I see much rejection of "New World" plant foods, yet whole-hearted acceptance of grass-fed bison, wild turkey, white-tailed deer, capybara, etc. (which are all "New World" foods, albeit animal). In my experience. aside from a few isolated genera and families, the only differences between "New World" and "Old World" foods is, with few exceptions, special. There is no scientific basis (that I have found) for rejecting whole groups of foods simply because they normally grow on one continent or another. Their physiological and chemical makeup is not all that different from any other related (and cross-continental) excepting a general uniqueness of all individual species which allows us to categorize them as "species"; indeed, every species and many individuals produce a unique mix of chemicals that make that species or individual distinct. Interestingly, Solanaceae (including tomatoes and potatos, and about 2600 other species) is not an isolated "New World" group. It is spread world-wide in tropical and temperate regions, and is a very diverse family including both highly toxic species, non-toxic species and many in-betweens. Unrelated to this topic, but I did see it mentioned: "How did they figure out how to apply caustic chemicals to change the make-up of corn (or other food product)?" Simple. Ashes from a fire, when soaked in water, produce potash lye. I remember doing strange things as a child (and I still do strange things), and I could certainly see myself experimenting with ashes and a pot of corn. I wouldn't risk the whole lot on it, but sometimes experiments pay off. We are a curious species, highly opportunistic, and quite diverse. Why must there be "one right way" to go about doing something, even paleo dieting? Ellie