> >  1. Outside food, humans do many things that are "unnatural",
> > including wearing clothes, heating or using air conditioners, using
> > cars, sending e-mails.

Carol:
> That's true, but what is the point of saying it?  Are you saying
> that these other unnatural things are all OK and that, therefore,
> cooking must be OK too?

Not e

  Or are you saying that humans are just
> naturally unnatural, so these things aren't really unnatural at
> all?  Or...?
>
> >  2. Besides cooking, there are many other "unnatural" practices on
> > food: juicing, blending, mixing, fermenting (fermentation does occur
> > naturally, but in small amounts), sprouting (you probably couldn't
> > find enough sprouts in the jungle to survive), eating eggs and nuts
> > year-round (since they are in general available only seasonally),
> > eating imported products. This leads to refine the question: only
> > cooking produces unnatural *chemicals*.
>
> I'm with you on that one.
>
> >  3. Some natural chemicals can be detrimental to health (e.g. many
> > edible plants contain natural carcinogens), and some artificial
> > chemicals have no known toxic effect. Just because something is
> > "artificial" doesn't *necessarily* mean it is harmful.
>
> No, it doesn't, but my guess is that the percentage of natural
> chemicals that will do you serious harm is lower than the percentage
> of unnatural chemicals that will.  Our biochemistry has had a lot
> more time to get to know the natural ones.
>
> >  4. Humans have been using fire to cook food for a long time (see
> > http://www.beyondveg.com). There is a *possibility* that they have
> > adapted to eating some amounts of cooked food, or perhaps even developed
> > a need for some amounts of cooked food.
>
> The difference between adapting to some cooked food and developing
> a need for some cooked food is a HUGE one, don't you think?  After
> all, we could adapt to the unnatural chemicals in cooked food in so
> many ways that don't involve getting nutrition out of them.  For
> example, we might adapt to them by learning how to get rid of them
> or how to make the harmful ones less harmful (which doesn't neces-
> sarily mean making them helpful).  I'm not saying it's impossible
> for us to have developed a need for cooked food, but that it looks
> much, much less probable to me.
>
> >  5. Fruits and vegetables we find in groceries are very different of
> > what we would find in the wild.
>
> Unfortunately, that's absolutely true.  It's too bad we can't all
> organically grow our own wild type seeds on remineralized soil
> while stark naked in the perfect weather... with our laptops. :)
>
> > They have been selected for their commercial qualities, and are
> > adequate in a conventional diet, but not necessarily in a raw one.
> > Plants that are edible raw but can not be breeded easily won't be
> > sold on the market, while some plants which are inedible raw (e.g.
> > some beans) are sold at a cheap price.
>
> Are you saying that some, perhaps many, foods found in our stores
> have been bred in such a way that they are now more nutritious cooked
> than they are raw?  Looks like another evolutionarily HUGE leap to me.
> However, it's been a long time since I took my genetics classes.  Is
> anyone around here the resident evolution expert?
>
> > In many areas of the world, human life would be impossible or
> > very difficult without cooking, because not enough plants are
> > edible raw...
>
> What areas of the world are we talking about here?  (I just wanna
> make sure they're not on my "places to go on vacation" list. :D)
>
> Carol
>


--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>