Five patients have been hospitalised in Queensland after ingesting the rat poison brodifacoum. ABC reports that the authorities do not know the source of the cluster which has affected people from five different families in Logan, a satellite city south of Brisbane. Brodifacoum is a widely used long lasting rat poison produced through a multistage complex chemical synthesis process. Although plants are not used in its synthesis, the foundational chemical structures exploited during its production were originally discovered in spoiled sweet clover.
Brodifacoum is designed to prevent blood coagulation and kills its victims through internal bleeding. It is widely used in New Zealand for possum and rat control. The main problem lies in its secondary effects on other wildlife such as birds of prey, dogs, etc who might eat poisoned prey or the bait itself. As a result of these secondary kill effects, scientists in New Zealand are working to produce a new form of rat and possum control utilising gene technology.
In 2016 New Zealand scientists began investigating the creation of species-specific gene drives utilising RNA interference, transgenic rodents and virus vectored immunocontraception. Gene drives are genetic modifications which upset the Mendelian 50/50 reproductive balance between genders necessary for the survival of a species.
One technique being investigated involves the creation of genetically-modified males that do not produce daughters (known as a sex-lethal gene drive) or induce XX offspring (normally female) to develop instead as sterile males (known as a sex-reversal gene drive resulting in daughterless mice). XY offspring of these transgenic species would develop as normal, fertile males capable of spreading their disruptive transgene. The theory suggests a resulting substantial reduction in the number of fertile females, causing pest populations to die out. This daughterless pest approach would require repeated releases of large numbers of transgenic males into the wild.
Another technique that has been under discussion for a while is the use of viruses as vectors. The idea behind virus-vectored immunocontraception is that a species-specific virus is modified to produce a protein that then causes an immune response in the target organism. This immune response makes the target’s immune system attack its own reproductive cells. Sound familiar?
Both of these approaches come with significant risks. Not just viruses but also genetic sequences can be highly mobile. Once released, genetically modified characteristics designed to prevent reproduction cannot necessarily be contained or remediated. Moreover under some conditions such characteristics might be able to evolve or cross species.
Scientists at Victoria, Otago and Auckland universities are currently involved in gene drive research and development along with Genomics Aotearoa, supported by government bodies AgResearch, Plant and Food Research, Landcare Research and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. Private companies ZIP (Zero Invasive Predators) and Predator Free 2050 Ltd along with others including the Royal Society Te Apārangi are helping to support and promote the research and its ultimate application.
A paper published in 2024 in the journal Frontiers is entitled “Views of conservation volunteers and environmental specialists on genetic technologies for pest control in Aotearoa New Zealand“. The paper is the result of a collaboration between Victoria University and the Department of Integrative and Global Studies, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Mass., USA (a private university dedicated to technological innovation). The project appears to be part of an effort to normalise the creation and use of gene drives in New Zealand for pest control. It reports the results of a survey of 8000 people working in the pest control area which shows majority support for gene technology in NZ. Incredibly, the study found that ALL of the conservation volunteers, scientists, academics, and environmental professionals surveyed naively expected that the risks associated with the projected use of gene technology to control pests will be carefully and fully identified and mitigated against. A breath taking statement of misplaced faith running completely counter to scientific discussions of risk reported in the published literature.
New Zealand offers a highly attractive venue for research into gene drives because we are an island nation with a government that has announced its commitment to liberalise genetic experimentation. Elsewhere, gene drive research is exclusively confined to laboratories. If our government passes the Gene Technology Bill in its present form, a regulator would be able to give the go ahead for New Zealand field trials, possibly beginning on off shore New Zealand islands that have pest infestations.
At the start of this article we cited the cases of rat poisoning in Brisbane to illustrate that mistakes are inevitable, containment is never absolute. The escape of poisons into the food chain is regrettable, but always limited to specific times, products and/or places. The escape of genetically viable material that can reproduce itself and spread without limit is another matter entirely.
It is now widely understood that Covid escaped from a lab, moreover that lab escapes are routine. Our World in Data estimates 30 million excess deaths worldwide during the last 5 years. Whether these resulted from COVID or COVID-19 vaccines is largely immaterial. Both resulted from genetic experimentation. The results of the 2024 survey discussed above point to a pathetic lack of comprehension of the risks of gene experimentation in New Zealand and an unthinking acceptance of its inevitable sanction and use. There is no doubt that Parliament has failed to inform itself or the public of the known risks. Not only should the Gene Technology Bill be withdrawn, but gene drive experiments already initiated in New Zealand labs point to a need for even stricter laws than present HSNO rules.
A major part of the problem is the description of gene editing techniques and the resulting modified material or organisms as ‘natural’ or ‘equivalent’ to natural. The deceptive repetition of this PR sleight of hand is pressuring legislators and regulators around the world to cave in to demands that gene altered products are in no need of safety testing or labelling. As a result the entire processed food chain has become contaminated with unlabelled gene altered ingredients and processing aids whose effect on health is untested yet already suspected to be damaging. Society is faced with rapidly increasing rates of bowel and other cancers affecting young and old alike, but those charged with protecting our health are looking the other way as they wave thousands of novel gene altered food products through regulatory processes without scrutiny. The Gene Technology Bill is designed to normalise this dangerous process, speed it up and promote the myth of safety. It should be immediately halted. I can’t find words strong enough to point out the dangerous stupidity that is at work.
