Wild plants are so unpalatable that only people with no other choice, like hunter-gatherers, eat them.
Scientific Claim
Wild, unmodified plant species are generally unpalatable to humans due to high concentrations of defensive compounds, limiting their consumption without processing or selective breeding.
Original Statement
“All of these messes are so bad that nobody would eat them except the hunter gatherer tribes.”
Context Details
Domain
anthropology
Population
human
Subject
Wild, unmodified plant species
Action
are avoided by
Target
humans due to unpalatability
Intervention Details
Evidence from Studies
Supporting (3)
Tubers as fallback foods and their impact on Hadza hunter-gatherers.
The Hadza people eat wild tubers only when nothing better is available, because they’re not tasty or filling — which supports the idea that wild plants are usually hard to eat without cooking or changing them.
Wild berries have more natural chemicals that make them taste bad or bitter to keep animals from eating them; domesticated berries lost these chemicals over time, making them tastier for people.
Technical explanation
This paper directly compares wild and domesticated Ugni molinae, showing that wild plants produce higher concentrations of defensive volatile compounds that deter herbivores and attract predators, implying these compounds make wild plants less palatable to humans without processing—exactly matching the assertion’s claim about unmodified plants being unpalatable due to defensive compounds.
Wild corn ancestors have more bitter, toxic chemicals than modern corn to protect themselves; humans bred corn to remove those chemicals so it’s safe and tasty to eat.
Technical explanation
The study shows wild teosinte produces higher levels of defensive secondary metabolites than cultivated maize under stress, supporting the idea that wild plants retain strong chemical defenses that likely reduce palatability to humans, while domestication reduced these compounds—aligning with the assertion’s core claim.