Talk:Genetically modified fish

Untitled
I will be adding alot of material to the site to improve its content, design, references, supportive links and more..smatovu (talk)

smatovu I think the information you added is good and accurate information. The addition of some pictures would really compliment the sections that you have been editing. The expansion of the section on what would happen if these fish were to escape into natural habitats would really interest me as I am sure others as well. We also talked in class about the labeling of GMO's this may also be another possible avenue for you to make some important adjustments to this page. I hope this helps and good luck! Jjohns18 (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

FDA approval
see http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/27/16194566-fda-says-fast-growing-fish-would-not-harm-nature?lite

http://www.nationofchange.org/fda-quietly-pushes-through-genetically-modified-salmon-over-christmas-break-1356625080?fb_action_ids=10152348982400328&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%2210152348982400328%22%3A150887141726295}&action_type_map={%2210152348982400328%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]#

Crazyness to allow approval saying fast growing fish are no problem... totally ignoring the example of asian carp in the mississipi.

2nd Review
I think this is a good article to work on. Maybe add more of an introduction to the topic as well as picture. I think a separate section for research, rather than under benefits would be helpful. As Jjohns18 said, you could introduce a section about labeling, as this could be a way to enhance the page. I think you are doing a great job, more pictures, figures, etc. Nimbus1ZZ-FE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC).

Salmon section
Hi, I've been working on the AquAdvantage salmon entry and added a link to it. I'm glad to see this GM fish entry under development. I didn't realize so much work has been going on in this area. Amnot Areso (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

Unreliable source?
The following source is used as the sole citation in two paragraphs:



The source in question is a report that apparently did not receive peer review and was "commissioned by Compassion in World Farming and made possible by a grant from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)." This is dubious at best. I suggest either finding a new source for the content that it footnotes or removing the content altogether.

jps (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Both authors are highly respected experts in their field - one of them even has his own WP article Donald Broom. DrChrissy (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is not good enough according to WP:RS. The claims that are being sourced are empirical claims rather than the opinions of the authors and so must be held to the scrutiny that we would apply to any other empirical claim. (We don't say in the offending paragraphs that Donald Broom thinks thus and such). If the author has faithfully reported facts, then it is simply a matter of finding a corroborating source that is published in a peer-reviewed journal or received proper editorial control. jps (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are the PAQs you are using regarding empirical content? WP:RS does not even contain the word. DrChrissy (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOLARSHIP is pretty clear that unreviewed articles such as this one are problematic (in consort with reviewed articles or standard texts, they can be supplemental, but stand-alone is basically not okay). Such sources are especially problematic in situations where the content being sourced is not just an opinion (which is what I meant by "empirical"). jps (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So was your comment about empirical claims just made up? DrChrissy (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Empirical claims should be easily checked to be true. I cannot find another source that verified the claims of the two paragraphs. Please help if you can. jps (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already provided a verifiable source - why should I provide you with a second? DrChrissy (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As I explained, since the source did not go through proper peer review, it is not good for the content that the paragraphs contain. Considering the points outlined in the source itself, I cannot find the content in any peer-reviewed studies. I may have overlooked such a study, and, if so, please point it out to me. jps (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you know it did not go through peer review? DrChrissy (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh! Sure, that's another possibility. However, I cannot find any evidence of this. If it undergoes peer review, it is usually published in a journal. That's not always the case, but it's a pretty standard sourcing exercise to look at the publisher and the standards for publication. In this case, this was a report that was commissioned by a special interest group, and there is no independent review process indicated by the publishers. jps (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. DrChrissy (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When a paper has undergone peer review, it usually is pretty obvious (in fact, I cannot think of a single paper that was peer reviewed where it wasn't immediately discoverable that it was). While neither I nor anyone else can prove a negative, it would be irresponsible to assume that a paper was properly peer reviewed without any evidence for it whatsoever. If you have evidence that the paper was peer-reviewed, by all means show it to me! jps (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When you read a paper/abstract in conference proceedings, how do you know it has been subject to peer review? When you read a book chapter, how do you know it has been subject to peer review?  When you read web pages that have been commissioned by respectable scientific bodies (e.g. see here ) how do you know it has been subject to peer review? DrChrissy (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Conference proceedings sometimes are peer reviewed, but generally are not. You have to check the editorial policy. They'll tell you. This is not conference proceedings, however. jps (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly my point. Conference proceedings are considered RS, despite not being peer-reviewed. DrChrissy (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Um. No, they generally are not unless they've been subject to peer review. There are a few exceptions, but you'll find if you go through the archives at WP:RSN that conference proceedings are generally not accepted as reliable stand-alone sources precisely because they are usually not peer reviewed. They often contain mistakes, errors, and preliminary results which are intentionally excluded from Wikipedia. jps (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly was this published? There is no requirement that sources be peer reviewed. Minor4th  23:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is published at the url indicated at the beginning of this thread. I am classifying it as a monograph of established experts in the field, and therefore, as you have correctly stated, peer-review is not needed. DrChrissy (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr Chrissy, I do think this sourcing is questionable if it is an unpublished paper and has not been mentioned by any other reliable secondary sources. Minor4th  00:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel that for another editor to be wading into this article stating without any justification whatsoever that WP:RS applies to "empirical" evidence, and criticising references on the basis of peer-review when they have no evidence whatsoever whether the source has been peer-reviewed or not, is borderline disruptive. WP:RS states "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources".  The source is clearly a scholarly monograph and is therefore not only RS, but our guidelines state explicitly that it is one of the most reliable sources. DrChrissy (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't understand the need for corroborating sources here. All you need is to find something in a reliable journal that has been subject to peer review. Or find evidence that this paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal. That's all you need to do. jps (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need for corroborating sources. Your claims about peer-review are just...incorrect. Wikipedia is about verifiability. I have provided a verifiable source that experts in the field have made these statements.  I can easily provide the primary sources from which the secondary source derives it's content, but you have still not provided evidence (PAQs) that peer-reviewed content must be used.  You must do this, or I suggest you are not listening to what I am saying. DrChrissy (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Above, I cited WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Did you miss that? In particular, read the second bullet point. It's pretty clear that we need peer review or reputable academic press. This source is neither of these. jps (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In particular, read the first bullet point "For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." It says nothing about peer-review. DrChrissy (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and ask at WP:RSN. It is not the intention of the guideline for you to ignore the rest of that list. Refusing to use peer-reviewed sources for empirical claims is bad practice and is strongly discouraged. jps (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go and ask at RSN because I'm not convinced you are here to discuss this logically. You have already stated that you do not know whether the source has been peer-reviewed. So, even if there is a stipulation of sources being peer-reviewed, you can not show that it is not. DrChrissy (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am certain that I am correct here with regards to standard Wikipedia practice, policy, and high-quality scholarship in general. As it is, the source has been impeached and unless we can find sources which have been subject to peer review and corroborate these claims, the content simply does not belong here. I will ping WP:RSN and WP:FTN to let them know about this discussion. jps (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Amazing to see what is basically a rehash of Talk:Glyphosate happening on this page. Again, I recommend that for this incredibly controversial (for some reason) topic, we adopt the convention of relying on secondary sources. You guys are spending hours and hours arguing about one change. Think about the number of changes to come. Will you repeat this exercise (on slightly different grounds, of course, to keep it interesting) next time? I also wonder whether if you were talking about a Monsanto-funded study, would you two switch sides about whether it met the reliable source criteria? Lfstevens (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Lfstevens, I could no agree with you more. It is absolutely incredible that this article has suddenly become controversial and, as you say, a rehash of Glyphosate.  Perhaps you would like to look at editorial behaviour and motivation to gain some insight to this.  I am beginning to wonder if some editors are editing to deliberately make articles "controversial" and thereby attempting to get overly-higher standards of sources, just to be disruptive.  We almost need a definition of which articles are controversial and which are not! DrChrissy (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources, maybe? The controversial articles are anything related to GMOs or pesticides, in case that wasn't clear. I see no cabal. I see those who buy the mainstream science up against those who believe that mainstream science has become corrupted by money. Each of these individual disputes is a rehash of that. Secondary sources are a way out. I see no other. Lfstevens (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified trout?
Could others please comment on the reliability of reports of genetically modified trout and reports of their escape into a lake. Are these sources RS?   DrChrissy (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The aquaculture operation, probable fish escapes, and unusually large fish are all well documented. The question for me is whether the breeding technique used should be described as 'genetic modification'. The wired article describes it as such. This alaskan gov site provides more detail on tryploid breeding which does not seem to involve direct modifications to the genes: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishinggeneconservationlab.triploid_trout. Dialectric (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I will research it in a bit more depth.  There are other examples of genetic modification of trout which look a a little more "scholarly"   and  DrChrissy (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (The implications for WP:TROUT are disturbing. { --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC))


 * DrChrissy, can you provide some explanation for your recent addition on the escapes section? As above, my reading suggests that tryploid trout are not 'genetically engineered' and conflating tryploid lab-breeding with direct alterations of DNA or RNA adds confusion.Dialectric (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that "genetic modification" means a change in the genome of the animal. To my mind, adding another set of chromosomes to a normally diploid animal (i.e. triploidy) is changing the genome of the animal and is therefore genetic modification.  Am I getting my definitions and interpretations mixed up? DrChrissy (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow up. I have just re-read Genetic engineering and it seems to be (very unsatisfactorily) that it depends on the definition used and the country you are in!  Perhaps I (or you) should put in a statement to this effect when triploidy is first discussed in the article? DrChrissy (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's one of the weird things about this whole subject. It's all about the technique, not the outcome. We used to create new crops using the now-primitive technique of crossbreeding. Mostly, but not entirely - remember the (transgenic) pomato? - that was within a species. Now we do so only for better PR as in this case. The controversy arose when we started getting more sophisticated. As with many domains on the GMO topic, we're splitting hairs left and right over words. "Carcinogenic", "safe", all these words become supercharged in these articles. On the question at hand, I'd say use the definition in our articles, except that GMO points to GE points to biotechnology.
 * 'Biotechnology is the use of living systems and organisms to develop or make products, or "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use"'
 * So, intent! (Snort.) So crossbreeding is in, so everything that we eat is a GMO, which ironically, is correct! So that's a dead end. I'd go with mods that use gene guns or other "new" tech. (Gene guns are pretty much obsolete.) Lfstevens (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My impression from my knowledge of the underlying molecular biology (and unencumbered by having read the sources here, so beware!) is that inducing triploidy is done differently than introducing a particular gene. Specific gene introduction is done in a specific way, in effect inserting new DNA into the animal's existing DNA. Triploidy, in contrast, can be created without necessarily doing that kind of biochemical procedure – for example, by treating with chemicals such as colchicine that mess with meiosis and selecting for the offspring that turn out to be triploid. So in some ways, both these things are genetic modification, but triploidy is not done by the typical method of GM. So that's an additional reason why there isn't an easy definition.

Triploidy is certainly different from transgenes. It is present in nature, and naturally in some fish, and in some food fish, including salmonids and many cyprinids (i.e. carp). Check out polyploid. Lfstevens (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But a tried-and-true Wikipedia way of dealing with it is to just go with sources. If there are sources that describe triploids as GM, then we can call them GM here. If sources don't do that, then we should not do it based on our own classification. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources are always good. That's why I went to our (presumptively sourced) definitions. It would be nice to be consistent with them. I'm just concerned that we don't pick a biased source that wants to say that these are "GM" as a way of trashing them, which does happen. Lfstevens (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfectly reasonable. I'll have a look at editing the article in this respect tomorrow, but getting it sorted might take a little while under 1RR. DrChrissy (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Lfstevens. I am a little confused with your last comment.  Do you believe that there is an inherent "negative" about labeling something as GM?  The Genetic engineering article states "Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional animal and plant breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process. However the European Commission has also defined genetic engineering broadly as including selective breeding and other means of artificial selection. Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic engineering, are closely related and genetic engineering can be used within them. ".  So, we could have it either way and supported by RS (I'm sure we could find another source to replace the dead link).  I am not arguing for either here - I can see both sides of the argument - just trying to reach consensus.

DrChrissy (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As Lfstevens suggests above, such a broad definition quickly becomes meaningless. Every breed of domestic animal and pet could then be tagged with a 'genetically engineered animal' category. The European Commission document, also effectively defines a 'narrow definition': The manipulation of an organism's genetic endowment by introducing or eliminating specific genes through modern molecular biology techniques. Tryploid breeding doesn't target specific genes, and from the alaska source I posted above, does not seem to directly involve molecular biology techniques.Dialectric (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While I think that the broad definition that WP stumbled into is far more coherent, the "EU" definition corresponds to my understanding of common usage, with "modern" conveniently left undefined. E.g., if somebody last year came up with a significant refinement to trad crossbreeding, would that be "modern"? In any event, by the EU def, triploidy seems to not count. On the other point, yes, "GMO" is frightening to a significant part of the public. Putting that label on something new tars it for that audience. If the shoe fits, fine, but if not, we shouldn't go there. Lfstevens (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If triploidy does not count as "genetic engineering" (which as has been pointed out, would require the definition to be so broad as to include almost everything domesticated) then the section on escaped rainbow trout is completely out of place. It would be like adding a section on seedless watermelons to an article about genetically engineered plants.tronvillain (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Genetically modified fish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141020213624/http://www.csiro.au:80/resources/WhatIsGM to http://www.csiro.au/resources/WhatIsGM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120223212342/http://www.aquabounty.com/products/aquadvantage-295.aspx to http://www.aquabounty.com/products/aquadvantage-295.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

AquAdvantage Salmon
The AquAdvantage salmon does not have two transgenes, it has the protein coding sequence from a Chinook salmon growth hormone gene, and the promoter sequence from an ocean pout antifreeze protein gene. It is completely incorrect to say "the transgene allows the GM salmon to survive near-freezing waters and continue their development all year round", though the subsequent "It effectively acts like an 'on' switch for the hormone" does somewhat describe the action of a promoter sequence. The main article (AquAdvantage salmon, has this: "with a single copy of the opAFP-GHc2 construct, which codes for a promoter sequence from ocean pout directing production of a growth hormone protein using coding sequence from Chinook salmon." Something similar perhaps? tronvillain (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)



Conservation
As established above, and apparent in Genetic modification as well as the definition at the beginning of this article, simply inducing triploidy does not constitute genetic modification. This makes the section on the introduction of sterile triploid "freshwater grass carp, also known as the white amur" to the US completely unnecessary.tronvillain (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I need to read up on this more. The section you deleted appears relevant because of claims that if the GM trout escape they might dominate their environment.  Hence I have reverted until we can get agreement on whether this is relevant.  --David Tornheim (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

GM trout escape
Regarding "rm: rainbow trout - despite the article's use of the term "genetically-engineered", the fish are explicitly triploid rather than genetically engineered." , "The article says that GM trout have escaped." , if we can't find easy agreement, I am thinking about taking to noticeboard to see if the article says that GM trout have escaped or not. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a complicated question, and I'm not quite sure what I think. Triploidy changes the number of chromosomes, but it doesn't change the genes on those chromosomes. And it also renders the animals sterile, so that even if they did escape, they would have no impact on the genetics of wild trout. On the other hand, I do think a case could be made that triploidy is a sort of genetic "modification", so there certainly are issues of terminology. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, it could certainly be argued that triploidy is a form of genetic modification, but then you have to extend the definition to include conventional breeding, mutagenesis, and various other breeding techniques; however general useage of the term refers to genetic engineering, as does this article, as well as the article on Genetic engineering (which Genetic modification redirects to). --tronvillain (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are good points, and I am aware of the earlier discussions above. It is certainly true that the conventional definitions of GM require that the "M" be done via modifications of the DNA sequence, and that triploidy both fails that definition and predates the technology. That's certainly a valid argument in favor of the deletions that you made. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's just an example of Wired not understanding what "genetically engineered" means, or did they did, not understanding what was actually done to the fish. As the article says "Technically known as triploids, they're designed with three sets of chromosomes, making them sterile", and triploidy is clearly not genetic engineering. --tronvillain (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that Triploidy should not be conflated with genetic engineering. We should probably have an article on Triploid Fish which would expand upon the topic and clarify the distinction. This article should have at most a sentence or two on the topic, with links to the triploid fish article . Triploids have been modified by human intervention, but not on the level of directly altering genes.Dialectric (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Same here. Reliable sources tend to use direct gene manipulation as a narrow definition for whether something is genetically engineered or not. It is true that selective breeding, mutation, induction of polyploidy and other techniques can change the genetic makeup of an organism, but if we included them all we would be broadening the scope of this suite of articles far too much. I have brought this up a few times recently (see Talk:Genetic engineering in science fiction and Talk:Genetically modified organism) so maybe it would be worth taking to a noticeboard or make a statement at a wikiproject so we can have something to point to. AIR corn (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm now persuaded. Triploidy is not GM. I agree with deleting material about triploids, and I think it would be a good idea to have a separate page about triploid fish. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Another possible issue with the "Escapes" section is that it's copied almost verbatim from the source: "Even when fish are in a contained aquaculture environment, there is a high probability that some will escape. For example, in Norway, escaped farmed salmon account for around 30% of the salmon in rivers (FAO 2000). These escapees can be particularly harmful to wild populations..." --tronvillain (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ouch. We should be aggressive about removing any content that is copied or too closely paraphrased. Much of that content was added by an editor who was later topic-banned, and that editor has had some problems with close paraphrasing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Essentially the only change was flipping the order of the one sentence. It almost seems like it should just be a citation for a line somewhere else in the article, since it's about the possibility of escape if farmed conventionally, using evidence about unmodified fish. --tronvillain (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified fish
Hi Gulumeemee, I removed this sentence because it was exactly repeated twice in the same paragraph. I judged that the second use of it was unintentional.

"Others have claimed the sterility process has a failure rate of 5%.[34] "

Best, Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peej03 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence. In the future, you can explain your edits in the edit summary. Gulumeemee (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion should have taken place on the talk page of GMO fish so others can find it (Talk:Genetically_modified_fish). Can one of you move it there, please?  In the edit note, it says, "user explained it", but since it is not on the talk page, editors have no idea what explanation was made.  So we have to go the extra step to hunt it down to find the explanation here.  Yes, I agree the explanation would have been better in the edit note the first time, but since it is not it should go to the article talk page.  Thanks. Ping to .  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Notes & References
In this edit, the "References" section was converted to a "Notes" section, apparently to add "Greenberg, Paul (2011). Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food. Penguin. ISBN 0-14-311946-X" to the new "References" section, where it has remained alone for years, despite nothing apparent in the article specifically referencing it. As seen at WP:REFGROUP and WP:FNNR, you'd really only have both a notes and references section like this if you were using explanatory notes or short citations as per WP:CITESHORT, neither of which this article does. I'm reverting to the original citation style, with 30em columns instead of the deprecated forced two columns as per Template:Reflist, and removing Greenberg. --tronvillain (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genetically modified fish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140509071115/http://r2m.nus.edu.sg/cos/o.x?c=/r2m/pagetree&func=view&rid=5858 to http://r2m.nus.edu.sg/cos/o.x?c=/r2m/pagetree&func=view&rid=5858

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Please update with info about the first CRISPR-edited fish
Please add some info about this to section #Food. It's currently included in 2021 in science like so:

The first CRISPR-gene-edited seafood and second set of CRISPR-edited food has gone on public sale in Japan: two fish of which one species grows to twice the size of natural specimens due to disruption of leptin, which controls appetite, and the other grows to 1.2 the natural size with the same amount of food due to disabled myostatin, which inhibits muscle growth.

Here are some additional infos and an image.

I already added info about this to a few articles so maybe it would be best if somebody else added it to this one. You could, for example, add some info about how the fish are contained from potentially reproducing (their edited genomes) in the sea, precise dates (in November and/or December) and info about the company, the form of approval and the sales.

The fish species are tiger puffer and red sea bream.

Prototyperspective (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgia Gwinnett College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)