Jean-Louis:
> > 2] There is (as far as I know) no evidence that some enzymes from food
> >are useful for the body apart from digesting the food from which they
> >come. There is no signs of deficiencies when someone doesn't eat enough
> >live enzymes, contrary to what happens when someone lack vitamins.

> In the science section of my newspaper (F.A.Z.) I frequently find
> articles about causes for ailments. Several articles state, that the
> lack of a certain enzyme is the cause of a certain ailment. Usually
> there follows the sentence, that people with a lack of the specific
> enzyme suffer from genetical defects, so that their body cannot produce
> the enzyme.
> What never follows is a guess, that natural living enzymes from raw
> foods may be the needed supply.
> I always wonder if this could be true.
> If genetical defects are the real cause for the unability to produce
> enzymes, I wonder, why we humans seem to be more and more genetically
> "defective". Evolution should have deleted such defective material.
> Of course, if my guess were correct, nobody would profit from such an
> explanation. The normal procedure is to try to manufacture the sub-
> stances, people are unable to produce. A profitable deal. But simply
> getting the stuff from raw food? No way. No profit - no interest.

 People can benefit from taking enzymes that help digestion, but enzymes are large protein molecules
and I have trouble believing that any of them
could survive the digestive process and get into the blood stream and be
useful to someone with a genetic disorder, who is not manufacturing
bodily enzymes. Phenylketonuriacs, for example, have a genetically
induced deficiency of the liver enzyme that breaks down phenylalanine. No
dietary supplement or even raw food that contains enzymes will help that
condition. They have to have diets restricted in phenylalanine.

My best, Ellie