Ellie:
>So, are fruits produced by DNA tampering no different from fruits that
>have formed from natural mutational changes?

No different? Yes, again, they are different, otherwise what would be the
point of propagating them. Natural selection is "slowest" (if there is no
great change in the environment). Genetic tinkering is "fastest". Between
those extremes we have ruminants who chew down weeds in order to foster the
growth of their favored grass; humans who plant the seeds of their favored
plants for thousands of generations; humans who deliberately
cross-pollinate cultivars to get desired characteristics; humans who will
plant up acres of, say, apples from seeds in order to just maybe luck upon
a chance tree that will be worth grafting; etc. At what point these fruits
and veggies become "bad" is up to each of us.

>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

They can be more nutritious and contain less toxins. Growing methods are
probably as big a factor as cultivar.

> 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?

Some say all human acts/products are natural. "Natural" becomes an almost
cliche word w/o meaning anymore...

Cheers,
Kirt