On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Stacie Tolen wrote:

> Whoa.
>
> New World foods weren't available to paleolithic people? Hmm..this is a very
> eurocentric statement, as we know that people were living in the "new world"
> during paleo era, and obviously ate the foods that were available to them.
> So New World foods were not available to paleo folks of *Europe*... but WERE
> available to people who lived in the land to the west.

The generally accepted date for the arrival of people in the
Americas is about 15,000 years ago, not long before the advent of
agriculture in the Old World (about 12,000 years ago).  If we are
rejecting agricultural foods because they have only been part of
the human food supply for 12,000 years or less, it's hard to see
that the 15,000 years for New World foods should be treated
differently.

> That's also like saying we should not eat buffalo or elk because these are
> New World foods.

It's certainly a thought, but it's generally not pursued here
because of yet another rule, seldom stated explicitly: Any meat
is okay.  The principle seems to be that while hundreds of
thousands of years are needed to adapt to new plant foods, meats
pose no such adaptational challenge.  I don't know how sound that
principle is, given the difficulties that some people have
tolerating seafood, a more recent animal food addition to the
human diet.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]