Is wild food actually healthier?

[Iguana]

No.

[Projectile Vomit]

...Berries are pretty much the same they have always been...

No, they are not! Commercially available berries - like strawberries, raspberries and blueberries - are more similar to their wild counterparts than are other cultivated fruits, but they are NOT the same. Their sugar contents are higher, they are generally larger, their plant secondary compound contents are lower. Commercial blueberry orchards usually need to spray pesticides lest their crop be decimated by all manner of insect pests, whereas when you wander into a wild blueberry field no pesticides are needed because the berries and the plants more generally can successfully resist most pests because their secondary compound contents are much higher.

[jessica]

Berries are definitely not the same as try have ever been.  There is a huge variety of berries available in the wild that bear little to no resemblance to common berries found in stores today.  The differences can be something as basic as size, take he extremely minesculenwild strawberry vs Driscoll brand strawberries that can be up to 50 times larger, and mostly full if water and sugar and lacking nutrient density.  Same goes for cultivated blueberries vs wild which have much higher pectin content.  Berries like sumac which are tart and fuzzy, unlike anything we use today.  Rose hips and wild currants, again having high pectin and vitamin c and low sugar contents compared to what we consider berries today.  Driscoll brand, which is large commercial producer, works to breed raspberries and black berries that are able to be mechanically picked, harvesting them before proper ripeness has been attained certainly makes me think that they would not have as healthy and nutrient dense profile as berries left to fully sun ripen.  Wild plums, while not a Berrie, are another good example, they grow in abundance on he north american continent, are rarely harvested, are sweet and delicious and full of pectin and honestly rely on bears, coyotes and humans to spread because the pits are too large for smaller animals to pass in their feces.  They are extremely small compared to the poults and plums of today and even so were cultivated by natives.  The fact we have on demand water in agricultural centers changes the duration of seasons and allows he process of food cultivation to speed up dramatically, food is constantly changing.

Wild foods, especially greens hat become food for wild life.  Tend to have different and much more sturdy root structure and the variety alone helps the plants pull up different nutrients from the soil and increases the diversity of nutrients that wild life receives.  Also being able to grow in various types of soils that contain different mineral content is very important.

Eric covered this but Anti nutrient content in wild plants is also much different.  Those bitter, sour, pungent tastes have been bred out of leaves, stems and roots, which enables us to eat more plant materials.  Whether this is good or bad depends on your constitution by for some this can cause a lot of irritation.

Whether they are healthier or not depends on how the foods thrive in heir wild environment and then on how they fit into your lifestyle and diet.

[AnopsStudier]

so how the H E double hockey sticks do I eat wild foods.... that are actually the same wild foods they were before man changed them

[Projectile Vomit]

You gather them from wild places when they're in season.

[AnopsStudier]

So nobody believes that humans could have possibly created even better foods than exist in the wild?  such as the modern sweet potato and kale?

[Projectile Vomit]

I'm open to the idea that humans can create better foods than exist in the wild if we put our mind to it, but I've seen no evidence that we've done that so far. We've generally bred foods to tempt our palates or increase their shelf life and ease of shipping, and since we've done this by removing their nutrition and medicine and increasing their sugar content the result is, from a health perspective, inferior foods.

[Inger]

I love how you think Eric.

[jessica]

Sure we could have, but I think that time passed long ago and is speeding away at a forever increasing pace.  Humans may have existed in the wild when they were cocreating these cultivars and that is why things like plums didn't mind to become sweeter but remain hearty and able to grow without artificial irrigation or soil amendments, they appreciated our bodies and the bodies of those attracted to similar tastes (bears, coyotes) to distribute them so that they could flourish.  And this a natural relationship were all beings benefit to an extent that nature remains in balance.

there is always a balance in nature and if we want to produce the most sweet and juicy plums or berries possible, we do that at the risk of the plant becoming dependent on us providing extra water, select climate and soil nutrients for it to do so.  This means the plant is no longer able to simply grow without an excess of human assistance and will only be able to flourish were those needs are met, outside of the natural system.   humans generally do no establish anything close to the soil and nutrient biodiversity that the natural process can provide, which includes so many inputs and TIME.

I think it's best to always study nature and wild things because we forget that we once and still do have a role and place in he system and it's our knowledge or lack of that drives how we interact and appreciate nature.