Why Eat Wild Food?

[Guest guest]

Why Eat Wild Food?

JoAnn Guest

Jul 06, 2006 17:46 PDT

--

Why Eat Wild Food?

--by Dolores L. Nyerges

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

 

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.

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

 

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-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets