Assessment of the Risks of Transgenic Fluorescent Ornamental Fishes to the United States Using the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK)

Abstract

Three species of transgenic fluorescent ornamental fish are commercially available to the public in the United States—Zebra Danio Danio rerio, Black Tetra Gymnocorymbus ternetzi, and Tiger Barb Systomus tetrazona. Despite qualitative assessments of the risks of these transgenic fishes by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and two state agencies, critics argue that the risk assessment and approval processes were not transparent and that the results were never published or otherwise open to scientific scrutiny. We used an internationally recognized risk screening tool, the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK), to provide a transparent, peer-reviewed assessment for the conterminous United States. We found that the three transgenic fluorescent ornamental fishes in question represent a low risk of invasiveness. Any risk is limited to the warmer regions of the country. No potential for hybridization with native species, little history of invasiveness elsewhere, a lack of traits associated with persistence, and small body size coupled with predation-enhancing fluorescence all indicate that the ability of these species to become established and have impacts is limited even in warm regions. Our finding of low risk is consistent with the results of unpublished, qualitative agency assessments using expert panels or in-house expertise. The risk screens identified few data gaps, areas of important uncertainty, or potentially elevated risk levels, thus suggesting that there would be limited gain to committing resources to a full risk assessment. A low-risk result further indicates little need for risk management actions in addition to those already being taken. Risk screens such as FISK can have high value for managers because they capture important elements of risk, providing vital information for assessment and management decisions with relatively small investments in time and funding.

Received September 3, 2013; accepted December 16, 2013

APPENDIX: DETAILED RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Table 1 Table A.1 FISK assessment for two assessors (J.E.H. and L.L.L.) evaluating three species of transgenic fluorescent ornamental fish; RA = risk assessment. The answer to each question (Y = yes, N = no, and ? = don't know) is followed by a certainty rating (VU = very uncertain, MU = moderately uncertain, MC = moderately certain, and VC = very certain) (Copp et al. 2005, 2009; Lawson et al. 2013).

APPENDIX REFERENCES

• Copp, G.H., R. Garthwaite, and R.E. Gozlan. 2005. Risk identification and assessment of nonnative freshwater fishes: a summary of concepts and perspectives on protocols for the UK. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 21:371–373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copp, G.H., L. Vilizzi, J. Mumford, G.M. Fenwick, M.J. Godard, and R.E. Gozlan. 2009. Calibration of FISK, an invasiveness screening tool for nonnative freshwater fishes. Risk Analysis 29:457–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, L.L. Jr., J.E. Hill, L. Vilizzi, S. Hardin, and G.H. Copp. 2013. Revisions of the fish invasiveness scoring kit (FISK) for its application in warmer climatic zones, with particular reference to peninsular Florida. Risk Analysis 33:1414–1431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar