Malaysia to go ahead with dragon fish `Patenting`

continued from page 8...
invert boxes were concerned, the importer was faced
with three official options: return of the whole lot to the
exporter’s country of origin, sacrifice, or euthanasia of
the stocks. Faced with these options, the importer felt
compelled to euthanise the contents of all the boxes.
A few weeks later, the same importer was faced
with another crisis. This time, the consignment
included (totally legal) zebra danios whose
coloration had been enhanced via dietary
supplements. The inspectors mistook these fish
for transgenic, i.e. genetically modified, zebra
danios, whose import into Europe is currently
prohibited. They refused to accept the explicit
declarations of the exporter that the fish were
non-transgenics, or the assurances of the importer
regarding the true, non-transgenic, nature of the
fish, or the offer of the importer to bring samples
of an earlier importation of the fish showing that the
coloration fades after several weeks on a normal diet
without colour-enhancing supplements. Instead, they
demanded an official certificate to the effect that the fish
in question were not transgenics, something that was
impossible for the importer to obtain within the stipulated
period of 48 hours, even after consulting a genetics
laboratory. Most reluctantly, therefore, it was decided to
euthanise the zebra danios.
Yet another consignment involving the same importer
suffered a similar fate (i.e. euthanasia) though, on this
occasion, the authorities were within their rights to order
the destruction of the fish. The error was that, although
the certificate declared that the consignment consisted
of 19,000 specimens, the invoice only listed 16,000
(the actual number in the consignment). In addition,
the invoice included six scientific names which didn’t
appear in the certificate, although the families to which
these fish belonged, did appear. Three species were
also included in larger quantities than those listed in
the certificate.
While the authorities in the exporting country (once
more, Singapore) couldn’t, of course, issue a
retrospective certificate correcting the anomalies, they
did request the Barcelona authorities that only the noncertified fish be destroyed, since this was an error on the
part of the exporter and not the importer. This request
was rejected and all 16,000 fish were destroyed.
The importer, one of Spain’s top and most respected
and experienced companies, which has been importing
aquatic organisms from numerous sources for many
years, is keen for these incidents to be given wide
publicity. The aim is, not to condemn the Spanish
authorities of any wrong-doing, but to alert all those who
export freshwater and marine fish and invertebrates to
Spain, that in-built inflexibility exists within the current
system (it’s different in other EU Member States),
whereby strict – some may say, over-strict – application
of importation criteria can, and does, lead to frustrating
and hugely distressing incidents, as a result of which,
the most innocent parties, i.e. the creatures themselves,
can end up paying the ultimate price.
The Spanish pet trade association, AEDPAC, is taking
the matter up with the authorities in an attempt to avert
similar incidents in the future. However, for this to
continues on page 27...
10
PET INDUSTRY NEWS
PIN22#4.indd 10
Malaysia to go ahead
with dragon fish
‘Patenting’
“The Malaysian golden arowana is set to splash
its way into national heritage status”…so reads
the opening sentence in an article published
online by Malaysian publication, the star online:
thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=2012/8/30/
nation/11930836&sec=nation
The idea of ‘patenting’ or otherwise registering
the golden variety of Scleropages formosus
from Bukit Merah by Malaysia has been
doing the rounds for quite some time
(Malaysia claims that this variety originated
in Bukit Merah lake in Perah). However,
h showing
fis
on
ag
ack dr
it is only now that really serious moves to
scales.
en crossb
al
ld
rs
go
do
al
k
on
ac
Traditi
ad and bl
categorise the fish as “a national heritage”
topped he
the blackES
HN DAW
are getting under way. In this latest phase,
PHOTO: JO
the Malaysian Fisheries Department “with
the cooperation of SIRIM Berhad, will introduce the highly-prized
ornamental fish with Specification Standard DOF STA N1:2012 to categorise it as
a national heritage.”
SIRIM Berhad is a wholly-owned company of the Malaysian Government that falls
within the “Ministry of Finance Incorporated”. SIRIM represents the “government’s
mandated machinery for research and technology development, and the national
champion of quality.”
It is claimed by the Malaysian authorities that, by granting the Malaysian golden
arowana (i.e. dragon fish) Specification Standard status, the national dragon fish
breeding industry will benefit and that this will help “maintain the product as one of
the most expensive ornamental fish in the world.” (In 2010, Malaysian production of
dragon fish was valued at US$49.2m, up US$2.5m on the 2009 figure.)
Photographs published of the fish in question identify it as the Malaysian golden
crossback dragon fish/arowana, which is characterised, not just by the number of rows of
golden scales on the body (6), but also by several rows of black scales that run along the
back, stretching from the fish’s black-topped head all the way to the tail. I mention these
characteristics because they represent the traditional form of the fish.
In recent years, though, a new golden form has begun appearing. Bred in captivity by
dragon fish specialists – many of them based in Singapore – the new-breed golden
dragon fish lacks most, or all, of the black pigmentation on top of the head and along
the back. There is a growing body of opinion that this new type will gradually replace
the traditional one, owing to its enhanced goldenness and lustre.
The significance of these new golds may become progressively more influential with
time and may end up making the registration of the Malaysian golden variety and
its DOF STA N1:2012 less effective in terms of increasing sales of the traditional fish
than the proponents of the moves may be envisaging. According to SIRIM Berhad’s
director-general, Ahamad Sabki Mahmood, the Specification Standard will also make
the “unique features of the golden arowana” easier to identify “compared to other
arowana types in the market, thus preventing any cheating attempts.” Whether or not
anyone would wish to cheat, bearing in mind the large numbers of this dragon fish
variety that are legally bred outside Malaysia is a different matter.
It’s also worth asking the questions: How are breeders of this fish in other countries
going to be prevented from breeding the variety? Are there any plans to prevent them
from doing so, or will Malaysia be happy/willing for them to continue doing so, as long
as certain conditions are met? Are royalties or a license going to be demanded from
such breeders? Are there any legal grounds for demanding these? Can Malaysia really
expect, as they state, that “all exporters from Singapore and Indonesia maintain the
name Malaysian golden arowana”? And…what has Indonesia got go say in all this,
since it actually claims that the dragon fish in question may actually be a crossbreed
that originated in Indonesia?
Meanwhile, Singapore, the other main
dragon fish breeder - along with Malaysia
and Indonesia – appears still to be keeping
its own counsel, with no official word
appearing in the media. Singaporean
lawyer, Gerald Koh, has, however, been
quoted as saying that “To obtain a patent
an invention has to be new, involve an
inventive step and have an industrial
application.” Do these criteria apply
to the Malaysian golden dragon fish?
I don’t think so.
New-g
enerati
on gold
the bla
en dra
ck-top
gon fis
ped h
for de
h – wit
ead or
tails).
hout
d
PHOT
O: JOH orsal scales
(see te
N DAW
xt
ES
continues
on page 12...
10/12/12 10:18 PM
Reptile