The Royals clash over genetically modified crops, but who’s right?

Wheat field against a blue sky. Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto (Image: This content is subject to copyright.)

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Farming Today programme, Princess Anne caused ripples when she said: 'GM is one of those things that divides people. But surely if we are going to be better at producing food of the right value, then we have to accept that genetic technology is going to be part of that.'

As an advocate of organic growing practices and the face of Duchy Organic, we can only guess what Prince Charles had to say when he next spoke to his sister.

He hasn't held back his views on genetic engineering, saying it 'will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time' and an 'absolute disaster'.

Talking to the Telegraph he added: 'What we should be talking about is food security not food production – that is what matters and that is what people will not understand.'

Longwood Farm in Tuddenham St Mary. Photo: Gregg Brown.

With Article 50 now enacted, and Brexit looming in the not-so-distant future, environmentalists and organic and biodynamic farmers are understandably worried about the future of the industry. What impact will Brexit really have? Will the EU's ban on the growth of GM crops be lifted in the UK? How regulated would these farms be? And, being an expensive technology, just who would hold all the strings when it comes to future food production?

There are clearly more questions than answers. And, with a lot of ambiguity surrounding exactly what will happen, who knows what the future holds?

What does the science say?

Professor Wendy Harwood, a senior scientist at the Norwich-based John Innes Centre says we've been genetically modifying seeds for a long time and shouldn't be scared of the technology.

'We've actually been doing it for thousands of years through plant breeding. When we refer to modern GM as we understand it today, we are introducing some genes from somewhere – most likely another plant.

'One thing that's been used very successfully is mutation breeding. It actually uses chemicals or radiation to make changes in the DNA of seeds. There's about 3,000 crop varieties that have been released in this way. With mutation breeding you are making changes in DNA and doing things quite similar to GM.'

Mutation breeding is widely used across a whole range of crops, which are Professor Harwood's speciality. At the moment, the professor is working on gene editing, saying there's a lot of excitement in the scientific world regarding this particular procedure, which can make changes in a very specific gene in a plant. 'In traditional GM methods the gene we insert is in a random place. Gene editing allows us to be precise and opens up many new possibilities. We can also go to a precise location and knock out a gene. Maybe taking out something which is an allergen or produces a toxic compounds. And we can create disease resistance.

'In the very first case of gene editing, we targeted a gene in barley that was involved in controlling seed dormancy. This is important because if it germinates too soon you get pre-harvest sprouting and very poor quality grain. At the same time we had an example in oilseed rape. What we did there was target a gene that affects the way the seed pods will open. They are quite delicate and break easily. If they break before the farm is ready, they end up on the ground. By making them a bit tougher, we hope that will improve yields and there will be less loss in harvest. Really the research is in its early stages.'

Currently GM technology is highly regulated and although there are field trials, nothing is commercially grown in the UK while, worldwide, 27 countries grow genetically modified produce. Could this change when we leave the EU? And just how safe is the tech?

'You can never say something is 100% safe,' the scientist advises. 'My argument is with what we are doing, the outcome is very similar to mutations that have been happening naturally across thousands and thousands of years. If that hasn't caused us a major problem, it gives us a lot of confidence that this new technique, as long as we think carefully about the changes we are making and the risk assessment, should be as safe as any breeding techniques in the past.

'I think by removing the random nature of change, that must improve safety because it's so much more precise. It should decrease the risk of something unexpected.'

Professor Harwood echoes Princess Anne's thoughts, saying in the future we'll need every technology we can get our hands on to feed growing populations in ever fluctuating climates. Effectively, she admits we can't afford to ignore the science.

'We are going to have a lot more people to feed in the future and with the current rate of production there will not be enough food. We know that our weather is changing and this can have a devastating effect on plants. We can't be sure what the climate is going to throw at us. Crops are going to have to be more resistant to drought, and that's something we can tackle. It could be the difference between getting something and harvesting nothing. We could face new diseases, and if we don't have the tools to control those we could lose huge amounts of yields. Any technologies are crucial really. Our current conventional breeding techniques have done amazing things, but the rates at which yields are increasing at the moment is not great, so we have to prevent waste by preventing disease.'

Another particular concern surrounding genetically modified crops is their control – financially. Because the field is so highly regulated, it's only large companies who would have the resources to make the process commercially viable. And this, worryingly, echoes the control pharma companies have over medication.

However, Professor Harwood thinks in the future this might not be a problem. 'There are cases where materials have been given free to parts of the world that need it,' she said. 'I think, especially with gene editing, depending on regulating it, the costs are not as huge as GM to date. It will open up the possibilities for smaller companies. I think there will be opportunities in the future for smaller players to get involved. But it's a cost thing at the moment.'

Farmers are worried...

Family-run Longwood Farm in Tuddenham St Mary is one of the oldest organic farms in the country and owner Louise Unwin is concerned about what lies ahead for her industry.

'If you're talking about GM, no one knows what the long terms effects are going to be,' she said. 'They've now found that rats which've been eating GM have liver and heart problems (1). Why play with it? I don't know why people want to play with it! If we grow GM nobody knows, for the next few generations, what the side effects are going to be. It's unknown technology.

'In 1996, I think, they found there was a whole batch of soya beans on the market that had an element of Brazil nut in them and that produced the allergens Brazil nuts have. I feel that's dangerous. It's playing God to a certain extent.'

Louise said she would be 'hysterical' if a GM farm opened close to Longwood. 'The controls in the EU are very strict at the moment but the GM debate does worry me as I don't know how tight the controls are going to be. If our farm was contaminated it would go against all my principles. At the moment there are field margins and we neighbour a nature reserve. If someone did open a GM farm near us I would be horrified. I'd have doubts as to whether what I was selling was 100% organic. You don't know what's going to blow over in the pollen, or what the bees are going to carry over with them. It would be terrible and I couldn't cope to be honest. I don't know what we'd do.

'It's up to the public. The public have to revolt and say they don't want this in their food. We can have healthy plants and farms and they don't need all this extra stuff. It's man's greed. That's what it boils down to. And I know, organic, they always say it's 'muck and magic' but it actually does work!'