The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
the only plants that have survived for hundred million years of coevolution of the animals are plants that have toxins so you can look at every single plant out there it's got some phyto Alexan or it has an actual spike like a rosebush right but for the most part plants have toxins in them because they're just trying to survive
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
As a reaction to herbivory plants developed mechanical defenses such as thorns and hard shells which paved the way for adapted animal physiques plants evolved further defense systems by producing chemicals that exert toxic effects on the animals that ingest them
plants don't like this so they have evolved defense chemicals which they have put into the leaves and stems and roots to dissuade you from consuming those parts of the plant