>
> Others have pointed out that "modern" versions of plants may have been so
> genetically altered from their original state that they should not be
> considered paleo. Two problems there: the first, and most obvious, is how
> can you tell - with certainty - *how* altered a modern version might be;
> and, plants in the wild quite often do their "own" genetic manipulation,
so
> that much is pure crap shoot.


there is an essential difference between naturally evolving genetic and man
directed  genetic manipulation .the first one is done in the context of a
balanced relationship with other species with feed back from the whole
ecosytem to support or not the gentic changes that occur . By domestication
we bypass this regulation that  maintain homeostasis and so health of the
ecosytem .we favorise some traits at the expense of others to  find way
laterthey  were vital for the species itself and its predators .( like
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 )

humans are like any other species integral part of the web of life and to
stay healthy have to keep in dynamic balance with the whole .
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 . that is to provide  a non static dynamic healthy balance between
species .

By protecting crops from  the selective pressures of the environement , it
allows some species ( especially annuals ) to diverge so much from their
origin and in direction so contrary to the benefit of the whole that it is
no surprise to find a growing unhealthy gap between the eaten and the eater
.Wheat is obviously the most striking ex of that , its genetic have changed
so much in comparaison with the humans who eat it ....
an other ex of actuality for british colombian is chickens ( they killed 19
millions of chickens to stop the avian flu,  to clear the whole lower
mainland of Bc of any thing  that  looks like a chicken. no matter how
healthy your chickens ,how small your flock were,  they had to go .) one
tiny virus that our modern chickens are unable to integrate in their genetic
. when will it be our turn? ( organised genocide of humans to prevent
epidemic ?)

<how altered ?>

if you grow some foods you can figure out quickly depending of  the amount
of  artifices  needed to maintain some breeds to stay alive and healthy .
hybrids or seed less varieties can't even reproduce their kind !

if you eat instinctivelly ( respecting the senses signals ) foods eaten on
their own in a whole raw undenatured state , you can figure out quickly the
breeds that are most manipulated ( they loose a quality of taste that is
easelly recognised once you have tried the older varieties or the original
wild plant or animal  )
I wrote earlier about the difference between european wine grapes and
american table grapes ... or compare the taste of wild boar versus
domesticated pigs etc...

because of the elasticity of life and of the relationship between species ,
it takes to push the genetic changes quite far to start to becomes obvious
it is affecting our health . thousands of years of slow "natural" breeding
were  needed but few decades in the context of industrialisation of food
production and artificial breeding,  become sufficient and when it comes to
genetically modified organisms ( GMO) it is going to show up even quicker
.( studies ahave allready showed problems in the health of laboratory
animals eating GMO).

jean-claude