I used the word “native” to indicate native to a particular natural environment and flora. Of course all human adaptions are natural. But where it concerns foods and their properties, some people are allergic to strawberries, fish, pollen, etc.
Eskimos can tolerate living exclusively on meat and fat, where people from other parts of the globe must have vegetables to survive.
I’m not sure about that. I’d like to see some data on it.
It is a matter of bodily chemical processing and extracting nutrients from available food sources.
There is a species of monkey that eat a plant which is pure poison to all other species of monkeys. Interestingly they like to hang around human habitats as they also like to eat charcoal (from the fire pits) to help in the digestion of that poisonous plant.
As to natural and artificial chemicals, I believe some modern synthetic chemicals are indeed not natural, i.e. not found in nature. They may be effective for some diseases in certain individuals, but may trigger severe reactions in other people with less chemical tolerance.
Well, the issue isn’t a generalized “chemical tolerance”. Everything in our environment is chemical in nature. It’s a tolerance to particular, specific chemicals. As you note, ‘natural’ chemicals can trigger severe reactions in some people, or even in most all people, as well. (Pollen, peanuts, not to mention hemlock, poison ivy, snake venom, etc., etc.)
FWIW we’re all to a certain extent ‘native’ to our environment, and to a certain extent all of us are ‘native’ to the environment of southern Africa where humans first arose. My only quibble was the apparent association of a particular socio-ethnic group with high sensitivity towards a particular chemical or two. First off, this high sensitivity most likely has nothing to do with her socio-ethnic group. The only way to know for sure would be to do a well-designed cross-correlational study. Second, even if high sensitivity to a particular chemical was correlated with belonging to a particular socio-ethnic group, that would not establish that it was the chemical’s being ‘artificial’ that was responsible. Indeed, really it couldn’t be because there is no chemical difference between a ‘natural’ and an ‘artificial’ chemical. While it’s true that some chemicals produced today are not usually found in nature, that doesn’t mean that humans (or Germans, or Asians, etc.) are going to be more sensitive to them in any particular context. Since ‘artificial’ chemicals are new to all humans, one can’t reasonably assert their newness makes Native Americans (or Germans, Asians, etc.) more sensitive to them.