Nieft / Secola wrote:
> >Does anyone know if blood oranges are a genetically altered orange? I am
> >suspicious when I don't find seeds?

> Hmmm. Well, every new cultivar of plant or animal is genetically
> altered--otherwize it wouldn't be any different from the other cultivars.
> If you mean whether it came as a result of recombinant DNA tinkering in a
> lab the answer is no. The blood orange varieties are older than recombinant
> DNA technology.

> Seedlessness is no sign of recombinant DNA tinkering, yet. Bananas today
> are essentially seedless, as are pineapples, some citrus, some grapes, etc.
> They were mutations which could be propagated by other means (slips,
> grafts, etc) and exist because humans can propagate seedless varieties. In
> the case of bananas, they were probably seedless many thousands of years
> ago--the result of human selection, not "natural selection".


So, are fruits produced by DNA tampering no different from fruits that
have formed from natural mutational changes? And is there any reason why
such fruits or vegatables that have to be propagated by other means are
less nutritious or contain any more toxins, etc. Do you think the
increased sugar in some of these fruits is natural sugar? I think I may
be on the wrong track thinking that genetically altered fruits might have
altered forms of sugar. Same question for Beefalo which I believe was the
resuslt of man's tinkering with the mating of buffalo and cattle? Isn't
human selection natural selection?

BTW, I believe I was wrong about those hut-shaped coconuts. The lady in
Chinatown said the hut-shaped exterior is natural. I see no sign of
tampering and the milk doesn't taste like refined sugar or set up any
cravings for more.

My best, Ellie