Science Questions

The Naked Scientists: Science Radio & Science Podcasts

Science Questions RSS Feed

Are we the only animals to cook our food?

Are we the only animals to cook food, why do we do it and does it give us an advantage over other animals? Kathleen, Oregon

cookingWe put this to:

Robert Foley, Professor of Human Evolution at the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, Cambridge.

Cooking is certainly unique to humans. There’s no other species that does it. There’s obvious reasons for that because we’re the only ones that can make fire which is a pre-requisite. In a away fire comes first and cooking becomes a process after it. It’s becoming clear that really cooking provides quite a number of advantages. Richard Wrangham from Harvard has been doing a lot of experiments looking at how cooking can change the nutritional value of food. What it seems is that the process of warming food up: in a sense denaturing it has a number of effects. One is that food is much more tender. That we know. If you eat a cooked carrot instead of a raw carrot it’s much easier. We can spend less time chewing, we can swallow it faster and we can digest it faster. It seems that it’s an extension of things we see in other animals. Animals who use techniques often in their stomachs to tenderise food seem to try and make it more easily absorbable. If we turn to the other question of when all this happened the real question is when do we first find evidence of fire? That seems to be about half a million years ago or so. We don’t find direct evidence of cooking then but we do see over the next 100,000 years or so the beginnings of things like burnt stone which suggests that meat is cooked. It’s probably goes quite a long way back in our evolutionary history and some people would argue it’s really a very major change in the way we are able to live and survive.

Peter Lucas, Professor of Anthropology, George Washington University, USA

The second possible advantage for cooking is that it improves digestion. We’ve done a model study here particularly with Zhongquan Sui when she was here – she’s now at the University of Perdue. She found that yes, cooking does to a certain extent improve digestion. You only need cook something for a fraction of the time that you actually do in order for it to be digested properly. The cooking times that people adopt when they normally say this is cooked seem to reflect strong mechanical changes in the food. In other words, these are things that affect you perception of food texture and allow you actually to eat it very much easier, very much shorter eating times than you would do if they’re raw. That I think I would give as the essential answer at the moment.

 

November 2008

- DanilovesHim - 11th Nov 08
- chris - 12th Nov 08
- JnA - 12th Nov 08
- chris - 12th Nov 08
- JnA - 13th Nov 08
- Don_1 - 13th Nov 08
- RD - 13th Nov 08
- RD - 13th Nov 08
I believe we are straying from the question.

As far as I know we are the only animals that cook our food, advantage to it would likely be lowered chances of food borne diseases especially since our digestive systems are pretty delicate as compared to other creatures.
- markoky - 14th Nov 08
I think, we are the only animals that actually cook their food, because we are the only ones who took controll of fire...

...but some animals benefit from fires whenever they can. In africa for example you can watch storcks searching for burned animals right behind the fireline...

- atrox - 14th Nov 08
I believe this can be boiled down to simply that although we as humans are omnivores, our roots lean towards herbivore lifestyles somewhat more than carnivorous ones.  This fact can be seen in our teeth, in which those of the leaf eating variety outweigh those for tearing flesh. As well, our intestinal set up more closely resembles a herbivore's.  All of these factors can be seen together when people eat a lot of raw meat they often contract problems because they simply don't have the proper enzymes to fully digest all of the many things inside flesh.  Therefore it is presumable that our ancestors who discovered roasting meet by the heat of fire thus breaks down the meat so that is easier and healthier to consume, had a great advantage over others that didn't. Of course every metabolism is different, and the healthy and desirable ratios of cooking very on the individual, echoing the fact that different cultures will have evolved in different ways to best accommodate they're unique circumstances.  Based on this, people will have tendencies to pick the degree of cooking to their meat which are purely biological, and peppered with upbringing and exposure, result in what they choose to chew, or eschew.   
- InCharacter - 18th Nov 08
Welcome to the site.
I'm not sure about the validity of your point since we often cook vegetables too; but I'd like to thank you for starting your post in this thread with the phrase "I believe this can be boiled down" which made me smile.
- Bored chemist - 18th Nov 08
I'm glad you enjoy it, I was hoping someone would. However, the fact that we will also cook vegetables does not undermine the validity of the point.  When the vegetables are cooked, they become easier to digest, and often more nutrients are extracted.  Another benefit to those that discovered this process. Of course sometimes it will be done for pure culinary pleasure, but often the previous point is a factor.  If animals could do this, and it be to their benefit, it's presumable they would.
- InCharacter - 20th Nov 08
I believe we are the only animals to cook our food, but I have heard of some primates washing their food.

We cook our food to kill off germs, and because I would really not enjoy a raw steak.

WE are not, however, the only creatures to colonize (for lack of a better word) other creatures; some breeds of ants will enslave and raise other ants and even other insects. They are used as slaves to gather food and even raised for consumption.
- Onlyinterestednotdevoted - 20th Nov 08
I do not agree that we cook our food to kill germs as i do not think humans knew about germs half a million years ago. Perhaps the humans who cooked their food survived where as the humans who ate raw meat died out. However this would raise the question - why would humans not evolve like meat eating animals to be able to live off raw meat? Before we dicovered fire, surely we were eating animals raw. I cant imagine that once humans discovered how to make fire they declared: 'Right! I'm sick of roots and berries - let's have one of those four legged things!'
- Morgan - 25th Dec 08
RD - "More nutrition can be obtained from food when it is cooked." That is completely false, the opposite is true.
- bananafish - 20th May 09
I agree with the most recent post and I cannot believe it took that far down the thread for someone to bring it up... cooking kills nutrients. I happened upon this site after googling why we cook. I recently watched the movie "food matters" and it says when we cook foods the changes they undertake make our bodies think they are invading when we eat them. As such our immune systems mount an attack, but that this does not happen with raw foods. So I wanted to see if cooking was required to kill bacteria OR if it's required by our factory farmed food because of the higher incidence of harmful bacterias, etc. If there was a better way to keep our foods from getting germs on them and we fed our bodies more healthfully by eating raw, would we? I'm sure there's a better way!
- Joe - 23rd Jul 09
Bananafish and Joe have a some review to do. Go live and thrive without fire. Go live in a native wild without fire and animal product/flesh.
- Bond - 23rd Mar 11
See the whole discussion | Make a comment



Naked Scientists Science Radio Show Home Who are The Naked Scientists Information about Naked Scientists
Naked Scientists Podcast Ask the Naked Scientists Podcast Question of the Week Podcast
Naked Science Articles Experiments to do at Home Science Discussion Forum
Science News Stories Answers to Science Questions Interviews with Famous Scientists

Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.

Click here for the Naked Scientists PODCAST

The contents of this site are © The Naked Scientists® 2000-2012. The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.