Letter on: Romanovsky AA. Protecting western redcedar from deer browsing—with a passing
reference to TRP channels. Temperature 2015; 2:142–9; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/23328940.2015.1047078
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
This is a reply to the puzzle published in your recent editorial.
1
To begin we note that spices are defined as an aromatic or pungent substance used
to season food or as a condiment, presumably to potentiate its flavor.
2,3
Among the most commonly used spices are onion, black and white pepper, chili pepper,
garlic and ginger.
4
To initially address the question of why people in hot climates (compared to cooler
climates) prefer their foods spicy (more zestful) we first will summarize the seminal
study of Billing and Sherman.
5
They studied the spices used in recipes from traditional cookbooks of meat-based cuisines
in 36 countries. They also compiled information on the temperature and precipitation
in each country, the ranges of spice plants, and the antibacterial properties of each
spice. They eliminated the following hypotheses: that spices provide macronutrients,
disguise the taste and smell of spoiled foods, increase perspiration and thus evaporative
cooling, or is not at all beneficial. They also showed that people use spices that
are not grown locally. They concluded, that the reason more spices are used in hot
climates is because of their antibacterial properties that rid foods of pathogens
and thereby contribute to people's health, longevity and reproductive success.
Since bacterial growth is temperature dependent, the antimicrobial hypothesis is attractive
5
; at least in olden times. However, this hypothesis does not explain why this hot–cold
eating pattern still persists in the age of refrigeration. Nor did it take into consideration
that animal products are more liable to bacterial growth than plant products and cultures
in hotter climates consume more plant products (rice, beans and corn) than persons
in more northern climates that consume more animal products (meat and cheese). Here
we propose that, even in this age of globalization, cultural considerations and the
fact (for good reasons) that humans are hesitant to try new foods explain why persons
that live in hotter climates spice their foods (with chili, ginger, etc.) to a greater
extent than persons that live in cooler climates. For example, contrast the rather
comparatively bland cuisines of England and Germany with the zestful and colorful
cuisines of Mexico or southern India.
The persistence of this eating pattern can be best understood by noting that humans
are omnivores also known as food “generalists.” (An example of a food “specialist”
is a panda that eats only bamboo leaves). In order to obtain sufficient nutrients
our digestive systems permit us consume and digest a wide variety of foods. However,
not all foods are safe to eat, thus we need to solve 2 problems, also known as the
“paradox of the omnivore”.
6
First, some foods might contain natural poisons (or get spoiled) and second, we need
to keep constantly experimenting with novel foods to avoid food becoming boring. Evolution
has helped address these problems by programming us to accept sweet tasting foods
and avoid bitter tasting foods, many of the latter which may contain alkaloids (e.g.,
atropine, strychnine).
3
However, unlike most animals, we can even learn to eat foods that your body informs
you are harmful. The best example is capsaicin, the pungent compound in chili pepper
that produces pain. Indeed, your body responds to putting it in your mouth by increasing
salivary secretions to dilute it and get rid of it.
7
Nevertheless, we learn to not only overcome our instinct to reject it, we learn to
like and accept it.
4,6
Our interaction with food is intimate since it involves the incorporation of external
objects into the body. As noted by Elisabeth and Paul Rozin, “such an interaction
must be both extremely satisfying and extremely threatening.” So for any generalist
animal species, like humans, trying new foods is a serious problem. Unlike animals
who display a strong neophobic response to novel foods, that is until learning it
is safe, human beings use a more sophisticated mechanism to solve the omnivore paradox
-called culture. Our culinary culture determines not only what foods are allowed,
but also how to prepare and season them. This knowledge is socially transmitted generationally
and is resistant to change, although it maintains a gradual incorporation of novel
food items, without losing the distinctive flavor that makes each culinary cuisine
unique. It follows that the introduction of new foods into a culture must be done
slowly. For example, the introduction of spicy foods into a culture not used to them
is done with significantly lower amounts of spices than is found in the original culture.
4
This we have all experienced in going to Chinese or Mexican restaurants where the
food isn't as spicy as it is in the native culture.
Finally, to avoid food from becoming boring humans use combinations of ingredients,
most frequently spices. This gives a characteristic flavor to each culinary cuisine
(for example the use of hot peppers “salsa” in Mexican cuisine, or garlic-olive oil
combination in the Italian cuisine to name a few). This familiar flavor signature
could prevent foods from becoming boring by permitting people to try foods but that
are otherwise novel to their culinary culture.
6
Since this flavor is certified by the culture, it is considered familiar enough and
safe to eat.
6
In summary, we suggest that the reason why people living in hot climates like their
food spicy, is not presently for its historical antimicrobial properties, but because
it is basically rooted in their culture.