> Just because a food has never been eaten by a
> genetic group does not mean they will necessarily
> react badly to it.  Could be that tomatoes
> are new to man but man has no reaction to
> it because it has no protients of the wrong shape.

I would agree and go one step further. I cannot be
convinced that paleo's would not have eaten it.
Especially if it was as appealing and tasty as today's
varieties (at least to me). According to
plantkingdom.com

"Tomatoes are one of the most popular of garden
vegetables, with hundreds of varieties available. The
original, wild tomato can still be found growing in
its Mexican homelands. The wild variety has clumps, or
trusses, of tiny berries 1/4-1/2 inch small. All of
the varieties available today, from the monstrous
beefsteaks to the cherry tomato and roma paste tomato,
can be traced back to this small berry."

I've never tasted one, but the description sounds
pretty paleo to me. Maybe I'll try growing some next
summer and see.

> My ALCAT test rated "avoid" on my food list for
> tomatoes.

This test sounds interesting. Has it been beneficial
for you? (It's not related to the "Eat Right for Your
Type" diet is it?)

> Some people, a
> lot actually, can't handle the nightshade plants.
> Nightshades have been linked to arthritis.  Don't
> have a url for that bit of
> info but I'm sure it's out there.

The only other reference I've come across is from
Macrobiotics.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com