On Jun 29, 2004, at 2:36 pm, Todd Moody wrote:
> I probably shouldn't be on this list any longer, since I no longer
> think
> I really understand what it means to say that we "evolved to eat a
> plant."  Humans and their hominid predecessors have scattered around
> the
> world, into various environments, and in doing so have *constantly*
> been
> in the position of encountering and exploiting plant foods different
> from those of the African savanna.
>

I guess I know far too little to comment seriously on this, but I will
say that it seems pretty indisputable that we *have* evolved to eat
certain plants over others, by observing the way some plants make us
ill, and others don't.  And plants have scattered far and wide in the
time that humans have done the same.  You might imagine a situation
where a certain plant "out-evolved" us in Africa, but we encountered an
edible predecessor in Europe that was not under evolutionary pressure
to become human-resistant.  This is all speculative on my part, but it
is just an example of what it means to have evolved to eat a plant
(which I guess really means that the plant has not evolved to poison
us).

> Substances such as phytoestrogens are not found only in soybeans, but
> also in "paleo" foods such as certain nuts and berries, and even
> apples,
> although in lower quantities.  The same is true of lectins.  What
> distinguishes the edible from the inedible is not the absolute absence
> or presence of such compounds but their concentration.  If we can breed
> plants in which the concentration of problematic substances is lower,
> why not do so?

You make a good point actually.  I still fail to see, though, why you
would want to breed an "improved" potato given the huge range of
perfectly good other vegetables we already have.