On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 12:28, Todd Moody wrote:
>  So it doesn't
> depend on the definition, unless you're suggesting that the definition
> of food is "edible to william."  But of course, that *isn't* the
> definition of food.

It is for me. I can't speak for you.
>
> Strawberries are food, even though some people can't eat them.

Strawberries found in supermarket are NOT food. Stawberries found in my
front yard are edible (and taste much better), but I'd starve depending
on them for food.


>   Wheat
> (cooked or otherwise prepared) is food, even though you can't eat it.
> Millions of others can and do.

IMO wheat is fodder. Weston A. Price showed the consequence of using it
as food. I can eat small quantities of wheat depending on what's in it,
but I can also eat gravel without harm (avoid chewing). The fact that
people eat something is no proof that it is food, but rather that there
is not enough food available.


Definition time? I'll start: Food is something that supports a long and
healthy life, and does no harm.

William