LIFE F0RCE <[log in to unmask]>
>So I guess my question was, is there a
>"social-change movement" (as opposed to a few isolated voices like the NFL)
>with the purpose of promoting raw-food eating?

Tom:
I don't see raw as a social movement, more of a health movement. I know
some of the extremists like to paint the picture of a "raw paradise",
but only the extremists and their followers actually believe that
nonsense.

LIFE F0RCE <[log in to unmask]>
>Why then call it a raw-food movement, or have raw food specifically be the
>focus?

Tom:
Per above, I am simply using the word movement for health, and not restricting
it use to social, religious, political efforts.

>>Tom:
>> Because raw diets are a legitimate tool for good health, when used
>>appropriately, such diets can be of benefit to people.

LIFE F0RCE <[log in to unmask]>
>Yes, but what about people that cannot or should not eat raw, because their
>digestion can't handle it, or for whatever other reasons? Tom - don't get me

Tom:
Note the use of the word "appropriate" in my statement. That word is
significant, for I have often written that: raw is not for everyone, and
is not a cure-all. Raw diets are a tool, and one aspect of tool use (as we
humans are, after all, intelligent tool users) is to use the right tool
for the job. One should not use raw when ketogenic diet is appropriate,
or when some other diet is appropriate.  (Some of the contra-indications
of raw diets:  when emaciation is present, certain nervous system disorders,
kidney disorders, eating disorders, etc. Folks with serious health problems
should discuss raw diets with a qualified health professional before
"jumping in".)

LIFE F0RCE <[log in to unmask]>
>How do you see the focus of such a movement - what would you see the 'message'
>of such a movement as saying, and what would be its agenda?

Tom:
That raw diets can be a powerful healing and health improvement diet in
the short run (when used as appropriate). That diet is a tool that must
serve you, and that health/healing are the predominant focus (and not
the "frothing at the mouth" fanaticism and crank science of the extremists).
Health is always more important than dogma.

In the long run, the record of raw vegan diets is frankly not so great. Still,
in general, people  tend to be healthier on unprocessed/simple diets (including
raw foods) than on highly processed foods (which are usually cooked). That is,
the principles of raw are of (some) relevance in the long term as well. (The
100% raw now fanatics, frankly, are a poor advertisement for their diets).

At the SF-LiFE Expo last year, I noticed some interesting things (since
confirmed by other contacts). First, a lot of people have tried raw and
it didn't work for them. The fanatics fail to grasp the importance of this.
Second, those folks are open to come back to raw, but they are very turned
off by the extremists. They "won't get fooled again" by extremists. Third,
these folks like an open, HONEST approach - an approach that is is non-
fanatical, and realistic.  Finally, such an approach has great appeal
to the general public - they contrast it with the fairy-tale "raw
paradise" claims of the fanatics, who look very, very bad in comparison.
[Of course, there are some very gullible people around - and that is the
(rapidly shrinking) "market" the extremists are trying to exploit.]

I can summarize the above paragraph by saying that the raw world is
changing, and it is moving away from, not towards, the extremists. Soon
the pictures of extremists in their trees, will be shown with drawings of
dinosaurs, as an example of yet another "extinct species"
(Latin name: Fruitus fanaticus) :-).

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]