Stalking the Wild Groundnut
orionmagazine.org
orionmagazine.org
You need to be careful with this family, is not so directly brutal as the Apiaceae or Solanaceae that are poison maker masters, but can be tricky. Some "edible" wild species are dangerous for the health at long term (Damages in the nervous system). This is also the reason for not having "peas flour". You can't eat it raw and need to cook almost all legumes, poisonous in raw.
This could be the reason for the plant being relatively obscure and unknown.
The article comments that "groundnut" is ambiguous, and refers to a variety of different plants (including peanuts):
> "The plant was Apios americana, also known as wild bean, Indian potato, potato bean, and, most commonly, groundnut (though other plants, including peanuts, are also called groundnuts)."
Anybody who's interested in this stuff should check out the books Paradise Lot and Perennial Vegetables, both by Eric Toensmeier.
"Because of their vining nature, groundnut would be hard to grow on a field scale, and their annual yield appears to be quite low in comparison to other crops. Groundnut is difficult to cultivate mechanically, because each tuber can sprout and grow in the spring, filling in spaces between rows."
In terms of the allergy, I agree that it's most likely either the latex or something else that's present when they're not fully cooked. I'd also be curious as to whether either the person digging them up or the person cooking them is more likely to have an allergic reaction than the people merely eating them.
They were interesting, but I wasn't convinced. I think it's not so much racism as those plants not fitting into traditional European methods of large-scale food production (unlike e.g. potatoes, corn, peppers, tomatoes, squash &c.). If you look at the traditional cuisine of e.g. the Tidewater region (up until the 1950s), you find an amazing amount of aboriginal foods in the diet.
I think that if they could have included something in their methods of cultivation, they would have.