PDA

View Full Version : Gak. Did you know people inject dye into fish!


doktordoris
16th April 2009, 23:48
I can't believe this.

I was just reading about fish on wikipedia and I learned that people inject dye into fish to make them pretty colours!!!

Can you believe that?

look at these links-

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_fish

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/show_article.php?article_id=72

http://freshaquarium.about.com/cs/beginnerinfo/a/paintedfish.htm

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/campaign.php


Sorry to have posted all these links, but I feel so outraged, Iam sure people who don't know of this practice will want to know about it.

Some people are b****rds aren't they?

Jennewt
17th April 2009, 00:07
It's appalling, but I'm not surprised. People love to buy unusual animals, and there's always someone out there who will make a fast buck by exploiting that. Similarly, I think there have been cases in Australia of intentionally-morphed axolotls being sold to the pet market. Hormones are probably used to mass produce them, and they too are likely to have a reduced lifespan.

ferret_corner
17th April 2009, 00:12
Yes I did know this - actually in the fish trade its old news. It is appalling.

doktordoris
17th April 2009, 00:22
I know it's disgusting isn't it?

Also I don't like flowerhorns, but I quite like those glofish zebras.

I feel that glofish are still natural fish, with regards to their behaviour and shape, and size.

But I wonder if flowerhorns can really enjoy having that ludicrous lump on their heads. What do you chaps think?

glofish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glofish


flowerhorns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowerhorn

crazyfishlady
17th April 2009, 00:26
Here's a company in Hong Kong that will tattoo your fish with lasers.
(http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=850)

If you breed the glofish the fry will also contain the same neon colors.

ianclick
17th April 2009, 00:34
I think its about as whack as people injecting jellyfish bits into axolotls to make them glow in the dark

doktordoris
17th April 2009, 00:55
is 'whack' good or bad?

and do people do that to axies?

crazyfishlady
17th April 2009, 01:25
is 'whack' good or bad?

and do people do that to axies?

Whack is bad. If you have any other questions about slang words you see go here:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/

doktordoris
17th April 2009, 01:31
Hmmm, thanks for your advice but for help with English I prefer to use Fowlers!

Better edit a smiley in or people will think Iam a crusty old bugger ;-)

whereas Iam just old!

Jennewt
17th April 2009, 01:56
I think its about as whack as people injecting jellyfish bits into axolotls to make them glow in the dark GFP axolotls are like the glo-fish. They have a piece of DNA that makes them a certain color, and it's inherited by their offspring. To make them in the beginning, someone injected some DNA into an embryo, but that's not so gruesome as the fish that are individually dyed or injected.

Darkmaverick
17th April 2009, 04:21
Intentionally dyed fish is sadly really popular in asian countries, especially those very keen on ornamental fish. Growing up in Singapore and frequently travelling to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan, i have witnessed so many of such cases, its actually a 'norm' there. Glass catfish and any translucent type fishes tend to be the unfortunate victims.

John
17th April 2009, 04:37
I'm really not in favour of transgenic animals like the GFP axolotls and the glowfish. I don't think it's right, morally, but my main objection is scientific - there are obvious traits for which these genes code, but their interaction with the rest of the animal's genetics are likely not fully known. For example, there have been cases of transgenic potatoes and cucumbers that made people violently sick because of unanticipated effects of the new genetic material and its interaction with the rest of the genome of those plants. I can't help but wonder if there are similar effects in animals, just more subtle.

Close to home, I wonder about the prevalence of chimerism in Jake's GFP animals and I wonder if it may be related to the transgenic nature of the animals.

SludgeMunkey
17th April 2009, 11:56
Well, while we are on the subject, lets not forget the fish that are dumped in a mild chemical bath to remove their slime coats and add porosity to their scales and then dumped in a bath of dye. The hybrid cichlids sold as "parrot" or "jellybeans" are a prime example of this tactic.

It really bothers me to see things like this done strictly for the pet trade. As for the transgenics, I find them very, very interesting however I feel their place is in the lab, not in the pet trade. Then again, I'm just a stubborn hillbilly...:D

Otterwoman
17th April 2009, 12:48
Remember when there were these high-heels with enclosures in the heels to put a fish in? Or people gluing little leashes to giant roaches and then pinning them to their garment?

People will never stop thinking of ways to torture other creatures.

crazyfishlady
17th April 2009, 12:59
Remember when there were these high-heels with enclosures in the heels to put a fish in?

You can order a fake fish in your heel nowadays. Heheheh
http://www.pimpdaddy.com/pd-pl-fish-wh.html

Or a fishtank toilet. Although I couldn't imagine what you can put in such a small tank.
http://fishnflush.com/

ianclick
20th April 2009, 19:49
Personally if there is some research or medical value to doing it I don't have a problem with genetic modification, Potatoes modified with a blight resistant gene may well have saved the Irish a huge Famine and stem cell research might have provided a viable alternative to death for superman.

Nature is a carefully ordered system and I believe we need to be certain there is no ego involved in playing with it.

In my country there is are laws prohibiting it although I am certain our govrnment will embrace any other countries advantagious research.

John
20th April 2009, 19:59
Personally if there is some research or medical value to doing it I don't have a problem with genetic modification, Potatoes modified with a blight resistant gene may well have saved the Irish a huge Famine and stem cell research might have provided a viable alternative to death for superman.
I don't think bringing the famine in Ireland into this is helpful because most people haven't a clue what really happened. I find this analogy too simplistic.

Most genetically modified crops are modified to be more resistant to pesticides so that farmers can use more pesticide to make sure the pests are killed, without killing the plant, thus maximising yields and profits. That is a fact. Do not delude yourself into thinking that genetically modified crops are genetically modified for your benefit - such instances are few and far between.

slowfoot
20th April 2009, 20:27
GFP-modified axolotls and zebrafish are extremely useful for scientific research. The injected fish are just sick.

Most genetically modified crops are modified to be more resistant to pesticides so that farmers can use more pesticide to make sure the pests are killed, without killing the plant, thus maximising yields and profits.

I'm far from an expert on GMOs, but do you have a citation for this? It doesn't make sense to me to modify crops to be resistant to pesticides because, as far as I know, the pesticides don't affect the crops themselves. I guess you could be referring to herbicide resistance...

ianclick
20th April 2009, 20:58
An airborne fungus (phytophthora infestans) infected the potato plants which infected the potatoes which led to widespread crop failure which in turn caused a famine.

I would say the word is Simple rather than simplistic John

John
20th April 2009, 21:01
An airborne fungus (phytophthora infestans) infected the potato plants which infected the potatoes which led to widespread crop failure which in turn caused a famine.

I would say the word is Simple rather than simplistic John

And that is not why so many people died. Not so simple.

doktordoris
20th April 2009, 21:01
As I posted earlier I'd love a glofish, and I am generally fairly anti-GM.

I just cannot see a problem with glowing zebra fish.

People are not going to eat them, so there is no problem there.
Zebra fish don't live in the wild, so a released glofish cannot upset a natural population.
Even IF someone released a skip-load of GMed zebras, they'd freeze to death right away.

So what is the problem?
I really can't see why the EU and California should be denied ownership of such interesting little beasties.

Or am I missing the point?

John
20th April 2009, 21:23
I'm far from an expert on GMOs, but do you have a citation for this? It doesn't make sense to me to modify crops to be resistant to pesticides because, as far as I know, the pesticides don't affect the crops themselves. I guess you could be referring to herbicide resistance...
Yes I meant herbicides. I think of pesticide as an umbrella term. You should know though that insecticides generally have some effects on the plants they are used on, even if that's only in so far as some is absorbed into the plant which is subsequently eaten by you (and those insecticides have an effect on you - most modes of action on insects are also available in humans, just to a lesser or slower paced extent).

If you want info on GM foods and the motivations of the people behind them, read about Monsanto on Wikipedia. That company dwarfs all other genetically modified organism companies and reading the wikipedia page you can see they have a questionable record regarding human/nature safety and welfare. There is an excellent quote on that page (it has a reference):

Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications (referring to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Food_and_Drug_Administration)) explained the company's regulatory philosophy to Michael Pollan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pollan) in 1998:
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."
GM crops, in theory, are a wonderful idea. However it gives pause for thought, I believe, if the motivations of the people making these patented genetically modified organisms are based solely on profit.

ianclick
20th April 2009, 21:23
Herbicide tolerance is one facet of G.M. but I feel it is a far too broad generalisation. Especially in terms of over simplifying things.

In saying this you have over looked Pest resistance, Disease resistance, Temperature tolerance, Drought tolerance, Salinity tolerance, Nutrition, Pharmaceuticals and Phytoremediation. Which are equally as valid.

In point of fact Most Genetically modified crops that are modified for herbicide tolerance are done so Farmers can ultimately use less herbicide.

"Farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed." Dr Johnathon Jones Royal Society

John
20th April 2009, 21:32
Regarding the Irish famine, the reason I say simplistic is that the potato crop failure is not what killed those people. The nearest analogy I can come up with is that it is like you are trying to lecture a Jewish person on the Holocaust. Please leave this one alone.

Regarding GM crops, I'm not sure what your qualifications are and I don't mean to be dismissive, but I've read and understood a lot of research on these issues, as well as being familiar with the economic realities of farming. I can also speak as an expert on chemistry and its effects on organisms, as well as someone with a multidisciplinary Bachelor's degree in Biology and Chemistry. The quote of our Royal Society friend that you have trotted out there saddens me greatly, as does the fact that such slight of hand disinformation is readily swallowed by the lay public.

John
20th April 2009, 21:43
You know, I am going to leave my posting on this topic with this post here. My main thrust regarding the GM companies is that it's easy to blindly believe the PR and to think the best of their motivations. Unfortunately their actions are ruled by their profit margins and not their hearts. That is the way of things for most companies and, I suppose, understandable. However when it is something that can impact the organisms of the world, or something that you put in your mouth and the mouths of your children, don't you think we have to hold such companies to higher standards of ethics than a multinational that makes computer chips, for example?

Sorry for helping to side track the original point of this thread.

ianclick
20th April 2009, 21:47
My apologies John,

I was not aware that a having a Doctorate was a prerequisite for having an opinion or the right to express it.

If I offended you with my simplistic view point then that is to my regret. I was not questioning your expertise or qualifications. I was just expressing my opinion which I will continue to do.

doktordoris
20th April 2009, 21:50
I like glofish, as I said, but Iam NOT keen on GM crops.

F'rinstance did you see those poor sods in India who invested in GM pest resistant, bells and whistles crops. All went well until they started planning next years harvest, using the seeds from this years. Uh-oh, Imagine their shock when informed that they had blown all their cash on F1 hybrids and they would have to buy again, every year.
And, despite quite 'science-ey', I don't like the way that GM crops are being tested in England; I think too many risks are being taken with regards to accidental fertilisation of neighbouring crops.

But, perhaps Iam just an old hippie who doesn't know better. I certainly hope so and the world is fine!

doktordoris
20th April 2009, 21:52
whooah!

whilst writing my reply people got even more pissed off.

sorry I started this thread lads!

pete
20th April 2009, 22:34
whooah!

whilst writing my reply people got even more pissed off.

sorry I started this thread lads!

No worries. To give a little humor, this topic reminds me of what I find most annoying about painted fish. A post doc once had a calendar of brightly colored goldfish with interesting patterns on their scales next to her desk. As I flipped through the months, I spent a good 5 minutes pondering/discussing the genetic expression profiles that must underly such intricate patternings, only to be interrupted by a former fish enthusiast/fellow grad student who stated, "You dip@#$! they're painted on."

SludgeMunkey
21st April 2009, 01:02
And for real humor, most of the food we all eat are or contain "GM crops"...:D (Corn, Wheat, Tomatoes, tobacco, cattle, hogs, and even poultry all have been genetically modified numerous times for mass consumption...)

Oh, and 95% of your municipal and bottled water is irradiated too!:D (that's the media's way of saying its been UV-C Sterilized)


As stated in another thread folks, don't let catchphrases and buzzwords suck you in. It is better to research facts to form opinions, rather than what the mass media tells you to think. When I say research, I mean valid sources from all points of view that present verifiable evidence.

In a nut shell, if Dyed fish and GM pets bother you, do not buy them. Let your pet shop know how you feel about it also. Keep in mind however, if there was no demand for them, there would be no market for them...

doktordoris
22nd April 2009, 01:28
In a nut shell, if Dyed fish and GM pets bother you, do not buy them. Let your pet shop know how you feel about it also. Keep in mind however, if there was no demand for them, there would be no market for them...

I don't and I certainly won't buy colour injected fish(I feel calling them 'painted' obscures the horror of it all), but Iam so incensed by their existance that just not buying them somehow doesn't seem action enough.

I have written to my MP suggesting that he gets them outlawed, but what else can one do? I feel that horrified by it all.

kenya
11th May 2009, 18:30
The Glofish don't bother me too much. It started in labs, for a specific purpose, and then was released into the pet industry. And though we can't know how genetically altering plants and animals truly affects them, what's done is done. The Glofish seem perfectly healthy. I had a pair and they tortured each other. I later learned that this is normal of zebra danios kept in very small groups. My grandfather worked for the government and was stationed all around the world to genetically alter crops to help them thrive in not great climates with limited resources. Africa, South America, Europe, etc. Individually injected fish is sad. A couple embryo injected is still sad, but now they breed that way, which is a lot less damaging than dipping a thousand fish into dyes and killing off most of them and permantly damaging the rest. This is one of those things that is not really black or white.

And aren't pesticides and insecticides the driving force behind so many people eating organic foods? Sometimes they mess up, and it can be really bad. I am going to grow my own grasses and such for my rats to play in and eat, so I can know for sure they won't ingest any poisons.

Though I don't have any real desire to own glowing axolotls, I'm not completely against them. I just don't care for individually injected anything.