[Xephyrous]

Spot on critique. Two additions:

What about pure carnivores? Surely their food doesn't want to be food, but carnivores do just fine.

While I agree that the amount of corn we eat is absurd, to call it inedible is ludicrous. Raw corn on the cob is plenty edible, and sweet corn is quite tasty, although that's admittedly not what's grown on large corn plantations.

[Theodores]

True, in the classic 'cheetah chasing wildebeest' scenario the the wildebeest is not 'chemically defended' and the cat enjoys his dinner. However, we aren't pure carnivores are we? Our taste buds are different as is our gut flora, our saliva has enzymes in it plus we have a lengthy intestine. Sure we can eat wildebeest - raw - but we would have to sit around all day - cat style - to have it digest. Due to the intestine length our 'wildebeest on toast' would start to rot inside us whereas the cat would not have that problem. Hence we cook animals and use the word 'meat'.

98% of the corn grown in the USA is field corn, grown for its starch content. You cannot eat this stuff and enjoy doing so. You need something tantamount to an oil refinery to make it edible or a distillery to make it drinkable.

The corn you are thinking of - the nice sweetcorn in the supermarket - is from a different variety, it is grown for the sugar content, not the starch content.

Essentially field corn is a chemical feedstock, it can be used for many, many things - which is great. However, look at those ingredient labels in the U.S.A. and, after a while, question whether you are eating a great deal of stuff that is not corn-derived. HFCS is obvious, 'xanthan gum' is not so obvious.

You will enjoy this article on it:

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2008/11/081111-fas...

[coryfklein]

Good points and rebuttals, but I had to laugh out loud at the end because that last sentence sounded like a command rather than a suggestion.