Edibility Of Foods

4. Edibility Of Foods

4.1 Negative Considerations

Foods that contain antivital or harmful factors will be rated according to our body’s ability to deal with these factors. These factors merit minus ratings on the charts. Obviously, we eat for nutriment and not for poisons. The degree of toxicity is thus rated.

4.2 Aesthetic Considerations

Any food must be relished by the unperverted palate in its natural, raw or living state just as Nature delivers it to us. In Nature we were developed on and thus adapted to a totally living food diet. It is imperative that we observe our adaptations. While we will consider some foods in a cooked state as notated on the listings, the rating reflects the lower nutritive values of cooked foods accordingly.

Delectability of food is also a good guide to its value in human nutrition. We must be able to eat our fill of any single food—to make a meal of the item in and of itself for its own sake—if it is to be considered a proper food in our dietary. Palatability or deliciousness is a very valid guide to a food’s fitness. Foods should be a gustatory delight. We call this quality “taste appeal.”

4.3 Physiological Considerations

In considering the physiological aspects of food digestion, we must consider two factors: the ease and efficiency of digestion. Ease of digestion refers to the ease with which the body handles a given food without pathogenic factors setting in. Efficiency of digestion means how well the body system obtains its needs from a given food relative to the energy it must expend to obtain its needs. For example, the body easily processes vegetables but does not efficiently make use of their nutritive content.

4.4 Nutritional Factors

The nutrient complement of the food is rated according to how well it furnishes our needs, not according only to its amount of nutrients. The nutrient complement we have considered includes all nutrients except fuel values. The nutrients considered, which are proteins, vitamins, mineral salts and essential fatty acids, are given four categories.

For the purposes of rating, each category is given equal value. I am the first to admit this is an arbitrary system. This system is not reflective of the respective values of the nutrients in any absolute sense.

1. Protein Adequacy. Protein sufficiency is not determined only by what the food contains. Rather it is determined by the ability of the body to digest and make use of the food’s protein complement relative to our needs.
2. Vitamin adequacy of a given food is determined by our body’s ability to assimilate its needs from that food.
3. Mineral salts are another vital component of foods. We have rated foods for this component based upon each food’s content of usable mineral salts. Minerals in a native or inorganic form, rather than being a nutrient, are antivital or toxic to the body. Most stems, stalks and leaves hold some amount of unprocessed mineralized water. These waters are usually heavy in inorganic calcium, phosphates, potassium, magnesium, and other minerals. Without plant elaboration we cannot use these minerals. Instead, they contribute heavily to atherosclerosis and ossification.
4. Essential fatty acids are necessary in the nutrient complement of our diet but need not be in every food. Nevertheless we rate each food for its content of these acids. The three most important essential fatty acids are linoleic, linolenic and arachidonic.
5. Fuel value is perhaps the single most important consideration of a wholesome food. This is because about 95% of our food intake is utilized for “stoking our furnaces” with the fuel required for the body’s energy. Thus, in this criterion, we are concerned with the net gain of energy from a given food in the quantities we can and would eat of it in a mono meal.