Every human activity must be reconsidered

It is even necessary to take into account activities which do not appear to have a priori an impact on the environment, and also those which seem indispensable.

It is behind these two screens that one may tend to occult harmful activities, either that one does not yet know their actual ecological consequences, or that they are part of the norm to the point that we do not think of questioning them. Consideration should even be given to the possibility of interaction between clean and environmentally harmful activities.

Example: the contraceptive pill first appeared as a benefit to humanity. Who would have thought at the time of its democratisation, that the synthetic hormones avoiding lovulation in women would continue their lives in the waters of our rivers, polluting them to the point of degenerating the sexual characteristics of fish?

The artifact supposed to divert the vigilance of the female body by making it “believe” that a conception had already taken place, caused and still causes serious damage to marine fauna. To what is added damage to women, third generation pills increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease – little confirmation of the passage for the hypothesis of a co-evolutive correlation between environmental health and human health…

Another example is that much of humanity feeds on cereals in different forms. Cereal crops seriously damage the environment, in terms of soil erosion, water consumption, ecological imbalances, including fossil energy, pesticides and chemical fertilizers. While these last two points can be settled by organic cultivation (which is still to be demonstrated on a global scale), the others remain and threaten the planet anyway.

It seems impossible to question the consumption of cereals per se. We generally consider them to be the basis of our diet and are indispensable. However, the mode of feeding of which they are part must also be questioned. And that is where ecogenetics intervenes with a fundamental reasoning, neglected to date: man is the heir to the genome of primates.

However, the closest primates are suitable for a food made mainly of fruits and leaves. They hardly eat grass seeds. It is therefore very likely that the human organism is not initially suitable for cereal consumption.

How can we decide the question then? Experimental research is not easy when daily food is involved. Yet we can look to science, and look at the possible harmfulness of cereals to our organisms. There are many symptoms, such as gluten allergy, Crohn’s disease, the effect of gluten on the nervous system, the involvement of cereals in autism, or in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis.

These evidences confirm that human de-la-genetique are apparently not suitable for a granivorous diet. The ecological problem of their culture is therefore based on what could be a misbehaviour. It is then a question of wondering where the habit of eating cereals has come from, and why it is also very difficult to pass. Few people would not consume cereals, and even diets without cereals.

A serious issue of ecological and health consequences, to be included in the human ecogenetics programme…