Jean-Louis Tu wrote:
>
> It has been said that cooked food doesn't exist in nature (except
> under exceptional circumstances, like wildfires), therefore it
> shouldn't be used. While that argument merits some attention, I would
> like to emphasize a few points:
>
> 1. Outside food, humans do many things that are "unnatural",
> including wearing clothes, heating or using air conditioners, using
> cars, sending e-mails.
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? 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
|
