> >On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Ray Audette wrote:
> >Have primates been eating tomatoes
> >for tens of millions of years?  Tomatoes are not
> edible if they
> >are not there to eat.
> >
> >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.

Are we just splitting hairs here? This topic seems to
come up quite a bit and it seems _I_M_H_O_ there are
actually a number of ways to look at it. First, when
we look at "old world" foods - are they actually the
same today as when our ancestors originally ate them?
And what about the "new world" versions of "old world"
foods - are they close enough genetically to their
potentially distant relatives? And how many foods to
which we were originally adapted are now long extinct?
And what about regional differences in the human
species (race) - what kind of impact would that make
on adaptation to a particular type of food?

Since we can't go back in time (yet?) and actually
live in the paleolithic era, I think we have no choice
but to need to experiment with, and adapt to what is
available to us today (within reason, of course).
Which is why I like the definition posted a few days
ago - no grains, beans , or milk (Ray adds potatoes).

By the way, I have a question regarding peanuts. My
understanding is that peanuts are a legume, the same
as peas and beans are legumes. Are legumes in general
considered non-paleo, or just beans? Where do peas and
GREEN beans fit in (both are edible raw)? Where would
that leave peanuts? I believe they are also edible raw.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com