On Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:25:39 -1000, Nieft / Secola <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>BTW, I have been meaning to ask you:
>
>Does it bother you that most all of the plants you are eating are very very
>domesticated, often having little resemblense to wild plant foods? Almonds,
>for example, were reportedly quite inedible before domestication. All the
>veggies are a very far cry from wild plants. Fruit even more so.

I think, what you mention is an important topic, and sadly few information
and opinion about it is around.

I think the longer a plant needs to replicate, the smaller the problems.
Whith tree seeds like almonds: wild plants are much higher in
bitter (toxic) substances. They have been selected out in a *very* slow
process of letting only the best kernels of the best trees grow.
I'm convinced that such a process occured even in paleolithic times,
when humans visited "almond sites" or other tree areas, then the best ones
may have been supported in some ways.
This kind of adaption i consider symbiont and desirable.

With veggies or salads, there are present efforts to "cultivate" properties
into plants wich have nothing to do with nutrition, or even contradict
desirable properties (To grow as fast a possible on nitrogen, or to stand
the biggest pesticide load).
There are some options to select less modifies and more natural types and
ways of production. Veggies, I select most only organic qualities therefore.
Some paleo-style veggies are available from the wild
or others are not so  strong modified.
E.g.Chicoree or radiccio are plants deriven from a (very nice) wild plant,
the "Wegwarte" (lat. Cichorium intybus) - in english its "chicory".

From grains, older species are available, less cultivated (esp.from less
used species). Like buckwheat or millet.
The genetic change of wheat in the last 20 years is gigantic
(so the increase in per acre yield and the decrease in nutritional value).

The most difficult topic is fruit. Because it is a means to add sweetness
(sugar) to the diet. So it has been bred as sweet as possible.
However, older varieties of fruit come closer to paleo-like fruit.
Some nice info has the naturalhub.com location in the vegetables section.
(i cited sev.times).

Genetic modification is imo the most deadly danger from plant modification.
Mostly, because the direction , the genetic engineers want to go is just
the way how *they* understand what is desireable.
The sweeter the better. The more lectins, the better (because it rots
later). The more pesticide resistant the better (that more can be applied).
Even if they do their job right in a technical sense - that no dangers
arise from the technique itself. The direction they want is probably not
a desireable one in our (customer) sense.

>So wouldn't your arguments against modern meat apply just as appropriately
>to plants?

Sure, but differently.
In plants you can criticise : less fiber, less vitamins, more sweetness.
In meat its: mostly the fat, unwanted chemicals (from the environment or
from the farmer), and it's the composition available at a butcher
(muscles vs.liver vs. everything),

>
>And do you plant, tend, and "slaughter" your own plant foods? If you don't,
>aren't you being a tad hypocritical?

I try and enjoy to be at close to the plants i eat, as possible.
I've planted a couple of fruit and nut trees.
I've learned about edible wild fruit bushes in our environment and planted
several. I try to get my plants directly from an organic farmer, or an
organic farming cooperation.
And i slaughter my veggies myself. Often with just a knife and my teeth.

BTW eating fruits and berries is IMO not a kind of slaughtering. More the
natural and normal way, how fruit plants have offspring.
If they "feel" same as we about generating offspring, then they should be
really fond about beeing eaten.

Cheers,

Amadeus S.