Re: cruciferous veg

[Guest guest]

hee hee. Yes, we ARE a different civilization.

As an interesting side note though, there was an article

in a science mag (Discover, I think) about a scientist who tried

to eat a chimp diet. He'd been studying them, and their calorie

intake, and how very much time they needed to *chew* just

to get enough calories.

What he found was that many of the fruits and vegies they

ate not only tasted nasty, but were very difficult for a human

mouth (which is far less robust than a chimp's) to chew. Further,

some of them were semi-toxic to people.

I'd guess that somewhere long the 50,000+ years we've

been cooking and fermenting (OK, I know there are disagreements

on the time scale: put in the number you like the best) that we

are increasingly losing the ability to handle vegetable toxins.

Pretty much ALL vegetables have toxins of one sort or another,

and they are carriers of parasites. Chimps and monkeys and most

animals that eat vegetation tend to rotate their foods and eat

smaller amounts of the more toxic ones. Buttercups are pretty

toxic, but my goats still eat them in moderation. Some of the

more toxic vegies also contain stuff like anti-parasitic chemicals.

The real issue with vegies and most other foods in our

society though, is that we eat from only a small variety of them.

Whereas the old Navaho natives ate some 200 plant species,

the average American chooses from maybe 5 vegies. You can

figure that of those 200 old plant species, many had some level of

toxic something or another, esp. since they were mainly growing

wild. Many of our domestic plants have been largely de-toxed, which

is one reason they have a difficult time resisting pests. Potatoes,

for instance, used to have far higher levels of solanine, and cassava

had to be massively processed to be edible at all.

Also I'm not sure we even know what is toxic. Nitrates have been

considered carcinogens for most of my lifetime, but now it's

coming out that they may help the heart and arteries. Cabbage

has high levels of natural nitrates. Ham nitrates added. This is

interesting to me because my grandmother had this special

diet she invented and insisted be cooked for her, every day.

She never got high blood pressure, cancer, or arthritis, and

she died at 96. But her special diet included a piece of

ham and some green beans, 5 times a day (also candy

and some junk food, so it wasn't like she was low-carb!). Now

I'm wondering about the ham ...

Also while the cultures studied by Price may not have eaten

a lot of greens, they are eaten in large quantities by cultures

that don't have great amounts of thyroid problems and are

noted for long life. Notably the people of Crete, Korea,

Japan, and Okinawa. What those places DO have in common

is that they get a fair bit of their food from the sea (and eat

seaweed) so their thyroids should be pretty healthy. But cabbage

with every meal is standard in Korea, and you don't see a lot of

low-thyroid fat Koreans (til they move here, the 2nd generation).

Fermenting cabbage gets rid of some of the nitrates etc, but

hardly all of them, and raw cabbage is used in stir fries etc. too.

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Eva family <bobsallyeva@...> wrote:

> Brussel sprouts overwinter so they would have been one of the few green

> veg available all year round. In the UK they are still a part of a

> traditional Christmas dinner.

>

> I'd always assumed they were particularly valuable for this reason and

> that availability outweighed the taste which children traditionally hate

> when young but get to like ('s children are obviously from a

> different civilisation)

>

> I've retitled this because I find it interesting and the previous title

> made me feel queasy

>

> Sally

>

> Masterjohn wrote:

> > Sally,

> >

> >

> >> Is there any point in eating them? Crucifers are a major vegetable

> >> group. I'm sorry I haven't read the article yet but I will. So apologies

> >> if the answer is in the article

> >>

> >

> > If you mean crucifers in general, they are very nutritious and the

> > nutrients in them are more bioavailable than in some other green

> > vegetables (for example calcium), and there is some limited and

> > conflicting evidence that phytochemicals in them might prevent certain

> > cancers in people with certain genes.

> >

> > However, if you mean brussels sprouts, which are unique in their high

> > risk of nitrile toxicity, I'm not aware of any feeding studies or

> > actually even any epidemiological research suggesting that they have

> > any unique benefit that compensates for their unique toxicity.

> >

> > Chris

> >

> > ------------------------------------

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

,

> Also while the cultures studied by Price may not have eaten

> a lot of greens, they are eaten in large quantities by cultures

> that don't have great amounts of thyroid problems and are

> noted for long life. Notably the people of Crete, Korea,

> Japan, and Okinawa. What those places DO have in common

> is that they get a fair bit of their food from the sea (and eat

> seaweed) so their thyroids should be pretty healthy. But cabbage

> with every meal is standard in Korea, and you don't see a lot of

> low-thyroid fat Koreans (til they move here, the 2nd generation).

> Fermenting cabbage gets rid of some of the nitrates etc, but

> hardly all of them, and raw cabbage is used in stir fries etc. too.

I talked with a friend of the family who was one of the main

researchers sent by the WHO to investigate whether and why there was

not heart disease in Crete in the 1960s and was the lead author on the

first paper. He was talking about their diet, he said the main

staples were wheat bread, goat cheese, and something I forget the name

of made by boiling wheat stocks in whey and then hanging it in a sack

hung to the ceiling to dry. They ate fish a few times a week and red

meat once or a few times a month. I'm sure they ate green vegetables,

and maybe some crucifers, but they weren't a main compoent of the diet

at least as far as he described.

In India they eat lots of crucifers, and they have lots of goiter.

That's why if you read scientific papers coming out of India, in the

lit review of the introduction instead of talking about how it's been

hypothesized that cucifers prevent cancer, they talk about how even

though they've instituted widespread iodine supplementation in the

country there is a persistent incidence of goiter and it might be due

to the high crucifer consumption. The one study suggesting high

crucifers might be associated with thyroid cancer came out Japan. The

areas in Japan where they eat loads of seaweed, which are not

crucifers, are notorious for their high incidence of goiter, so I'm

not sure why you say there are not thyroid problems in these places.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I think this is very interesting:

The one study suggesting high crucifers might be associated with thyroid

cancer came out Japan. The areas in Japan where they eat loads of seaweed,

which are not crucifers, are notorious for their high incidence of goiter,

so I'm not sure why you say there are not thyroid problems in these places.

I would think that eating seaweed would be supplementing iodine and

counteract the effects of a high cruciferous diet.

>In India they eat lots of crucifers, and they have lots of goiter.

Don't they also eat a lot of millet?

Kathy

Re: cruciferous veg

,

> Also while the cultures studied by Price may not have eaten

> a lot of greens, they are eaten in large quantities by cultures

> that don't have great amounts of thyroid problems and are

> noted for long life. Notably the people of Crete, Korea,

> Japan, and Okinawa. What those places DO have in common

> is that they get a fair bit of their food from the sea (and eat

> seaweed) so their thyroids should be pretty healthy. But cabbage

> with every meal is standard in Korea, and you don't see a lot of

> low-thyroid fat Koreans (til they move here, the 2nd generation).

> Fermenting cabbage gets rid of some of the nitrates etc, but

> hardly all of them, and raw cabbage is used in stir fries etc. too.

I talked with a friend of the family who was one of the main

researchers sent by the WHO to investigate whether and why there was

not heart disease in Crete in the 1960s and was the lead author on the

first paper. He was talking about their diet, he said the main

staples were wheat bread, goat cheese, and something I forget the name

of made by boiling wheat stocks in whey and then hanging it in a sack

hung to the ceiling to dry. They ate fish a few times a week and red

meat once or a few times a month. I'm sure they ate green vegetables,

and maybe some crucifers, but they weren't a main compoent of the diet

at least as far as he described.

In India they eat lots of crucifers, and they have lots of goiter.

That's why if you read scientific papers coming out of India, in the

lit review of the introduction instead of talking about how it's been

hypothesized that cucifers prevent cancer, they talk about how even

though they've instituted widespread iodine supplementation in the

country there is a persistent incidence of goiter and it might be due

to the high crucifer consumption. The one study suggesting high

crucifers might be associated with thyroid cancer came out Japan. The

areas in Japan where they eat loads of seaweed, which are not

crucifers, are notorious for their high incidence of goiter, so I'm

not sure why you say there are not thyroid problems in these places.

Chris

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Kathy,

> I would think that eating seaweed would be supplementing iodine and

> counteract the effects of a high cruciferous diet.

Excess iodine causes goiter, so that might actually be the cause.

> >In India they eat lots of crucifers, and they have lots of goiter.

> Don't they also eat a lot of millet?

No, not that I know of. Millet has much worse goitrogens, although it

took really has to be a staple to cause goiter. I would think they

would have noted it in their lit review if they were also eating

millet. Regardless, the goitrogenic effect of crucifers has been

clearly and unambiguously demonstrated for many many decades.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris

Most people in India except some on the coastal areas do not eat fish

and do not eat seaweed, which are the main iodine supplements. I

don't know if the study covered this.

GB

> In India they eat lots of crucifers, and they have lots of goiter.

> That's why if you read scientific papers coming out of India, in the

> lit review of the introduction instead of talking about how it's

been

> hypothesized that cucifers prevent cancer, they talk about how even

> though they've instituted widespread iodine supplementation in the

> country there is a persistent incidence of goiter and it might be

due

> to the high crucifer consumption. The one study suggesting high

> crucifers might be associated with thyroid cancer came out Japan.

The

> areas in Japan where they eat loads of seaweed, which are not

> crucifers, are notorious for their high incidence of goiter, so I'm

> not sure why you say there are not thyroid problems in these places.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

,

I have read your links and points in this discussion with great

interest. You are so rational (on lots of topics) and your logic

always resonates with me. This thread has been going on in some other

of my groups with no real consensus. I, like you, think there are

other factors affecting goiter, it seems too simplistic to just look

at only crucifers IMHO.

I'm still eating my seaweed and fermenting or steaming most of our

crucifers. If my thyroid were overactive, I would sit down to raw

cabbage everyday b/c I love it...then again, something else would

probably go wrong, lol

Millie

[Guest guest]

<<If you like them, then

perhaps you could make the point that one can safely consume at least

one or two servings per day of crucifers if one gets enough iodine,

rather than trying to make the indefensible point that they are not

goitrogenic.>>

That makes sense to me too, Chris. Would you go so far as to make

that point yourself? I am not even concerned about the *liking*

factor, but rather the benefit aspects of eating them. IOW, I guess

my question becomes, IF I am consuming (and hopefully absorbing it,

isn't absorption a consideration as well?) then is it reasonable to

say that I CAN SAFELY consume fermented, cooked or even raw

crucifers in moderate amts. such as 1 2- servings per day? Would the

benefit outweigh the risk?

Also, do you personally eat Kelp and Dulse and in what

form(s)? or have alternate sources of Iodine? I have the Dulse and

Kelp sprinkles and I also eat kelp in my fermented veggie blend

(carrots, cabbage, kale and kelp). Your thoughts on this?

Thanks,

Millie

[Guest guest]

I think what is saying is something my brother is doing right

now. He had kidney stones a few years ago. There is some evidence

that foods with oxalates in them contribute to kidney stones. Now he

basically thinks all foods such as rhubarb, spinach, beans, nuts,

strawberries, berries, soy, etc. are basically " evil " . I think there

is a happy medium. Instead he eats foods like French Fries instead

which are not exactly the best food for the kidneys and definitely

not for the heart.

To add fuel to the fire, there are lots of yoga exercises that are

designed to help balance and strengthen the thyroid. These exercises

can definitely influence the availability of iodine to the thyroid.

GB

> >

> > Chris

>

> I think what I'm reacting to is that when someone says something

like

> " crucifers are goitrogenic " it causes a whole lot of people to just

> stop eating crucifers. They interpret such statements as " crucifers

> are evil " (and indeed, the tendency in our society is to judge

> everything as " good " or " evil " ).

>

> The fact is, every food humans eat does something that requires

> balance by something else. Meat requires calcium, as do oxalates.

> Solanine probably requires clay. Lectins are tolerated better when

> denatured by certain polysaccharides. Pretty much all foods are to

> some degree toxic, either when not combined with another food or

> mineral, or when taken in too large an amount or too often.

>

> Crucifers though, are mainly associated with better health in

humans.

> The cultures that eat them tend to be healthier than those that

don't,

> esp. when the fermented varieties are eaten. Do they block iodine? I

> wouldn't doubt it. But humans tend to be low on iodine for the most

> part, plus in our culture they tend to have autoimmune thyroiditis,

so

> blaming the crucifers is pretty simplistic.

>

> Basically the argument reminds me of the vegetarian argument against

> meat, saying that meat depletes your calcium stores. In fact, that's

> exactly what it does. If you eat too much meat, and don't eat enough

> calcium, your bones get weak. But to jump from that to " you

shouldn't

> eat so much meat " is a specious argument. Fact is, carnivores tend

to

> eat bones, and the two go together. If you eat bone minerals AND

lots

> of meat, you will have stronger bones than if you were a vegetarian.

>

> So ... if you eat crucifers AND you get plenty of iodine (which

humans

> seem to have a high need of), then IMO you'll be healthier ... like

> the Japanese who live quite a bit longer than us and also have lower

> rates of breast cancer, in spite of eating a high starch diet and

> otherwise having some less than ideal habits.

>

> I can't answer your arguments one by one right now, since I'm away

and

> time is very limited.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Everyone,

>

> I think what I'm reacting to is that when someone says something like

> " crucifers are goitrogenic " it causes a whole lot of people to just

> stop eating crucifers. They interpret such statements as " crucifers

> are evil " (and indeed, the tendency in our society is to judge

> everything as " good " or " evil " ).

>

Oh gosh, maybe I'm late. But first things first. Is this a

Masterjohnism this term crucifer? I mean, the genus is Brassica in most

cases, and botanically speaking, Brassica is the common term. Crucifer

does, of course, have its religious connotations; maybe that term has

the desired effect.

But yes, we are too simplistic in our false dichotomy world. There are

just too many variables at play in too many circumstances of human

health, especially when considering not only diet, but exercise and

other lifestyle factors as well.

> The fact is, every food humans eat does something that requires

> balance by something else. Meat requires calcium, as do oxalates.

> Solanine probably requires clay. Lectins are tolerated better when

> denatured by certain polysaccharides. Pretty much all foods are to

> some degree toxic, either when not combined with another food or

> mineral, or when taken in too large an amount or too often.

Yes yes. Don't worry too much. Have your broccoli beef with some

anchovy snack and some seaweed miso soup. Or eat kimchi and shrimp (to

be more on topic). Get some exercise, hang upside down in salamba

sarvangasana and otherwise smell the roses. Most people don't eat

Brassicas to excess. Those who have issues, should cut down. It's like

anything else. Just because I don't eat bread as I have issues with

gluten does not mean everyone does. We all find what works for us

individually.

Deanna

http://www.rawpaleo.com

PS. My spell checker wants to change " crucifer " to " Lucifer " . Talk

about evil connotations! Why not call brassicas brassicas???

[Guest guest]

I think it is because we are addressing the highly cruciferous nature of certain

brassicas.

I also agree with your 'all things in proper balance' notion, which of course,

as you suggest, is different for each of us. And since Lucifer or what that

represents in people of that thought persuasion appears to be an aspect that

humans must evolve through or integrate into the wholeness of their being, then

even those nasty little brussel sprouts must have their respective place in the

overall scheme of things.

A very simplistic and rough observation appears to reveal that the folks I know

who particularly like brussel sprouts also like their sweets and just or unjust

desserts.

There is a very high profile family in our nation who particularly dislike their

brassicas. I wonder what that could mean, particularly since the grandfather was

a high level business partner of the Nazis leading up to, during and after WW2.

What all this has to do with microbial nutrition I'm not sure. Perhaps, that we

are all a rather strange brew of symbiotic interrelation, and that somehow it is

in our nature for the broad spectrum of things to converge, and eventually,

hopefully, work things out and thrive, as in happily everafter or some such

possible eventuality.

~Tonio

Re: cruciferous veg

Hi Everyone,

>

> I think what I'm reacting to is that when someone says something like

> " crucifers are goitrogenic " it causes a whole lot of people to just

> stop eating crucifers. They interpret such statements as " crucifers

> are evil " (and indeed, the tendency in our society is to judge

> everything as " good " or " evil " ).

>

Oh gosh, maybe I'm late. But first things first. Is this a

Masterjohnism this term crucifer? I mean, the genus is Brassica in most

cases, and botanically speaking, Brassica is the common term. Crucifer

does, of course, have its religious connotations; maybe that term has

the desired effect.

But yes, we are too simplistic in our false dichotomy world. There are

just too many variables at play in too many circumstances of human

health, especially when considering not only diet, but exercise and

other lifestyle factors as well.

> The fact is, every food humans eat does something that requires

> balance by something else. Meat requires calcium, as do oxalates.

> Solanine probably requires clay. Lectins are tolerated better when

> denatured by certain polysaccharides. Pretty much all foods are to

> some degree toxic, either when not combined with another food or

> mineral, or when taken in too large an amount or too often.

Yes yes. Don't worry too much. Have your broccoli beef with some

anchovy snack and some seaweed miso soup. Or eat kimchi and shrimp (to

be more on topic). Get some exercise, hang upside down in salamba

sarvangasana and otherwise smell the roses. Most people don't eat

Brassicas to excess. Those who have issues, should cut down. It's like

anything else. Just because I don't eat bread as I have issues with

gluten does not mean everyone does. We all find what works for us

individually.

Deanna

http://www.rawpaleo.com

PS. My spell checker wants to change " crucifer " to " Lucifer " . Talk

about evil connotations! Why not call brassicas brassicas???

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

> Oh gosh, maybe I'm late. But first things first. Is this a

> Masterjohnism this term crucifer? I mean, the genus is Brassica in most

> cases, and botanically speaking, Brassica is the common term. Crucifer

> does, of course, have its religious connotations; maybe that term has

> the desired effect.

LOL. Whatever. Brassica was used to replace crucifer to secularize

the taxonomy. Crucifer is very common, in fact, I would say, still

much more common, mostly as the adjective form, " cruciferous. "

> PS. My spell checker wants to change " crucifer " to " Lucifer " . Talk

> about evil connotations! Why not call brassicas brassicas???

Because their leaves are cross-shaped and they've been called that for

centuries.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 5/5/08, tonio epstein <tonio@...> wrote:

> I think it is because we are addressing the highly cruciferous nature of

> certain brassicas.

Well, first of all, brassicas are a genus within the family

Brassicacae, which was named Cruciferae by Linnaeus and remained as

such for hundreds of years until very recently, so the terms aren't

interchangeable. I'm not sure what you mean by the " cruciferous

nature, " but they were so named because of the shape of their leaves.

> I also agree with your 'all things in proper balance' notion, which of

> course, as you suggest, is different for each of us. And since Lucifer or

> what that represents in people of that thought persuasion appears to be an

> aspect that humans must evolve through or integrate into the wholeness of

> their being, then even those nasty little brussel sprouts must have their

> respective place in the overall scheme of things.

Brussels sprouts are toxic and their place is to nauseate children and

give lab animals cyanide toxicity, IMO. Speaking of that " thought

persuasion, " I'm quite sure it says in the Bible that the eleventh

commandment is " thou shalt not eat brussels sprouts, " because I've

seen the movie version a thousand times.

> A very simplistic and rough observation appears to reveal that the folks I

> know who particularly like brussel sprouts also like their sweets and just

> or unjust desserts.

The only people I know who like brussels sprouts are from the internet

and usually live somewhere in Europe. Especially the UK.

> There is a very high profile family in our nation who particularly dislike

> their brassicas. I wonder what that could mean, particularly since the

> grandfather was a high level business partner of the Nazis leading up to,

> during and after WW2.

Well, maybe he was involved in the use of mustard gas, which is

derived from crucifers.

> What all this has to do with microbial nutrition I'm not sure. Perhaps, that

> we are all a rather strange brew of symbiotic interrelation, and that

> somehow it is in our nature for the broad spectrum of things to converge,

> and eventually, hopefully, work things out and thrive, as in happily

> everafter or some such possible eventuality.

Hopefully we won't evolve into pathogens and cause an epidemic.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Re: cruciferous veg

> The only people I know who like brussels sprouts are from the internet

> and usually live somewhere in Europe. Especially the UK.

My wife loves brussels sprouts and she is a US native. Please be real.

[Guest guest]

Masterjohn wrote:

>[...]

>> A very simplistic and rough observation appears to reveal that the folks I

>> know who particularly like brussel sprouts also like their sweets and just

>> or unjust desserts.

A sweeping statement - most that I know of who like their sweets can't

handle Brussels sprouts, nor broccoli. Food in packets is their main

fare :/

>The only people I know who like brussels sprouts are from the internet

>and usually live somewhere in Europe. Especially the UK.

add Australia to that...

>[...] mustard gas, which is derived from crucifers.

Um, nice try, but no. It's just a nickname because of the pungent smell

and the typically brownish-yellow colour of the sulphurous gases

collectively known as mustard gas. This in contrast to the greenish

chlorine gas, a.k.a. .

--

Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia

" Tuesday is Soylent Green day "

[Guest guest]

LOL, ok, maybe we can all at least agree that brussel sprouts were specifically

designed and created to nauseate children. The rest hardly matters anymore, as

adults have long since lost any sense.

~Tonio

Soylent green day??? Yum. Now there's some prophetic apocalyptic historic

futuristic perspective worth celebrating. And just in time to beat the rush.

Masterjohn wrote:

>[...]

>> A very simplistic and rough observation appears to reveal that the folks I

>> know who particularly like brussel sprouts also like their sweets and just

>> or unjust desserts.

A sweeping statement - most that I know of who like their sweets can't

handle Brussels sprouts, nor broccoli. Food in packets is their main

fare :/

>The only people I know who like brussels sprouts are from the internet

>and usually live somewhere in Europe. Especially the UK.

add Australia to that...

>[...] mustard gas, which is derived from crucifers.

Um, nice try, but no. It's just a nickname because of the pungent smell

and the typically brownish-yellow colour of the sulphurous gases

collectively known as mustard gas. This in contrast to the greenish

chlorine gas, a.k.a. .

--

Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia

" Tuesday is Soylent Green day "

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1412 - Release Date: 5/2/2008 4:34

PM

[Guest guest]

Chris

No argument from me.

GB

>

> Guru,

>

> > I think what is saying is something my brother is doing

right

> > now. He had kidney stones a few years ago. There is some

evidence

> > that foods with oxalates in them contribute to kidney stones.

Now he

> > basically thinks all foods such as rhubarb, spinach, beans, nuts,

> > strawberries, berries, soy, etc. are basically " evil " . I think

there

> > is a happy medium. Instead he eats foods like French Fries

instead

> > which are not exactly the best food for the kidneys and

definitely

> > not for the heart.

>

> What he should be doing, first and foremost, is supplementing with

> vitamin K2, such as the supplements made by Thorne or Jarrow (two

> different types, but both good options). Most people are

deficient in

> K2, and K2 activates proteins in the kidney whose specific purpose

is

> to prevent the deposition of calcium salts such as calcium oxalate.

> The proteins become defective when there is inadequate K2, and when

> these proteins are isolated from people with kidney stones, they

are

> far less effective at preventing calcium oxalate deposition than

> proteins isolated from people without kidney stones.

>

> Second to that, he should consider increasing his calcium and

> magnesium intake and/or supplementing. Calcium binds dietary

oxalate

> and prevents its absorption, and magnesium is supposed to have a

> solubilizing effect on calcium. Calcium intakes are inversely

related

> to kidney stone risk, so the higher the intake the lower the risk.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

,

> > The only people I know who like brussels sprouts are from the internet

> > and usually live somewhere in Europe. Especially the UK.

>

> My wife loves brussels sprouts and she is a US native. Please be real.

You've confirmed everything I said -- I only know you through the internet.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> >The only people I know who like brussels sprouts are from the internet

> >and usually live somewhere in Europe. Especially the UK.

>

> add Australia to that...

Same thing.

> >[...] mustard gas, which is derived from crucifers.

>

> Um, nice try, but no. It's just a nickname because of the pungent smell

> and the typically brownish-yellow colour of the sulphurous gases

> collectively known as mustard gas. This in contrast to the greenish

> chlorine gas, a.k.a. .

I thought I read that somewhere, but maybe I was making it up in my

head, as I can't find it now, so I'll concede the point. Thanks for

correcting me :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Brassica was used to replace crucifer to secularize

> the taxonomy. Crucifer is very common, in fact, I would say, still

> much more common, mostly as the adjective form, " cruciferous. "

>

Well good. Religion really has nothing to do with vegetables in the

first place. And with so many religions in the world, why favor only

one? But seriously, I would imagine that the changes in taxonomy since

Linnaeus probably have more to do with a better understanding of the

relationships between species through evolution (which was after his

time) than some attempt at " secularizing " taxonomy. Linnaeus was

certainly wrong in many cases, though his binomial nomenclature in

itself was a great offering to science.

Yes, cruciferous vegetables are the common usage for the adjective. But

crucifer is most commonly the bearer of a cross in an ecclesiastical

procession, which has nothing to do with vegetables. Brassica is at

least as common, and the preferred form in modern times - hence the

genus name of these plants is Brassica and not Crucifera.

>

> Because their leaves are cross-shaped and they've been called that for

> centuries.

The earth was believed flat for centuries too. Should we continue to

hold to archaic notions because they have been spewed for a long enough

time? The cruciferous usage is still common enough, but it is

outdated. They are still good vegetables to eat - my favorite is

arugula (rocket), both flowers and leaves are so spicy nummy good. Hey

everyone: What is your favorite Brassica?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Tonio,

>

> There is a very high profile family in our nation who particularly

dislike their brassicas. I wonder what that could mean, particularly

since the grandfather was a high level business partner of the Nazis

leading up to, during and after WW2.

>

Well, perhaps they were out of sorts and didn't get enough vitamins

and minerals cuz they wouldn't eat their broccoli. There's a lesson

in here somewhere, like maybe: If you don't want to be like W, eat

your brassicas!

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

> Well good. Religion really has nothing to do with vegetables in the

> first place. And with so many religions in the world, why favor only

> one?

LOL. I don't know -- the leaves are cross-shaped. It's not really

favoring a religion so much as acknowledging a shape.

> But seriously, I would imagine that the changes in taxonomy since

> Linnaeus probably have more to do with a better understanding of the

> relationships between species through evolution (which was after his

> time) than some attempt at " secularizing " taxonomy.

Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. How would such a change reflect

evolutionary relationships?

> Linnaeus was

> certainly wrong in many cases, though his binomial nomenclature in

> itself was a great offering to science.

Wrong about what?

> Yes, cruciferous vegetables are the common usage for the adjective. But

> crucifer is most commonly the bearer of a cross in an ecclesiastical

> procession, which has nothing to do with vegetables.

It's the noun of cruciferous. The cruciferae were so named because

the bore the cross of their four leaves -- thus, they were bearers of

a cross.

> Brassica is at

> least as common, and the preferred form in modern times - hence the

> genus name of these plants is Brassica and not Crucifera.

You make two statements you need to reconcile: brassica is at least as

common, and is the preferred form. If it is preferred, it is more

common. Either it is at least as common, and might be preferred, or

it is known to be preferred, and is therefore known to be more common.

In any case, " brassica " refers to a genus within the family

Brassicacea/Cruciferae, so the two are not interchangeable. All

brassicas are crucifers but not all crucfers are brassicas. I don't

think there really is a common noun form for the family Brassicacea,

so I think crucifer is still the dominant noun form for the family. I

think it works quite well to call all the plants in the family

crucifers or cruciferous vegetables and call the plants in the

specific genus brassicas.

> > Because their leaves are cross-shaped and they've been called that for

> > centuries.

> The earth was believed flat for centuries too.

Although this seems completely tangential, do you have a reference for

this? I recently read it asserted that this is a myth.

> Should we continue to

> hold to archaic notions because they have been spewed for a long enough

> time?

I don't know what you're talking about. Are you disputing the fact

that the leaves are cross-shaped? It seems difficult to believe that

a taxonomist would be mistaken about something so obviously either

true or false.

> The cruciferous usage is still common enough, but it is

> outdated. They are still good vegetables to eat - my favorite is

> arugula (rocket), both flowers and leaves are so spicy nummy good. Hey

> everyone: What is your favorite Brassica?

There is nothing that outdates it. You have a problem with it because

you perceive it as religious. Thus, you are driven to use incorrect

taxonomy, like calling arugula a brassica, when it belongs to the

genus eruca, not brassica, so technically it is a crucifer but not a

brassica.

Chris

[Guest guest]

You originally said:

> Brassica was used to replace crucifer to secularize

> > the taxonomy. Crucifer is very common, in fact, I would say, still

> > much more common, mostly as the adjective form, " cruciferous. "

> >

>

>> Well good. Religion really has nothing to do with vegetables in the

>> first place. And with so many religions in the world, why favor only

>> one?

>>

>

> LOL. I don't know -- the leaves are cross-shaped. It's not really

> favoring a religion so much as acknowledging a shape.

So if " Brassica was used to replace crucifer to secularize the

taxonomy, " which religion was being downplayed?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

I am from northwest Indiana and I love brussle sprouts. I only buy them in

season though.

Cheri

Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> >The only people I know who like brussels sprouts are from the internet

> >and usually live somewhere in Europe. Especially the UK.

>

> add Australia to that...

Same thing.

Chris

Decide to stop living the life that does not reflect your Power and

Strength...

Choose to stop living the life that does not express your Truth!

This is the Core of Courage!

It is the Gateway to Empowerment!

---------------------------------

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

> You originally said:

> > Brassica was used to replace crucifer to secularize

> > > the taxonomy. Crucifer is very common, in fact, I would say, still

> > > much more common, mostly as the adjective form, " cruciferous. "

Right, I corrected that a minute later in my next post to someone else

with the nuance that it was the family name Brassicacea that replaced

the family name Cruciferae, not the genus Brassica.

> >> Well good. Religion really has nothing to do with vegetables in the

> >> first place. And with so many religions in the world, why favor only

> >> one?

> > LOL. I don't know -- the leaves are cross-shaped. It's not really

> > favoring a religion so much as acknowledging a shape.

> So if " Brassica was used to replace crucifer to secularize the

> taxonomy, " which religion was being downplayed?

I think the point is that there are some ridiculous people in the

world of taxonomy who have something stuck up their rear end and are

on a mission to cleanse anything that is even tangentially related to

any religion. So, the cross is seen as a reference to Christianity

(although it also had its place in ancient Judaism, as well as

Druidism and various other pagan religions; nevertheless in our age it

is predominantly associated with Christianity). But to say that

naming something cross-shaped after its shape actually *favors* a

religion is rather silly. One could say that it tangentially alludes

to a religion, but it certainly doesn't " favor " the religion in any

remotely sensible use of the word.

Also, the word " crucifer " is not necessarily a direct reference to

someone carrying a cross in a procession. That might be another use

of the word, but " -fer " is a widely used root word originally derived

from Greek although in this case through Latin meaning to bear. So,

for example, " " means " bearer of Christ. " Or " tocopherol "

means " alcohol (-ol) required for bearing (-pher-) children (toco-). "

These roots are used all over the place including in science, so while

it clearly means bearer of a cross, it is kind of a stretch to suggest

it is a direct reference to the person carrying the cross in a

religious procession.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> Linnaeus was

>> certainly wrong in many cases, though his binomial nomenclature in

>> itself was a great offering to science.

>>

>

> Wrong about what?

>

Well, first off, he was a creationist who firmly believed that all

species were created separately in the beginning. So he was wrong about

that. He also classified orangutans under the genus Homo, he placed

fungi in the plant kingdom (iirc), and so on.

> It's the noun of cruciferous. The cruciferae were so named because

> the bore the cross of their four leaves -- thus, they were bearers of

> a cross.

>

No shit in terms of the grammar. But I thought it was the flowers that

made the cross, not the leaves. Arugula flowers look like an " x " ,

cross, " t " or whathaveyou.

> There is nothing that outdates it. You have a problem with it because

> you perceive it as religious. Thus, you are driven to use incorrect

> taxonomy, like calling arugula a brassica, when it belongs to the

> genus eruca, not brassica, so technically it is a crucifer but not a

> brassica.

No I don't have a problem with it. I was joking about the word

crucifer, which you use ad nauseum when a variety might be spicier - you

know, like calling these horrid toxic plants, that some wackos actual

ferment and then eat <gasp>, by their genus name! You are mainly

referring to broccoli, cabbage and the dreaded brussels sprouts, after all.

And so what if I spelled the family name the same as the genus name? It

appears that you take things far too seriously and are nit picking as if

your very ego depended on it. Arugula is in the family, call the family

what you will, Brassicaceae or Cruciferae; so will I. I mean hell, the

former (as in first listed in the previous sentence) name for the family

DOES come from the genus. But fine, if spelling is so important, then

why don't you use the proper name Cruciferae?

Deanna