On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Anna L. Abrante wrote:

> In a message dated 4/9/99 11:45:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> >  If we use the criterion that a paleo food is one that is edible
> >  in the wild state,
>
> Is that really what we are using as a criterion?? I thought it was foods that
> existed in the Paleo era.

This is the criterion that is used in Neanderthin, which is why I
paraphrased it.  Foods that are available to a "naked with a
sharrp stick" person are essentially foods that are edible in the
wild state.

> Aren't there a lot of foods that can be eaten in the wild state that are too
> new
> to be recognized by the body, and hence cause us problems, like allergies??

I think so, yes.

> Like certain fruits, ie oranges, strawberries, bananas.  According to "Food
> in
> Antiquity", most fruits we know today aren't Paleo at all.  They can't be
> traced
> past 8000BC at the earliest.

I don't know this book (or is it an article?), but this makes
sense.

> The only food besides meat
> that has truly ancient history is nuts....maybe squirrels are the only true
> Paleo
> creatures left........

It also appears to be a mistake to suppose that all meats are
paleo, for the same reason that it is a mistake to suppose that
all fruits are paleo, if we follow this logic.  And of course the
same is true of nuts.  People *do* have allergies and
intolerances to various meats, and of course seafood allergies
are not uncommon.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]