Why Eat Wild Food?

[Guest guest]

Why Eat Wild Food?

JoAnn Guest

Feb 22, 2005 17:53 PST

---

Why Eat Wild Food?

--by Dolores L. Nyerges

(courtesy of Dolores L. Nyerges, used with permission)

 

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/whywildfood.html

 

When Christopher began preparing the book Guide to Wild Foods for

republication, I found myself thinking that I'd like to write a chapter

on the benefits of using wild food on a daily basis. I'd come to so

appreciate the many wild foods we had available, and frequently used.

 

The chapter seemed (almost) to write itself. After publication, I

continued researching and studying some of the topics mentioned. Soon I

had so much more that I wanted to share that I created this booklet,

which contains the original chapter and the additional data and new or

expanded thinking which resulted from the continued work. The new data

is in italics.

 

WHY EAT WILD FOOD?

 

" Live light upon the land

if you would not be earthbound. "

--Shining Bear

 

For years I thought " Wild food would get me through an emergency, so I'm

glad I'm familiar with the local wild plants. " Though I used wild food

somewhat frequently, this context lurked, unacknowledged, as one of the

larger motivators for that use. It was only after marketing Wild Salad

(a mix of wild greens) through the local Certified Farmers' Markets that

I began to appreciate the broader opportunity that my knowledge affords.

I was listening to our sales spiel:

 

" These greens are fresh, picked this morning. Many of them are more

nutritious than regular produce. They have never been fertilized, waxed,

nor treated with pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides. They've not been

genetically engineered. We wash our hands before we pick them and then

use tongs or gloves for any subsequent handling. And your dollars don't

support greedy agribiz. "

 

From hearing that spiel, and thinking into the deeper meanings and

ramifications, I saw my knowledge of wild food in quite a different way,

and realized that there were several very good reasons to use wild food

on a daily basis. And, from that process within myself, this chapter

sprang to life.

 

Freshness

It's hard to tell how fresh grocery store produce is. We know that most

produce comes from afar, and thus must be at least a few days old.

Irradiation, refrigeration, fungicide, and wax promote the appearance of

freshness long after an item would normally have shown signs of

deterioration. Aging produce loses its vitality quickly. We have seen

reports from studies which measured the vitamin and mineral loss as

various fruits and vegetables sat on the grocery shelf.

 

In agribiz, saleability takes priority over real freshness. Produce is

hybridized specifically to make it more marketing-hardy, and many things

are picked before they are ready so that spoilage and bruising will be

minimized during the trip from farm to store. Many objectionable things

are done to produce to present a fresh appearance.

 

Until I actually worked in the Certified Farmers' Markets, I had

generally assumed that the produce available there was fresh, and that

asking the merchants was a reliable way to get information about their

produce (was it sprayed, etc.). I hasten to interject that I've

concluded that the Certified Farmers' Markets are the best " commercial "

source of produce available to those fortunate enough to have access to

them, but one needs to shop with discretion. Many farmers pick the whole

crop at once and then " preserve " it for the selling season. Apples,

stone fruit, and grapes may be weeks or months old due to cold storage.

One must ask each farmer/merchant, always recalling that not everyone

sees the value of honesty. A fruit merchant lied to me for a couple of

seasons about having unsprayed fruit. Discovering the lie was a shock --

it awoke me to the need to be more careful.

 

When one knows and uses the local wild foods, genuine freshness is

assured. One can also harvest the food when it is at its peak of

readiness.

 

Edgar Cayce said at various times during his readings that produce grown

in one's locale is preferable to that brought in from afar. This was

partly about freshness, but also was about a particular suitability of

local flora as pertains to the consumer's physical affinity to the

locale.

 

Avoid Hybridization/Genetic Engineering

As we've mentioned, plants destined for the table are hybridized with

saleability as the main goal. Nutritional value, flavor, and other

important qualities are given less consideration. Though this is a

controversial subject, there is research material available which

suggests that agribiz hybridization is an unsound practice. Many hybrids

couldn't survive without the intense agribiz processes of " farming. "

Consider, for example, the seedless grape and watermelon -- how would

they propagate in the wild?

 

Genetic engineering is yet another means to the goal of

maximum-saleability. Avoiding such " creations " will probably be

challenging in the foreseeable future even if laws require they be

identified on the grocers' shelves. Produce ends up in many food

products (such as frozen pizza), and the manufacturer of same may not

know as much as we'd like about the produce bought for his product, nor

will he necessarily be required to share such details with us, the

consumers. Not only might the processed food in the grocery store be of

uncertain " heritage, " but the dishes served in restaurants as well. Our

ability to choose what we eat is seriously threatened. If, for example,

one has opted for vegetarianism on moral grounds, it will probably

become ever more difficult to be certain we aren't eating something we'd

object to.

 

Wild edibles have the opportunity to be naturally strong, healthy, and

adaptable. " Survival of the fittest " is their unspoken motto. Without

the unwise intervention of Mammon-focused humans, the unfit plants

simply don't survive.

 

In the year since I wrote this section of the chapter, I've accumulated

alot of data on genetic engineering. Many items that have been

genetically altered are now available in the marketplace.

 

The Calgene (called FlavrSavr) tomato has been sold in the U.S. Another

type of tomato is, according to the BBC, now being sold in the United

Kingdom in a tomato paste product. This UK tomato has an added gene that

increases storage-life. The product was approved by the British

government because the genetic alteration is considered " inert. " The

reporter opined that government approval would be more difficult to get

for the " genetically-active " foodstuffs planned for release in the

marketplace in the near future. The U.K. product is also labeled as

" genetically modified. " The Canadian government does not require that

genetically-altered food products be labeled, according to this same

reporter.

 

The growth hormone, bovine somatotropin, is injected into dairy cows to

increase milk production. This hormone, abbreviated BST, is produced

naturally in cows' pituitary glands but has never been available in

large amounts. Genetically altered bacteria are now used to make large

amounts of the hormone for commercial use.

 

Another genetically-altered product is a vaccine given to chickens and

turkeys. A gene was taken from the Newcastle disease virus and was

inserted into Fowl Pox virus. This vaccine is said to protect the birds

from both diseases.

 

Media reports cite numerous plans and experiments for ways of

genetically engineering drugs for human beings. Researchers are now

genetically altering pigs in hopes the animals will provide replacement

organs for human surgical patients.

 

Farmers now have access to numerous genetically-altered seeds (which

will be used to grow our food crops). There are types of

genetically-altered corn, soybeans, potatoes, squash, tomatoes, and

canola (for oil-production). The " benefits " listed for these new

food-sources sound " good. "

 

" Plant breeders already are churning out new crop varieties with greater

levels of protein, oil, starch, and amino acids and better cooking and

manufacturing characteristics. Animal breeders are developing livestock

that produce less fat and cholesterol. "

 

In all cases I've become aware of, the alterations are for the purpose

of increasing profits. Look for yourself behind the claims of " this will

stop a disease, or foil a pest, or allow for longer storage " for the

reason these genetic alterations are made. Consider a few quotes I

selected here and there, mostly from the Internet:

 

" Roundup resistance is 'a major breakthrough in soybean production

technology' with the potential to change the whole price structure in

the herbicide market. "

 

" Weed control with Roundup may cost as little as $5 per acre. "

 

" The Bt gene protects potatoes from the Colorado potato beetle, an

insect that costs farmers as much as $200 per acre to control using

conventional insecticides. "

 

" European corn borers cause as much as $1 billion in yield losses each

year in the U.S. Each corn borer causes a yield reduction of 5% per

plant, and a field with an average of three ECB per plant could suffer

losses of $50 per acre. Tests by university researchers show that Bt

corn provides 94% control of severe ECB infestations. "

 

" Bt hybrids yielded an average of 13.76 more bushels per acre than did

hybrids without the Bt gene. "

 

" This technology is powerful, but it must add to the bottom line. "

 

" The first biotech food crop approved for planting was developed for its

longer shelf life and vine-ripened taste. Instead of selling seed with

the gene to farmers, the company decided to enter the tomato production

and marketing business directly. The company's motive stemmed from the

size of the respective markets. The market for tomato seed is only $15

to $20 million, while the market for the sale of branded fresh tomatoes

is estimated at $3.5 billion. "

 

And the following quote reveals to me the attitude of these big

companies toward their fellow human beings, called so cavalierly " the

consumer " :

 

" ...the public uproar over genetically altered crops seems to be on the

wane. As (big bio-genetics company) executives put it in their most

recent annual report, 'The threats and bombast of the biotech opponents

have proved to be hollow and now seem largely irrelevant'. "

 

Irrelevant?

 

I've felt leery about the idea of genetic alteration ever since I first

heard of it. Though I find that facts and thinking are generally the

better resources for decision/choice-making, I always pay heed to that

inner alert. So, I set out to find someone involved in the work of

genetic engineering who would talk honestly with me about the things

that should concern us " consumers. " After having more than one " door

shut in my face, " I had the good fortune to correspond with Douglas

Lundberg, a teacher of genetic engineering at the Air Force Academy in

Colorado. I Asked specifically about the chances of genetically-altered

flora passing their genetic characteristics to the wild flora. I'd seen

an article in the Los Angeles Times about genetically-altered crops

passing the herbicide-resistant gene to adjacent " weeds, " so I naturally

wondered how safely we may assume our wild flora are or will be purely

natural. Mr. Lundberg replied (I've lightly edited, for grammar):

 

" I feel a bit uneasy about this because it is pure speculation.

But, as I see it: There is some reason for caution. Our current method

of gene transfer is with DNA that has 'markers' so that we can determine

if actual transformation has taken place. With the Flavr-Svr tomato,

there is a gene for resistance to a particular antibiotic,

chloramphenicol (spelling might be off) in every cell of the tomato.

This probably will do no harm to humans, but certainly increases this

'natural' gene's presence in our biosphere. Good or bad, I don't know.

My concern is what 'marker' will be used tomorrow and what may be the

ramifications of such widespread existence? Today might be OK, tomorrow

might not.

 

The scientist's problem is that the unknown is so much larger than the

known.

 

Can the genes be transferred in the 'wild'? My opinion is yes. Bacteria,

viruses and just normal uptake may spread the genes to other plants. At

this point, that may not be bad, but we just do not know.

 

Let me start at the beginning. In the 80s, we learned that one can

transfer genes through a virus or a 'plasmid.' That is, we can isolate a

gene, insert it into a virus and then put the virus into a cell -- any

cell, human, bacteria or plant. This is called " transformation " . We

thought that it was new and 'invented by man.' Apparently not so. Since

then we (in the 90s) have found that bacteria can transfer genes to

other organisms under certain circumstances. We have now even found that

bits of DNA (genes) laying around from dead organisms can be taken up by

living organisms. For instance, if a plant dies and decays in the wild,

part of its DNA can be taken up by one-celled organisms and transferred

to others naturally. It appears that gene transfer is more of a natural

mechanism than was ever thought.

 

To go on, DNA is DNA. It does not matter if it is from a hippo, mouse,

bacteria, oak tree, cow or human. The alphabet is the same! So genes can

be transferred AND functional because of this universality of the DNA

code. "

 

A couple of people expressed concerns similar to mine in a Forum on-line

(lightly edited for grammatical purposes):

 

" Can anyone help me understand why everybody seems to want to get in to

industrial genetics for food? The benefits seem to be that tomatoes

survive the frost, potatoes get larger, etc. (yes, and maybe one finds a

cure for cancer and/or a way to feed the starving millions in the world)

.... but the main idea seems to be that the food giants get even bigger

profits.

 

The risks seem to me to be unknown consequences to the people eating the

genetically-altered food (is anyone going to believe that one can

ascertain all the consequences in advance?), that a virus gets

genetically-altered 'by accident' with unkown consequences ...

 

Thus it seems to me that the risks are much greater than the potential

for benefit and that maybe we should leave this pandora's box closed.

Yes, even at the risk of not finding a cure for cancer now.

 

Or am I missing something ? "

--Michael Salmony (Natural Medicine Forum on CompuServe).

 

" The genetic alterations are not all good. The new attempts (successful)

at producing a super soybean with Brazil Nut genes backfired. Thousands

of people are severely allergic to Brazil Nuts. Early tests showed that

these people were now allergic to this super soybean. What will happen

when a genetically altered food contains several or dozens of other food

genes? I've written about this in my book and in my columns for

Nutrition Advocate. Whenever we get away from natural foods we pay a

price somewhere. Corn's alteration was gradual over several centuries,

but today it's one of the leading allergenic foods I encounter in my

pediatric practice. "

--Charles Attwood, M.D. (Natural Medicine Forum on CompuServe)

 

Another participant in the Forum offered the facts that we humans have

been genetically-manipulating plants and animals for thousands of years,

by selective breeding/cross-breeding. He pointed out, accurately as far

as I know, that corn as we know it simply wouldn't exist if we hadn't

" created " it by selection processes. This person opined that genetic

engineering would be no more likely to create a dangerous virus (for

example) than would nature " on its own. " Overall, he supposed that

genetic engineering would be more beneficial than problematical, and

that opposition to it was fear born of ignorance.

 

" I'm not sure I am happy about your tenet of my ignorance of science ...

(I am a scientist, but obviously not in the field of food/genetics) ...

but the scientific method has taught me that a) no one can predict the

consequences of non-trivial actions (does anyone still believe that

nuclear power stations are 'safe' and can be controlled ... ?), and b)

modern technology often does things 'in principle' the same as before (a

database is like a card file) but there is often a qualitative

difference as well as a quantitative one. I think in drawing the

parallel between classic mutations (due to gamma rays ...) or even

traditional man-made ones (cross fertilizing flowers to yield new types

....) to the modern industrial strength genetic engineering one must

surely see a difference not only in quantity (number of mutations

produced, difference to previous strains etc.) and also the quality

(targeted differences, genetics applied not for survival of the fittest

but to maximize industrial profits, etc.).

 

Call me an old fuddy-duddy if you like, but I am worried about this

development. "

--Michael Salmony (Natural Medicine Forum on CompuServe)

 

" Unfortunately, we will not know whether you are right or wrong until 50

years from now. The possible deleterious effects if you are wrong are

not worth the risk. Artificial selection and/or cross-breeding cannot be

anywhere near as intrinsically dangerous as anything that uncontrolled

science can do.

 

It's more a concern over the unproven rather than a fear of the unknown.

Genetic engineering hasn't been around long enough for anyone to have

determined what actually happens over the long term when such things are

done. Asbestos insulation was considered safe at one time. Silicon

implants were considered safe at one time. Leaded gasoline was

considered safe at one time, as well as lead in paint. Smoking was

considered safe at one time. Fallout from atomic bombs was considered

safe at one time. It took decades to come to the conclusion that all of

the above were/are not safe at all. Personally, I do not wish to be the

guinea pig in somebody's experiment. "

--Jim Showalter (Natural Medicine Forum on CompuServe)

 

To Jim's comments about things once considered safe, I must add

antibiotics! Now we are finding that the " bugs " just got stronger and

more resistant. I think the notable difference between genetic

manipulation (i.e., selection) and genetic engineering (i.e. " force " ) is

that genetic engineering puts genes where they would " never go "

naturally. You'd not find the much-discussed human ear growing on a

mouse's back as a result of genetic manipulation. I'm not a " scientist, "

so I can only cite my best sources when it comes to " scientific

processes, " but it seems to me that the activity, like nearly all " work "

done in agriculture, is greed-engendered (intended to bring in more

money) and isn't even focused on " the (real) improvement of the

species/cultivar " or " the nutritional or other (real) benefit of the

people. "

 

Doesn't history show us, across the board, that when greed is the

motivator, there is never a good outcome?

 

What's really incredible about the genetic engineering big business is

the legal fracas over " who owns the creations. " Greed compounded by

arrogance?

 

From The Progressive Farmer, 1995:

" Although public outcry over biotech crops has softened, a little

publicized and sometimes bitter battle is being fought within the

biotech industry itself over who owns this new technology.

The fight is over patent rights. These patents can include the genes as

well as the methods of transferring them. Biotech companies say they

need patent protection to secure their multimillion-dollar investments

in research and development.

Mycogen versus Monsanto is a case in point. The companies had been

negotiating over a licensing agreement for transfer of Bacillus

thuringiensis genes.

Following a breakdown in the negotiations, Mycogen sued Monsanto.

Mycogen claims ownership of a patent covering all insect-resistant

transgenic plants now under development that use synthetic gene

technology. Mycogen officials say their goals are to settle out of

court, allow Monsanto to commercialize Bt crops, and be paid for the

rights to their patent.

Monsanto officials say the company has been developing this technology

for 15 years and that Monsanto products will be marketed freely despite

Mycogen's allegations.

One more point. Just as biotech companies vigorously defend gene

technology against the competition, you can also expect them to come

down hard on any farmers who use so-called brown bag seed sales and

violate plant variety protection laws. "

 

Avoid Unnatural Fertilizer

Nature fertilizes flora in many ways, via animal droppings, earthworm

castings, and decaying organic matter such as fallen leaves. This

natural plant food is delivered in balanced, appropriate amounts. The

Mammon-focused human farmer applies commercial " plant food, " which today

is nearly always from petro-chemical sources, creating " floraddicts "

which become unable to live naturally.

 

There are many other recognized objections to the use of commercial

fertilizers. We cannot properly deal with this complex and controversial

subject here, and suggest you study already-published information. Wild

flora grow where conditions favor them, and continue to survive, even

thrive, without applications of commercial fertilizer. This speaks for

itself.

 

We don't advocate " just letting all the plants grow wild. " The nurturing

of flora is a crucial part of humanity's spiritual development. Such

nurturing might properly include the type of work done by Luther

Burbank. Some of his creations live on today as testimonials to his

loving efforts toward the exercise of dominion in the world of flora.

Both agriculture and horticulture must have begun that way -- but

gradually fell to ignorance, pragmatism, and greed.

 

Avoid Pesticides/Herbicides/Fungicides, etc.

There are many good works in print which detail the myriad chemical

applications used on/in our food, and the many detrimental health

effects that have been scientifically documented. We highly recommend

that you read the books listed in our bibliography, and study these

issues yourself, rather than " taking our word for it. "

 

By now, most of us are aware that food, including produce, is treated to

a wide range of potentially-hazardous chemical processes, all to enhance

saleability. Soil, seeds, seedlings, growing/mature plants, fruits, and

even packaging and storage facilities may receive doses of poison for

one " reason " or another. In many cases, " they " don't have to tell us.

 

For several years I owned and operated a commercial organic garden

service. An associate of mine who had a " regular " garden service became

severely ill and spent weeks in the hospital with a perplexing disease

of the immune- system. He told me one day that he felt a deep certainty

that his problems had resulted from years of handling the pesticides and

herbicides he routinely used in his garden service. And I felt a deep

certainty that what he was saying was right. " Scientists " would dismiss

this as anecdotal evidence, but, given the compromises and dishonesty

that riddle our sources of " scientific evidence, " I often find that a

heart-felt response to anecdotal evidence is worth as much or more than

statistics.

 

Wild plants are, for the most part, free of chemical treatments of any

kind. Those of us who choose to avoid chemical additions to our food

have a great resource in the wild flora. There are ways, of course, that

wild flora can be contaminated. Some cities/counties use pesticides and

herbicides in areas under their jurisdiction. Select your wild food

picking areas carefully!

 

Avoid Wax

It's fairly common knowledge that many items of grocery produce are

coated with a " food-grade " wax in order to retard spoilage. What many

people don't know is the extent of the recipients of the wax

applications: would you believe chili peppers? Eggplant? Did you know

that grocers are not required to list the pesticides and fungicides that

are added to the wax, nor explain to you that lac resin (a standard wax

ingredient) is excreta from the insect Laccifer lacca, the very source

of shellac (with which we paint furniture)?

 

Wild flora are not coated with any such possibly-toxic and

unappetizing-sounding substance. Any " bug poop " thereon was applied

naturally, and can easily be washed off.

 

Avoid Irradiation

For a thorough explanation of irradiation, see chapter 13 of Diet For a

Poisoned Planet by David Steinman. Though some health food stores

display signs proclaiming that they won't sell irradiated food, my

understanding is that, at this time, spices are the main type of food

item that get this treatment. We can be certain that no wild foods have

been irradiated. And there are many wonderful spices growing

indigenously about. In our area we have bay leaf, fennel, California

pepper, and several types of sage, just to mention a few.

 

Dr. Gary Gibbs, an expert on food irradiation, (author of The Food That

Would Last Forever: Understanding the Dangers of Food Irradiation),

stated several things in Nutrition and Healing magazine, May 1995.

--irradiation creates toxic molecules not found in nature.

--irradiation destroys a number of vitamins, amino acids, and essential

fatty acids.

--irradiation increases aflatoxin production by more than one hundred

fold.

--when a percentage of lab animals' diet was irradiated, the animals

suffered respiratory problems, enlarged hearts, morbidity, and premature

death.

--children who ate irradiated wheat developed abnormal white blood

cells.

--the foods now approved for irradiation are fruits, vegetables, wheat,

flour, herbs, spices, nuts, seeds, peas, pork, and chicken. Irradiation

does kill e. coli and salmonella, so the meat processors are very

interested in using it. It's cheaper than keeping good sanitation.

--The FDA requires a label only if 'whole food' is irradiated and then

sold unchanged. If you process it in any way or add any other ingredient

to it, no label disclosure is required. A fresh, whole tomato requires a

label indicating that it's been irradiated. A package of tomato soup

made from irradiated tomatoes can be sold with no indication that

irradiation has been involved in the processing of the ingredients.

 

The stated purpose for irradiation, to " stop spoilage, " sounds good. It

seems to me that time and money would be much better spent in finding

ways to get fresh food to " consumers, " not in finding ways to keep it

stored longer, and/or to hide the fact that it's old. I have felt the

same uneasiness about irradiation that I feel about genetic alteration,

which is why I've included the information I've found. I would go out of

my way to avoid irradiated food. However, as always, please research for

yourself -- don't take my word for it!

 

This group, I'm told, is working to ban irradiation. They may be a good

source of information about the process.

Food and Water, Inc.

3 Whitman Drive

Denville, New Jersey 07834

(718) 783-2146

 

Purity

In recent years we've heard more and more about food-borne disease. E.

coli and salmonella are well-known, having been widely discussed in the

news. We associate these with undercooked meat, not realizing that E.

coli in particular could easily be spread via any food (like salad) that

was handled and not subsequently well-cooked or, at least, washed in

very hot water.

 

Many types of produce could easily bring dozens of

socially-transmissible diseases directly onto our plates, simply because

much produce is used raw, and is too delicate for washing in water hot

enough to kill any bacteria or viruses present. Though this may be

uncomfortable to consider, the fact is that hands pass not only E. coli,

but many cold and flu types of illnesses. Tuberculosis is passed fairly

easily by various social interactions. Inquire for yourself to discover

who picks the produce you buy, and if they can/do frequently wash their

hands with hot water and soap throughout the workday. Do they always

shield the produce from sneezes and coughs? How? And, then, what about

the employees at the Central Market where the produce goes between farm

and grocery store? Next, think about everyone who might handle produce

in the grocery store, including perhaps dozens of customers each day.

 

Chances are, the wild foods you pick and consume will have been handled

only by you and/or your family.

 

The following is a list, and brief description of several diseases you

could pick up from produce bought at the store:

Shigellosis comes from Shigella, a group of bacteria that cause

gastrointestinal illness. The illness usually includes fever, abdominal

pain, and diarrhea with or without blood in the stools. Transmission of

Shigella is through direct contact with an infected person, or from food

or water contaminated by an infected person. Handwashing with soap and

running water is the single most important preventive measure to

interrupt transmission of shigellosis. Excluding persons with diarrhea

from handling food and limiting the use of home-prepared foods at large

gatherings will reduce the risk of large outbreaks caused by foodborne

transmission.

 

Antibiotic resistance among Shigella is increasing.

 

Listeria monocytogenes is found in soil and water. Vegetables can become

contaminated from the soil or from manure used as fertilizer.

 

Wash raw vegetables thoroughly before eating. Wash hands, knives, and

cutting boards after handling uncooked foods.

 

Tuberculosis, as already mentioned, is easily passed through close

social contact, including through the handling of any type of food.

 

Some types of tuberculosis are antibiotic-resistant.

 

Entamoeba histolytica can be carried on vegetables that have been

handled by unwashed hands. Amebiasis is transmitted by fecal

contamination of drinking water and foods, but also by direct contact

with dirty hands or objects.

 

Infections that sometimes last for years may be accompanied by 1) no

symptoms, 2) vague gastrointestinal distress, 3) dysentery (with blood

and mucus). Most infections occur in the digestive tract but other

tissues may be invaded. Complications include 4) ulcerative and abscess

pain and, rarely, 5) intestinal blockage.

 

Cryptosporidiosis

Caused by Cryptosporidium Parvum, this disease can be accompanied by

severe watery diarrhea. Pulmonary and tracheal cryptosporidiosis in

humans is associated with coughing and frequently a low-grade fever.

Cryptosporidium sp. could occur, theoretically, on any food touched by a

contaminated food handler. Incidence is higher in child day care centers

that serve food.

 

Humans worldwide are infected with Ascaris lumbricoides and Trichuris

trichiura; the eggs of these roundworms (nematode) are " sticky " and may

be carried to the mouth by hands, other body parts, fomites (inanimate

objects), or foods.

Infected foodhandlers may contaminate a wide variety of foods.

 

Hepatitis A

HAV is excreted in feces of infected people and can produce clinical

disease when susceptible individuals consume contaminated water or

foods. Contamination of foods by infected workers in food processing

plants and restaurants is common.

 

Rotaviruses cause acute gastroenteritis. Infantile diarrhea, winter

diarrhea, acute nonbacterial infectious gastroenteritis, and acute viral

gastroenteritis are names applied to the infection caused by the most

common and widespread group A rotavirus.

Infected food handlers may contaminate foods that require handling and

no further cooking, such as fresh vegetables and fruit.

 

These are a few of the illnesses I found listed when I did an Internet

search. We haven't even looked at the many " cold " and " flu " illnesses

that can be passed via food-handling. Here is an address for additional

information, and the source of some of the listings above:

 

--Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, National Center for

Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600

Clifton Road, Mailstop C09, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

 

Some Moral and Spiritual Considerations

We will all bear the responsibility for what we have supported with our

dollars. Though, probably, it's neither possible nor wise to utterly

isolate oneself from the " evil world, " one needs to exercise choice for

the better at every opportunity. The food industry, speaking

particularly of America, is fraught with unconscionable practices that

we ought not support.

 

Learning about and harvesting those wild foods available to us is one

way to remove dollar-support from, at least, the agribiz part of the

food industry.

 

The Influence of Thoughts and Desires

The thinking and desiring done by the humans which are involved in our

food-production and handling can have an effect on us through the food.

Much produce is imbued with greed simply because of the reasons for

which it is grown (i.e., solely to make money). Added to this will be

the thoughts and desires entertained by the pickers, packers, shippers,

wholesalers, and grocery employees. The saying " you are what you eat "

has more meaning than we supposed. Many packaged goods can be stored

long enough for these influences to dissipate. Not so with fresh

produce.

 

Learning to identify and to use the wild flora around your area to

replace as much of your purchased produce as possible will offer the

unusual benefit of freeing you from a lot of non-physical pollution. You

may then pick it with love and care and bring home elevated ingredients

for your sustenance.

 

Harmless Harvesting

To put it baldly, many regular produce items are killed plants. The head

of lettuce, the bunch of spinach, the root crops like carrots, the

celery -- all plants destroyed in the picking. Wise stewardship involves

gentle nurturing of the flora that sustain us. Killing (of animals or

plants) is not necessary in order to live, and is, in fact, part of the

thinking-pattern that produces cancer. Wherever possible, it is best to

leave at least one-seventh of the plant so that it may continue to live.

A Great Teacher of ours, Shining Bear, pinched the little tips, buds,

and flowers, and collected the seeds of his wild food sources. He never,

to my knowledge, destroyed these flora-friends.

 

Other Health Benefits

We have all heard of the damaging health-effects of worry and stress.

Preparedness and the ability to be self- reliant can contribute to a

general sense of well-being and ease. The fresh air and exercise

available through active food-foraging can also be beneficial.

Information is available on the favorable health-effects of a raw food

diet. With a good food-processor, one can make fresh, nutritious raw

drinks, dips, dressings, seed butters, and hot (but not cooked) soups

with wild flora, in addition to the more typical salad-type dishes.

 

Simply being in a meadow of wild flora can be joy-promoting. Try this

experiment: find a commercial field of produce and just stand in it.

Note what you feel and what thoughts you have. Then spend some time in a

field of wild flora (I feel quite uplifted in the midst of a golden

expanse of flowering wild mustard).

 

Conclusion

We've considered a number of reasons to learn to identify and use wild

plants for food. Wild flora often have superior nutritional qualities,

whether eaten cooked or raw. Such foraging is a great way to avoid the

drawbacks of agribiz produce: hybridization, genetic engineering,

commercial fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, lack of freshness,

fungicide, wax, socially-transmissible diseases, and unhealthy

thought/desire influences. Foraging also allows us to withdraw our

dollar-support from agribiz. It's also good for us to get out in the

fresh air, get some exercise, and spend time with truly happy flora, and

to harvest the useful ones in a loving manner.

 

We regularly forage in selected areas around our city. Also, here at

home, we generally allow wild flora (er, " weeds " ) to grow wherever they

choose to on our property. We thoughtfully avoid tampering or willful

domination, while simultaneously trying to discover the ways to lovingly

nurture these wonderful flora-friends.

 

Bibliography

Diet for a New America by John Robbins

Diet for a Poisoned Planet by David Steinman

The Findhorn Garden by the Findhorn Community

 

Thanks to Shining Bear for unique guidance and training

to Susan Robbins of the Vegetarian Forum on CompuServe

to Chris Mitchell of the Vegetarian Forum on CompuServe

to Johnny Lynch, teacher of the Vegetarian No-Cooking Class

to Charles Attwood, M.D., author of Dr. Attwood's Low-Fat Prescription

for Kids and columnist for Nutrition Advocate.

 

This saying (LIVE LIGHT UPON THE LAND) has taken on new meaning for me.

It now means " don't be heavily invested in earthsurfacey things. " We

could spend the rest of our lives accumulating all the facts about wax,

pesticide, genetic engineering, diseases, etc. We could speculate about

outcomes, and fight " the system, " and work endlessly to pass laws, but,

so long as greed compels our commerce, do we really think we can stop

the genetics scientists, and the big fertilizer companies, and the huge

food companies, agribiz farmers, etc. from doing things that may hurt

us?

 

We've thought, " then, we'll separate ourselves, grow OUR gardens

organically, buy open-pollinated seeds, etc., but we find that pollution

can't be shut out or away. We're also finding that genetically altered

flora pass the genetic changes to other flora. We do need to learn, and

to speak out about what we learn. No question about that. But allowing

the " out there " activities, and the efforts to change the world,

shouldn't take priority over our doing and thinking right in our own

lives.

 

Find the wild floralbeings and joyfully interact with them. Ask them

what care they need in return. Take bits of natural fertilizer with you

when you go harvesting (natural tobacco is good). Give the wild flora

servings of " liquid compost " that you've made in your blender. Do a

joyful breath-exchange with these floral-friends. Lovingly exhale your

carbon dioxide on them, then inhale the oxygen they release. There may

be a danger that the Frankenflora will spread their mouse or virus (or?)

genes to the wild flora in the future. We shouldn't acquiesce to that,

and it's appropriate to communicate our concerns as we see fit. But, the

positive action of appreciating and nurturing the wild, pure flora all

around us now, should take priority over any " battle out there. " Worry,

and negative thinking affect our immune systems detrimentally. Taking

positive action, privately in one's own life, is a much healthier course

than worrying about creeping genes. We are free to work at transforming

any greediness in our own lives. This is much more important than trying

to do away with greed " out there. " We can effect this transformation by

the proper, loving care and stewardship of those things that we have to

use and care for in our lives, including the wild floral food sources.

 

" Nothing in the world of living things is permanently fixed. "

--Hans Zinnser--Rats, Lice and History, 1935

_________________

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

DietaryTi-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Genes

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard.