December 23, 2014 By Joseph P. Farrell

Here's one for your growing GMO scrapbook, and this one, at least to my mind, is breathtaking. We'll get to why I consider it so in a moment. But first, consider this article:

Back to the future: Scientists want 'rewilded' crops to boost agriculture

The operative paragraphs in my high octane speculation of the day are these:

"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, a new study said.

"Important properties of wild plants, including varieties of wheat and rice, have been unintentionally lost during thousands of years of breeding.

When humans first domesticated wheat around 7500 BC, farmers chose to use seeds based on a few selected traits, particularly their yields.

"But such decisions, made by generations of farmers, could have weakened the resilience of crops in the face new challenges such as global warming, according to the study published on Tuesday in the journal Trends in Plant Science.

"We estimate that all crops would benefit from re-wilding," Michael Broberg Palmgren, a scientist at the University of Copenhagen and one of the study's authors, wrote in an email.

Re-wilded crops could become more drought tolerant, more resistant to cold, diseases and pests and more efficient in accessing soil nutrients, Palmgren wrote.

"The scientists suggest using biotechnology to re-insert desired genes from wild varieties of popular crops into widely consumed strains in order to improve food security." (emphases added)

Now, if you've been following my blogs on the whole GMO story, you'll recall that one of my main arguments against GMOs has not only been the inadequate, and indeed, totally lacking long-term intergenerational studies of their effects environmentally, but that the whole GMO scheme has really been just a profiteering plot to supplant the centuries of selective breeding of traits with the shotgun blast of genetic engineering and "patentable plants."

Thus, what is being proposed here is that that very agronomical practice was harmful in that it bred out certain natural characteristics by natural practices of selective breeding over long spans of time, and that, with genetic engineering, the traits thus outbred can be reinjected. And all this in the name of "greater crop adaptability" in "the face of new challenges such as global warming." So in other words, natural crops - that means the non-patented kind folks - simply won't be able to adapt fast enough to "crises" and "challenges like global warming," so they should be abandoned for even more genetic tinkering to restore traits bred out of crops thousands of years ago.

If you doubt that this is about profit, then consider posing this challenge to the "scientists" making this hairbrained suggestion: Why not breed those traits back into crops by natural agronomical selective breeding, over a few generations of plants? Start now, and within say, 20-30 years, and one might have made a significant enough start. Why use genetic engineering at all? Why not use the same method to breed the desired traits back into the crops as was allegedly used thousands of years ago to breed them out? At that juncture, I suspect, the mask will come off and we'll be told that "there isn't enough time," and all the usual questionable models will be produced to "prove" there isn't, financed by all the usual questionable suspects.

Or to put it country simple: "global warming" + "genetic engineering" + "rewilding" = the latest GMO promotion meme.

See you on the flip side...