jean-claude,

> Was your question  not a true question that you allready made your mind
> about it ?

Of course it was a real question. Are you suggesting that people who pose a
question to the group are required to forfeit their right to think and form
their own opinions? :)

> >Where do we draw the line?

> that is the thing ,there is no line , there is only a learning process

It seems you are avoiding my question. I would like to know where you would
draw the line.

It is your opinion, as I understand it, that these Eggland eggs are not
suitable to a paleo diet because the hens are not allowed to eat bugs as
hens would do under paleo conditions. So I must ask you the next question:
what if we fed bugs to the hens, but the bugs were raised on a
vitamin-enriched non-paleo diet? Would you then reject the eggs of hens who
ate bugs who ate a vitamin enriched diet? How many steps down the food chain
do you recommend we go? Where do you draw the line?

Personally I like these Eggland's Best eggs because like most paleo dieters
I am interested in finding ways to get more Omega 3 in my diet and these
eggs have three times the Omega 3 found in ordinary eggs. That additional
Omega 3, among other things, makes these eggs very suitable for paleo-eaters
like me.  What is wrong with my reasoning?

I think there is nothing wrong with my reasoning unless one is more
interested in form than substance. I agree that these eggs are not in the
exact *form* of paleolithic eggs, but I note also that eating them in place
of ordinary eggs can help me meet the *substance* requirements of a
paleolithic diet.

> i see a trend in our devolution ...

I see smart egg farmers using science to enhance the nutritional composition
of the egg. I applaud them for their effort. I am glad to see that the US
patent office awarded them a  patent, as this gives them the economic
protection they need to bring their product to a wider market so that more
consumers have the opportunity to choose nutritionally enhanced eggs. I see
this development to be evolutionary, not devolutionary.

-gts