It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream
There are many fallacies that undergird alternative medicine, which evolved into “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM), and for which the preferred term among its advocates is now “integrative medicine,” meant to imply the “best of both worlds.” If I had to pick one fallacy that rules above all among proponents of CAM/IM, it would have to be either the naturalistic fallacy (i.e., that if it’s natural—whatever that means—it must be better) or the fallacy of antiquity (i.e., that if it’s really old, it must be better). Of course, the two fallacies are not unrelated. In the minds of CAM proponents, old is more likely to have been based on nature, and the naturalistic fallacy often correlates with the fallacy of antiquity. Basically, it’s a rejection of modernity, and from it flow the interest in herbalism, various religious practices rebranded as treatments (thousands of years ago, medicine was religion and religion was medicine—the two were more or less one and physicians were often priests as well), and the all-consuming fear of “toxins,” in which it is thought that the products of modernity are poisoning us.
Yes, there is a definite belief underlying much of CAM that technology and pharmaceuticals are automatically bad and that “natural” must be better. Flowing from that belief is the belief that people were happier and much healthier in the preindustrial, preagricultural past, that cardiovascular disease was rare or nonexistent, and that cancer was seldom heard of. Of course, it’s hard not to note that cancer and heart disease are primarily diseases of aging, and life expectancy was so much lower back in the day that a much smaller percentage of the population lived to advanced ages than is the case today. Even so, an implicit assumption among many CAM advocates is that cardiovascular disease is largely a disease of modern lifestyle and diet and that, if modern humans could somehow mimic preindustrial or, according to some, even preagricultural, lifestyles, that cardiovascular disease could be avoided. Not infrequently, evolutionary and genomic arguments are invoked, claiming that the estimated 10,000 years since the dawn of human agriculture is not a sufficiently long period of time for us to have evolved to handle diets rich in grains and meats and that we are “genetically wired” to exist on a diet like those of our paleolithic hunter-gatherer ancestors. For instance, in 2004, James H. O’Keefe Jr, MD and Loren Cordain, PhD wrote an article in the Mayo Proceedings entitled Cardiovascular Disease Resulting From a Diet and Lifestyle at Odds With Our Paleolithic Genome: How to Become a 21st-Century Hunter-Gatherer that asserted in essence, just that. Over the last decade, Cordain has become the most prominent promoter of the so-called “Paleo diet,” having written The Paleo Diet: Lose Weight and Get Healthy by Eating the Foods You Were Designed to Eat and multiple other books advocating a paleolithic-mimetic diet as the cure for what ails modern humans. Meanwhile, diets thought to reflect what our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate, such as the Paleo Diet consisting largely of animal and fish that can be hunted and fruits and vegetables that can be foraged for in the wild, have been promoted as a near-panacea for the chronic diseases of aging, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer.
But how does one determine what the prevalence of cardiovascular disease was in the ancient past? Time and the decomposition it brings are brutal on the flimsy meat of which we are made, and it is uncommon to have access to anything other than bones, much less bodies intact enough to be examined for signs of atherosclerotic disease. Even so, however, there have been indications that the idea that ancient humans didn’t suffer from atherosclerosis is a comforting myth, the most recent of which is a study published a week ago online in The Lancet by Prof. Randall C. Thompson of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and an international team of investigators entitled Atherosclerosis across 4000 years of human history: the Horus study of four ancient populations. Basically, it was a study of 137 different mummies from four different geographic locations spanning 4,000 years. The areas spanned included ancient Egypt, ancient Peru, the Ancestral Puebloans of southwest America, and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands.
The reason for the study is described in the introduction:
Human cultures residing in environments that are either very dry, hot, or cold have independently discovered how to mummify their dead. Thus, preindustrial or preagricultural cultures created the opportunity for a natural experiment—to study these ancient human beings with modern CT scanning to assess the extent of vascular calcifications in diverse environments and cultures. A common component of a mature atherosclerotic plaque, vascular calcification in modern day human beings is pathognomonic for atherosclerosis.4 Calcification consistent with atherosclerosis has been identified by CT scanning in the naturally mummified Iceman from present day Italy who lived around 3000 BCE (before common era).5 More than a century ago, Johann Nepomuk Czermak6 and Sir Marc Armand Ruffer7 gave serious evidence for atherosclerosis in several autopsies of Egyptian mummies from around 1000 BCE. Our recent studies confirmed these findings of atherosclerosis in 20 of 44 Egyptian mummies who lived during several dynasties between 1981 BCE and 364 CE (common era).8 and 9 However, ancient Egyptian culture and lifestyles might have had unique attributes relative to atherogenesis. Moreover, mummification in Egypt during the bulk of this time was primarily performed on elite Egyptians of high socioeconomic status.
So, although there was a fair amount of evidence from studies of Egyptian mummies that atherosclerosis was not uncommon, in Egypt it was mainly the wealthy and powerful who were mummified after their deaths. Conceivably, they could have lived a very different lifestyle and consumed a very different diet than the average Egyptian living around that time.
So the authors obtained whole-body CT scans of the 137 mummies, either pre-existing scans or scans prospectively done, and analyzed them for calcifications. The mummies to be included in the study were chosen primarily based on two factors, being in a good state of preservation with identifiable vascular tissue, and being adults. The authors obtained identifying information from an extensive search of museum and other databases by a team of archeologists and experts in mummy restoration, and sex was determined by either analysis of the genitals and reproductive organs when present and by pelvic morphology when they were not present. Age was estimated by standard analysis of architectural changes in the clavicle, femur, and humerus. Finally, multiple anthropological and archeological sources were used in an attempt to estimate likely risk factors for the mummies. Obviously, this last part involved a fair amount of inference and speculation, but that is to be expected in archeological studies.
Here are the findings:
Probable or definite atherosclerosis was noted in 47 (34%) of 137 mummies and in all four geographical populations: 29 (38%) of 76 ancient Egyptians, 13 (25%) of 51 ancient Peruvians, two (40%) of five Ancestral Puebloans, and three (60%) of five Unangan hunter gatherers (p=NS). Atherosclerosis was present in the aorta in 28 (20%) mummies, iliac or femoral arteries in 25 (18%), popliteal or tibial arteries in 25 (18%), carotid arteries in 17 (12%), and coronary arteries in six (4%). Of the five vascular beds examined, atherosclerosis was present in one to two beds in 34 (25%) mummies, in three to four beds in 11 (8%), and in all five vascular beds in two (1%). Age at time of death was positively correlated with atherosclerosis (mean age at death was 43 [SD 10] years for mummies with atherosclerosis vs 32 [15] years for those without; p<0·0001) and with the number of arterial beds involved (mean age was 32 [SD 15] years for mummies with no atherosclerosis, 42 [10] years for those with atherosclerosis in one or two beds, and 44 [8] years for those with atherosclerosis in three to five beds; p<0·0001).
Figure 2 summarizes the findings nicely:
There’s also this video featured in a Nature report on the study showing the reconstructed scan of one of the mummies with atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries.
As expected, more atherosclerosis correlates with advanced age, and the amount of atherosclerosis in the young and middle-aged (although the times in which the people who became these mummies after death lived age 50 was old) was less. Although the sample number was far too small to draw definitive conclusions (as is often the case in archeological research), the prevalence of atherosclerotic disease in these mummies did not appear to correlate with the cultures in which the mummies lived. As is noted in Thompson’s article, ancient Egyptians and Peruvians were agricultural cultures with farms and domesticated animals, Ancestral Puebloans were forager-farmers, and the Unangans were hunter-gatherers without agriculture. Indeed, the Peruvians and Ancestral Puebloans predated the written word and were thus prehistoric cultures. At least, there were not large differences to suggest that studying more mummies might yield a statistically significant difference. Certainly,this doesn’t rule out the possibility that there was a difference, but also certainly atherosclerosis was common even among hunter-gatherers.
One notes that no one, including the authors of this study, is saying that lifestyle and diet are not important factors for the development of atherosclerotic heart disease. What they are saying is that atherosclerosis appears to be associated with aging and that the claims that mimicking paleolithic diets (which, one notes, were definitely not vegan) are overblown. In other words, there is a certain inherent risk of atherosclerosis that is related to aging that is likely not possible to lower further, with the study concluding:
In conclusion, atherosclerosis was common in four preindustrial populations, including a preagricultural hunter-gatherer population, and across a wide span of human history. It remains prevalent in contemporary human beings. The presence of atherosclerosis in premodern human beings suggests that the disease is an inherent component of human ageing and not characteristic of any specific diet or lifestyle.
I actually think that the authors probably went too far with that last statement in that, while they might be correct that atherosclerosis is an inherent component of human aging, it is quite well established that this inherent component of aging can at least be worsened by sedentary lifestyle and probably certain diets. Professor Thompson provided a bit more nuance in a quote in an article for TIME Magazine:
We found that heart disease is a serial killer that has been stalking mankind for thousands of years. In the last century, atherosclerotic vascular disease has replaced infectious disease as the leading cause of death across the developed world. A common assumption is that the rise in levels of atherosclerosis is predominantly lifestyle-related, and that if modern humans could emulate pre-industrial or even pre-agricultural lifestyles, that atherosclerosis, or at least its clinical manifestations, would be avoided. Our findings seem to cast doubt on that assumption, and at the very least, we think they suggest that our understanding of the causes of atherosclerosis is incomplete, and that it might be somehow inherent to the process of human aging.
One notes that, although the Paleo Diet is not, strictly speaking, always sold as CAM/IM, the ideas behind it are popular among CAM advocates, and the diet is frequently included as part of “integrative medicine,” for example, here at the University of Connecticut website, where it’s under integrative nutrition. Indeed, take a look at this video:
One wonders how some of the cavewomen in this video managed to have big hair and lipstick. several thousand years ago.
A related site is called CaveMenMeds. Although it features rather strong support for the theory of evolution, unfortunately, it also misuses evolution in much the same way that Cordain has done (as discussed in this very post) and in parallel make the same sorts of fallacious arguments about placebo effects that we’ve discussed many times before here on SBM. Basically, it couples myths about how paleolithic humans lived with a typical “integrating” of ideas that range from the sensible to the pseudoscientific to discuss disease. This is just the most direct link between CAM and paleofantasies that I came across in my web wanderings. There are many more less direct links to be found.
In particular, the appeal to ancient wisdom and ancient civilizations as yet untouched by the evil of modernity is the same sort of arguments that are made in favor of various CAM modalities ranging from herbalism to vegan diets rebranded as being somehow CAM to the appeal to “natural” cures. Indeed, the fetish for the “natural” in CAM is such that even a treatment like Stanislaw Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy is represented as “natural” when in fact, if it were ever shown to work against cancer, it would be chemotherapy and has toxicities greater than that of some of our current chemotherapy drugs.
All of this brings us to another article from about a week ago about a book that I think I need to read that talks about “paleofantasy” and “Stone Age delusions.” The book is by Marlene Zuk and entitled Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us About Sex, Diet, and How We Live. Zuk is an evolutionary biologist, and in particular she points out how the evolutionary arguments favored by advocates of the Paleo diet don’t stand up to scrutiny.
The interview begins with Zuk confronting Cordain at a conference on evolution and diseases of modern environments. At his lecture, Cordain pronounced several foods to be the cause of fatal conditions in people carrying certain genes. These foods included, predictably, cultivated foods such as bread (made from grain), rice, and potatoes. Zuk couldn’t resist asking a question, namely why the inability to digest so many common foods would persist in the population, observing, “Surely it would have been selected out of the population.” Cordain’s response? That humans had not had time to adapt to these foods, to which Zuk retorted, “Plenty of time.” Apparently, in her book, Zuk produces numerous examples of evolution in humans occurring in a time frame of less than 10,000 years, including:
- Blue eyes arose 6,000 to 10,000 years ago
- Rapid selection for the CCR5-D gene variant that makes some people immune to HIV
- Lactase persistence (production past the age of weening of the lactase enzyme that digests lactose in milk) probably dates back only around 7,500 to 10,000 years, around the time that cattle were domesticated
Zuk also points out, as Thompson did in the Lancet study of atherosclerosis in mummies, that there is no one diet or climate that predominated among our Paleolithic ancestors:
Zuk detects an unspoken, barely formed assumption that humanity essentially stopped evolving in the Stone Age and that our bodies are “stuck” in a state that was perfectly adapted to survive in the paleolithic environment. Sometimes you hear that the intervention of “culture” has halted the process of natural selection. This, “Paleofantasy” points out, flies in the face of facts. Living things are always and continuously in the process of adapting to the changing conditions of their environment, and the emergence of lactase persistence indicates that culture (in this case, the practice of keeping livestock for meat and hides) simply becomes another one of those conditions.
For this reason, generalizations about the typical hunter-gatherer lifestyle are spurious; it doesn’t exist. With respect to what people ate (especially how much meat), the only safe assumption was “whatever they could get,” something that to this day varies greatly depending on where they live. Recently, researchers discovered evidence that people in Europe were grinding and cooking grain (a paleo-diet bugaboo) as far back as 30,000 years ago, even if they weren’t actually cultivating it. “A strong body of evidence,” Zuk writes, “points to many changes in our genome since humans spread across the planet and developed agriculture, making it difficult at best to point to a single way of eating to which we were, and remain, best suited.”
Some advocates of “paleo” will claim that they are not at all advocating that humans should eat what their paleolithic ancestors ate but that we should use what they ate as a template to figure out what to eat today. That’s a distinction without a real difference because the assumptions upon which the Paleo Diet are based (e.g., that atherosclerosis didn’t exist in hunter-gatherers and that hunter-gatherers were “almost always healthy, lean, fit, disease-free, strong people” and that 10,000 years is too short a time period for humans to have evolved to accommodate a grain-based diet) are more the product of wishful thinking and the “noble savage” myth than anything else. At the very least, Thompson’s study suggests that this assumption is overblown and that there has long been a certain “baseline” level of atherosclerotic disease among humans that is an inevitable part of aging. Whether or not a “Paleo”-like diet can modulate that baseline risk factor downward or at least decrease the risk of people living in modern technological societies from what our current mosaic of genetics, lifestyle, diet, and environment produce is an open question, but we’re not off to a good start when the underlying premise is so questionable.
Oh, and, as Zuk tells us, paleolithic people got cancer, too.
Ever since the rise of science and industry, there has long been a significant proportion of the population who distrust, fear, and sometimes even loathe modernity. Science changes too fast; it is thought to endanger “spiritual matters”; it tramples on “traditional values.” People fantasize about and long for a (nonexistent) time long past, when humans supposedly lived in harmony with their environment, and view science, specifically for the purposes of this discussion modern biomedicine, has having participating in destroying that “ancient wisdom.” We see strains of this tendency not just in medicine and “integrative medicine” but in literature and many other areas as well. Films such as Avatar and Dances With Wolves, among many others, portray scientists and “Western” man as rapacious and ready to destroy a race of hunter-gatherers and early agrarian people who are portrayed as living in complete harmony with nature. CAM and the Paleo diet share this fear of modernity as an underlying assumption even as their advocates use and misuse evolution to “prove” their worth. This is nothing new, and the rationale behind the Paleo diet is nothing more than, as Zuk has put it, the evolutionary search for our perfect past. Unfortunately, fantasy is not reality, and we humans have long been known to abuse and despoil our environment, even back in those “paleo” days. Indeed, when I took a prehistoric archeology course, which was largely dedicated to the period of time of the hunter-gatherers, one thing I remember my professor pointing out, and that was that what he did was largely the study of prehistoric garbage and that humans have always produced a lot of it.
We still haven’t stopped, unfortunately.
Posted in: Evolution, History, Nutrition
Leave a Comment (160) ↓

Heh, so I guess what I’m saying is “What BrewandFerment said”
The substitution is about 50% of the water for vodka or something equally high alcohol % (I think around 70 proof). I usually fudge on the amounts and add a little more to get it even more rolly-outy.
@evopsygirl
But anchoring them to mythic paleo ideas adds nothing. If you’re testing things empirically, the evolutionary history adds little more than a “just-so” story, one that ignores the significant impacts of post-HG history which itself had a tremendous impact.
Which, like many pro-paleo arguments do, ignores the fact that humans have been selectively breeding those traits out of their foods. Your comment about dairy ignores the fact that most of us can only drink dairy as adults because of evolutionary pressure to do so due to significant time spent by ancestors who were agriculturalists that raised cattle for milk. There’s no a priori reason to believe we can’t eat grains because we can’t handle the toxins. The human gut is a potent thing, and the human liver is too.
The Weston Price foundation is an ideological organization, not a scientific one. They’re not interested in any evidence that doesn’t support their pre-existing conclusions.
But again, the gut is quite capable of disarticulating these foods, adaptation to a new environment (that of farming and agriculture) exerts its own tremendous pressure on human selection, and most of the foods we eat now have been heavily modified to be more nutritious and useful to humans over tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of years. You simply can’t eat like a hunter gatherer, that kind of food doesn’t exist anymore (certainly not in significant volumes).
Mmmm…gout…Also, we may have eaten more organ meat in the past, but in volume we still ate far more muscle. Not to mention, there is considerable evidence showing humans as scavengers, not hunters. We ate rancid meat and organs.
Science already understands the risks of heavily processed foods, paleo is parasitic on those efforts, adding little more than a superficial, ill-thought-out pseudoscientific “just-so” story on top of that knowledge. And again, you’re ignoring the history of food. Either you go into “deep time” and the only foods we “should” eat are found in Africa, or different races shouldn’t eat foods from different continents – which is nonsense. Not to mention the significant amount of breeding of ancient foods to reach the point that they look like now.
Also, one idea about human evolution is that cooking was a main and huge driver of Homo sapiens evolution.
Nope, but we sure can apply statistics to a lot of things. You seem to be arguing that because we don’t perfectly understand how all humans react to all foods, we can’t make any statements about anything. Which is nonsense.
Oh seafood! An incredibly paleo food (so long as you live next to a seacoast).
If someone makes the decision to eat in accordance to the USDA food guide, which is what paleo diets are in large part, that’s great. If this imaginary person convinces themselves their diet is going to cure all their ills, they’re actually putting themselves at risk for nonscientific reasons. I hope you’re getting regularly tested for previous risk factors. I don’t dismiss eating a healthy diet, I dismiss the superficial, unscientific reasons people use to organize their diets, which can result in harms (and I like pointing out that their “scientific” reasoning is anything but, and not based on the actual “paleo” lifestyle in any way – you’re embracing an incoherent idea).
So why call it “paleo”? Why not call it “following conventional dietary advice”? What’s different or unique? Whole fruits and vegetables, lean meats, whole grains, avoid processed foods…what is so uniquely “paleo”?
Okay – “You could try looking into the writings of Mark Lynas, a founder of the anti-GMO movement in the 1990s who recently gave a public speech admitting he was completely, totally, 100% wrong. Probably much shorter and possibly more convincing since he had to traverse such a large intellectual distance.”
WLU , So the message I’m getting – GMO is the first new technology that has absolutely no possible pittfalls. I heard similar claims when I first started working in ecommerce (before the tech bubble burst), from the guy who tried to sell us that exotic mortage and from one of international adoption agencies we spoke with (shortly before the country they specialized in shut down adoptions due to corruption concerns). Luckily, I didn’t believe them either.
But then I am not anti-ecommerce, anti-mortage, anti-international adoption or anti-GMO, I just have a deep and abiding “hope for the best, plan for the worst” philosophy. You can not hope for the best unless you are willing to believe in the benefits that a change can bring. But, you can not plan for the worst unless you focus on finding the pitfalls of ANY product, system, technology.
“So why call it “paleo”? Why not call it “following conventional dietary advice”?
You have got to be kidding me, even without the context, the word Paleo just sounds cooler. USDA has the branding finesse of General Motors.
@mousethatroared
Biotechnology is certainly not without problems and pitfalls. However, they do not match up very well with the common fears about gmo varieties currently in use.
Transgenic technology is also not a panacea that will solve all of our agricultural problems. It is a powerful tool among many available to help us address the coming challenges in sustainably providing food for a growing world population.
@the bug guy – Yes! that is the thing that concerns me. The majority of the concerns I hear about GMO are NOT valid. If I heard more intelligent discussion of real pitfalls and plans for dealing with them, I would feel much more comfortable with the process.
…because, you know, I’m in charge of the world food supply and everyone comes to me for approval on these things.
Also, thanks for your thoughts. You are very good at offering clarity to these discussions.
@WLU “you’re embracing an incoherent idea”. You said it – “incoherent” is the right word for this. It’s a big jumble sale of bits and pieces, all stuffed into one room and you can go and (cherry-)pick which bits you fancy buying into.
There’s a lot more to real paleo diets than simplistic persons think … and the operative word here is “diets” not “diet”.
@Mouse: it may be cool, but paleo lays claims that go beyond mere branding, they claim scientific backing. Not on.
Anyone that’s watched a actual baboon foraging won’t fancy imitating its diet. I wonder what the nutritional value of scorpions and other assorted bugs is? And before you say, “A baboon is not a human”, anyone fancy a plateful of mopane worms? I know where you can buy them dried, if the shop still stocks them (bought them myself and ate – one).
@kathy
Many insects have good nutritional value, though as you demonstrate, we tend not to find them palatable.
Kathy – Agreed, but the name “following conventional dietary advice” still pains my branding sensibilities.
Oh, of course not! GMO has risks (a personal favourite – Monsanto managed to breed single-generation crops whose seeds would not germinate, I had a wonderful post-apocalyptic scenario in mind in which humans managed to starve themselves to death due to pollination by non-germinating plants). But those risks tend to not be the ones envisioned by organic farmers and anti-corporate protestors. The risks, from what we can tell, are generally not cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome or autoimmunity. In fact, I am hard-pressed to think of an example of an actual risk to human health due to GMO. Certainly you could engineer crops that contained viable smallpox particles, or were 50% cyanide or the like – but why would you? Again, corporations are greedy, not evil. There are definite pitfalls, regulation and testing is needed, there will be unintended consequences – but there are also tremendous benefits, staggeringly good ones at that (imagine a crop that could generate its own fertilizer, was immune to pests, produced a complete protein, contained small amounts of every single necessary nutrient, was salt, drought and flood-tolerant and delivered vaccines; we’re not there yet, but theoretically it is possible!).
The thing is, these crops are studied by very, very smart people, and it is in their motivation to produce a safe, viable crop that meets a significant need. These people, far smarter than you or I, spend their days thinking about how they can make better plants and animals, what the implications of their changes are, and further – will publish their ideas for scrutiny by other, equally or even more smart people. Meanwhile, the spurious objections to GMO are often made by farmers justifiably concerned for their livelihood (who might be excellent farmers, but are probably not very good biochemists or geneticists), and knee-jerk corporate critics who don’t understand the science and aren’t interested in learning.
There needs to be regulation, testing, oversight and whistleblowing legislation and protection. Government and scientists provide these things, not an amorphous mass of ill-informed protesters who cherry-pick the data. The world is getting more complicated, and I would give far more credence to the objections of a small number of experts than I would an enormous number of nonexperts.
Who does your planning though? Or your hoping for that matter? I would say it should be experts, because most people don’t understand the true risks involved, the biology, science and technical objections.
The Netherlands (I believe) has an interesting way of bridging the science-popular divide. They form a committee of citizens with no scientific training. They are then given an extensive briefing by scientists (I believe explicitly including “for” and “against” scientists at that) that extends over weeks. At the end, the committee makes a decision or policy for the government.
And as for the potential pitfalls and whatnot, yes they must be studied. But as I mentioned above, one must also look at the benefits. The precautionary principle is based on possible harms, meanwhile GMO crops have the potential to address actual harms. For some crops, it genuinely can be a case of “someone might get cancer 40 years from now” versus “we have regular floods and droughts and it’s almost impossible to guarantee an adequate food supply for our citizens over a five-year span”. Or “200,000 children go blind from vitamin A deficiency, and it’s hard to regularly get enough vitamins to the areas where they are needed” versus “this breed of rice produces enough beta-carotene to prevent 199,000 of those cases of blindness”.
Certainly not a simple problem, but it irks me that the objections raised have been examined and addressed already, often many times over, often decades in the past. It’s a profoundly helpful, amazingly productive technology with enormous potential that is rejected due to slogans (“Frankenfood!”) rather than the real evidence. An entire branch of science cast aside and vilified because organic farmers have good PR and the public is susceptible to the naturalistic fallacy. Obviously an oversimplification, but one that contains germs of truth.
Quality job, Dr. G. I have added this to the Wikipedia article on the paleo diet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
WLU – See you agree with me. You’re just afraid to admit it.
I’m love listening to experts and scientists. They are indeed the best ones to suss out pitfalls. But experts and scientist don’t always get heard, in corporations or in government. Many people want to shush them because they are getting in the way of profits. So I see it as my job as a citizen to look for experts, scientists, etc who are voicing concerns or making recommendation and support them, if I feel they are making a compelling argument.
As to “In fact, I am hard-pressed to think of an example of an actual risk to human health due to GMO”
I’ll say it again if a pitfall produces a large crop failure and food prices rise, that means is an actual risk to human health, often to populations that are most vulnerable. But I think what you are saying is “actual risk” from consumption, not actual risk from a change in agricultural practices. Which I keep agreeing with.
Have you considered the possibility that a more straightforward discussion of the true pitfalls of GMO might redirect people into a more constructive discussion?
I read somewhere (possibly even here, in which case apologies for repeating it) that chimps, who are not great meat eaters, will often revisit their feces a la rabbits. Except in this case, they pull out the undigested meat pieces and re-consume them.
Gross.
“First, by definition the Paleolithic period ended 10,000 years ago. Therefore your evidence of artherosclerosis in more recent populations is irrelevant. If you want to dismiss Cordain’s argument in the way you have here, you’ll have to find evidence of this disease process happening readily before 10,000 years ago, in populations that didn’t eat grains or dairy.”
I like how Cordain et al. use evidence from modern foraging populations like the San and Kitavans when convenient and yet you dismiss it? Tell me, what magical process happened 10,000 years ago that would make people living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle like the San somehow so different from their paleolithic counterparts? People were already eating grains before 10,000 years ago anyway, they just weren’t domesticated yet.
@WLU
Your mention of ‘terminator’ technology (properly, GURT-Gene Use Restriction Technology) raises another good point. Even though never commercialized, it continues to be singled out as some kind of horror story, while to the contrary, it would seriously reduce many of the complaints about the risk of biotech contamination or of biotech traits going wild.
Anastasia Bodnar wrote a good primer several years ago on the subject:
http://geneticmaize.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/gene-flow-ip-and-the-terminator/
@WLU:
As regards my concerns on over-supplementation risks of “enriched” crops, you’re right that it’s probably not really a risk at all. {wrinkles nose} Looking back on it, I had to introduce a supplement just to get a viable example of the risks. As regards your comment to MTR about how “these crops are studied by very, very smart people, and it is in their motivation to produce a safe, viable crop that meets a significant need”, I’ll admit that I’m with MTR that I’m less worried about the science and scientists involved in it, and more about the business plan and the CEOs who may not be looking past “this will guarantee an excellent fourth quarter profit, and I’m retiring in a year, so that’s all I have to worry about”. And, of course, unintended consequences of things they didn’t test for in the labs, but that’s pretty standard. The world is filled with short-sighted attempts to fix an ecological problem that ultimately became worse problems, c.f. multiple cases of invasive species.
@Billy Joe,
Sorry mate, I didn’t know you were an Oz denizen…but surely there is something similar there? You are at least as close to one of the great bean growing countries as I am in NY USA, if not closer.
@WLU–yup, what I said, cuz I was in fact referring to the same Cook’s Illustrated recipe you were. Sometimes I read their articles just for the explanations of the processes even if I don’t want to make the recipe. They have a great sourdough recipe too.
@ lilady, guilty foodie here–but I draw the line at balut (fermented duck embryos) and the silkworms which were for sale on the streets in China. Crunchy outside, gooey inside, tomato hornworm green–yuk. I would have had to get so drunk that I wouldn’t have been able to accomplish the act of chewing…and the durian I tried once wasn’t fabulous enough to be worth getting past the stink. But fishhead stew in Singapore is yummy (although the fish cornea or whatever it’s called was a bit startling–felt like a plastic bead when I bit it by accident)
As far as scorpions and bugs I’m sure our ancestors ate them. Currently in Asia I understand insects and spiders are often consumed. I’ve read Eskimo children relish botfly larvae which are said to taste like strawberries and primitive peoples eat grubs. Where I live bears gain a lot of weight in the summer from eating cuttworm moths which they find under the rocks on talus slopes. Each moth is said to have the nutritional value of a peanut and a bear may consume thousands in a day.
To put this in perspective, the naturalist and author Bernd Heinrich once described his breakfast as something like this:
“Cooked unformed embryo from a fowl, secretions from the mammary gland of an ungulate, bitter water in which a ground up seed from a coffee plant had been boiled and sweetened with an excretion of an insect’s gut” (he’s a beekeeper and gets all his sweetener form that).
@the bug guy
Very interesting, thanks! Completely destroys my ideas for a postapocalyptic novel, but that probably just would have ended up with Monsanto being burned to the ground anyway. It’s amazing how, knowing what I do about the nutjobbery and antiscientific objections of CAM and related nonsense, I am still tempted to write a book featuring these tropes. I’d need some sort of “look, this is fiction, the reality is nothing like what you read here” appendix though. I was struck by one amusing objection Bodnar includes:
If this were true, you would never have famine because all those resiliant seeds would just keep growing due to the unpredictable weather. This is actually a reason why GMO research is being done on crops, to try to build in, in a much more surgical and predictable way, the existing positive traits of some crops into others. My mythic polybenefit grain above would be the holy grail, the ultimate achievement of GMO, a single crop that could literally grow anywhere, under any condition, and be literally the only thing humans would ever need to eat to survive. My word, we live in interesting times! GMO seems like a much better long-term state investment than the crop subsidies currently used and much maligned in the corn belt of the US. But you’d need some sort of brilliant solution like rule by robots for that to happen, the free market and government are unlikely to produce it.
I keep going back to the lack of scientific objections to GMO. If people want to protest, protest business practices, funding and regulation. Write a letter to your congressperson about the need to heavily invest in publicly funded GMO crop research whose results can be released under open license. If we undertook a Feed the World with GMO Crops project along the lines of the Human Genome Project, chances are the influence of Monsanto would be far less pernicious. If some sort of magical baseline improved crop could be produced that addresses many of the nutritional needs of the world’s population for free after initial investment, that’s a win for nearly everyone. Even Monsanto could find a role in further improving them (perhaps by investing in taste-improving technology if the nutrition issues were already taken care of).
And to address other points – balut is gross, I don’t understand the Asian love of “cartilaginous” as a valued food texture. The best part of Cooks Illustrated is the narrative, since that’s where you find the underlying principles. Honey is better described as “bee vomit” if you are going for the maximum yuck factor
If we undertook a Feed the World with GMO Crops project along the lines of the Human Genome Project, chances are the influence of Monsanto would be far less pernicious.
Now you’re talking WLU – Does GMO have an open source* movement? I just don’t happen to differentiate the science from the business practices, so much, in my mind, the business practices should be guided by the science of the process.
hmm, possibly the foundation of a good sci-fi espionage novel.
that “hmm” should have a * before it.
the bug guy:
At a science talk I attended about GMO by a biologist (who has been targeted by some anti-GMO activists), the academics complain about Monsanto for getting patents on published research done at a university, that then restricted their use for actual research. As a result universities and other research institutions have become better at using the patent laws. He said when certain patents expire, there will be more opportunities opened up for research.
BrewandFerment:
WLU:
I heard about that when the CI folks were talking about their new book on Science Friday a few months ago. Because of that reminder I put The Science of Good Cooking (Cook’s Illustrated Cookbooks) on hold at the library.
WLU:
Tonight’s dinner is a take off of a rice dish from near the Golden Triangle (middle eastern). Except it uses cauliflower, which is nothing like its original brassica, only being noted in Arabic writings in the 12th or 13th century (using wikipedia). Plus there is yogurt sauce using garlic, mint and cucumbers (which according to wikipedia is ancient, though probably not the type I got at the grocery store). Not to mention the changes over the past several millenniums on chickens. Though the cumin, garlic, allspice and other spices are probably pretty close to ancient.
WLU:
From the talk I went to a few years ago, there was the celery that had the same pytophototoxin poison that exists in giant hogweed (same family). If the plant juice gets on your skin, it causes a burning rash when exposed to sunlight. So that particular crop of celery harmed the pickers. The only problem is that I cannot remember if it was a GMO or a conventionally bred variety. (our experience is when my younger son was young and a friend grabbed hunk of giant hogweed and used it like a sword, my kid ended up with a nasty rash)
Also, WLU, in the postapocalyptic novel, you have to also take into account that the food crops and animals that have been created in the last ten thousand years need humans to breed and grow. There is a reason that many animals are artificially inseminated, and that many plants do not spread on their own (unlike many weeds). The things that made them better to eat would not be part of “natural selection.”
That was the part of Tomorrow’s Table that I retained the least of, lacking a pre-existing frameowrk of expertise or awareness within which to integrate this new information. I go further than you in that I think everything should be guided by science, but doubt that will be the case in my lifetime. And there are many advantages to private industry that science probably can’t anticipate or incentivize. Plus, science usually can’t resolve the “is-ought” dilemma; it can tell you how to do something, rarely can it tell you whether to do it.
Oh yes. I’d like to see one that doesn’t turn the company into the villain though. It plays to easily to our prejudices.
@Chris
I own Science of Good Cooking and you can get most of the information from their magazines. I managed to blaze through it in a very short amount of time since I was already familiar with most of the 50 principles discussed, which they often reuse. I apparently have a pathological inability to refuse to buy their products. Fhtagn! There’s actually a good case to be made that CI’s business practices are themselves quite suspect, given their tiered memberships, republication of much of their content and artificial splitting of magazine, website and business branch. But they produce such damned good recipes…
WLU “Oh yes. I’d like to see one that doesn’t turn the company into the villain though. It plays to easily to our prejudices”
See one? WLU – didn’t I tell you? You’re writing this. Things to consider, if you go the other way and the open source group (collective) is the villain, than you end up with Neo- Ayn Rand stuff…. there’s always the rogue government or terrorists to fall back on (because THAT doesn’t play too easily to our prejudices, right?).
Good chatting with you WLU , always thought provoking.
Always nice to have a civil disagreement with someone. Challenges to our views should be welcomed.
Matthew Woodring Stover’s Acts of Caine series (specifically Blade of Tyshalle I believe, which doesn’t seem to be sold anymore unfortunately) had an interesting take on your ideas and suggestions. Much of it is gory sci-fi/fantasy (it manages to actually bridge the two, unlike the lazy propensity to simply shelve them together in bookstores) but he manages numerous interesting points and situations. He actually has both evil corporations (like, really evil, like “literally causes pain and suffering for fun” evil) and a crowd-sourced…for lack of a better term, “mass soul gang-rape”. Having read it, I would never do anything but imitate it. Poorly.
I like Matt Stover’s work.
@MTR:
Obviously, the best way to handle it is to show the benefits and drawbacks of both sides. The corporations are more organized, but more rigid. The open source movement isw coming out with results in leaps and bounds, but the “information must be free” crowd leads to potential for “script kiddiez” to cross poison ivy and kudzu and seed the local park with it, or for someone well-intentioned deciding that we need to bring back a prehistoric plant in the local parks (shades of the guy who released all of the birds from Shakespeare’s plays in Central Park, leading to the current starling problem) or forgetting to add a self-limiting factor when he puts together a plant to pull excess heavy metals out of the soil so that it can be disposed of with the leaves.
I don’t think I’ve seen a realistic take on open-source GMO. I’ve seen a number of takes on nanotechnology and 3D printers. I’ve seen fantastic takes on everyone having access to gene-manipulation (you know, the sort where crossing yourself with cat genes is a fashion expression and retrogenes can change your sex in seconds). Could be interesting.
Ironically, a lot of the organized opposition to gmo varieties and regulatory expenses have driven most of the research to large corporations. While we have some close to open source gmo technology (such as Ring-Spot Virus resistant papaya in Hawaii and the long in development golden rice), the costs for many more can only be born by large corporations. Even when smaller companies, such as Okanagan Specialty Fruits develop biotech products like the non-browning Arctic Apple, they run into considerable opposition.
There is a considerable amount of research on biotech crops and safety, with a lot of it independently funded. The GENERA database is a good listing:
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/
DugganSC – the way you put it…that whole open source GMO sounds increasingly unappealing. (sigh) Still works for post-apocalypse fiction, though.
@MTR:
Technology advancement a difficult thing in a lot of ways. Knowledge has always had the potential to upset the balance of power. The chief difficulty, as alluded to by “the bug guy”, is resources. Most likely, genetic modification will remain the province of large corporations or government for some time because of the cost of equipment and materials. But eventually, things probably will get cheaper and thus more accessible. There have been certainly been similar debates over the years over the secret formula for bronze, the ingredients to an effective love philtre, the components of gunpowder, and how to build an atomic bomb. We’ve definitely had it more recently for encryption protocols, security vulnerabilities, and 3D printer blueprints (fairly recently, we had the guy who was posting blueprints for assault rifle plans, which really kicked the hornet’s nest).
@DugganSC
More or less, the technology to mostly open source a lot of biotechnology development is already available and surprisingly affordable. The major costs of bringing new crops to market are regulatory and litigation-protective research.
They’ll have to be an actual GMO post to bring anti’s here it appears.
This week at my U, a sports-medicine-type prof wrote an anti-GMO screed from nutritional perspective in which he worried about increased IGF1 levels in GM salmon, referencing two papers that high IGF1 is bad wrt to cancer (like you’d expect for most any growth factor). And he wasn’t worried about the salmon getting cancer, he was worried about people eating the salmon. Watch out, there may be EGF in there too. It was pretty bad in other ways as well, and was embarrassing. Some commenters found it outstanding though.
Terminator technology:
Farmers near me have grown hybrid corn for many decades. One of my profs was old enough to have been around for some of the early development, and told stories that in their test plots, their beautiful hybrid corn ears would go mysteriously missing. Next year some of the nearby farmers had some corn plots that were filled with hopeful monsters of every description.
@rork
Any comments from said sports med type regarding the digestibility of IGF-1?
A guest post from a genuine expert or at least researcher on GMO would be very, very interesting (though it strays from medicine). Perhaps a guest post on the health benefits (potential or actual) and health detriments (potential or actual) of GMO crops.
Your story about the practicality of farmers is amusing to me
“Any comments from said sports med type regarding the digestibility of IGF-1?”
Of course not (it would kill the point), despite his claiming nutritional expertise in a nutritionally oriented article. Whether he knew if it were a small-molecule hormone or a protein wasn’t clear.
Further horror: the Frankenfish had about 5% less of various amino acids and a few other things, but please fail to notice that it has 5% more fat and so might have 5% less protein – I like my chinook that way, although I’m spoiled on wild upriver brights (from the Columbia, at my brother’s, they cost >$20/lb at the store), and so have the luxury to disdain farmed fish. When it came to omega’s 3 and 6, and several other things that might be no worse or even better in the evil salmon, he had a great solution: switch to comparing to wild chinook rather than farm raised. Arrrrgh!
Also please, stick to cane sugar, cause the local stuff is increasingly from *gasp* frankenbeets (to be fair, he didn’t use that term, and I forget if those are Bt or RR or both near me).
Disclaim: It’s not like I think there are no worries. I take GMOs one at a time. As an angler (and educated about population genetics) I have high concerns about fish farming of any kind, due to environment, disease, and gene escape.
What, you mean like a rational person?
Just a little factoid here: in the last millennium of pharaonic civilisation, especially in the roman period, mummification was practiced in a widening demographic such that we have mummies of people who were definitely middle class. With the excavations at Amarna we are getting lots of skeletal remains of the poor, some of which have tissue. So, why do we keep saying we only have the remains of the wealthy? It has more to do, I think with the lack of care taken by excavators and museums of the poorer mummies. Before the second half of the twentieth century, archaeology in Egypt was more about getting nice bling for the museum and studying art history. Hence, if you find a crude coffin, it gets stuck in the storehouse and not published. It certainly doesn’t make the display in a large famous museum. Hence we have this idea that the poor didn’t have funerary monuments. They did. We just don’t see or read about them much.
I apologize for arriving late to the party, and thereby possibly repeating arguments given above. Also thank you, Dr. Gorski, as always, for this amazingly detailed and persuasive (and funny!) post.
However I do disagree with some of the philosophical assertions made in the post and the comments. My apologies if I don’t give anyone a charitable interpretation of their argument…
First, it is true that “paleo” peeps despoiled their environment, were very cruel to animals, etc. However without advanced technology, their ability to do so was quite limited. So it would still be fair to say their despoilment, cruelty, etc. were far less than ours (at least to my mind), right? I assume your professor, Dr. Gorski, would agree to this.
Second I think it is very fair to say Western society (and industry) has wrongly destroyed some native peoples. Whether those people lived in “harmony” or not seems to me beside the point (“harmony” is modern people’s justification for why those cultures were great…it is not the justification those cultures would give themselves (and as you point out they were not harmonious anyway))
But mostly I find it odd both sides (paleo and what I’ll call “skeptic”) cash out the good life in terms of conventional modern values like health in old age, low mortality, even environmental damage.
It’s an empirical question, of course, whether ancient humans really suffered so much from (for instance) high mortality. I can’t begin to comment on this question…but I’m skeptical. I doubt paleo folk suffered from high mortality anymore than I suffer from not living to be 500 years old (even though people in the future may live to that age). And I doubt they suffered the lack of modern technology anymore than I suffer from not having teleportation, time machines, downloading sandwhiches, or whatever else the future holds.
At least the small bit of evidence I’ve accumulated in my blockhead, people have not always viewed death or aging like we do. It is not Paleo people, or Romans (like Seneca) or other ancients who tell us high mortality is awful. It is modern skeptics and the “paleo” crowd who live in comfortable circumstances. And it is not these ancient groups who tell us aging, even terrible aging, is a problem…it is people like Mercola, Cordain, etc. (viz people who have never used their body for anything serious). My suspicion is that people who actually face these “hardships” (and I did recently) have come to terms with them and would not consider them the reason one culture is better than another.
The argument over whether industrial society is the greatest is interesting. But it ought not be framed in such a way that death, aging, disease, etc. (ie the very values of industrial society itself) are the indices of greatness (or at least I think those indices need more argumentation backing them up).
Again, great post as always Dr. Gorski.
-David
Actually, our paleolithic predecessors were quite capable of large-scale changes to the landscape, through fire and extinctions. Firing the prairies to drive animals as well as permit certain types of plants to grow better generated columns of smoke that blotted out the sun in Europe. South America is the heaviest-modified continent in the world, immense tracts of land are very, very thick with layers of ash and broken pottery; they cultivated trees rather than crops, and many of those trees are still present, bearing fruit and siring offspring. See 1491 by Charles Mann.
The question of “right” and “wrong” regards native populations is not one science can answer; they were certainly on the losing side of a battle for land and resources. However, there are arguments that can be made that their use of the land was less efficient than European equivalents, and that as seminomadic people who frequently warred amongst themselves, the ones we historically associate with various territories are merely the second-last in a long line of settlers, and in the Great Lakes regions would farm the land for a decade then relocate when the soil became too exhausted to produce adequate yields (a common problem in Native settlements). The last in the line of settlers, of course, were Europeans. See First Nations? Second Thoughts by Tom Flanagan and The First North Americans by Brian Fagan (the latter addresses farming techniques as well as long lists of Native groups that arrived, exceeded the area’s carrying capacity, and died or relocated). Is what happened to the Native Americans truly a unique, horrific crime? Or merely one in a thousand such incidents of war and battle over territory, merely played out here with different partners and perhaps differing in scale (mostly due to epidemics, not necessarily war). See Guns, Germs and Steel as well as 1491.
As usual, it’s complicated. I don’t think these moral points will get much play on a science-based medicine blog (but perhaps! They’re favourite topics of mine to discuss).
Thanks for the comment WLU! Very interesting as always!
@WilliamLawrenceUtridge:
“These people, far smarter than you or I, spend their days thinking about…”
No. No, they are not.
While you and I may disagree on a few things your writing indicates a mind that is capable of grasping problems of moderate complexity which means you’re not a f*ing idiot.
The HR department at Monsanto are subject to the brutality of the Gaussian Distribution just like any other company. They need head count, they need butts in white coats, just like IBM or Google.
This isn’t to say that GMO is bad. Something like 8 million children have died in the last 8 years because Greenpeace and other shitheads opposed “Golden Rice”. Monsanto has done some f*d up things to various farmers and communities, but it’s not science, it’s law, baksheesh and greed.
A couple things about Paleo–I’m not a memeber of the Church of Paleo, but I do try to eat in the Primal/Paleo/Evolutionary Fitness are of the diet world. I fail a lot, and pizza is in NO way part of that world, which means I’ll never be completely that way.
But it’s important to note a couple thinks that Dr. Gorski either misses or ignores:
1) We simply do not need to consume as many calories (generally, across the population in the US) as we did in, to pick a date, 1960. This means that we don’t NEED to eat as many calories. However much of our micro-nutrient requirement still exists. Breads and grains provide lots of macro-nutrients, but the vitamin and minerals they bring to the diet are often replicated elsewhere. You can generate a rule that says “eat no grains” and still get a much more complete diet than if you said “eat no meat” or “eat no vegetables”.
2) Exercise is supposed to be part of the whole Paleo schtick. Not the “40 minutes on a gerbil wheel three times a week” type of exercise, but a mix of high intensity resistance training and just more moving.
If you do something to get people eating healthier foods and moving more you are going to get lots of people who report feeling better. When you have people dropping 20 to 200 pounds off their frames, you’re going to get less arthritis, less type II diabetes (I wonder how many of these folks were borderline or undiagnosed type II?)
I know that last year in the Jan/Feb time frame I got my wife to dramatically modify her/our diet to one based mostly on meat and vegetables, leaving out a LOT of the grains and starches (she’s polish and walking away from potatoes is hell for her) and between that and, a set or two of kettle bell swings and pushups a couple times a week and doing more walking and bike riding (her car died, and we lived in a place that was moderately walkable) she dropped from 175 to 155 in about 3 months, and has now kept it off for almost a year, even though we’re not in a walkable climate/location any more.
There has been a LOT of changes in our food supply since WWII. Most of the population has gone from eating a mostly fresh-food diet to eating a mostly preserved and processed food diet. Our breads have gone from long rise yeasts (that tend to break down the phytic acid) to much quicker rising yeasts (that don’t). We’ve gone from useing sugar in moderate amount to haveing everything so g*d*n sweet it’s disgusting (we take the fat out of food and add back in sugar, or HFC etc.).
I don’t think we’re so smart as to be able to engineer nutrition, and while I don’t the the more religious aspects of Paleo are good I do thing that the diet and lifestyle they espouse is better than the stupid “food pyramid”.
As to their rather rosier view of history than *all* of the evidence suggests, well, we all have things we believe in in the face of prevailing evidence, now don’t we?
Archaeological evidence of bodies dating back only 5000 years in insufficent to refute any the claims made my paleo advocates. People who lived c. 3000 BCE were already 5000 years into the agricultural revolution of the Neolithic Era. Modern evidence suggests that heart disease, as evidenced in the mummified bodies mentioned in this article, analysis of which makes up the bulk of the article, is actually caused by a grain-heavy diet which doesn’t provide a healthy balance between omega-6 and omega-3 essential fatty acids, or by eating animals which have been fed evolutionarily incorrect feed, *not* by eating naturally-raised lean meat.
The fact that the author of this article did not see these two huge, glaring holes, among the many others included in their hypothesis, demonstrates that this is not, in fact, “science-based medicine”, as the website domain name purports. In fact, this is not science, at all, let alone bad science.
“These foods included, predictably, cultivated foods such as bread (made from grain), rice, and potatoes. Zuk couldn’t resist asking a question, namely why the inability to digest so many common foods would persist in the population, observing, “Surely it would have been selected out of the population.” Cordain’s response? That humans had not had time to adapt to these foods, to which Zuk retorted, “Plenty of time.””
Not only is this merely an anecdote, it is such an over-simplification of the topic as to be utterly useless, and furthermore, it ignores the entire history of food preparation. Yes, Homo sapiens sapiens has evolved in minor ways over the past 10,000 or so years, but we didn’t suddenly grown a rumen or the ability to digest phytates. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the only means of leavening bread was via the sourdough method, which dramatically reduces phytates. Beginning with the introduction of factory-grown yeast cultures, we now commonly eat breads which contain high levels of anti-nutrients. The only evidence you need to understand the action of anti-nutrients is to look at the levels of severe malnutrition in developing countries who have little to no meat in their primarily grain-based diets.
Many populations have also either lost the ability, or never had the ability, to synthesise long-chain omega-3 essential fatty acids from short-chain varieties, depending on their access to seafood. These long-chain omega-3′s are critical for brain development.
All unfermented grain- and legume-based foods contain significant levels of anti-nutrients. How sad that a publication that purports to be science-based immediately castigates any mention of our intuitive understanding of the natural world as a naturalistic fallacy, regardless of the merits of the actual data.
This is not even bad science; it’s not science, at all.
Considering the claims made by paleo advocates are just that – claims, and fairly slippery ones – it’s not really an evidence-based discussion. What claims, exactly? Do paleo advocates claim their diets cure all diseases of all humans? Make a specific claim, support it with references rather than assertions about what ancient humans ate, then we can discuss.
Did you not read the part of the article discussing the Unangans? No agriculture in the Arctic circle, but still atherosclerosis. In fact, they’re nearly a perfect test-case for paleodiets since they combine extensive marine food sources, large amounts of exercise and zero access to grains.
Dearly would I love to see this evidence, since you don’t provide any in your comment. You might also note that modern humans, despite their allegedly horrific diets, have nearly twice the life expectancy of hunter-gatherers. Of course, the chance of getting spear through the belly (or narwhal tusk through the eye) does impact this.
Mmmmm, straw man…the sample of the study included hunter-gatherers, and you ignore the cumulative and positive nature of science. No studies are perfect, so future studies must test, address and triangulate with previous findings. Demanding “magic bullet” perfect studies, in fact, isn’t science. Plus, science and scientists start with evidence – not assumptions. Paleo diet starts with assumptions and makes massive recommendations based on them – the idea that there is a mythical “paleo” time, that humans stopped evolving, that humans are so homogeneous that one diet is adequate for all people.
Not that we had to – instead, we developed ways to process foods to make them more digestible. Not to mention, phytates bind to certain minerals. Aside from that, phytates don’t really seem to be much of a problem.
People with no access to seafood develop perfectly normally. I eat seafood perhaps once or twice per year and appear to be suffering no ill effects. And the best sources of omega fatty acids from seafood come from cold water species near the poles. The cradle of humanity is Africa, rather far from the poles.
…easily addressed through processing (i.e. fermenting) or changes to diets. And really only causing micronutrient deficiency for certain minerals.
Here you just sound like a condescending douche. Just to let you know.
As opposed to listing a whole bunch of claims without references and selectively attending to only portions of the relevant topic while ignoring confounds, contradictory information and ad hominem arguments?
@William B’livion
” Our breads have gone from long rise yeasts (that tend to break down the phytic acid) to much quicker rising yeasts (that don’t).”
Technically, it isn’t the yeast that has changed but the form and the usage. To the best of my knowledge, all of the yeast used (save naturally occurring yeasts used in sourdoughs) are saccharomyces cerevisiae. Historically, this was commonly sold to bakers and homemakers as refrigerated blocks of yeast. Now it is most often sold dried and granulated (active dry) or more finely granulated and treated with ascorbic acid (instant yeast). For what it is worth, bakers have traditionally added ascorbic acid in one form or another as a conditioner so the addition to instant yeast isn’t new. What is new is rapid rise techniques that produce lots of bread in a short period of time but rob it of its flavor and character.
I’m an amateur artisanal bread maker so I’m definitely not a paleo. But you do make interesting points about the relatively weak contribution of grains to one’s diet (other than calories) versus, say, the contribution of vegetables.
Still, I think the primary point that Dr. Gorski was trying to make is that a paleo diet is not a magic bullet or somehow ‘better’ than other diets; that there is nothing magical or evolutionarily preferential about it. A generally Mediterranean-style diet with plenty of fish, vegetables, olive oil and, yes, grains, is a perfectly reasonable diet as is any that provides necessary nutrients while limiting unnecessary calories. I’m pretty sure that paleo man wasn’t a big consumer of olive oil and barolo
And, as you noted, getting off one’s a$$ and moving around a bit is vital.
William B’livion:
How does that work for places that have cold winters? Do you think my mother had fresh fruits and veggies in February while growing up in Eau Clair, WI during the 1930s? Did I imagine the shelves full of canned food, including pickles, in my grandparents’ basement. Did I imagine canning peaches on a September afternoon with my mother’s cousin? (by the way the pears she canned with a slice of citrus like orange or lemon were divine!) And since my grandfather was Norwegian, how do you explain lutefisk as being “fresh food.”
Since I have an edible garden, I am confronted each fall with a large amounts of apples and some pears. Am I supposed to eat them all in October, or do you think it is okay dokay that I process them into frozen slices, sauce and dried fruit? By the way, my apple butter is lovely on ham. Do you think no one before WWII ate ham, a form of preserved pork?
@Chris
Apple butter …. Mmmmmm
Lutkefisk ….. Mmmmmmm, apple butter
@William B’livion
I got so engrossed in bread that I neglected my two more important items. You suggested that Dr. Gorski “either misses or ignores”:
1. We need fewer calories than during times when we were less sedentary, and;
2. We need to be less sedentary.
While Dr. Gorski may not have touched on these issues in this particular post these have been common themes in diet related posts by him and other contributors at SBM.
windriven, the apple butter and ham are very nice on freshly baked whole wheat cheese biscuits.
Hmmm, wait: cheese is a way to preserve milk. William B’livion, did you know that cheese was a preserved food used before WWII? It is an absolutely ancient way to use milk, and a gateway to dairy use before humans developed lactase persistence. As noted by this 7000 year old find in Poland.
I held off on replying to this, but I suppose I will now.
Yes, yes they are. The people who investigate GMO are far, far smarter than me, at least in terms of GMO, genetics, biology, chemistry, virology, and I have no doubt many other things. The objections I raise or denounce about GMO are based on widespread principles. I can point out that our stomachs digest proteins down to individual amino acids, that cross-breeding is uncontrolled in a way that viral insertion of BT DNA into corn does not. I can’t speak to specific genes, I can’t explain how a specific protein makes a grain more salt or flood tolerant. I can’t visualize molecules travelling through biological pathways. GMO has been thought about by brilliant people, lots and lots of them, and they have looked at it from biological, medical, nutritional, economic and ethical perspectives. Their objections are not about the science, it’s the infrastructure, distribution, economics and ethics.
People who bitch and moan about Monsanto should write to their friggin’ congressperson to support widespread funding of GMO research at universities using federal funding dollars so these corps can be open-sourced, and so the nonscientific objections can be addressed. The reason Monsanto is the only place doing this kinda research is because of the stupid objections and pressures placed on regulators driving up the costs so only large organizations can bear them. Hate evil corporations? It’s in your capability to do something about it.
This whole paleo thing is such nonsense anyway. It’s concrete recommendations, if you can pin them down, are substantially similar to the USDA ones, perhaps substituting fruits and vegetables instead of grains. The sole specific objection I’ve seen, mineral deficiencies, isn’t a problem in the first world that I’m aware of. The area seems rife with arrogance and certainty however, and that’s annoying. As if there is any reason to even believe there’s some sort of single, magical diet that will let you live forever in perfect health. For a set of assumptions that seems to be based on evolutionary underpinnings, proponents seem woefully ignorant of the fact that there is essentially zero evolutionary pressure to live a long, healthy life. Evolution is about ensuring genes survive, which means once you pass breeding age, there’s no pressure to maintain health (yes, kin selection, blah blah blah, but that’s far less direct and impactful than direct parent-child evolution). Exercise is similarly redundant to regular, mainstream recommendations.
@Chris
Lutefisk sounds gross – fish alkalinized to the point that it falls to slimy pieces, left to ferment. Is it like cheese, where it smells atrocious but tastes OK and proteiny? Lots of short-chain amino acids? Blech, I don’t even like regular fish!
WLU, when properly prepared lutefisk essentially turns into a jelled fish, that really does not have much taste. It is eaten with white sauce and allspice sometimes. It was a way to preserve fish in Nordic countries where there are several months where fresh was not possible.
I’m currently reading Paleofantasy, and I see that she brings up my main bugaboo about GMO crops, biodiversity. To a large degree, this is more about human psychology than the science involved, but there’s a risk of people deciding that a given crop is a silver bullet, and creating a single point of failure if we get something unexpected on the scale of the Irish Potato Blight. Very good reading.
As I’ve come to expect from books recommended on this site.
Pickled herring, anyone? that’s preserved. An acquired taste, to be sure, but I like it. Jerky and pemmican are two ancient preservation methods that I am specifically aware of in relation to North America. I think they date back far enough to trigger the “paleo seal of approval.”
Here’s an interesting tidbit from The Day of the Flying Fish, by Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason Magazine Nov 2007:
“As Sasha Issenberg tells it in The Sushi Economy: Globalization and the Making of a Modern Delicacy (Gotham), sushi began in the fourth century B.C. as a preservation method for whitefish. Packing the fish in layers of rice helped it keep longer and lent both the fish and the rice intriguing new flavors. By the early 19th century, techniques had changed. The rice was flavored with vinegar and the fish with soy, and sushi could be created in seconds, without the long wait for fermentation.”
Despite its present status, sushi was originally food cart fast food for common laborers. Whatever the origins, if given my choice I prefer fish (saltwater that is) sushi style over cooked. Wouldn’t say the same for freshwater fish of which I have never gotten terribly fond except maybe for catfish if prepared to eliminate the taste of mud.
@BrewandFerment
” The rice was flavored with vinegar and the fish with soy, and sushi could be created in seconds, without the long wait for fermentation.”
Nonetheless, most Asian cultures have variants of well-aged fish. The Koreans, for instance, are fond of skate (devilfish, rays, whatever) that has been ‘aged’. It is a taste that requires rather more acquiring than, say, pickled herring
Striped bass (a common freshwater fish) can be served as sushi though it does taste a bit muddy and, of course, unagi – the most common eel in American sushi restaurants – is a freshwater creature.
The Swedes too have a buried fish; theirs called surströmming. It is perhaps the most evil thing I’ve ever put in my mouth. But I found that if you eat it as the Swedes do, chased with considerable quantities of aquavit, it grows on you after a while.
Don’t forget the Korean version of sauerkraut: kimchi. It was definitely a way to preserve cabbage, with lots of chili, and some versions have fish added.
@Chris
My best friend is a Korean guy; we make kimchi together from time to time. His mother makes the best kimchi I’ve ever eaten. Joe and I use his mother’s recipe but it is never quite the same. That recipe uses, among many other ingredients, oysters (!) and tiny little shrimp that come packed in saline in big glass jars. The result is a kimchi that is deep and complex.
***
If your favorite itamae has a creme brulee torch, have him make regular salmon nigiri then torch the salmon until the surface has dried and changed to a tannish color but not blistered. I first had it this way in Vancouver, BC with a dab of a hot-sweet sauce but prefer it with just a squeeze of lemon. You would not believe what that small bit of torching does to the flavor!
“My best friend is a Korean guy; we make kimchi together from time to time. His mother makes the best kimchi I’ve ever eaten. Joe and I use his mother’s recipe but it is never quite the same. That recipe uses, among many other ingredients, oysters (!) and tiny little shrimp that come packed in saline in big glass jars. The result is a kimchi that is deep and complex.”
I love kimchi – and I can’t think of kimchi without thinking of bi bim bap, which I love even more. You guys are killing me.
windriven, that salmon nigiri sounds wonderful. That is not a very tradition way to do it, but the torching would cook the salmon only slightly and give a nice maillard reaction. Unfortunately I don’t get to many sushi places on vacation, I seem to be married to the only person from Vancouver Island who hates fish (he also hates camping). Though the last time we were north of the border, we did get some good Korean food in Richmond, BC.
My only issue with Korean restaurants is that there is too much food, especially with the little plates. Though a nice bike ride away is a French inspired Korean restaurant I want to try: http://joulerestaurant.com/menu/dinner/
Chris, using the words “jellied fish” still isn’t making a case for eating lutefisk…nor does briefly torching sashimi, no matter how delicious Malliard reactions are in other foods.
Tell you what, let’s divide the culinary world. You can have all the fish, and I’ll get all the pork. Once in a while we can trade some fish and chips for some bacon, so everybody wins