4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da
0

Is this site correct in claiming foods like corn, cashews, cauliflower, potatoes, are hybrids that wouldn't survive in nature without human intervention?

by (-2)
Updated May 10, 2014 at 5:34 PM
Created May 07, 2014 at 8:14 AM

Hi I'm just curious if what this website is saying is true regarding hybrid plants,

http://www.rahealing.com/Hybrids.html

I am not sure how else to find out if this is true because I am not a scientist.

"

Hybrid foods will not grow in nature. They are crossbreed food which must be nurtured and protected by humans or else they will be overcome by birds, insects worms, fungi and bacteria. Some common hybrid fruits are: seedless apples, several date varieties like kiwis, seedless pineapples, seedless citrus fruit, seedless grapes, seedless persimmons, seedless watermelons. Common hybrid vegetables include: beets, carrots, corn, potatoes, celery, and cauliflower. Common hybrid nuts, seeds and beans include: cashews, oats, rice, wheat, wheat grass, soy, legumes, and most beans. Common bybrid herbs include: Goldenseal, Ginseng, Echinacea, Chamomile, DonQuay, Aloe Vera, Nut Meg, Comfrey, Garlic. "

Is it really true if, for example, I were to plant a cashew plant that it would be overcome by nature and not survive?

What types of fruits or plants are more wild, non hybrid? I was thinking because cranberries are naturally sour maybe these are one of the only more-wild plants left?

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17028 · May 10, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Pot-kettle-black, Mr. Strawman. It has exactly to do with breeding. You take some wild creature and domesticate it selecting for certain features until it's no longer able to survive in the wild without human help, then feed it a species inappropriate diet, and expect it to be as nutritious as the wild version? Really?

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17028 · May 10, 2014 at 5:32 PM

And yet, the large breasted farmed chickens that can't run to save their lives from a predator will go extinct while heritage species will. As for nutrients, depends on what you're comparing. If it's just fat-protein levels, I'll agree that they're close enough, but that isn't my criteria, it's yours. You've taken my arguments, twisted them to your definitions, and knocked them down, that's called a strawman argument - you haven't proved shit.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17028 · May 10, 2014 at 5:29 PM

Exactly my point the bigger version is milder because it's mostly water. Duh. Chives and shallots aren't the same species as onions. Try comparing yellow onions vs pearl onions instead if you want to make a point wise guy.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17028 · May 10, 2014 at 5:27 PM

They're in the same genus. It's tomato vs tomato, not apple vs orange, what did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something?

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17028 · May 10, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Rejected by you, not by me.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17028 · May 10, 2014 at 5:26 PM

If you can't reproduce, you're by definition unhealthy. I'm not talking about natural helpers such as bees, but human manipulated plants. Don't make up shit that I didn't say.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
41312 · May 10, 2014 at 5:05 PM

They're not sterile if that's what you're saying… but they do not breed true.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 10, 2014 at 11:14 AM

that is a different argument. yes the soil is different. but the fruit... every study i have seen suggests that there is no effective change at a chemical level

618fc5298c4a96b817c4918c795a875f
1197 · May 10, 2014 at 3:41 AM

This is actually true, @CDone - soil depletion due to the overuse of chemical fertilizers has been widely studied and it is easy for you to find sources on that. Chemical fertilizers are the SAD of Big Ag - soil building thru organic practices would be equivalent to a paleo way of growing food. But he is confounding fertilizing with hybridization. And making weird connections all over the place. Thanks for bringing some sense to this!

618fc5298c4a96b817c4918c795a875f
1197 · May 10, 2014 at 3:35 AM

That is only is only true of some hybrids with specific gene sequences - most hybrids will reproduce very well.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 10, 2014 at 12:30 AM

Good point. Most fruit seeds are not digestible through eating/chewing. Fruit want you to eat them, then crap out their seeds. You need to cook them to make them digestible. And even if there are some vitamins are there, there's also a lot of nasty stuff that you may not want to consume.

Seedless fruits have the advantage that you can just blend them without worrying about cyanide getting into your smoothie....

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5
10984 · May 09, 2014 at 9:18 PM

@CDone, Unless there was some sort of vitamin / mineral / nutrient in the seeds which would then be lacking in your diet. You would have to prove that that doesn't exist before you could answer your question 'no'. There are some people who think that vitamin b17, found in seeds, is lacking in our diets, though the data on that is extremely speculative to say the least; Some don't even consider it a vitamin.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:21 PM

"And in the light of the fact that they are fed a species inappropriate diet" -- Nice strawman, but what chicken are fed is different than what their breed is -- And has nothing to do with hybrid fruit varieties.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:20 PM

"The same is true of animals. For example, if you take something like giant breasted chickens... They can't mate, and they certainly can't outrun predators." And yet there is no nutritional difference between a Cornish Cross and a Delaware.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:17 PM

"You can even taste it - the larger tomato tends to be bland, while the little guys are packed with flavor" -- No! Beefstake is a milder tasting breed than cherry. It has nothing to do with sizes. If we compared onions, larger varieties are far more flavorful than are chives or shallots.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:16 PM

"Some plants that are smaller are far more nutritious than their bigger counterparts" -- First, you are comparing apples to oranges (cherry tomatoes and beefstake are different breeds). For plants such as berries where a large part of the nutrients are in the skins -- sure -- but again you are comfounding the argument.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:15 PM

When we bathe plants in chemical fertilizers... They also don't have the same nutrients that would normally be in the soil" Source?

"sure, they may get big and filled with sugar-water, but they won't be as micronutrient dense." -- you are confounding selective breeding with fertilization.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:12 PM

"Certain types of grapes are high in resveratrol because of exposure to higher UV rays - the UV rays act as a stressor causing them to build a resveratrol as a way to resist the stressor. We eat them, and they're beneficial. Without such stressors, they become less nutritious" -- Ah, so when grapes are exposed to artificial UV rays, they become more nutritious? How does this have anything to do with whether we selectively breed out the seeds?

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:11 PM

"plants that grow in depleted soil with chemical fertilizers won't contain all the minerals and phytonutrients" -- False. This is a hypothesis that has been completely rejected. there are differences, but those differences have never been shown to be realized in any human or animal.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:10 PM

"The answer is along these lines: when you are able to reproduce healthy offspring, you yourself must be first healthy." -- BS, many unhealthy animals can reproduce.

"If an animal or plant is unable to reproduce (without artificial help), by definition, that creature is unhealthy." -- BS, many plants and flowers need external stimulus to reproduce (for example, bees). Doesn't make them unhealthy.

"When you eat such a creature, you may well be getting some macronutrients, but you certainly won't be getting many of the micronutrients that should be there" -- BS, site your source.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:06 PM

So a better question would be, "Is there a nutritional detrement to eating fruit that requires human intervention to reproduce?" The answer is, No more than their "wild" counterparts.

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da
-2 · May 08, 2014 at 5:51 AM

so what?

because i wouldn't be comfortable eating, say, a seedless variety of a fruit if this fruit couldn't exist in nature on its own. i of course am not all-knowing and do not know if there is anything wrong nutritionally with this, i just want to be safe that is all.

B82f2515ba5a800bed018c9536f9108d
1087 · May 07, 2014 at 6:18 PM

In my garden, celery has completely taken over. I had to cover three beds with cardboard to kill the celery, and I still have several bags of the stuff from last year in the freezer. It is smallage, the stronger, greener variety. Also parsnip, mustard greens, chicory, cilantro, have all become feral in my garden, and I have often eaten asparagus picked roadside.

Many crops will survive fine. In the end, large cauliflower heads, or seedless anything, are just marketing gimmicks. There is no more nutrition in those than in, say, broccoli raab or Concord grapes, which survive just fine.

Total Views
1.3K

Recent Activity
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

Last Activity
136D AGO

Followers
4

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

5 Answers

618fc5298c4a96b817c4918c795a875f
0
1197 · May 09, 2014 at 11:00 PM

Botanically speaking, there is a thing known as hybrid vigor which means that many crosses are, in fact, sturdier and survive better than the species they were created from. This is also why native plants only people advocate that nothing other than natives are planted, because they outcompete the natives - they often do so much better than natives as to become invasive. F1 hybrids are known to be more vigorous than their species parents in many instances. So the site is wrong. It is a plant specific issue, not something that can be painted with a broad stroke.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
0
17028 · May 08, 2014 at 6:54 AM

@hardthinker

The answer is along these lines: when you are able to reproduce healthy offspring, you yourself must be first healthy. If an animal or plant is unable to reproduce (without artificial help), by definition, that creature is unhealthy. When you eat such a creature, you may well be getting some macronutrients, but you certainly won't be getting many of the micronutrients that should be there.

i.e. plants that grow in depleted soil with chemical fertilizers won't contain all the minerals and phytonutrients they wouldn't normally have in the wild. They'll also be exposed to far less stress, therefore, far less hormesis happens, far less antioxidants and other micronutrients will be synthesized by the plant.

Certain types of grapes are high in resveratrol because of exposure to higher UV rays - the UV rays act as a stressor causing them to build a resveratrol as a way to resist the stressor. We eat them, and they're beneficial. Without such stressors, they become less nutritious.

When we bathe plants in chemical fertilizers, pesticides and weed killers, they no longer have to produce their own endogenous pesticides via hormesis. They also don't have the same nutrients that would normally be in the soil - sure, they may get big and filled with sugar-water, but they won't be as micronutrient dense. Some plants that are smaller are far more nutritious than their bigger counterparts, for example, cherry tomatoes have more nutrients per gram than those big tasteless (possibly GMO) beeffsteak tomatoes.

You can even taste it - the larger tomato tends to be bland, while the little guys are packed with flavor. Some of this is due to the fact that they're not allowed to vine ripen, but a part of it is that there's a limit to the nutrients in the soil and the bigger versions are just filled with more water and sugar than they are in micronutrients.

The same is true of animals. For example, if you take something like giant breasted chickens and turkeys that have been bred recently, which can barely even walk, those critters can't even mount each other for mating. Such a chicken has protein, sure, but its muscles are not stressed and are going to be under developed. Release those into the wild, and they immediately go extinct. They can't mate, and they certainly can't outrun predators.

And in the light of the fact that they are fed a species inappropriate diet, (in some cases such as beef, also given hormones and antibiotics) to fatten them up and allow them to digest grains instead of grass), they are by definition unhealthy, so you wind up eating very sick animals, with weakened immune systems, poor nutrition in their bodies, poor muscle tone, lack of exposure to sunlight, and a high risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria along for the ride.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:21 PM

"And in the light of the fact that they are fed a species inappropriate diet" -- Nice strawman, but what chicken are fed is different than what their breed is -- And has nothing to do with hybrid fruit varieties.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:20 PM

"The same is true of animals. For example, if you take something like giant breasted chickens... They can't mate, and they certainly can't outrun predators." And yet there is no nutritional difference between a Cornish Cross and a Delaware.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:17 PM

"You can even taste it - the larger tomato tends to be bland, while the little guys are packed with flavor" -- No! Beefstake is a milder tasting breed than cherry. It has nothing to do with sizes. If we compared onions, larger varieties are far more flavorful than are chives or shallots.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:16 PM

"Some plants that are smaller are far more nutritious than their bigger counterparts" -- First, you are comparing apples to oranges (cherry tomatoes and beefstake are different breeds). For plants such as berries where a large part of the nutrients are in the skins -- sure -- but again you are comfounding the argument.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:15 PM

When we bathe plants in chemical fertilizers... They also don't have the same nutrients that would normally be in the soil" Source?

"sure, they may get big and filled with sugar-water, but they won't be as micronutrient dense." -- you are confounding selective breeding with fertilization.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:12 PM

"Certain types of grapes are high in resveratrol because of exposure to higher UV rays - the UV rays act as a stressor causing them to build a resveratrol as a way to resist the stressor. We eat them, and they're beneficial. Without such stressors, they become less nutritious" -- Ah, so when grapes are exposed to artificial UV rays, they become more nutritious? How does this have anything to do with whether we selectively breed out the seeds?

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:11 PM

"plants that grow in depleted soil with chemical fertilizers won't contain all the minerals and phytonutrients" -- False. This is a hypothesis that has been completely rejected. there are differences, but those differences have never been shown to be realized in any human or animal.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26017 · May 08, 2014 at 1:10 PM

"The answer is along these lines: when you are able to reproduce healthy offspring, you yourself must be first healthy." -- BS, many unhealthy animals can reproduce.

"If an animal or plant is unable to reproduce (without artificial help), by definition, that creature is unhealthy." -- BS, many plants and flowers need external stimulus to reproduce (for example, bees). Doesn't make them unhealthy.

"When you eat such a creature, you may well be getting some macronutrients, but you certainly won't be getting many of the micronutrients that should be there" -- BS, site your source.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
0
41312 · May 07, 2014 at 5:39 PM

For the most part, domesticated plants will go feral just fine. The problem is most are hybrids. Hybrids do not reproduce consistently (or at all) and require making the cross for each seed planted.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
41312 · May 10, 2014 at 5:05 PM

They're not sterile if that's what you're saying… but they do not breed true.

618fc5298c4a96b817c4918c795a875f
1197 · May 10, 2014 at 3:35 AM

That is only is only true of some hybrids with specific gene sequences - most hybrids will reproduce very well.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
0
26017 · May 07, 2014 at 3:15 PM

It's also true for many of the animals that we have domesticated....

But so what? Not everything in the paleolithic was heathly, and not everything that is neolithic is unhealthy.

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da
-2 · May 08, 2014 at 5:51 AM

so what?

because i wouldn't be comfortable eating, say, a seedless variety of a fruit if this fruit couldn't exist in nature on its own. i of course am not all-knowing and do not know if there is anything wrong nutritionally with this, i just want to be safe that is all.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
0
17028 · May 07, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Yes, it's true for the most part. Modern versions of these plants need humans to take care of them so they can prosper. I mean, think about, how would a seedless apple propagate in nature? It's only purpose in making fruit is to propagate its species. No seeds means extinction.

Answer Question

Login to Your PaleoHacks Account