Paul Getty wrote:
>
>
> Who can really say that man ate no grains.  Certainly there were some that
> ate grains, because some early men ate them, and then planted the better
> ones and then little by little we had corn and wheat.  The only reason that
> the earliest man was interested in planting the ancestors of wheat and corn
> was that he was already eating the wild variety.    I agree that he did not
> fill his caloric needs with grains, but I think the idea that he ate
> virtually no grains could be wrong.  And to be horrified at eating a small
> amount of wheat or corn is the kind of thing that comes about when too many
> people who feel the same all get excited and end up extremists.
> [log in to unmask]

Could you be more specific about "early men" who planted and ate corn?
To my knowledge this is an oxymoron.

In B. N. Ames studies on carcinogens he shows that corn is the vector
for the number one carcinogen in the American diet: aflatoxin. This is a
substance that grows on corn, peanuts and other plants in the typical
agricultural diet. Aflatoxin is EXTREMELY carcinogenic--approximately
200 times moreso than PCB's.

Also, if you were to do a geographical analysis of the historical
migration of corn and rheumatiod arthritis you would need but one set of
pins for the map.

Pancreatic cancer is the number five killer of humans in Africa due to
the high prevalence of cornbread in their diets.

Corn has no natural counterpart. It is a creation of agriculture.
Admittedly some people seem to be able to tolerate corn in small
amounts. So if somebody wants to eat corn occasionally on a paleolithic
diet, perhaps their immune system will allow them to get away with it.
But if you're going to choose to occasionally indulge in agricultural
foods, certainly corn is, statistically the worst choice.

Troy Gilchrist
NEANDERTHIN
<http://www.sofdesign.com/neander>