Wild/Natural Fruit
vs. Modern/Cultivated Fruit

A Summary Comparison
(ISSUE VERSION 7)

Comments:

• The preceding is a generalization/summary, and is subject to the constraints thereof: many points would benefit from additional detailed explanation.

• Referring to wild fruit as natural is an indirect reference to an intellectually honest definition of the word natural: what exists or happens in nature, without the assistance of, or intervention by, humans.

• Although modern fruit is clearly the "least natural" of common plant foods, one should not fear or hate it. Simply understand that it is over-rated as a food, and eat less/eat in moderation.

• Some extremists claim that the issue of hybridization/sugar content of cultivated fruit is a moot point, since all plant foods have been hybridized and selected. A brief overview of the argument that fruits are the least natural of plant foods (i.e., compared to vegetables and grains) is as follows:
  • They are almost always grafted, i.e., do not grow on their own roots (vegetables and grains grow on their own roots).

  • Non-hybrid varieties of vegetables are available to the home gardener, while non-hybrid varieties of commonly consumed fruits are rare.

  • Fruits receive significantly more post-harvest processing than grains (e.g., most grains are never even refrigerated), and more than the common vegetables.

  It is appropriate here to note that there are no perfect foods. Each of the major types of plant foods have problems: grains have phytates and some contain gluten, sweet fruits have excess levels of sugar, sour fruits are acidic and may damage tooth enamel if consumed in excess, and some green vegetables are diuretic and promote dehydration, if consumed in excess. Individual tolerance should be a factor in making your food choices.

• As I have seen an elaborate argument purporting to prove that, in effect, fruits cannot contain excess sugar, let me list some of the symptoms of excess sugar consumption: excess urination, frequent thirst, mood swings such as exhilaration followed by depression (sugar highs/lows), frequent fatigue, intermittent blurred vision, pains in large joints, etc. Such symptoms are more common among fruitarians (and are usually dismissed as "detox") than the extremists care to admit. In particular, if the symptoms disappear when you stop eating sweet fruit, that suggests the symptoms might be related to fruit/sugar consumption. Note also that some of the preceding symptoms may be caused by more serious things than excess sugar in fruit; if you have such symptoms, and they persist, you should consult a qualified health professional.

• One response to this table by a fruitarian: "My seedling fruit tree produces wonderful fruit." (Here, wonderful means large, sweet fruit typical of vegetatively propagated clones.)

  Reply: Your claim that the fruit is wonderful is not in dispute. However, such statements are potentially misleading, because they suggest that modern fruit, in general, is closer to wild than it really is. So you planted a seed; it grew into a tree that gives high-quality fruit. Where did the seed come from? From a cultivated fruit, or a wild fruit? Almost certainly, the seed came from a cultivated fruit. What this means, then, is that your fruit tree is simply generation number N+1 of human-controlled varietal selection, and the seed it came from was generation number N. Thus your wonderful fruit tree is not very wild at all, but simply the next step in varietal selection. If the seed you used came from a wild tree, you might argue that your fruit is "nearly" wild, but that is apparently not the case here. (The above also shows how one must look very closely at fruitarian claims.)

• Comment seen elsewhere: "I was told that wild dates can be 70-80% sugar, and cultivated ones as low as 30% sugar. Doesn't this contradict the table's claim that wild fruits are often lower in sugar than cultivated?"

  Reply: The proposition that wild fruits are lower in sugar than cultivated is a generalization, and there may be some exceptions. (The references section (below) provides some examples where the wild precursors of popular modern sweet fruits are very sour and/or inedible.) Furthermore, the claim you report is vague and potentially dubious. Let's look at some facts regarding dates, and then evaluate the claim regarding wild dates.

  Types of dates: Dates are soft, semi-dry, or dry. This refers to the level of hydration (water content) at which the date is normally consumed. Obviously, dry dates have a generally lower moisture content than fresh, moist, soft dates. Julia Morton, in Fruits of Warm Climates (1987, p. 9) reports:

  Soft dates may be picked early while they are still light-colored. Semi-dry dates may be picked as soon as they are soft and then ripened artificially... Dry dates may be left on the palm until fully ripe... Extremely dry weather will cause dates to shrivel on the palm.

  Morton (p. 11) reports the summary composition of dates, per 100 gm edible portion:
  • Fresh dates--
    Water: 31.9-78.5 gm
    CHO: 36.6 gm (CHO = carbohydrate, nearly all of which is sugar).

  • Dried dates--
    Water: 7.0-26.1 gm
    CHO: 72.9-77.6 gm

  USDA Handbook 8-9 (1982), p. 97, lists dates as 73.51 gm CHO per 100 gm edible portion. Paul Popenoe, in The Date Palm (1973, Field Research Projects, orig. written 1924, p. 134) reports that cultivated dates are 70-90% sugar. Finally, an analysis of four commercial Iraqi date cultivars by Yousif et al. ("Chemical Composition of Four Iraqi Date Cultivars," Date Palm Journal, 1982, (2):285-294), showed sugar content in the range ~86-88%, dry weight. Adjusting the dry weights to reflect original "wet" weight gives a sugar percentage range from 79.40 to 81.49, or approximately 80%. So, while we can't rule out the possibility the claim of 30% sugar for a very few select commercial cultivars might be true (the claimant here, however, apparently put forth no proposed, specific, named cultivar), it appears that the 70-90% sugar figure quoted by Popenoe is more realistic for the typical, popular commercial varieties.

  Now, let us evaluate the claim regarding wild dates. If sugar content is actually 70-80% as reported, then by default, water content is 30% or less, and maybe even below 20%. Thus, the wild date is a "dry" variety and/or has dried on the tree. If you take the water away from a date, the sugar content per 100 gm will increase--for evidence of this, compare the nutritional analyses for dried grapes (raisins) vs. fresh grapes; dried apricots vs. fresh apricots; etc. A date with only 30% sugar is almost certainly a soft (moist) variety.

  Thus we observe that for a comparison of wild vs. cultivated dates to be meaningful in the context of this discussion, the dates must meet certain conditions:

  • Both dates to be compared must be of the same "type"--soft, semi-dry, or dry.

  • Both must have been picked at the same stage of ripeness. This is very critical, as dates left on the palm will dehydrate, which increases sugar content by weight.

  The claim as reported does not provide the above documentation. Hence the claim is vague, and it does not serve as a counterexample.

  Further, it appears that the claim is comparing a dry-type date, or dried wild date, against the lowest possible sugar content for a fresh, soft-type date. This suggests that those making the claim are presenting only data that supports their views (data selection bias), while in reality, the common commercial date varieties (as sold) are in the same sugar range that is claimed for the wild dates.

  This leads to the opinion that the claim may simply be a half-truth; partially true but misleading and unrealistic. In my opinion and experience, some so-called dietary "experts" promoting alternative diets deal predominantly in such half-truths.

• Comment received: "I was told by a 'fruitarian' expert that after generations of hybridization, a hybrid strain will die out or revert to a precursor form. I was also told that a seedless hybrid plant might begin producing seeds, and that this was a sign of genetic recession; the example of pineapple was cited. Is there a limit on hybridization?"

  Reply: The claims you cite are partially true, and partially false; this may be a sign of what is referred to as crank science, so you should evaluate such claims carefully. In order to answer your claim, some background information must be reviewed first, as follows.

  • There are indeed limits on hybridization. Generally, only closely related plants can be crossed to yield hybrids. One could not cross an apple and an orange, for example.

  • Genetic mutations can and do occur. The grapefruit variety "Star Ruby," for example, was produced by taking seeds from a deep red, seeded grapefruit that originated as a chance mutation--one branch on a grapefruit tree--and irradiating the seeds to develop a seedless strain. (Note: genetic mutations can be induced chemically; this is used with cloning to develop new strains.)

  • Many common fruits are "polyembryonic," e.g., citrus, mangos, and many others. This means that when planted, the plants that grow from such seeds are not necessarily the same as the parent. This genetic variation is used by humans in the process of varietal selection to develop large, low-fiber, high-sugar-content fruit.

  • There are strong evolutionary reasons for a polyembryonic plant to include, in its range of genetic variation, wild or precursor strains--precisely because those strains, unlike the cultivated strains, pass the test of survival of the fittest. That is, those strains can survive in the wild. (If we allow ourselves the egoism to claim that we understand the laws of nature, then survival of the fittest is clearly nature's "first law," and modern hybrid fruit does not satisfy that law! :-) )

  Given the above background, I would comment that hybrids generally do die out unless reproduced via vegetative propagation (grafting, budding, cloning)--they are biologically "weak" in evolutionary terms; that is a major point of the table. Also, hybrids can revert to wild or precursor forms via chance genetic combination/mutation or normal polyembryonic genetic variation (the latter if seeds from the hybrid are planted for varietal selection/evaluation). These facts, however, do not place specific limits on crossing--which is limited by the genetic compatibility of the material that you want to use for producing each new hybrid.

  Further, the genetic compatibility of a cross does not necessarily reflect the robustness or viability of a hybrid. A new hybrid may be very susceptible to insects, bacteria, viruses, hence not commercially viable. Such hybrids are culled out, as the goal of hybridization is to produce new commercial strains of fruits. So in real life, hybridization may lead to new varieties of fruits, but it can also lead to some dead-ends.

  There is no magic number of crosses beyond which hybridization is no longer feasible, and beyond which the plant must die out or revert to a precursor form (as your "expert" implies or suggests); instead, everything depends on the nature of the preceding crosses, and on luck. We cannot perfectly control or predict the outcome of crossing two plants; the result may be success or failure. Dead-ends and genetic recession are real-life aspects of this inexact process, but they don't preclude the use of hybridization to develop plants with marketable commercial traits, e.g., high sugar content and low fiber in fruits.

  The claim regarding pineapple seeds (that a seedless hybrid plant might begin producing seeds, constituting a sign of genetic recession) is humorous, and suggests that your fruit "expert" is ignorant regarding fruit. Seeds in pineapples are generally not a sign of genetic recession. Pineapples may produce seeds, but the cultivated pineapples don't because in commercial cultivation they are not pollinated. From Fruits of Warm Climates, by Julia Morton (1987), p. 18:

  If the [pineapple] flowers are pollinated, small, hard seeds may be present, but generally one finds only traces of undeveloped seeds. Since hummingbirds are the principal pollinators, these birds are prohibited in Hawaii to avoid the development of undesired seeds.

  I would note further that in some areas of the world, there are moths that provide pollination in a manner similar to the hummingbird; e.g., the hummingbird moth.

  Finally, in case your "expert" someday finds seeds in bananas, and claims it is an example of genetic recession, here is Julia Morton on banana seeds (Fruits of Warm Climates, 1987, p. 30):

  The common cultivated types are generally seedless with just minute vestiges of ovules visible as brown specks in the slightly hollow or faintly pithy center, especially when the fruit is overripe. Occasionally, cross-pollination by wild types [wild bananas] will result in a number of seeds in a normally seedless variety such as "Gros Michel," but never in the Cavendish type.

Note to readers. The section below is more than just a list of references; it includes quotes and supplementary information as well. I suggest/request that you review this entire section--you might find parts of it to be of interest/unusual.

An excellent reference that discusses the fruit production practices listed above, for many kinds of fruits, is: Fruits of Warm Climates, by the eminent ethnobotanist (the late) Julia F. Morton (1987, self-published, but widely available in university libraries in the U.S.). This book contains so much information that it could accurately be described as "encyclopedic." Highly recommended!

Reference list. The following list gives page numbers in Julia Morton's book (cited above) for many of the fruit production practices mentioned in the table; a few additional references are cited as specified below. Note that I have not bothered to cite references for commonly known information, e.g., the fact that fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, etc., are commonly applied to commercial crops, or for many of the remarks about wild fruit (most of which are common knowledge). The sections in boldface below correspond to the sections in the table above. Please note that the material below simply provides a few examples; many more examples can be found in the Morton book.

• Human-directed varietal selection: p. 18--pineapples cultivated by Native Americans since pre-Columbian times; p. 224--mangoes have been the subject of varietal selection for 4,000-6,000 years, and vegetative propagation (grafting, budding, etc.) for 400 years.

• Hybridization: pp. 32-33--bananas; pp. 94-96--avocados; pp. 161-164--lemons.

• Vegetative propagation (grafting and other techniques): pp. 70-71--sugar apple; pp. 136-137--oranges; pp. 229-230--mangoes; pp. 254-255--lychee.

• Plant breeding to extend climate range--see the articles:
  • "New and Noteworthy Citrus from Texas," J. Stewart Nagle, Fruit Gardener, 25(6), December 1993, pp. 13-15, 28-30.

  • "Three 'Hardy' Citrus Hybrids from Switzerland," Dr. Edwin Frey, Fruit Gardener, 25(2), April 1993, pp. 3-4, 28.

  Fruit Gardener is published by California Rare Fruit Growers, Inc., Fullerton, California.

• Artificial dwarfing: pp. 137--"Rootstocks capable of dwarfing oranges may become necessary..."; p. 232--mangoes dwarfed via double-grafting.

• Pollination: p. 66--cherimoyas hand-pollinated; p. 47--figs pollinated by Caprifig wasp.

• Controlled blooming and fruiting: p. 49--fig branches notched to increase yield; p. 139--oranges girdled; pp. 230-231--mangoes smudged, also chemical sprays used; p. 255--lychees girdled.

• Biennial fruits: p. 228--mango trees that are more than ten years old are biennial; p. 414--persimmons are biennial (alternate-bearing).

• p. 18--"The plant [pineapple] has become naturalized in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Trinidad but the fruits of wild plants are hardly edible."

• p. 134--The sweet orange is unknown in the wild state, but it is considered to be a form of the sour orange (which does grow in the wild).

• p. 224--"The original wild mangoes were small fruits with scant, fibrous flesh..."

  To compare a seedling race of mangoes with vegetatively propagated clones, see Mangoes: A Guide to mangoes in Florida, 1992, Fairchild Tropical Garden, Miami, Florida. Compare the color photos of the fibrous turpentine mango (a seedling race that can survive in the wild), with the color photos of less fibrous and bigger, commercial mango varieties: Haden, Kent, and Keitt.

• Picking green (immature) fruit: pp. 36-37--bananas; pp. 341-342--papayas.

• Abscission agents (chemicals to promote fruit drop): p. 138--oranges.

• Fumigation: pp. 38-39--bananas; p. 231--mangoes.

• Hot-water treatment: pp. 231--mangoes; p. 342--papayas.

• Cold treatment: p. 156--grapefruit. [Note: carambolas are now cold-treated as well.]

• Refrigeration: p. 68--cherimoya; p. 99--avocados (two weeks or more); p. 139--oranges (3-5 months storage life under refrigeration).

• Waxing, coloring, etc.: p. 139--oranges; p. 326--passionfruit; p. 360--tropical guavas.

See the citations in Fruit Characteristics/Quality section above.

Regarding ease of picking and availability of wild-harvested fruit in tropical countries:

NOTE: The following quotes discuss collecting specimens of Mangifera species--relatives of the mango, and other species as well.

• From the article, "On to Borneo: The Conclusion," a talk by fruit explorer Chris Rollins, transcribed by Bob Sarnack, and published in Tropical Fruit News, 28(7), July 1994, published by Rare Fruit Council International, Inc., Miami, Florida.
  • "Amazon tree grapes do beautifully there. Unfortunately, when you find fruits in the forest, it's pretty discouraging. There will be a 60-foot tree, and the first limb is 40 feet up."

  • "He brought back a unique forest mango which was sold by only one vendor on a street corner; named Mangifera quadrifera, "It was so pungent that it made my eyes water the whole time I was cleaning the seeds and it stained my hands blue for about three days...." [Side remark: not your usual mango!]

• From the article, "On to Borneo," a talk by fruit explorer Chris Rollins, transcribed by Bob Sarnack, and published in Tropical Fruit News, 28(6), June 1994, published by Rare Fruit Council International, Inc., Miami, Florida.
  • "...the markets are just filled with botanical specimens... As you go from village to village and province to province, little strange fruit pop up and disappear."

  • "They first brought Mangifera caesia, M. quadifera and M. pajang, collected wild from the rain forest and bought in the market... They were these big, strange, bizarre-shaped mangoes..."

--Tom Billings

Back to Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore
Back to Waking Up from the Fruitarian Dreamtime