The origins of agriculture - a biological perspective and a new hypothesis

[Guest guest]

i got this link from a message on the fukuoka e-group

it's a possible explanation for some of our dietary challenges

a long article but worth it...

 

norm )~

 

...... raw food, simply wonderful .....

 

The origins of agriculture - a biological perspective and a new

hypothesis

 

http://www.acnem.org/journal/19-1_april_2000/origins_of_agriculture.htm

 

 

here's a cut from the article;

Other evidence for 'drug-like' effects of these foods

 

Research into food allergy has shown that normal quantities of some

foods can have pharmacological, including behavioural, effects. Many

people develop intolerances to particular foods. Various foods are

implicated, and a variety of symptoms is produced. (The term

'intolerance' rather than allergy is often used, as in many cases the

immune system may not be involved20.) Some intolerance symptoms, such as

anxiety, depression, epilepsy, hyperactivity, and schizophrenic episodes

involve brain function20,54.

 

Radcliffe48 listed the foods at fault, in descending order of frequency,

in a trial involving 50 people: wheat (more than 70% of subjects reacted

in some way to it), milk (60%), egg (35%), corn, cheese, potato, coffee,

rice, yeast, chocolate, tea, citrus, oats, pork, plaice, cane, and beef

(10%). This is virtually a list of foods that have become common in the

diet following the adoption of agriculture, in order of prevalence. The

symptoms most commonly alleviated by treatment were mood change (> 50%)

followed by headache, musculoskeletal and respiratory ailments.

 

One of the most striking phenomena in these studies is that patients

often exhibit cravings, addiction and withdrawal symptoms with regard to

these foods (Egger20 citing Randolph50; see also Radcliffe48

pp.808-10,824, Kroker37 pp.856,864, Sprague & Milam56 pp. 949,953 and

Wraith64 pp. 489,491).

 

Brostoff and Gamlin8 estimated that 50% of intolerance patients crave

the foods that cause them problems, and experience withdrawal symptoms

when excluding those foods from their diet. Withdrawal symptoms are

similar to those associated with drug addictions. The possibility that

exorphins are involved has been noted2, and Brostoff and Gamlin

conclude:

 

'... the results so far suggest that they might influence our mood.

There is certainly no question of anyone getting 'high' on a glass of

milk or a slice of bread - the amounts involved are too small for that -

but these foods might induce a sense of comfort and wellbeing, as

food-intolerant patients often say they do. There are also other

hormone-like peptides in partial digests of food, which might have other

effects on the body.'8 p.230

 

There is no possibility that craving these foods has anything to do with

the popular notion of the body telling the brain what it needs for

nutritional purposes. These foods were not significant in the human diet

before agriculture, and large quantities of them cannot be necessary for

nutrition. In fact, the standard way to treat food intolerance is to

remove the offending items from the patient's diet.

 

A suggested interpretation of exorphin research

 

But what are the effects of these foods on normal people? Though

exorphins cannot have a naturally selected physiological function in

humans, this does not mean that they have no effect. Food intolerance

research suggests that cereals and milk, in normal dietary quantities,

are capable of affecting behaviour in many people. And if severe

behavioural effects in schizophrenics and coeliacs can be caused by

higher than normal absorption of peptides, then more subtle effects,

which may not even be regarded as abnormal, could be produced in people

generally.

 

The evidence presented so far suggests the following interpretation.

 

The ingestion of cereals and milk, in normal modern dietary amounts by

normal humans, activates reward centres in the brain. Foods that were

common in the diet before agriculture (fruits and so on) do not have

this pharmacological property. The effects of exorphins are

qualitatively the same as those produced by other opioid and / or

dopaminergic drugs, that is, reward, motivation, reduction of anxiety, a

sense of wellbeing, and perhaps even addiction. Though the effects of a

typical meal are quantitatively less than those of doses of those drugs,

most modern humans experience them several times a day, every day of

their adult lives.

 

Hypothesis: exorphins and the origin of agriculture and civilisation

 

When this scenario of human dietary practices is viewed in the light of

the problem of the origin of agriculture described earlier, it suggests

an hypothesis that combines the results of these lines of enquiry.

 

Exorphin researchers, perhaps lacking a long-term historical

perspective, have generally not investigated the possibility that these

foods really are drug-like, and have instead searched without success

for exorphins' natural function. The adoption of cereal agriculture and

the subsequent rise of civilisation have not been satisfactorily

explained, because the behavioural changes underlying them have no

obvious adaptive basis.

 

These unsolved and until-now unrelated problems may in fact solve each

other. The answer, we suggest, is this: cereals and dairy foods are not

natural human foods, but rather are preferred because they contain

exorphins. This chemical reward was the incentive for the adoption of

cereal agriculture in the Neolithic. Regular self-administration of

these substances facilitated the behavioural changes that led to the

subsequent appearance of civilisation.

[Guest guest]

Norm,

Thanks for that link - I'm very interested. My grandfather was editor of the

Wisconsin State Conservation journal until 1959. In an unpublished manuscript

of a book on conservation written about that time he cited this statement

(unnamed source) from the US Dept of Agriculture:

 

" The ingredients of the soil, a lack of this element or a superabundance of

that, may even affect the bodies of men or influence their glands and therefore

their psychology, through the food grown on the soil. "

 

Nickolas Hein

Morgantown WV

-

kelpguy

kelpguy

Sunday, November 16, 2003 8:52 AM

[RawSeattle] The origins of agriculture - a biological perspective

and a new hypothesis

 

 

i got this link from a message on the fukuoka e-group

it's a possible explanation for some of our dietary challenges

a long article but worth it...

 

norm )~

 

..... raw food, simply wonderful .....

 

The origins of agriculture - a biological perspective and a new

hypothesis

 

http://www.acnem.org/journal/19-1_april_2000/origins_of_agriculture.htm

 

 

here's a cut from the article;

Other evidence for 'drug-like' effects of these foods

 

Research into food allergy has shown that normal quantities of some

foods can have pharmacological, including behavioural, effects. Many

people develop intolerances to particular foods. Various foods are

implicated, and a variety of symptoms is produced. (The term

'intolerance' rather than allergy is often used, as in many cases the

immune system may not be involved20.) Some intolerance symptoms, such as

anxiety, depression, epilepsy, hyperactivity, and schizophrenic episodes

involve brain function20,54.

 

Radcliffe48 listed the foods at fault, in descending order of frequency,

in a trial involving 50 people: wheat (more than 70% of subjects reacted

in some way to it), milk (60%), egg (35%), corn, cheese, potato, coffee,

rice, yeast, chocolate, tea, citrus, oats, pork, plaice, cane, and beef

(10%). This is virtually a list of foods that have become common in the

diet following the adoption of agriculture, in order of prevalence. The

symptoms most commonly alleviated by treatment were mood change (> 50%)

followed by headache, musculoskeletal and respiratory ailments.

 

One of the most striking phenomena in these studies is that patients

often exhibit cravings, addiction and withdrawal symptoms with regard to

these foods (Egger20 citing Randolph50; see also Radcliffe48

pp.808-10,824, Kroker37 pp.856,864, Sprague & Milam56 pp. 949,953 and

Wraith64 pp. 489,491).

 

Brostoff and Gamlin8 estimated that 50% of intolerance patients crave

the foods that cause them problems, and experience withdrawal symptoms

when excluding those foods from their diet. Withdrawal symptoms are

similar to those associated with drug addictions. The possibility that

exorphins are involved has been noted2, and Brostoff and Gamlin

conclude:

 

'... the results so far suggest that they might influence our mood.

There is certainly no question of anyone getting 'high' on a glass of

milk or a slice of bread - the amounts involved are too small for that -

but these foods might induce a sense of comfort and wellbeing, as

food-intolerant patients often say they do. There are also other

hormone-like peptides in partial digests of food, which might have other

effects on the body.'8 p.230

 

There is no possibility that craving these foods has anything to do with

the popular notion of the body telling the brain what it needs for

nutritional purposes. These foods were not significant in the human diet

before agriculture, and large quantities of them cannot be necessary for

nutrition. In fact, the standard way to treat food intolerance is to

remove the offending items from the patient's diet.

 

A suggested interpretation of exorphin research

 

But what are the effects of these foods on normal people? Though

exorphins cannot have a naturally selected physiological function in

humans, this does not mean that they have no effect. Food intolerance

research suggests that cereals and milk, in normal dietary quantities,

are capable of affecting behaviour in many people. And if severe

behavioural effects in schizophrenics and coeliacs can be caused by

higher than normal absorption of peptides, then more subtle effects,

which may not even be regarded as abnormal, could be produced in people

generally.

 

The evidence presented so far suggests the following interpretation.

 

The ingestion of cereals and milk, in normal modern dietary amounts by

normal humans, activates reward centres in the brain. Foods that were

common in the diet before agriculture (fruits and so on) do not have

this pharmacological property. The effects of exorphins are

qualitatively the same as those produced by other opioid and / or

dopaminergic drugs, that is, reward, motivation, reduction of anxiety, a

sense of wellbeing, and perhaps even addiction. Though the effects of a

typical meal are quantitatively less than those of doses of those drugs,

most modern humans experience them several times a day, every day of

their adult lives.

 

Hypothesis: exorphins and the origin of agriculture and civilisation

 

When this scenario of human dietary practices is viewed in the light of

the problem of the origin of agriculture described earlier, it suggests

an hypothesis that combines the results of these lines of enquiry.

 

Exorphin researchers, perhaps lacking a long-term historical

perspective, have generally not investigated the possibility that these

foods really are drug-like, and have instead searched without success

for exorphins' natural function. The adoption of cereal agriculture and

the subsequent rise of civilisation have not been satisfactorily

explained, because the behavioural changes underlying them have no

obvious adaptive basis.

 

These unsolved and until-now unrelated problems may in fact solve each

other. The answer, we suggest, is this: cereals and dairy foods are not

natural human foods, but rather are preferred because they contain

exorphins. This chemical reward was the incentive for the adoption of

cereal agriculture in the Neolithic. Regular self-administration of

these substances facilitated the behavioural changes that led to the

subsequent appearance of civilisation.