Frustration as gene editing stopped by tough GM laws
Scientists think they have discovered the silver bullet that could tackle the scourge of wilding pines but ‘‘crazy’’ rules around genetic technology mean they can’t prove it.
The pest trees threaten millions of hectares of conservation and farm land but research has shown they could be stopped if gene editing was used to switch off their fertility. However, the technology can’t be used under current rules, leaving farmers and foresters frustrated.
‘‘We are caught with an Environmental Protection Agency requirement that the experimental trees are destroyed as soon as the cones appear, so we can’t confirm we are producing sterile trees,’’ Forest Owners Association president Peter Weir said. ‘‘Without that proof we are not going to be allowed to release them. That is crazy.’’
Marlborough farmer Geoff Evans said wilding pines, also known as wilding conifers, had been an issue on his family’s property, Stronvar Station, since the 1950s. More than 60 years later, he estimated 800 hectares of the 3700ha Waihopai Valley property were affected.
Evans had tried clearing the trees, as well as having them sprayed by helicopter but nothing had worked. ‘‘Controlling them would be darn near impossible without something like this,’’ he said of the gene-editing option.
‘‘With chemical control, you end up creating more of a problem by damaging the environment and preventing them from meeting their original purpose, which was to stop erosion.’’
In a report on gene editing, the Royal Society Te Apa¯rangi highlighted the problem of wilding pines, where despite a multimillion-dollar control programme, the weed trees continued to spread, Weir said.
‘‘If the fertility was switched off ... then not only would the spread of wildings from new plantations be curtailed, but as the Royal Society quite rightly points out, the tree would divert more energy into growing wood. That adds to the carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere and helps combat climate change.’’
Weir said the report’s call for public debate on the issue of genetic technologies should be taken seriously by anyone concerned about the environment.
Current regulations around gene editing in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act were among the most restrictive in the world, he said.
‘‘Not only that, the view of the Environmental Protection Authority, which administers the Act, is that there should be a zero-risk oversight, and that is contrary to the expressed view of the High Court in 2011.
‘‘If the EPA persists in its attitude that the risks of not conducting a particular piece of research and using the result are irrelevant, then the government has an obligation to direct the EPA as an agent of the Crown to balance risks of gene editing against the risk of not researching that gene editing.’’