science behind it, Mesto's guess/explanation seems valid, a little scary when you think about it. I certainly wouldn't want other fish phosphorescing because we decided we needed (...NOT!) Glofish.
 
I think 90% of glo-fish treat them unethical and put them in a 3 gallon or something less than a 20.

People don't realize these are zebra danios and that they are active, and schooling fish.


Sent from my iPod touch using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
Ethical yup. Tacky nope. To each their own, yup :) I myself wouldn't have them only because i'm not a big fan of zebras anyway lol.
 
Anyone ever Eaten corn, Brocolli, mustard...? Owned a pet dog, or cat? taken penicillin? Yeah, genetic modification is ethical imo.
Word...I think most of the public fails to realize that more than 80% of all soybean and corn crops in the US are GMs...and NOT the "line breeding" sort of GMs either.
 
Right, but there is a difference between genetic modification so that we can feed more people or produce fuel, vs. genetic modification so that we can make a fish that glows in the dark and looks like a bag of Skittles.

This kind of reminds me of the whole animal testing debate. I'm not sure how valuable animal testing actually is (not being a scientist, myself) but I assume it has some validity. If that is the case, then I am all for animal testing if it is for a medical reason. Cancer drugs? Yes. Cosmetics? Not so much.

Again, even though I feel it is unnecessary and promotes irresponsible fishkeeping, I do not believe it is unethical to have/make Glofish. I just shudder at those "Glofish tanks" much the same way I shudder at the tiny betta hex receptacles, or whatever.
 
Last edited:
what ever you do.. dont use black lights.. they can harm fish eye sight. ( some may disagree with me, but everyone i deal with that wants glo fish for that reason, i tell them not to use black light ) i will never own any glo fish... for two reason........ they are outrageously priced. and they arent my cup of tea...
 
If I had a glo tank it would use actinics. They accomplish almost the same thing as a black light and I think it looks better.

How does it harm their eyesight LBF? I would think it wouldn't be any worse than being at the surface on a very sunny day in the wild.
 
AquariaCentral.com