> I still don't understand how is it possible to have
> more nutrients and the
> food not getting bigger or denser unless other
> nutrients are in a  decrease.
> proportion .

OK, I'll relent a little bit. Perhaps on a molecular
level you might notice a change in density or size.
But, humans would not be able to distinguish between
the two (unless, of course, you are able to "taste"
different nutrient levels).

> other point,  they compare a domestic orange with an
> improved version of the

You are right. They are not trying to improve wild
foods, only already domesticated foods.

> will be interested for example on a weight to weight
> basis to have the
> nutrients content of a pacific wild crab apple and a
> modern improved
> domestic one , or the comparaison between a wild
> dandelion or chicoree and
> their ameliorated cousins.

I doubt very much if anyone is working on those crops
in the labs.

> It is precisely why i am getting interpelled by your

Interpelled?

I'll assume that means "mad". And you needn't be. I am
not a proponent of genetic engineering of food crops,
I just find it interesting. The original question was
about nutrient levels, and I went to the "experts" for
an answer. I got one and forwarded it to this list.
Unfortunately, they can only comment on "standard"
food crops (peas, bean, corn, carrots, beets, lettuce,
etc.) not the wild food crops you have growing in your
garden.

I applaude your gardening (or un-gardening) effots. I
also practice a form of "edible landscaping" in which
I try to grow as many edibles as I can instead of the
standard landscape plants. Eventually I hope to be
surrounded by a literal "forest" of edible plants.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com