Past the shark lagoon and piranha tanks at a Park Ridge pet store dart tiny fish that some consider far more alarming.
The glowing red and green swimmers at the Living Sea Aquarium represent the vanguard in the brave new world of genetically engineered pets being sold across the United States. Marketed under such names as “Night Light Fish” and selling for up to $30 apiece, they gleam like inch-long neon signs, thanks to DNA transferred from sea coral and jellyfish.
The fish have existed for years and have been deemed safe by numerous scientists and government agencies. But their recent introduction to the American public–and the lack of regulations covering them–makes some people worry what other manmade critters might follow.
“Not to make a pun, but I think it’s shedding a light on serious regulatory and safety issues that are not getting much attention,” said Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. “This is going to be a very important issue. The fish is just the first wave on the beach.”
The species that has jump-started the debate over genetically altered pets is the GloFish. Yorktown Technologies, an Austin, Texas-based company, has sold it for a month and rolled it out nationally last week at a suggested price of $5 per fish.
The GloFish’s red glimmer comes from a coral gene that was added to the embryo of a normal zebra fish, said Alan Blake, Yorktown’s chief executive officer. Scientists in Singapore came up with the idea to monitor water quality, trying to get the fish to glow in the presence of toxins.
Yorktown got the right to sell the fish in the U.S., but consulted with scientists and federal agencies for two years before offering it to hobbyists, Blake said.
FDA passes on fish
Food and Drug Administration officials said they didn’t need to regulate the fish because people would not eat them, and because there was no evidence of an environmental threat. Scientists who reviewed research for California’s Fish and Game Commission said the fish, if released into the wild, was unlikely to survive in the state’s relatively cold waters.
Despite those findings, the commission last month still refused to exempt the GloFish from California’s ban on genetically engineered aquatic creatures, imposed in May. Commissioner Sam Schuchat wrote that “creating a novelty pet is a frivolous use of this technology. No matter how low the risk is, there needs to be a public benefit that is higher than this.”
Blake responded that GloFish were a byproduct of serious research, and that some of the proceeds would fund further studies, though a company spokesman declined to say how much.
“We absolutely recognize that genetic technology carries with it incredible potential and incredible responsibility,” Blake said. “We take that responsibility very seriously.”
The potential environmental effects of the other genetically engineered fish available in the U.S.–a rice fish whose implanted jellyfish DNA causes it to glow green–have proven worrisome elsewhere in the world. The Japanese government last year raised concerns that it could disrupt native species.
Fish may be the first genetically altered creatures to reach the marketplace, but others may not be far behind. A New York company is trying to use gene splicing to create a cat that does not inflame allergies.
The cloning expert doing the research, Dr. Jerry Yang of the University of Connecticut, said funding problems have slowed the work but that initial results are promising. He’s been able to create embryos that are missing the allergen gene.
He said his project was different from the glowing fish because allergen-free cats can occasionally be found in nature.
“We don’t think we’re creating anything new,” he said. “We’re creating existing animals.”
Though Yang said his work is reviewed by university panels and animal welfare inspectors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, critics say the government is not paying enough attention to genetically engineered pets.
No single federal agency regulates transgenic animals, though USDA officials say they are evaluating whether they should play a role. Craig Culp of the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group that works to curb technologies it says are harmful to health, worries that indifference could allow some altered species to get loose, wreaking havoc on the environment and food supply.
“We’re buying a fish that’s been genetically engineered for our amusement and putting it into our kids’ bedrooms without thinking of the ethical dimensions,” he said. “It staggers the mind to think of what could come down the pike.”
States concerned
Such concerns prompted California to restrict transgenic aquatic animals to research use, and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has three bills on her desk that would allow the state to outlaw certain genetically engineered creatures.
“The GloFish is not our issue, but this technology could conceivably create species that would threaten our native fish stock,” said spokesman Brad Wurfel of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources is not considering a similar step, officials said.
Some scientists fear that a public furor over transgenic pets could harm more serious inquiries. “There is the potential of the public not seeing the full application of genetic research,” said Richard Winn, a University of Georgia professor who uses genetically engineered fish to examine the effects of pesticides and other chemicals. “If it seems trivial or unnecessary or a Frankenfish, it makes people turn off or be afraid of it.”
The GloFish has been selling briskly around the country, according to Yorktown Technologies. Sales of luminous fish have been good but not overwhelming at the Living Sea Aquarium, where a tank aglow with blue light accentuates their blazing color.
“I see it as a popular color variation, but I don’t see it dominating,” said manager Daryl Szyska. “There are so many species, why would you limit yourself to one?”