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 · May 10, 2014 at 05:34 PM

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?

Total Views
1.2K

Recent Activity
96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

Last Activity
103D AGO

Followers
4

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

5 Replies

618fc5298c4a96b817c4918c795a875f
0
1207 · 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
16813 · May 08, 2014 at 06:54 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.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
0
40550 · May 07, 2014 at 05:39 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.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
0
26073 · May 07, 2014 at 03:15 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.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
0
16813 · 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