At 23:33 6/02/03, Jens Wilkinson wrote:
>I think that all plants have toxins not only in their
>seeds but also in leaves, as presumably they wouldn't
>only want to protect the seeds but also the leaves
>from predation. I think the reason why it's more
>appropriate for us to eat leaves than seeds is that we
>are evolutionarily accustomed to it, i.e. our system
>has developed to have some resistance to the toxins
>contained in leaves because our ancestors ate them. Of
>course our ancestors didn't eat grains so we haven't
>built up a system to properly digest them.
>
>That being said, though, what about small seeds that
>are possible to eat uncooked? I think you can crack
>open a walnut and eat it without cooking, so doesn't
>it make sense that our ancestors would have eaten
>things like that? Or the little seeds in grapes and
>figs and those kinds of fruits?
>
>Jens Wilkinson


I think it's the massive concentration that gets you. Ancient seeds were
not cultivated for either size or quantity on a single plant. The few one
could eat in the course of eating grasses would be relatively small. The
problem is the leap to saying that since cows, humans, and even carnivores
can handle a bit of seed in stride, they can make a complete menu of them.
Dealing with lectins would seem to be a good evolutionary tool up to a
point. But when the lectin-containing, nutritionally incomplete plants
become a mainstay, we cannot, and should not, depend upon our systems to
produce health from them.

ginny

All stunts performed without a net!