----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stuart"
> I think this is where things are beginning to be taken to extremes.
Selective
> breeding does not make a food non-paleo, since the only thing is happening
is
> that you are taking an already paleo food, and only breeding the ones you
like.
> If the particular ones that you choose are paleo, then all their
descendants
> would be equally paleo.

So what's extreme about stating reality?  Blueberries, like every other
fruit commonly and commercially available to us,  have been selectively bred
for increased size and sugar content (among other attributes such as
flowering and fruiting time, disease resistance, etc.).   Haven't others on
this list--including you, Ken--decried how modern sugary fruit differs from
its paleo forebears?

The blueberries that grow wild on our 80 acres are, I think, *more* paleo
than the ones I get at market.  Wouldn't you agree?  They are just as nature
made them.  Their fruiting ancestral lineage is far, far older and more
natural than that of cultivars that have undergone intensive selective
breeding to better please the palate of man for the last hundred years.  Do
I need to mention the comparative differences in size or sweetness between
wild and cultivated?  While both share common ancient origins, agricultural
man has undeniably altered the branch, as you say "breeding only the
ones...[he] likes."   That must be the really big, extra sweet ones.

 > Furthermore, blueberries have the greatest amount of naturally occurring
> antioxidants of any food, which means in modern times, they are perhaps
the
> healthiest possible thing to eat.

I didn't say they aren't healthy to eat.  I merely responded to a poster who
said, "Most modern fruit ain't paleo.  Blueberries seem OK."  Modern
blueberries, like other modern fruit, are distinctly different from their
paleo counterparts.

Theola