Wait a minute. Are you saying that an American traveling to France has a > 50% chance of getting sick by eating the food? I’d have to see a cite for that. If I’m interpreting “probably” too literally, OK. But to me, “probably” means more like than not. I’d be surprised if even 10% of Americans got sick from eating the food in France. And vice versa.
I don’t see any reason a time traveler would have a problem with ancient food. They might have a problem with ancient food hygiene but the food itself would be bland but perfectly edible.
An ancient time traveler might have a problem with richness of the food (amount of meat, etc), but they would get over it I am sure (just like travelers to countries with different diets do). Though there are likely bacteria that have evolved in recent centuries they wouldn’t have immunity to however.
An exception is if you went back far enough traveler hadn’t developed lactose tolerance (a few thousand years ago)
This is certainly not universal. With my family from India, it’s generally only in one direction.
Having a sandwich for lunch has become really boring since ergot isn’t a likely component of bread any more.
Also, longer term, many diets, such as those of indigenous Australians had so much grit that a typical dentition had almost no caries but the teeth were significantly planed down. Replace what they were eating over a life-time with more processed, softer and mooshier versions of their diet and you’ll see the teeth being preserved without abrasion, and probably many more cavities. And because the teeeth are not being abraded, dental problems from tooth overcrowding would be an issue for them as well.
It all depends on which “ancient people”. you’re talking about. Some cultures had fresh grains and dairy available, and I think they ate fairly well even by modern standards. On the other end of the spectrum were the peasants of medieval Europe. Many of them ate “food” that was barely above the level of crap. In fact, with rat droppings and other pests running rampant, they probably did consume crap. The dark course bread many of them ate was often infested with an ergot mold that sometimes gave them a condition known as, “St. Anthony’s Fire”. Eating McDonald’s three times a day would be heaven compared to that.
Modern versions of ancient recipes are, of course, not going to be 100% authentic. Even heirloom produce is not going to be the same as the stuff they were growing 2000 or 1200 years ago. Stuff that involves fermentation, like garum or even bread, won’t taste quite the same because the Romans were almost certainly using different strains of yeast than what we currently have.
But we’re talking about subtle changes in flavor, not differences that would somehow cause food to be inedible or unhealthy.
My first thought at seeing the title was Caesar eating at Little Caesar’s.
Let’s say a time traveling ancient wound up in 21st century US. Wouldn’t modern microbes be a far bigger concern than the food? Sure, well done meat should take care of any pathogens, but wouldn’t raw foods contain germs that the ancients had no antibodies for?
I agree that the basic edibility of cultivated plants is unlikely to have significantly changed, but the heirloom vegetables currently available don’t go nearly back to medieval times, let alone Roman. I’m unaware of any extant plant cultivars dating from before the 1600s, and frankly some of them are pretty shaky records, with a very vague description*.
The other reason they’re very hard to trace as plant names were decidedly flexible until recent times. Take marrows; the plant known as a ‘marrow’ now is from an American genus, it’s totally replaced the previous plant known as a marrow in mass cultivation, which was from a African genus. I concede you may have the previous ‘marrow’ available locally, but I definitely don’t in the UK.
I find it pretty surprising how much the usage has changed; peas used to be grown exclusively for drying, and were all bred for high starch content, with no attempt at breeding for sweetness and eating fresh. The English especially, and Europe in general went through a very long phase of boiling all vegetable matter, considering that to be better for the digestion. Lots of stuff, including basically all salad crops, disappeared from cultivation at that point, and was more-or-less recreated or replaced later.
*The Romans regularly used the same name for parsnips and carrots; that’s how vague it can get.
Fat was a cherished ingredient before pre-modern times, largely because for most of human history getting enough calories to sustain life was not a certainty.
I doubt such travelers would have a significant problem with modern food once they got used to the taste, which would be different.
Well, those that survived infancy and toddlerhood could… a lot of infants died of disease, the survivors were those with strong enough systems to deal with was sent their way.
I thought it had more to do with the water than the food. Also, my trip to Europe did not result in traveler’s tummy. Granted, that’s just an anecdote, but it’s certainly not a certainty. For awhile, Milwaukee has cryptosporidium in its water supply, apparently there were some upset tummies over that back then.
I suspect the broad categories of food pathogens were the same - salmonella, listeria, etc. They might well have sufficient immunities that the modern versions of those wouldn’t be much problem. Certainly, they had immunities built up to diseases seldom encountered much anymore in the industrial world. We don’t have superior resistance to modern E. coli, we are better at keeping the illness-inducing varieties out of most of the food supply.
While we’re at it, it’s not so much that animals have a greater tolerance for spoiled food, or that primitive or third-world humans have a greater tolerance for bad food than modern first-world humans. Mostly, it’s just a matter of what consequences we consider acceptable. A species can easily survive bad food killing off 1% or even 10% of its members, but modern humans will freak out about anything that kills off 10% or even 1% of us.
Yeah, I, too, find that rather unlikely. Maybe I have a stronger gut and better intestinal flora than most, but I’ve only once had a minor case of the runs in all my travels, and that was in India (and that was about a week into the journey, and I partook of the street food, only avoiding things that may have had water on them or weren’t fully cooked.) My various traveling companions have similarly been fine. In Western Europe, I can’t imagine what kind of “bugs” an American diet needs to acclimate to.
Garum wasn’t fermented by yeast, it’s not fermented at all, but more a breakdown by the fishes’ own digestive enzymes - a form of autolysis.
Huh, when I hear garum I immediately think “fermented fish sauce.”
The different microorganisms in developed countries with better hygiene are likely to cause less severe health problems than you get in places where pathogens are more prevalent, but problems can still occur.
More anecdata: I got sick at some point each of the first few times I was living in India for an extended period, but over the past few years haven’t had any health issues visiting India. But temporarily moving to the Netherlands and to Germany caused in both cases some short-term and more minor digestive issues. I’ve also heard of similar problems for everyone I’ve known who relocated from a distant country to the US.
So you certainly can be “getting sick” from adjusting to the unfamiliar microorganisms in clean food in Western Europe. You may just not be getting sick enough to notice it unless you spend a significant chunk of time there.
This. If the issue is just “different” microbes in various countries, then we should expect illness whenever we transition between any two countries. I visited western Europe in the '90s, no problems. I’ve been to Japan several times now, no issues. OTOH, I once went to east Africa and was fine for the entire trip - until the night before leaving for home, when I inexplicably drank tap water. Starting the next morning, I endured severe digestive problems for several days.
You didn’t have to go that far to get the trots. South of the (US) border would have been far enough.
See, never had an issue in Mexico. Stayed in Merida for a week at an Air B and B type of place; ate the street food; bought the local fish and meat and cooked it up myself on the barbecue. No issues for either me or my wife. (Of course, we did follow the advise of avoiding anything that may have been washed in the local water and not cooked. That sort of stuff. Water seems to be the common culprit.)
I have gotten sick several times when going to N America and W Europe. Worst runs I ever had was after a meal I a very upscale restaurant in NYC.
There are several things at play. First different microbes are likely to cause sickness. It’s not a certainty as you seen to be thinking, IIRC about 50% of travelers get sick. The difference in local pathogens are the reason why people fall sick in different cities in their own countries. Secondly, there seems to be a case of attribution here. If you feel queasy in N America or Europe you would attribute it to too much alcohol or the additional helping. In Africa, to having the “tap water”. Frankly unless you never bathed while there, or used “bottled” water, for that,very unlikely you did not ingest their tap water before that last night.
Repeating the word “fermented” is not going to make it accurate. Fermentation, sensu stricto, is the action of microorganisms (even Wiki agrees)- bacteria and yeast. What’s going on in the production of *garum *is a different process:
None of the recipes we have for *garum *mention adding anything extraneous to the mix, just the fish (or even - just the fish guts) and salt. Contrast that with Japanese fish sauce, where koji (Aspergillus sp.)is sometimes deliberately introduced. In fact, for garum, the freshest (hence least contaminated) fish was desirable: