I think the real point is that tomatoes are fruit- the seeds are not meant
to be eaten, but the flesh is.
I see the point about us being best adapted to the plants were we allegedly
sprang from (Africa), hence Old world vs New world thinking, but one still
has to look at what class of foods the Neolithic and paleolithic foods come
from.
Simply stated, paleolithic diet classes are fruit, edible leaves (eg
lettuce), edible roots, berries, meat and fish.
Neolithic diet adds the classes of grains/cereals/beans- now all of these
are in fact seed kernels, and all carry toxins, and have other undesirable
features- their positive feature being that they are calorie dense.

It comes down to co-evolution/ synergy/ symbiosis. Fruit bearing plants
benefit from an animal benefit from an animal eating their fruit and then
later depositing the seeds in a pile of dung elsewhere so a new plant can
grow. If the seeds are broken down and eaten then there are no new plants-
therefore plant kernels contain toxins to prevent this from happening. Now,
I know some people express the opinion that nuts are protected by a hard
shell and therefore don't need toxins to protect them- I tend to disagree
and think that people eating paleo for treatment of disease (eg arthritis,
autoimmune disease) should consider giving nuts the flick until they are
stabilised and only reintroduce them cautiously and furtively.

So, animals and fruit-bearing plants share a symbiotic relationship. The
plant provides nutrition to the animal. In return the animal deposits fruit
seeds in manure helping the plant to multiply. A mutually profitable
relationship, like all good business relationships, and other relationships.

Edible leaves and roots come down to chance- if they're not toxic raw,
they'll probably be less toxic cooked. There are advantages for plant to
have toxins in their leaves to stop them being eaten, but it has a metabolic
cost. I suppose they're more interested in protecting themselves against
insects than animals anyway. Roots have the advantage of being protected by
being underground which is a good start.

Grains/cereals/ beans all contain toxins and are inedible raw. Cooking
renders them edible. In the view of paleodoods, they are still not good for
you.

I propose that phylogenic/ class effects of foods are more important than if
they're New World or Old World.

Ben Balzer



----- Original Message -----
From: Anna L. Abrante <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [P-F] tomato


> In a message dated 7/14/99 3:07:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask]
> writes:
>
> >
> >  <<  If my memory of American history serves,
> >   early Europeans who came to America considered the wild tomato they
found
> > to
> >   be poison; it took a period of farming for the tomato to become
edible. >>
> >  The tomato didn't change-the people were all wrong when they feared
> poisons!
> >
> >
>
> True. But if man didn't eat them throughout history, our bodies aren't
used
> to them.
> I think that's the whole point of neolithic foods.  I'm not convinced that
> man didn't eat
> them at all.  But someone had to have gotten the info that the nightshade
> family
> of plants was poisonous.  It's just a question of how far back it was.
>
> Anna