In response to Anna Abrante's 4-10-99 posting:

With limited clues as to where each of our paleolithic European (and other)
ancestors actually lived, let alone which specific plant foods they ate, the
general
thrust of the paleolithic nutrition movement, as I see it, has been to
consider things
in a larger perspective, focussing on the most dramatic changes in the human
diet
since the agricultural revolution.  For instance, the most significant of
these changes,
heavy cereal-grain and dairy consumtion, are impossible without agriculture,
so they
can be generalized as being more or less new to all of us and therefore
'non-paleo.'

As for the more subtle changes, it's true that due to selective breeding,
almost
none of our modern fruits and vegetables (even nuts) were available to
paleolithic
peoples in their present form.  However, the fact that a raw-edible plant
food was not
available to them doesn't mean that it would have been harmful to them or to
us.
For example, things like tomatoes and oranges (large, easily gathered,
raw-edible
fruits), regardless of whether or not our ancestors ate them, are likely to
contain fewer compounds foreign to us than are grains (tiny, difficult to
gather, raw-inedible seeds) because their general type represents a more
significant food source in our evolutionary history.  I admit this isn't the
best example,
in that some people are sensitive to tomatoes and oranges, but it would be
safe to
bet that a much larger percentage of the population is sensitive to grains
and dairy.

So you see, the definition of "paleo" food as used on this list, being
basically food
that is edible raw, serves as a general guide that directs people toward
plant foods
that are at least SIMILAR to what our ancestors might have had accesss to,
while
helping us to steer clear of those that are probably not.  As far as I know,
nobody on
this list has tried to acurately recreate a paleolithic diet according to
their ancestral
origins.  Such a task would be almost impossible.  That's not to say it's
not worth
trying.  It makes perfect sense that specific foods our ancestors ate are
better for us
than similar ones they did not.  I'm just saying that raw-edible plant foods
that may not
have been in the dietary regimen of one's direct ancestors are no cause for
alarm.

Sorry about my spelling,

B.Lischer