I wrote the article below to address the negative attitudes some vegans
display towards instinctive eating.  In the article, there's a list of
things instincto has to offer other raw diets - I'm sure the instinctos on
raw-food can add to that list, if they wish.

This might not become an SF-LiFE (San Francisco Living Foods Enthusiasts
group) newsletter article, as here in SF the attitudes towards instincto
are mostly positive. Vegans with bad attitudes regarding instincto, are
rare here.

Because I am not an instincto, I cannot answer or discuss detailed
questions on instincto philosophy or practices. However, there are
a number of experienced instinctos on both lists, who might answer
your questions.

Note to the veg-raw list: there is (very) brief mention of the gory aspects of
instincto. You might consider skipping this article if you think it will
offend you. I would also request that detailed discussions of any such
"gory details" be done on the raw-food list only, rather than the veg-raw
list. If you are on veg-raw but not raw-food, and want to discuss the "gory
details", you might post on veg-raw asking list members who are instinctos to
contact you by private e-mail (if they are willing). General discussion of
vegan attitudes towards instincto, seems appropriate for either list.

Note to the raw-food list. At the time I was finishing the first draft
of this article (a defense of instincto, aimed at the vegan critics), I was
being criticized on the raw-food list for defaming instincto because my
criticisms of problems in rawism, did not specify "non-instinctive raw
diet" in every instance. There I was, working to defend instincto to a vegan
audience, while I was the target of an instincto's wrath. Isn't life full
of small ironies? :-)  (To the individual in question: no hard feelings!)

P.S. to those who saw an earlier draft of this. There have been a few changes,
mostly small, for clarity and to improve readability.

P.S. #2: Next post will be somewhat different - it will discuss Ayurveda and
raw foods. I hope to have that ready next week. The planned Ayurveda post,
and this post, are not part of the ongoing "Essential Advice" series.
Regarding the "Essential Advice" series, I have considerable material for
the next installment(s), and am currently considering ways to organize and
present it. I hope to have some new parts of that series ready in September.

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: usual set of approved web sites, newsletters, e-mail lists applies.
Not to be cross-posted to the "raw" list.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

VEGAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS INSTINCTIVE EATING

Copyright 1997 by Thomas E. Billings; all rights reserved; contact author
for permission to republish.

I will label this article as opinion, in case some readers recognize
certain of the people discussed herein.

I have noticed that some vegans have negative attitudes towards
the topic of instinctive eating, and those who practice instinctive
eating (instinctos). The problem is that such attitudes conflict
with the (often self-conscious) compassion that so many vegans claim as
part of their dietary philosophy.

I am writing this to describe my own journey, from my first view of
instincto (a negative view), to my current favorable view.  It is my
hope that others will find this of interest, and perhaps can see
themselves as being on a similar journey.

It is best to begin with a brief description:

Instinctive eating:
A system of sequential mono-eating (1 food at a time), guided by the senses.
Food is selected by smell (and other senses), and one eats until there is
a "signal" from your body, to stop eating, e.g., a taste change, a feeling of
fullness/satiation, or strong emotions or thoughts arise. If still hungry,
select another food by smell/senses, and repeat the process. Instinctive
eaters generally are non-vegetarian.  However, some instinctos consume very
limited amounts of animal foods.

My journey can be divided into 3 stages, as follows.

Stage 1: Negative Reaction

My first exposure to instincto came by reading Zephyr's book ("Instinctive
Eating: The Lost Knowledge of Optimum Nutrition"). The book is very
interesting, and challenging to vegans on a number of levels. There are
graphic descriptions of killing and devouring (raw) animals.  Even worse, in
the view of the sensitive vegan, the author (Zephyr) describes eating raw
meat as something akin to a spiritual experience. This is too much for many
vegans, whose extensive conditioning makes them react emotionally, with
horror and revulsion.

The result is that many vegans form a negative opinion of instinctive eating,
and in some cases of instinctos, because they can't "mentally digest"
(understand) the idea that someone could ever want to eat raw animal flesh.

My initial reaction was similar to the above, and I see many vegans reach
that stage and stop (hence this article).

Side note. I recommend the book by Zephyr, precisely because it presents a
challenge to vegans and veganism. Interesting reading!

Stage 2: Understanding

My first exposure to instincto was in the first half of 1996, via Zephyr's
book, and also via the veg-raw e-mail list on Internet. In May of 1996, I
left veg-raw for various reasons, primarily because I was exhausted from
trying to have a civil discussion with an uncivil fruitarian zealot.
Shortly before leaving the list, I received some nasty hate e-mail from
people I had never heard of. As I didn't know who they were, I thought
they might be instinctos - surely only raw meat eaters, who like the taste
of blood, could be so nasty (that is what I foolishly thought at the time!).

Things were quiet for some time. In late 1996, I learned of the Ward
Nicholson interview article in "Health & Beyond". I read the text on
Internet, and obtained a copy of the footnote/reference list. Here at
last was convincing, documented scientific evidence that: apes are
not fruitarians but omnivores, and our prehistoric ancestors were
also omnivores. For years I had believed, and even told others, that
apes were fruitarians, and we humans were natural frugivores/vegans.
This presented me with a dilemma: I could shut my eyes to the evidence,
to the truth, and go on as before. Alternately, I could accept the
truth, understand that a raw vegan diet was not totally natural, and
continue as a vegetarian for spiritual reasons (only). I felt that I had
no choice but to remain intellectually honest.

The realization that an omnivorous diet was natural, and vegan diet a
major restriction of that natural diet, also cast a new light on
instincto.  I saw that instinctive eaters aren't bloodthirsty, they are
simply following a different (and more accurate) model of nature, than the
one I was following. I also finally "connected with" information that I
had been told many times before: that hunter-gatherer societies are
omnivores, none are vegan. That says quite a bit about the vegan diet, if
you stop and think about it. The result of these revelations was that I saw
that it was inappropriate for me to condemn a diet, or those who follow a
diet, when the people following that diet have science and reason backing
them up. (Of course, one should avoid judging others by their lunch, but
that is something people often do anyway.)

Stage 3: Acceptance as a Legitimate Raw Diet

Around the end of 1996/early 1997, I returned to the veg-raw e-mail list,
to find a major debate in progress between a group of fruitarians and a
group of instinctos. It turned out that the people who had sent me hate mail
in Spring of 1996, were fruitarians! I sat back and watched as the fruitarians
attacked the instincto position, in a very hostile way. The instinctos
responded with science and reason, and very little of the hostility present
on the fruitarian side. In that debate, the scientific basis of instincto was
thoroughly documented, and the utter lack of a scientific basis for
fruitarianism, was made very clear.

This debate featured the defenders of compassionate veganism behaving
in a very hostile, anti-compassion way, and the instinctos, non-vegetarians,
behaving in an honest, civil manner. If you are a vegan, doesn't that
seem like a contradiction to you?

The final result of the debate was to establish instincto as a legitimate
diet, in my eyes. If one can back their diet with science, then it is a
legitimate diet - even if I don't follow it or even care for it. Because
of this, I passed from understanding, to seeing instincto as a valid part
of the raw diet spectrum. That is what I mean here as acceptance. (Note that
I am still a vegetarian, and do not practice instinctive eating).

Although most vegans will disagree with the instincto consumption of animal
foods, there are other important issues here: respect and tolerance for others
whose lifestyle is different from yours, and respect for their freedom of
choice. Even if one opposes the consumption of animal foods, one should
recognize that others have different views, and we must respect their choice,
as well as their personal dignity and freedom. That is why the bigoted
attacks on instinctos by certain vegans (discussed below), are so
reprehensible.


What instinctive eating has to offer other rawists:

The philosophy of instinctive eating has a number of points that other raw
fooders might find of interest. A select few of these points are as follows.

* a more accurate, honest model of nature than one will find in certain
other raw diets

* the taste change - it's not an infallible stop signal, but worth paying
some attention to, when it occurs

* the concept of original foods

* the insistence that animals are raised humanely, in conditions that are
as similar to wild nature as possible - a point it shares with some of
the less radical vegans

* that a sequential form of mono-eating can work (mono-eating is very
rare in the raw vegan community).


Vegan Bigotry: Referring to Instinctos as In-Stinkos

It has become popular in certain raw vegan circles, to refer to instinctos
as in-stinkos.  This practice, in my opinion, is a clear form of bigotry
and should stop. Here I am not critical of those who use the term once
or twice in ignorance or by accident, but of those vegans who think it is
"fun" to create and use a derogatory, insulting nickname for another dietary
group. The deliberate, repeated use of "in-stinko" is the moral equivalent
of using a derogatory, insulting nickname for people who follow another
religion, or who are of a different race. In the 1990's, such behavior
is socially unacceptable. It is surprising to me that vegans condone or
tolerate such behavior by some in the vegan camp. Most vegans would not
condone the use of insulting nicknames for racial or religious groups;
why do you tolerate it when it is used against those in a different
dietary group?

I would encourage vegans to let those who use such derogatory terms, know
that such behavior is not in line with the vegan claim of compassion.

I hope that this sheds some light on why vegan attacks on instincto are
not appropriate.  If you are a vegan with a negative view of instinctos,
I hope that you will analyze the reasons for your negativity, and consider
the points above.

Tom Billings