Rex,

welcome to the list.

> I'm a newbie to the list.  I'm also a small farmer who grows fruits and
> veggies.  That last phrase is absolutely the truth, but if modern fruits are
> truly artificially high in sugar, I missed the boat.  I'm firmly of the
> impression that all of fruitdom struggles to get the Brix higher even as most
> farmers use NPK salt fertilization practices that push sugar down by their
> very nature.

> Would someone be kind enough to help me find "Tom's comparison"?

You will find it at

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/wildfruit.html

or in the archives of the raw food list.

I don't know about the consequences of NPK fertilization. Certainly some
overfertilized fruit are less tasty, have a poor mineral content and a lot of
water. The point is that, because of artificial selection, the sugar content of
modern fruits is usually much higher than that of wild fruits. Among the modern
fruits, the closest to the wild ones are probably the berries (blueberries,
cranberries, etc).

Liza:

>Do they really? They taste kind of weird (at least to me) - and I would have
>assumed that their weird or bitter flavors would be an indication that these
>are not meant to be eaten - or that whatever natural protective toxins are
>creating the bitterness probably outweigh any nutrient that might be present.
>I'm curious as to what is actually found in some of the things mentioned.

I share your opinion too, but in some very specials cases, it may happen that
the body such badly needs these nutrients that it would be "willing" to
neutralize these protective toxins to get those nutrients. I agree however that
it's not what happens usually, and I don't think that eating banana skins is
_necessary_ to maintain good health (hopefully!).

>What do you think it is, then? Why do fruits seem often to have more appeal
>than other foods, even for very young children?

There are several "theories":
 -Sugar is a readily usable form of energy. Since it is scarce in wild foods,
it's virtually impossible to overeat it, so, for a wild animal or a paleolithic
human, the more sugar, the better (i.e. there is no selective advantage to
having a mechanisms which limits sugar intake). The deleterious effects of an
excess of sugar would never have happened without technology and artificial
selection.
 -Humans are attracted to sweets and not to bitter tastes, because bitterness is
often a sign of toxicity. Hypothetic animals carrying a gene which makes them
like bitterness would quickly become extinct.

>In fact, do I have your permission to copy it and post it to that "other" list?

Anyone can post any of my messages on any (food related) list.

Best wishes,

Jean-Louis
[log in to unmask]