"GloFish" Where do you stand?

Would you buy "Glofish"?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 76 37.1%

  • No.

    Votes: 129 62.9%
  • Total voters
    205
A

Aquatick

AC Members
Jul 21, 2004
91
0
0
Tampa, Florida
Visit site
I'm sure most of you have already heard about the infamous genetically altered "glofish". I'm curios to see what the members of this board think about genetically mutated fish. For those of you who are not familiar with the glofish, you may read more here... www.glofish.com however I warn you that most of the information contained on that web page is misleading.

THE TRUTH.....

1. A large percentage of these fish are housed at 5-D Tropical in Plant City, Florida and escape from the facilities into the natural waterways IS possible. I know...I've seen it first hand. Zebra fish are more than capable of thriving in Florida waters. BELIEVE ME.

2. It IS possible for them to reproduce on their own.

3. All photographs of the fish were indeed taken under a black light. The fish only actually glow under a black light.

4. A green strain was created however the color was only noticable under a black light so it was not marketed.


Personally, I boycott these fish. The reasons are really quite endless, but I'd like to hear more about what you folks think.

By the way....Last time I checked 5D Tropical also provides
Wal-Mart with their fish!
 
No, I wouldn't buy one. If they are made to detect pollution in water ways then let them be used that way. I don't have any pollution in my tank so why do I need one?

Plus they're ugly.
 
2. It IS possible for them to reproduce on their own.
Click to expand...

I agree, my brother met a guy who has breed them. I find that extremely scary...enough that I didn't believe it at first... not only are they genetically altered, but the can reproduce on their own. So much for being sterile. I personally think the project should be ditched... who knows what they can/will do to natural ecosystems.

As for in the aquarium... not in mine.. I haven't even considered them an option and never will. While I'll find them more acceptable than dyed/painted fish, they are still in the same type of category...
 
While I don't think they're doing any harm to the fish themselves, unlike 'painted fish' which make my stomach turn, I find genetic altering of animals and plants very scary. Nature wanted zebra danios to be black and white, not flourescent red!
It's also pathethic that we have to breed special fish to tell us just how polluted we've made our water. Wouldn't the money spent on glofish research be better spent on cleaning up the polluted water?
 
No.
They're ugly ( a dull washed out color).
I don't use a blacklight on my tanks so it's pretty pointless.
There are hundreds and thousands of beautiful fish out there that are just fine in my tanks so why bother.


There are some other reasons but those are the first that come to mind. That is all just my take on them.
 
I have a huge issue with this statement:
"By accepting these fish, and as part of the consideration therefor, the recipient agrees: (1) not to, breed or propagate these fish, permit or encourage others to breed or propagate these fish, or otherwise intentionally engage in any activity that may result in or lead to the breeding or propagation of these fish by anyone without the express written consent of Yorktown;(2) not to sell or transfer these fish to anyone in the State of California, or to possess or otherwise engage in any activity that results in the possession of these fish in the State of California."

How can you trademark a fertile, living creature and all future offspring?
 
Last edited:
I've always been interested with genetic engineering. I love the prospect of bring back animals that we have wiped out such as the thylacine(tasmanian tiger) or a rare specie of dewgong (forgot the name) that was only found in a small island group that was wiped out by fur traders in only a few years, Im not sure we have a DNA sample of the dewgongs though. There is a preserved tasmanian tiger pup in austrailia and with genetic engineering we could make a group of different individuals with enough genetic diversity to reestablish the specie without a threat of inbreeding. I also like the prospect of engineering plants but only if they're grown in a controlled enviroment with practically no chance to spread their altered genes elsewere. However that risk will always be present, moreso in altered animals. I really dont support the Glofish. While they do serve a "purpose" in helping to moniter pollution levels that could also be done with technology. Also I dont think that anything should be genetically altered just for a cosmetic value. I dont have a problem with selective breeding obviously because that's something that happens in nature, it just benefits the more fit animals not the better looking ones. I despise painting of fish or the injection of hormones to make a fish's colors appear brighter and at a younger age and genetically altering fish for appearance is similar eventhough the fish dont experience pain from it. I just think its pointless.
 
Originally posted by Cearbhaill
How can you trademark a fertile, living creature and all future offspring?
Click to expand...

You can't...but this is them making an effort, which is allowing them to get away with selling them :) It is obvious what the ending outcome will be...but hey - the company 'GloFish' put that statement out, so they're not responsible.............*rolls eyes* So sad...
 
While I agree they are more acceptable than the painted fish, I just don't see the point, or the need to perpetuate the idea. Money could be better spent on cleaning up pollution, I didn't think detection was really an issue with modern water testing, and I don't like the look of the fish. I see them in the LFS, and it's one of the tanks I simply walk on past while browsing the fish. If someone wants fish that glow under a blacklight, they should try the little hanging glass fish that big all sells. Water changing and feeding unneccessary.
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom