On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Ray Audette wrote:

> I personally take a much broader view.  In describing my diet to strangers,
> I often say that I only eat those foods that are edible to Primates in
> Nature.  This distinction takes the argument to a period of time measured in
> tens of millions of years and far beyond the geographical and ethnic
> limitations of a somewhat arbitrary line between the Paleolithic and
> Neolithic Eras.

The trouble with your reasoning, Ray, is that those tens of
millions of years are significant only insofar as they represent
time for adaptation to foods.  Have primates been eating tomatoes
for tens of millions of years?  Tomatoes are not edible if they
are not there to eat.

> A few Primates eat
> things we wouldn't eat (tree leaves and leaches), but overall I think the
> monkey test is viable for both New and Old World foods.

Monkeys enjoy peanuts, too, even though they are New World beans.
Obviously, if you're going to argue that tomatoes are okay
because our primate ancestors could have eaten them, then peanuts
pass the same test.  It's both or neither.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]