See part 1 for introduction.

Important Notice Re: Posting/Web Sites:

The material in this post is cleared for posting ONLY on/in:

the raw-food list and archive site(s),
the veg-raw list,
the NH M2M,
Chet Day's Health & Beyond: web site and newsletter,
the SF-LiFE newsletter
REAL News (Raw Energy and Alternative Lifestyle).

Permission to post on "raw" will NOT be granted. This is because I am not on
"raw", and do not want my writings posted where they may be attacked by
zealots. I hold no ill feelings towards the many decent people on raw; however
I don't want my work the target of what I consider to be dishonest criticism by
a few uncivil zealots. (Honest, civil criticism is welcome, of course.)

For permission to post/publish elsewhere, inquire before posting.
Thanks; your cooperation with the above is appreciated!

Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]

======================================================
Continuation from part 1:

M: Herbs are toxic and don't cure anything.

R: This is promoted by the "self-healing is the ONLY healing" folks;
that myth will be discussed later. If herbs are toxic, why then do many
animals use them when they are sick? A large variety of animals have been
observed using herbs as medicines, including: chimpanzees, elephants,
many types of carnivores, omnivores, and others. It is interesting to note
that some raw fooders promote wheatgrass juice while condemning the use
of herbs.  That is quite surprising, for wheatgrass juice is a potent
medicinal herb.

Additionally, note the medicinal use of herbs by nearly all of the holistic
health systems, and the historical use (thousands of years of use) by
virtually all indigenous medical systems. Are the raw fooders who condemn
herbs really on to something, or do they simply fail to see the evidence in
front of them?

M: The ONLY healing is self-healing.

R: This is a theological/philosophical question. One can argue that
self-healing has inherent advantages that make it preferable in many
cases. However, to claim it is the ONLY method is to be narrow-minded,
and to deny reality. For example, I am critical of fruitarian diets, but I
acknowledge reality and agree that a fruitarian diet, in the short run (only),
may assist healing from some ailments (but it is dangerous for some
other aliments). [That such a diet can be healing (in the short run) is
not the question, the question is the long term problems of such a diet.]

The point here is that there are many healing modalities, and they all have
merits, and also negative points. For example, many rawists reject supplements,
yet the supplement manufacturers have reams of testimonial letters, saying
how their product assisted healing. So, if you favor self-healing, go
ahead and promote it. However, don't insult others by claiming that your
way is the ONLY kind of healing.

M: Healing is a biological process.

R: This is promoted by the American Natural Hygiene Society (ANHS), and is
not a myth - it is true on the physical level. I would like to point
out that true healing means that the whole person - the body, mind, and
spirit - have healed. So, to be truly healthy, one cannot obsess on the
body (as most rawists do), but must take steps to achieve mental and
spiritual health as well. (The steps will vary somewhat according to
your spiritual inclinations.)

An example will illustrate this. I have encountered fruitarian zealots
who loudly proclaim themselves as healthy, while actively promoting hate
and fear - which are negative, UNhealthy emotions (i.e., the zealots are
mentally/spiritually ill, in my opinion). What good is it to achieve
excellent physical health, if it comes at the expense of your mental health?
So, keep in mind that you need to pay attention to mental and spiritual
health as well.

P.S. I respect the ANHS, and admire their efforts to update natural hygiene
to reflect new knowledge.

M: Cooked food is poison.

R: It is true that some types of cooked food are not very good for you
when consumed over a long period of time - fried foods, heavily salted food,
etc. However, cooked food does not merit the term poison, in its normal
usage. Even if we expand poison to a less rigorous definition such as
"those items one cannot digest", we still cannot say that (all) cooked
food is poison.

Another complication: raw rhubarb, raw kidney beans are poisonous by
any definition, and are more poisonous than any cooked food. If one
argues that "cooked food is poison" simply means that some cooked
foods, but not all, are poison, then by citing the example of rhubarb
and kidney beans, one can say that "raw food is poison", using the same
logic.

The facts are that some starch foods, and some other foods, are easier to
digest when cooked (discussed later). Additionally, some cooked foods, such
as steamed vegetables, are not harmful. This may upset some rawists who
seek to promote false, idealistic models of nature, but it is reality.

Additionally, one must wonder about the mental effect of such slogans. If
one believes them and repeats them often enough, one may develop (irrational)
fear of cooked foods. As eating is a major part of life, it can infuse your
eating - and your life - with fear. That is a slow but certain path to
mental and emotional problems.  I would encourage rawists to ignore such
bogus slogans.

P.S. apply simple common sense: if cooked food really is toxic, then we
would all have died long ago.

M: Raw is law.

R: A cute, but false and meaningless, slogan. The idea that animals never
eat cooked food is FALSE:

- animals are killed and cooked by forest fires (also volcanos, geysers,
lightning strikes), and their cooked remains are quickly eaten by other
animals - both carnivores and omnivores.
- natural, wild animals will go to human created landfills, and eat their
fill of cooked/processed/decaying food.

Of course, landfills are not natural, but the animals that feed there are
natural. This shows that animals are opportunists, not dogmatists. The
animal at the landfill, following instinct, seizes the opportunity and
eats the food - cooked/processed - that is available. No "raw is law"
dogma for wild animals! If we must be so presumptuous as to claim that
we understand nature's laws, then "opportunism is law" is much closer
to the truth than the bogus "raw is law".

Additionally, an interesting scientific argument can be made (see the
Paleodiet e-mail lists and archives on Internet for details) that we (and
our prehistoric ancestors) have been using fire (for cooking foods) long
enough that our genes have evolved to allow us to consume some cooked food.
In other words, consumption of some cooked food may be natural, according to
a powerful definition of natural: those foods you have evolved to eat. This
point is controversial; some disagree. However, the serious debate on this
point occurs at a scientific level that is far above the usual rawist dogma.

Note: some rawists misinterpret the fossil record and claim that it shows
that we evolved as natural frugivores/vegans. However, as the fossil record
does not support their viewpoint, such claims are not part of the serious
scientific debate on this topic. Please note also, that this is not a
reference to, or criticism of, those who hold a traditional Christian view
of creation.

P.S. slogans are usually a poor basis for a diet.

M: A 100% raw vegan diet is the most natural, the best, diet for everyone.

R: Everyone is different, and diet must be individualized. There is no
one, single diet that is "best" for everyone. Some people will do best on
raw, others on macrobiotic, and so on. Those who promote the "one true diet"
are promoting dogma, rather than fact. Also, 100% raw diets are very
problematic - 100% raw can be a good healing diet, but it has problems as
a long-term, maintenance diet. (See the notes from my Expo talk, for
more info on this subject.) Quite frankly, I would question any "expert"
who tells you that one specific diet is the best diet for everyone on
this planet!

Also, the claim to being natural is somewhat questionable, per the discussion
of the myths preceding this one.

M: Cooking makes organic minerals inorganic.

R: This is, in general, false, and simply nonsense. It was promoted by
Herbert Shelton and T.C. Fry.

M: You should be a mono-eater (of fruit) because 2 different types of
   fruit never grow next to each other, in nature.

R: There are reasons why a person might want to consider/experiment with
mono-eating: easier on the digestion, may help you eat less, and may help
acclimate you to raw foods. Instinctive eaters typically practice sequential
mono-eating. However, the myth above is bogus; one wonders whether those
promoting such nonsense have ever been in the woods? I grew up in Florida,
and can attest that one can find multiple fruit trees growing adjacent to
each other, all in fruit at once. Example: a wild mulberry, next to a
wild guava, next to a naturalized (wild) lime tree. All 3 were in fruit
simultaneously. Also, growing in the trees were wild grapes, and under
the trees, nearby: wild deadly nightshade (Solanum nigrum: edible when
fully ripe), and wild bitter melon (Momordica charantia). In my opinion,
those who promote such nonsense are simply demonstrating their ignorance of
nature.

M: Fruit has a nutritional profile similar to Mother's milk.

R: False. The protein content for both is low, but they do NOT match in
other important areas:

- fats: milk is high in fat; fruit, except for avocados, is very low in fat
- sugar: milk contains small amounts of lactose, a slowly assimilated sugar;
  fruit contains large amounts of glucose, fructose, sucrose, and can cause
  an insulin spike (and hypoglycemic symptoms)
- B-vitamins, vitamin E: present in milk, largely absent in fruit
- calcium: plentiful in milk, low/scarce in fruit
- zinc: adequate in milk, low/scarce in fruit.

By the way, those who argue for a food on the basis that it has a profile
similar to Mother's milk, are unknowingly arguing for the consumption of
goat milk, as it has a nutritional profile very similar to human milk.

M: All protein foods, including raw protein foods, are toxic.

R: According to the above, even sunflower seeds are toxic. Those who
actually believe the delusion of this myth, advocate a diet of fruit,
with occasional vegetables. This myth is sometimes promoted with "proof" -
detailed nutritional theories that are impressive to the layperson, but
utterly bogus and illogical when examined closely.

A key part of the "proof" offered by those promoting such theories, is that
they went on a 100% fruit diet for months, then ate some seeds or nuts, and
could not digest them. They blame the protein in the seeds. As a former long-
time fruitarian who experienced the same thing, I can attest that what really
happens is that following a fruit diet for a long time, can weaken the
digestive system. Then you eat protein food, which is hard to digest. The
obvious result: an upset stomach, which some fruitarians see as "proof" that
protein is an evil demon and toxic. Silly fruitarians! It's just your
weakened digestion - I went through this delusion myself, many years ago.

P.S. if protein really is toxic, we would have all been dead long ago.

M: All raw foods are easier to digest than cooked foods, as the raw foods
   contain enzymes which are destroyed by cooking.
M: Starch is toxic.

R: Some cooked foods are easier to digest than raw foods. The starch foods
are prime examples of this: potatoes, rice. Heat degrades the crystalline
structure of starch, making it more accessible to the enzyme action in
your digestive system. Raw starch is hard to digest, but probably won't
harm you unless you consume such foods in gross excess (difficult to do).
Starch, whether cooked or raw, is not toxic. At least 70% of the world
population has a diet based on starch - cooked starch, no less. If it
were truly toxic, there would be a lot fewer people on this planet!

Some foods contain anti-nutrient properties, toxins, and/or taste awful
when raw, but are digestible/edible when cooked: large beans, esp. kidney
beans. Other raw foods have negative side-effects, such as severe
flatulence (e.g. raw cabbage, lentil sprouts). Cooking such foods is one
way to reduce/avoid side effects (other ways to avoid side effects include
using spices, and fermentation).

So, while many foods are best eaten raw, there are some that are difficult
or impossible to eat raw. (P.S. some types of rice can be sprouted and
eaten raw, but it is often very bitter and unpalatable.)

M: Spices are toxic.

R: Is everything toxic to the rawist? It is a shame that many rawists refuse
to consider spices because of their ideology. Spices, used properly, can
assist/strengthen weak digestion, and can help you to digest the heavy, cold,
rough, high water content foods that we rawists often eat. Spices also have
real medicinal properties and uses. Used improperly, spices can cause problems:
they can over-stimulate the digestion, and/or overheat the body. (If that
happens to you, you will be the first to know.) If used in small amounts,
properly (per your body condition), spices may be beneficial and assist
healing. The problem is how to use them properly - for that you can refer
to Ayurveda, Traditional Chinese Medicine, or other genuine holistic
systems for guidance.

M: Don't drink juices - they are not a whole food.

R: True, juices are not a whole food. Also, one must be careful with juices
as it is easy to overconsume them due to their strong taste. For example,
1 kg. of carrots will give you a liter or so of carrot juice. It is easy
to drink a liter of juice, very hard to eat a full kg. of raw carrots.

However, juices have important therapeutic properties, and are used
extensively in Ayurveda, in the Hippocrates diet, in the Gerson diet,
and many other diets. Wheatgrass juice is famous, and is the best, easy
way to consume wheatgrass. Also, wild chimpanzees practice a crude type of
juicing, known as wadging. So juices are "natural" after all, even if we
use an electric juicer (instead of wadging) to extract them.

To summarize: juices, in moderation, can be part of a good raw diet. One
should not be afraid of juices.

M: Don't drink water. Your food should contain all the water you need.

R: What were the people who dreamed this up, drinking? Our close primate
relatives, the chimpanzees, drink water. Most land mammals drink water;
those that do not are the exception, rather than the rule. Refusing to
drink water may be the reason some long-time rawists look so dehydrated.

P.S. some rawists, due to the water content of their diet, may get by on
less water than someone on a conventional diet. Still, some water is
advisable.


As this article may be controversial, let me briefly address some
likely criticisms.

* "This is too negative." Well, if raw foods diets are so good, then why
do you apparently favor promoting them, using inaccurate/false information?
Their promotion should be honest, and in step with reality. Those who cling
to discredited dogma, in my opinion, are in denial - a common, and serious,
problem in rawism.

* "You're promoting doubt". Not really; I am simply presenting reality. If
this article shows you that some of the "wisdom" of rawism is inaccurate,
misleading dogma, then I have done you a favor. If you are blinded by dogma,
then you may ignore symptoms of deficiency and/or illness, and hurt yourself.
I did just that, years ago, and have seen others do the same.

* "This seems anti-vegetarian." It is not intended to be; I have been a
vegetarian since 1970, and was a strict vegan for much of that time.
The material here does challenge some of the claims that are a "scientific"
basis for veganism/vegetarianism. However, the spiritual and ethical factors
used as a basis for vegetarianism, are not addressed here. Some of these
factors include: not wanting to kill for food, not wanting to harm other
creatures unnecessarily, wanting your food to be offered to you with love,
and so on. The spiritual and ethical factors, alone, provide a sufficient
and satisfactory basis to be a vegetarian. So, you can reject some/all of
the "scientific" basis, but still be a vegetarian. Also, if your motive for
vegetarianism is spirituality or ethics, you will want an honest basis.

* "This won't help me achieve 100% raw." Why do you want to be 100% raw?
Answer: probably, because you believe that it will make you very healthy. So,
if good health is your objective, and you are logical, you will follow rawist
dogma ONLY insofar as it supports good health. If 100% raw does not work for
you in the long run, then you will change your diet. In short, your health is
more important than dogma, more important than being 100% raw, more important
than veganism!

I was 100% raw for several years. When one goes 100% raw, there is often
a noticeable improvement in physical health in the short run. But, in the
long run, problems are common (verified by my experience and observation).
My Expo talk (on problems) was an honest effort to educate others of such
problems, and ways to overcome them. So, in the long run, one learns (the
hard way, if one is dogmatic) that rawism is not a guarantee of health, and
that turning simplistic dietary dogma like rawism into a religion, (with
100% raw considered to be some bizarre kind of "holy sacrament") is a very
bad idea indeed.

Rawism is a tool, to be used to improve your health. Keep it in its place -
as a support tool only. Never let rawist dogma rule your life. Your diet must
serve you, not the other way around!

In closing, let me make a few comments:

* as mentioned in the beginning, some raw-fooders are very attached to
certain of these myths. If I have made any small errors in the above, I hope
you realize that it was not deliberate, and also does not detract from the
points made.

* writing the above was a lot of work, and it may cause zealots to attack
me further. Ignore any personal attacks on me, and concentrate on the
subject matter. The zealots are in denial, and I want you to accept reality
as it is - even when it disagrees with rawist ideology.

* let me quote, from memory (might not be 100% word-for-word accurate), a
beautiful aphorism by Baba Hari Dass: "life is not a burden, but we make
it one when we refuse to accept things as they are."  Discard the burden
of false dogma, accept reality, and accept life and nature, as they are:
that is the essence of my message here today. I hope that you will take this
message to heart, and put it into practice in your life.

I hope some of the above was interesting to you. I wish you good health,
and good luck with your diet!

Tom Billings