Genska revolucija je nesumnjivo najbrže usvojena biljna tehnologija u modernoj istoriji ljudskog roda. Ukupne površine pod GM kulturama u svetu, u proteklih petnaest godina uvećane su za oko 87 puta.
Impresivnom difuzijom GM biljke (148 miliona hektara, 2010) su okupirale značajnih 10 odsto ukupnih obradivih površina na planeti Zemlji. Komercijalna proizvodnja ovih biljaka je zastupljena na svim kontinentima, ali je areal njihove rasprostranjenosti različit po različitim državama sveta.
Trenutno se u SAD proizvodi: GM kukuruz, soja, pamuk, uljana repica, šećerna repa, lucerka, papaja i bundeva...
...Teoretski, sva hrana koja sadrži sastojke iz bilo koje od 12 GM biljnih kultura (soja, kukuruz, pamuk, repica, krompir, bundeva, papaja, paradajz, šećerna repa, pirinač, lan, cikorija) odobrenih za komercijalnu proizvodnju u SAD, može biti GM jer nema odvajanja GM od ne-GM hrane. Primera radi, pošto je odobreno nekoliko sorti GM kukuruza, svaki proizvod koji sadrži kukuruz: konzervirani kukuruz, kukuruzni sirup, kukuruzni skrob ili kokice mogu sadržati GM. U praksi nije tako jer mnogi odobreni varijeteti nikada nisu plasirani na tržište, ili su bili dostupni samo u kratkom vremenskom periodu, samo na određenim tržištima...
...Biologija oprašivanja može da posluži kao grub vodič za procenu rizika pojave transfera gena. Polen biljaka koje se oprašuju vetrom ili insektima (kukuruz, uljana repica, bundeva i šećerna repa) može se preneti i na velike distance, te ove kulture spadaju u kategoriju visokorizičnih...
...Analiza rizika za 12 GM biljaka u SAD pokazala je da najvažnije GM kulture, soja i kukuruz, nemaju divlje srodnike u SAD, te kod njih postoji mala verovatnoća kretanja gena; da divlji srodnici pamuka postoje na Havajima i Floridi, ali je mogućnost ukrštanja sa njima potvrđena samo u eksperimentu, ne i u prirodi (gajenje GM pamuka u oblastima gde postoje divlji srodnici u SAD je zabranjeno); da postoje divlji srodnici bundeve na teritoriji SAD; da je verovatnoća ukrštanja šećerne repe sa divljim srodnicima (tehnički nema divlje srodnike, ali samonikle biljke ove kulture rastu kao korovi), mala jer divlja i kultivisana repa cvetaju u različito vreme...
...This autumn, the news from New England is not reassuring. The patches suffered through a cloudy spring, and in peak season the giants were barely gaining 30 pounds a day, compared with their typical 50. There is some griping about the affordability of European hydroelectric greenhouse heat in Europe, but spirits remain high. DeBacco believes salvation lies in soil nutrient nanotechnology and genetic technologies. Wallace has faith in the providence of New England weather. In the meantime, he’s encountered a keen new market for his signature giant pumpkin fertilizer, which is called Wallace Organic Wonder, or WOW. (“The cannabis growers have found me,” he says, “and they are very, very happy.”)
...Zachary Lippman, a plant biologist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, has grown a few giant pumpkins in his day. He’s also an expert on the emerging technology known as gene editing — a new, precise way to make custom changes in DNA. Gene editing, using a tool called CRISPR, has been in the news lately for its potential to correct genetic diseases in people, but Lippman believes that, just as with earlier forms of genetic engineering, the more immediate applications will be in agriculture.
Right now he’s working on applying CRISPR to tomatoes — tweaking genes to make them bigger, but also to make plants that are simply more prolific tomato producers. The older, more traditional form of gene editing usually involved transferring genes from one organism to another. Scientists were still reined in by what nature provided. CRISPR changed that, he said, by allowing people to alter the code letters in DNA directly and at will — like editing a Word document.
“It’s an unprecedented change in the way we approach biology and what’s possible in agriculture,” he said. And while the technique is more versatile than earlier forms of genetic modification, it’s also much close to traditional breeding, where people simply used nature, or sometimes X-rays, to induce variation and then breed those with desirable traits.
Armed with CRISPR, someone like Lippman could be dangerous in the field of giant pumpkin growing. He said while gene-editing technology could potentially make bigger pumpkins, he sees giant pumpkins as an illustration of the incredible power of modern conventional breeding.
...Pumpkins themselves could improve with our newfound knowledge, even faster and more efficiently than we already breed them. And boy do we breed them. Farmers—and pumpkin enthusiasts—try to grow bigger and bigger gourds to win county fair blue ribbons and bragging rights. For a long time, this just meant watering the vines properly and carefully tending the plants to ensure they got the right mix of sun. Over time, people have selectively bred the largest pumpkins to produce genetically superior squashes like the Dill’s Atlantic Giant. Howard Dill created the varietal over three decades, and competitive pumpkin farmers all over the world now use his seeds to continue the Halloween Lord’s work. The record is already over 2,200 pounds, and increasing rapidly.
With the pumpkin genome sequenced, though, plant geneticists can learn more about how each gene influences the size, shape, and color, and could eventually edit the DNA to produce better gourds.
If you’re worried about these genetic mutants ending up in your pie at Thanksgiving 2025—don’t. That’s not really pumpkin anyway.
Unexpected Phenotypic Changes in Human-Modified Plant Populations – Changes in Non-target Traits
As mentioned before, given that the GE constructs start from isogenic lines (represented here as domNGE), and that the modifications are allegedly directed to modify specific phenotypic traits not included in the present analysis, it was expected that the phenotypic variation of the domGE would be a subgroup of that in the domNGE group.
This expectation is based on the premise that GE works usually with foreign DNA in order to introduce traits that are not present in the species, and this is performed in isogenic hybrid lines; thus, theoretically, the only differences between a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) and its isogenic line will be the added trait(s) (Cellini et al., 2004). However, we did not find evidence that supports this expectation, suggesting unintended phenotypic effects of GE modifications.
Specifically, we identified the most dramatic cases in rice, pumpkin, and maize, where almost all analyzed traits differ statistically between domNGE and domGE categories.
DOMESTICATED, GENETICALLY ENGINEERED, AND WILD PLANT RELATIVES EXHIBIT UNINTENDED PHENOTYPIC DIFFERENCES: A COMPARATIVE META-ANALYSIS PROFILING RICE, CANOLA, MAIZE, SUNFLOWER, AND PUMPKIN