XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, alt.religion.hindu   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   "For more than 2,800 years, the concept of eating plants in their   
   whole-food form has struggled to be heard and adopted as a way of life."   
      
   What a strange claim, why that time depth?   
      
   For as long as we can trace human diet into history people have eaten   
   whatever is to be found in their environment.   
      
   The eskimos ate mostly meat and thrived because plant foods did not   
   exist for them.  Others ate mostly plant foods because that is what was   
   most abundant there and animal resources very scarce.   
      
   The most frequent pattern was a mixed diet as the environment allowed.   
   In more recent times extremes of poverty act in the same fashion.  Most   
   ppeople living in poverty eat plant foods because of cost.  They would   
   and do eat animal products when they can afford them.   
      
   The "whole" claim is strange also.  Where plant based foods are some   
   part or mostly the diet the basic food from plants is highly modified.   
   Grain for example is ground and even with rice when used as an intact   
   grain it has many of the nutritional outer layers removed.  Other parts   
    the nutritious of plants have peels removed and only selected parts are   
   eaten.  The only "whole" diet would be someone eating the plant exactly   
   as it comes from the field and that is not the case generally.   
      
      
   This has the sound of a food political claim not a nutrition history or   
   real world practice one.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)