Which fruit sold commercially in the USA, homegrown or imported, is the most genetically or selectively modified.
Volume of sale is not relevant. So if a certain berry is sold in low quantities by any company, even if the production levels are low, if that fruit is furthest away from its parent/historic starting point…that wins.
Just so we avoid a back garden enthusiast who sells the largest ever known cucumbers from a single plant to his neighbours.
My money would be on the grape or the banana, both of which have been selectively bred since about 5000 BC. A wild-type banana, in particular, is small and has numerous large, hard seeds, a trait which has long since been bred out of the great majority of commercial varieties.
In fact the only GM’d fruit is some apple and some banana … the ones which do not go brown.
Apparently the best way to cause evolution in the plants is to expose them to radiation.
With the radiation calibrated just right, its testing that the plant likes the conditions as the specimens which do not like the conditions die. Its death due to radation + poor conditions.
My guess would be watermelon. The original melons were green fleshed, bitter, and round.
Except for wild-caught fish, virtually everything we eat is highly selected and actual GM is barely a pimple on that. Consider that cabbage, kale, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, kohlrabi, napa cabbage, and chinese cabbage are all the same species. The wild progenitor is not known for certain, but is thought to be something called sea cabbage that grows in shallow water off the British coast.
Pretty much all of them. As are all of the ones sold in the UK and pretty much everywhere else. Humans have been genetically modifying and selectively modifying fruits and veggies for 1000’s of years, after all, and I don’t think many of plants we eat today are completely as they are in the wild. A better question might be, which fruits or veggies commonly sold today are the most like their wild cousins? I’d be really interested in that answer. Are there any that are commonly eaten that look or taste the same as stuff still growing in the wild?
That’s what I was going to point out- “genetically modified” can mean multiple things- it can mean selective breeding, it can mean radiation breeding, or it can mean geneticists editing and/or sticking snippets of other organisms’ DNA into the target species’ DNA for specific traits.
Any fruit or vegetable out there almost certainly meets the first definition, if only because they’re all domesticated species. Lots meet the second definition as well- the most famous are probably the Ruby Red/Rio Red grapefruits commonly sold here in the US, and the Golden Promise barley commonly used in the UK for beer and whisky.
The third is much less common- AFAIK, the “Arctic” apple varieties that have been genetically edited to produce less polyphenol oxidase (the enzyme that causes browning) are the only commercial examples I can think of.
If this thread gets bumped in a few years the answer could be quite different. For example:
If you are not acquainted with CRISPR:
Blackberries, blueberries. Pinyon Pine.
Of course some varieties have been selected for commercial growth, but both grow freely in the wild.
My very educated $0.02:
Strawberry which can have up to 10x more DNA than they should. Wheat is up there though too. The funny part is that the anti-GMO party of idiots believes that wheat is always GMO and one of the primary reasons that wheat is non-GMO is because humans have already so messed with its genetics through breeding that working on it from a GMO perspective is too daunting and complicated to invest any money to do.
Your premise is a bit misguided. CRISPR cannot modify genomes nearly as significantly as a single pollination and selective breeding cycle. So the answer will not change in a few years. Every change that would be introduced would have to have a reason for it- so only a few changes would ever occur in a single organism/crop. Having a crop which can grow outside of its natural range that is insect proof to 100 different insects, is flood, and drought resistant and produces super oils for health would be a terrible crop as it would barely produce any actual product.
The wild Brassica oleracea, ancestor to all those cultivars is perfectly well known, and though it is found as far North as Southern England, it doesn’t grow in shallow water off the coast, it’s native to Southern and Western Europe and largely found on cliffs, especially coastal cliffs around the Mediterranean. It’s one of the more heavily studied species on a genetic level, as it’s so variable and produced so many useful crops.
Regarding the OP, without a better definition of ‘modified’ this question isn’t really answerable.
Maize looks very different from its wild relatives, especially the seeds themselves, but is appearance what you mean or genetic difference? The plant known as teosinte was only identified as the wild ancestor of maize because it’s genetically so similar, for all its different looks, whereas many cultivated citrus fruit are complex hybrids of multiple wild species, and are far more genetically distinct from their wild ancestors than teosinte is from maize, though they may appear similar aside from a change in flavour.
Oh, and we eat Kelp, and that is pretty much non-modified.
Some edible mushrooms are not cultivated and are only harvested from the wild. Those are not modified.
Why?
Foraged mushrooms are currently popular, so the same reason as “organic” food being popular.
For some mushrooms, there is no known way to grow them in a controlled, commercial environment. There would also have to be a market willing to pay enough to make cultivating them profitable.
Truffles aren’t exactly mushrooms, but they’re a fungus that is also only harvested from the wild.
Truffles are frequently cultivated not wild. They’re just not grown inside.
As for why some mushrooms aren’t grown, the #1 reason is because there isn’t a market for them. There are tons of plants that you pretty much have to forage yourself, but sometimes you can check eBay or Amazon for small-scale harvest.
This actually somewhat surprises me. You’d think someone would take advantage of cultivating at least morels here in the Midwest or something. When I see them around here fresh, they’re usually around $20-30 a pound or so.
