>> there is an essential difference between naturally evolving genetic and
man
>> directed

I'm curious. When did man become not a part of nature? How do you know we
are not just a "tool" being used to impart certain changes in the
ecosystem?

>> favorising gluten content of wild grains to makes "better" breads to
realise
>> way down the road we have  reach toxic levels that hinder absobtion of
other
>> nutrients )

Can't argue with you there. But bread isn't paleo anyway.

>> artificially selecting some traits of a food to satisfy some humans
desires
>> or values to makes a "better food"  miss the whole point of genetic
>> evolution .

Why is it you assume we are not actually capable of "improving" something?
All things being equal, what is really wrong with a "bigger" squash? My
point was sometimes this happens "naturally".

>> Wheat is obviously the most striking ex of that

Again, who cares about genetic manipulation of wheat if they don't eat it?
And, if we avoid grain feds animals...

>> they killed 19 millions of chickens to stop the avian flu

"Nature" has killed off hundreds, perhaps thousands, of species. Man is an
absolute amateur when it comes to that :)

>> when it comes to genetically modified organisms ( GMO)

My post wasn't about gene splicing.