Ancient Food Genetics – Leading To Our Future Food Crops?

Source Back to the future

Scientists want ‘rewilded’ crops to boost agriculture. Scientists should “re-wild” food crops by inserting lost genetic properties of ancient, edible plants in order to boost agricultural output for a growing population.

Important properties of wild plants, including varieties of wheat and rice, have been unintentionally lost during thousands of years of breeding. Around 7500 BC, farmers chose to use seeds based on a few selected traits, particularly their yields.

Michael Broberg Palmgren, University of Copenhagen said “We estimate that all crops would benefit from re-wilding.

Is reverse Genetically Modifying Organisms (GMOs) the answer to improving food quality and quantity? Scientists suggest using biotechnology to re-insert desired (lost) genes from wild varieties of popular crops into widely consumed food crops in order to improve food security.

Big Grin. This is going to really screw up all my GMO hating friends.
GMO I hate It..
Reverse GMO I love it..

Which side of this idea are you on?

Happy Holidays

Not from the U.S.A. Leave a comment telling me about your home town and country

Why is common sense so uncommon?
Don’t be Shy. Leave me your comment(s)


4 responses to “Ancient Food Genetics – Leading To Our Future Food Crops?

  1. ” This is going to really screw up all my GMO hating friends.”

    It depends on why they hate them, right?

    Some don’t like the idea of inserting different genes into any organisms genome, that weren’t there already. But the practice of inserting useful genes into organism, like E. coli, to do research, or to produce large amounts of the protein product of that gene, is not just common, but extremely common, useful, and if it stopped then the public would freak out! Just as an example: diabetics would die. Insulin is produced in vats of E. coli that have an insulin producing gene into them. Before this was done, you either died, or, if you were wealthy, you kept a steady supply of horse insulin coming in. This is just one, tiny example of how modifying an organism through “modifying it’s genetics” helps us. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands.

    Some think eating these genes will somehow cause them harm. Silly, in my opinion. When you eat an organism, you are eating it’s genome and that genome contains not only the genes for producing that organism, but the genes to produce virtually every organism that come before it. Example: that fish you had for lunch may not have fingers, but the genes are there and if they got turned on, ie, turn on the promoter gene, then yes, that fish could develop fingers.

    Some, like myself, are just opposed to the practice of things like inserting glyphosate-resistant genes into crops just so you can then spray the fields with glyphosate and still have crops. It was rightly predicted that this would select for resistant weeds and the result would be a gradual increase in the amount of glyposate sprayed, which is great for Monsanto’s profits but, at the very least, an unknown with regards to the environment and human health.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for dropping by and for your comment(s)
      I find your distaste for Monsanto, Owens, DuPont and several other chemical / seed producers odd.
      Yes they modified crops to tolerate glyphosate as well as 2-4-d. However nature has done the same thing in ‘modifying’ weeds to tolerate glyhposate. It just took nature a few years longer.
      In general I don’t have a hate or fear of GM plants. Mmmm GM fish and animals are another subject and I won’t dive into that just now.

      Grin … But I’m not sure mankind is ready for that Korean developed glow in the dark tree. Hehehe but if every street was planted with glow in the dark trees, just think how many streets lights would no longer be needed.
      Happy holidays


      • If I had glowing chickens, would they ever go to roost????? 🙂

        I hope I’m not coming off as anti-technology or anti-business. I’m not. I make my living at a research facility working in a lab – so it would be hypocritical of me if I was.

        My distaste for monsanto has a lot to do with their bully tactics over the years by going way beyond protecting themselves from copyright infringement and straight into the infringement of everyone else’s rights.

        The problem with technological fixes, as I see it, is that they are sometimes too convenient and too short-sided, We can see this with antibiotic resistance because of the massive amount of antibiotics used in factory farms, which account for about 70% or more of the antibiotic use in the US. It’s an easy fix, but to what end? Now, we work hard to come up with new classes, but it’s difficult with no guarantee of success and the pipeline to get those drugs out is long and tedious. Given the seriousness of this issue, it might be better to take the Netherlands approach and simply stop the practice altogether. Far from being devastating, they actually saw little change at all and now their children are less likely to die from an ear infection. And if some chickens die and the hardier ones are selected for then all the better. But resistant bugs don’t obey borders.

        I agree that nature has and always will select for advantages, but like the antibiotic issue, we put that process on a bullet train with some of our quick fixes and nature’s selection process doesn’t involve an ever-increasing amount of pesticide being sprayed. This article for example:

        The USDA Approved a New GM Crop to Deal With Problems Created by the Old GM Crops

        Sept 25, 2014

        Last week the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved a new line of genetically modified corn and soybeans for use in the U.S. The crops, made by Dow Chemical Company and running under the brand name “Enlist,” may be the future of genetically modified crops. This future, though, has been largely determined by the problems caused by the last generation of GM crops.

        Dow’s new Enlist genetically modified crops are the intellectual descendants of Monsanto’s genetically modified “Roundup Ready” crops. Like Monsanto’s crops, Dow’s are designed to be resistant to a patented herbicide. By planting the modified crops, farmers can spray the herbicide to kill weeds without worry that it will affect their crops.

        New technological fixes for problems caused by yesterday’s technological fixes.

        I would argue that instead of applying chemical, after chemical, after chemical, that maybe we should rethink the problem and come up with other solutions. Our environment, and even our bodies are much more resilient than a lot of people think, but there are limits. A little mercury here, and a little chromium or lead there, may not amount to much, but I think we’re asking a lot of earth and ourselves to absorb everything at once. Just my two cents:)


  2. I do NOT like the idea of GMO.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s