Editing GloFish (section)

=== Introduction to the United States market ===

GloFish were introduced to the [[United States]] market in late 2003 by Yorktown Technologies, after two years of research. The governmental environmental risk assessment was made by the U.S. [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA), which has jurisdiction over all genetically modified (GM) animals, including fluorescent zebra fish, since they consider the inserted gene to be a drug. The FDA determined in December 2003:
<blockquote>
Because tropical aquarium fish are not used for food purposes, they pose no threat to the food supply. There is no evidence that these genetically engineered zebra danio fish pose any more threat to the environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been widely sold in the United States. In the absence of a clear risk to the public health, the FDA finds no reason to regulate these particular fish.<ref>{{cite web|title=FDA Statement Regarding Glofish |website=[[Food and Drug Administration]] |url=https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm161437.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100305141709/https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm161437.htm |archive-date=2010-03-05 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

Marketing of the fish was met by protests from a [[non-governmental organization]] called the [[Center for Food Safety]]. They were concerned that approval of the GloFish based only on a Food and Drug Administration risk assessment would create a precedent of inadequate scrutiny of biotech animals in general.{{citation needed|date=November 2015}} The group filed a lawsuit in US Federal District Court to block the sale of the GloFish. The lawsuit sought a court order stating that the sale of [[transgenic]] fish is subject to federal regulation beyond the FDA's charter, and as such should not be sold without more extensive approvals. In the opinion of Joseph Mendelson, the Center for Food Safety's legal director:
<blockquote>
It's clear this sets a precedent for genetically engineered animals. It opens the dams to a whole host of nonfood genetically engineered organisms. That's unacceptable to us and runs counter to things the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific review boards have said, particularly when it comes to mobile GM organisms like fish and insects.<ref>{{cite journal | title=GloFish draw suit | journal=The Scientist | author=Charles Choi | date=January 7, 2004 | url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/22641/title/GloFish-draw-suit/ | access-date=May 11, 2013 | archive-date=July 1, 2015 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150701192903/http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/22641/title/GloFish-draw-suit/ | url-status=live }}</ref>
</blockquote>

The Center for Food Safety's suit was found to be without merit and dismissed on March 30, 2005.{{citation needed|date=November 2015}}