R: With apologies to author Desmond Morris, I will refer to this as the "naked ape" hypothesis. The above myth is often repeated, with religious fervor, by some raw-fooders.

Problem: This myth is a denial of reality, and a denial of our real nature. The very definition of human beings that evolutionary scientists use specifies, among other things, that we are intelligent tool-users. Those who promote this myth are denying the use of tools, and they are denying our intelligence; hence they are literally in denial of their real nature. To deny tool use is to make us lower than the chimpanzees (who have been observed using sticks as tools to collect and eat termites, a common food for them). It lowers modern humans to below the level of Australopithecus, one of our prehistoric ancestors who was very ape-like.

Note that some may object to the above on the grounds that humans have taken tool usage too far. However, the use of simple tools for obtaining and processing food (such as stone tools), is well within the evolutionary definition. So this myth can be seen as an insult to humanity, or a denial of our humanity, in a sense.

Additional problems:

• One can find rawists promoting this myth on computer networks. How would naked apes (with no tools) make computers?

• The myth is often used to justify fruit as your natural diet. However, modern fruitarians don't eat wild fruit--they eat grafted, budded, cloned fruit. I'd like to see a naked ape, without tools, accomplish grafting or budding. (Of course, it cannot be done--hence the hypocrisy.)

• As one who has extensive experience in picking fruit, both wild and cultivated, I can attest that the idea of naked people picking fruit is both unrealistic and hilarious. I'd like to see naked people, without tools, successfully harvest a large blackberry patch that is full of thorns, wasps, fire ants, and with a healthy inter-growth of poison oak or poison ivy. Picking fruit is hard work, especially wild fruit, and requires protective clothing and tools if one wants to be efficient at it. Those without tools or clothing will pick very little fruit (and those who limited their diets to fruit picked under such conditions would quickly starve themselves into extinction in evolutionary terms).

• Birds' eggs and chicks.
  
• A wide variety of insects and worms (grubs, leafhoppers, ants and termites, etc.).
  
• Honey and bee brood.
  
• Small shellfish, e.g. freshwater crayfish (watch out for the claws!).
  
• Small clams, e.g. the coquina clam of Florida, whose shell is so thin it can be easily crushed by your teeth.
  
• Snails and slugs, including many marine snails (seashells).
  
• An occasional frog or reptile (snake/lizard).
  
• The young of many animal species (chimps catch them without tools--so can humans!).
  
• Fish in small ponds/mud puddles; fish that swim upstream to shallow water to breed (e.g., salmon); fish that breed at the shoreline (e.g., Pacific grunion).
  
• Animals killed by other predators (scavenging; leopards leave their kill in trees--easy to climb up and steal it, when the leopard is not around!).

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 onto 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 ailments). [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, though, 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 and 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 volcanoes, 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 or 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."

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 Troubleshooting Problems article 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 two 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 three 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).
  
• Vitamins B-12, D, biotin: Present in milk, largely absent in fruit.
  
• Calcium: Plentiful in milk, low/scarce in fruit.
  

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 logically invalid 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 relatively harder to digest than other foods. The obvious result: an upset stomach, maybe even the production of a small amount of mucus, which a few fruitarians see as "proof" that protein is an evil demon and toxic. Silly fruitarians! It's just a weakened digestion--I went through this very same delusion myself, back in the 1970s.

Note that if one goes on a mono-diet of one type of food, the body becomes habituated to it. Then, when one adds a new type of food, it will take the body time to readjust to the new food--e.g., the secretion of additional digestive fluids (stomach acid, liver bile) for the digestion of protein foods. One may also experience this effect after a long fast. Finally, experiencing the "new food" effect only once--because one immediately gives up the "toxic, mucus-producing" food--proves nothing.

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 antinutrient properties, toxins, and/or taste awful when raw, but are digestible/edible when cooked: large beans, especially 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, easiest way to consume wheatgrass.

Also, wild chimpanzees practice a crude type of juicing, known as wadging. (Wadging consists of crushing foods with the palate, sucking the juices, then spitting out the used wadge.) 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 a beneficial 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 relative, 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 it has 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 Troubleshooting Problems article is an honest effort to educate others about 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!

• 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 overall 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. I hope that you will take this message to heart, and put it into practice in your life.

--Tom Billings

Before writing to Beyond Veg contributors, please be aware of our
email policy about what types of email we can and cannot respond to.

Back to Frank Talk from Long-Time Insiders