Are Raw Food Diets Safe?

Human teeth are not that of a herbivore but those that belong to an omnivore. Restricting one diet to that of a herbivore as you have stated would present health problems. You can't change the nutritional needs of the human body at whim. It was set down long before we were born.

Not only human teeth are omnivorous- the entire digestive tract is. Animals that subsist on herbivorous diets generally have much, much longer digestive tracts, because it takes more time to break down and extract nutrients from vegetative materials than it does to break down and extract nutrients from a meat diet. As ozzb has noted, this was all decided long before we were born.

Another aspect of this that is generally ignored is that, for most of RECORDED history, meat has been the meal of choice of rulers, while carbohydrates have been the food of the working classes. (It was once a hanging offense to kill one of the King's deer in England). Some outstanding examples- look how quickly the poor of Europe became dependent on potatoes after the Spanish brought them back from the Americas (less than 300 years after the "discovery" of potatoes in Peru, major potato crop failures throughout Europe resulted in serious famine- especially Ireland and Germany. Also, I call your attention to "The Potato Eaters" by Vincent van Gogh). The Bounty of mutiny fame was on a mission to gather breadfruit trees (fast growing, high carbohydrate cheap food) as a cheap food source for the slaves of the Caribbean islands...

If you want to maintain a subservient population, feed them high carb, low meat protein diets. Lots of energy, limited mental capacity...

I concur, in the conquering of the Native American what did our government do. They placed a bounty on the American Bison. Millions where wiped out. Starving the Native Americans. I have come to find out the American Bison is very good source of protein. Nutritionally it is better for you then beef, turkey, chicken or pork. Low in cholesterol, high in iron with very little fat. It's taste if put before you, you would have a hard time saying it was something other the beef.

That change in diet has lead to a high rate of obesity among the Native American population.

If someone is choosing a vegetarian diet for health reason its a poor choice.

If it's for moral reasons in the taking of life to each his own. I could go out on a limb and say plants are alive too. That the consuming of a nut is like an abor....

First time İ heard about this bounty - is this a new 'legend' foisted of on the public or what? On the general topic of being a vegetarian (not just raw food) the most unhealtyh population İ have ever been around was in India. Employees of 40 years dropping over dead all too often. Lack of exercise is part of it but I maintain diet doesn't hgelp.

My perception from my studies as a youth (in other words, I have no real documentation to support this perspective) was that the bounty offered for bison was actually offered by the rail roads, because bison had no respect for the iron rails crossing their native range...by then, the indigenous population had already been pretty much decimated...

Your right about the railroads and their bounty. The Federal government all so offered a bounty. In part to protect the range land for cattlemen. Grant actually veto a bill that would have protected their dwindling herds. Sheridan want to exterminate them all to starve the Plains Indians out. The Native Americans were not out of the picture yet on the plains.

I was reading in a book called "Eat Right for Your Blood Type" and they were discussing how blood has a lot to do with how your body digests food. I found an article from runtheplanet.com that seems to have much the same information as the book (and to which I am using to source the information below).

They say that blood Type O is the oldest, followed by Type A (which developed during the agrarian [farmers and grain gatherers] time period), then Type B (15,000 and 10,000 BC), and then Type AB (has only been around for 1000 years, modern adaptation and result of intermingling of groups).

From this basis, they reason that Type O digests meat really well (because the blood type formed when people were primarily meat-eaters). They reason Type A does not do well with meat-based proteins and often feel better when eating soy- or tofu-based proteins. Type B can digest most foods, with some exceptions. Type AB is a combination of the best and worst of Type A and B, with some exceptions (if something is bad for someone of Type A and Type B, it is most likely bad for Type AB).

The book also goes on to describe how Type O blood types are predisposed to diseases resulting from high stomach acid (such as peptic ulcers), because they tend to have more stomach acid than other blood types (they reason that it is because they are meat-eaters). Type A blood types are predisposed to diseases resulting from low stomach acid (like stomach cancer).

It also describes how each blood type should exercise. But I feel that you can go to the article and read about your blood type if you are so inclined. I am not saying that I necessarily believe everything this book says, but it does make a little sense. What you said made me think about the book and how interesting I found it to be.

İnteresting and something to have in mind - how correct it is I certainly don't have the background to say.

Probably more significant than blood type is your individual internal biota that assist in the digestive process, breaking many things down into forms that can be absorbed through the intestinal wall. I suspect there are cultural differences, which means one who enjoys traveling and sampling the local cuisine may not be able to digest all that is proffered...

This also suggests that a radical change of diet can have a significantly negative impact on your health, as the little bugs in your gut get confused and angry that you have changed your dietary habits without their permission- a crisis I have often had to face...

E. coli is actually a very common resident of your digestive tract- or, certain strains of E. coli. There are only about 6 of a multitude of varieties of E. coli that cause problems in the human digestive system...

I am of the opinion (which means I don't have a whole lot of scientific references to back this concept up) that one of the main causes of obesity is related to a steady diet of overly-processed foods. You feel hungry, you eat. You soon get a signal from your digestive tract (either your own built-in signaling system, or a signal from one of your resident symbiots) that essentially says, "Hey, that's not what we asked for- try again!" which your brain interprets as, "Hey, we're still hungry!" This is especially a problem with modern over-processed foods, where all the important stuff has been stripped out and replaced by fillers like sugars and starch...

Bottom line- eat what makes you feel good. If you are hungry again shortly after dining, eat something different. UNDER ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER SHOULD YOU TAKE ANTIBIOTICS ORALLY!!!

I am particular to certain raw foods though often will blanch or warm slightly some veggies or fruits even if only by rolling or rubbing (no not petting).

I must be categorized on the fringe of normal concerning diet though I be thick in the middle only about 2% of diet is processed foods. I like the taste of certain foods and that I believe has been the ruination of an excellent physique.

I have eaten raw meats and will again if hungry enough; is best while still warm from the kill or catch I think.

Some of the GMO veggies are scary. I tossed out some sweet potato's and they lay in the yard for three weeks with nary an animal bothering them. The mower chopped them up a bit and I disturbed the ants but they wouldn't even climb upon that sweet potato intruder. I thinking I'm glad I didn't eat any of that stuff that doesn't decay nor insects devour.

"UNDER ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER SHOULD YOU TAKE ANTIBIOTICS ORALLY!!!"

Oh sure, now you tell me... I've been taking an antibiotic since friday for a lung infection.... so where am I supposed to put it?

Well, I guess there may be another way but I prefer through the mouth!!

Though, what you say may have some truth, it is also true that raw food is absolutely safe for human beings. I have done it for many months. Almost a year I consumed only raw food. I faced no problem of what so ever.I know many other people who are regularly practicing it.

Why asking this in an Engineers forum? Wouldn´t it make more sense to discuss it with your doctor? What is the source for the info contained herein: the Readers Digest Magazine? Sorry, dont mean to be aggressive but I have the feeling that these kind of discussions are completely out of place here!

Agree with you completely.

There is a section in CR4 BioMech & BioMed, so health and wellbeing are already part of the forum. We all have to eat. While I will probably not jump on the all raw vegetable diet wagon, it will not harm me to learn a little, and perhaps reflect on my own eating habits. GA for you, Jaxy.

I like to think that a day in which we haven't learned something is a day that we have wasted.

Sorry, you are right: medicine is such a simple field of science anyone can give a correct answer to any question. The funny thing is most of the opinions held as true facts are based on completely non scientific sources!

Hi Jaxy,

Good answer and my GA for the same. Yes, we engineers are also Human beings so we always welcome such blogs from anyone. Look at the response you have got, that itself proves its utility.

Regards,

Suresh Sharma.

While vegetables comprise about 80% of my diet--raw and cooked--I don't think I could go the raw route whole-hog. _sorry. Too many deficiencies to worry about, as you mention, plus it doesn't seem very satisfying or appealing.

One of the strangest takes on this (to me) is fruitarianism. Especially those who will only harvest fruit after it has fallen to the ground, so as not to 'harm' the plant or tree.

No need to apologize... I couldn't do it either! Without vitamin supplementation, it would be near impossible to have a raw diet be a healthy diet.

Oh my goodness. Fruitarianism sounds ... very constricting. I wonder if they don't use toilets so that they can "disperse the seeds."

what are all the non-animal proteins that are available to the vegetarian? it seems to me that this is the crux of the problem.

thanks,

chris

Nuts, grains, legumes, seeds. Soy contains all of the essential amino acids.

thank you x 3!

Thank you for this great blog, Jaxy.

I am curious why raw food diets tend to be thought of as vegan. It seems that many of the problems associated with raw food diets would be eliminated (allowing enjoyment of the benefits inherent in not destroying nutrients with heat) if these diets were more in line with the namesake... 'raw food' (not 'raw fungus vegetables and fruit, but no meat fish eggs or dairy').

The need to take supplements and the concern about inability to maintain weight would certainly be off the table if wild caught sashimi, free range grass fed carpaccio, eggnog, and un-pasteurized milk products were put back on the table.

There are probably some great benefits to consuming a macrobiotic raw diet... as long other restrictions aren't piggy-backed.

What do you think?

B.B.B.

BenBenBen,

I don't know that raw food diets are always synonymous with veganism. I can see to where most people think of raw food diets as a stricter diet than veganism. Even though vegans do not eat meat products, they do still cook their food. Raw food diets don't allow cooking of food, which naturally means no meat products (with some exceptions).

I am sure that a lot of research needs to go into a diet plan and a lot of nutrient considerations need to be well thought out.

Have you never tried steak tartar, or oysters on the half shell, egg-sucking (or, the old hang-over cure of a raw egg in a glass of beer), shashimi, and any number of other raw animal protein-based foods???

I have tried sushi and sashimi and promptly decided that it was not for me.

I will have my animal proteins cooked, please!

I wonder why so many diets have to be "exclusive", inclusive sounds like a better and more rounded way to go. What about cooked meat and raw vegetables and fruit, say?

I think a lot of people are obsessed with labels. For a while, I was thinking about becoming a vegetarian (I loved the new type of food, but still had a couple of meaty favorites that I knew I just couldn't let go). I realized that I was mostly obsessed with the 'label' and calling myself a vegetarian brought a sense of accomplishment (not superiority, mind you, there are plenty of ways to help the earth and your body than by eating vegetarian). Once I started reminding myself that I can eat whatever I want and not stick a label on it, then I settled on the diet that I currently have.

I will continue to eat vegetarian things, because there are some fantastic recipes out there. One thing that I noticed about vegetarian eating is that everything is prepared by you, not packaged in processed foods. Preparing my meals myself is definitely something I took away from vegetarianism (I have even started making homemade ramen soup).

HI jaxi,

Here is link for vegi food:-

/www.indianfoodforever.com/vegetables.

Suresh Sharma.

"which naturally means no meat products"

despite the fact that many creatures in the animal kingdom eat meat, not only raw, but freshly killed... are we missing something?

I don't know... are we? Well, it kind of makes sense that they would eat them freshly killed, less time for bacteria and other nonsense to contaminate the meat.

Plus... the creatures in the animal kingdom that eat meat don't have refrigerators...

SUE, you wrote:

'.....One of the strangest takes on this (to me) is fruitarianism. Especially those who will only harvest fruit after it has fallen to the ground, so as not to 'harm' the plant or tree.....'

That is indeed strange. There is no shortage of odd beliefs held tenaciously in spite of lack of confirming evidence.

How about 'BREATHARIANISM' ? Adherents claim no need for food or water, that the body can survive on 'prana' alone. Wikipedia has some great info on one of the proponents....

....

Wiley Brooks Wiley Brooks is founder of the Breatharian Institute of America. He was first introduced to the public in 1980 when appearing on the TV show That's Incredible!.[18] Brooks stopped teaching recently to "devote 100% of his time on solving the problem as to why he needed to eat some type of food to keep his physical body alive and allow his light body to manifest completely."[19] Brooks believes to have found "four major deterrents" which prevented him from living without food: "people pollution", "food pollution", "air pollution" and "electro pollution".[19] In 1983 he was allegedly observed leaving a Santa Cruz 7-Eleven with a Slurpee, hot dog and Twinkies.[20] He told Colors magazine in 2003 that he periodically breaks his fasting with a cheeseburger and a cola, explaining that when he's surrounded by junk culture and junk food, consuming them adds balance.[21] On his website, Brooks states that his potential followers must first prepare by combining the junk food diet with the meditative incantation of five magic "fifth-dimensional" words which appear on his website.[22][23] In the "5D Q&A" section of his website Brooks explains that cows are fifth-dimensional (or higher) beings that help mankind achieve fifth-dimensional status by converting three-dimensional food to five-dimensional food (beef). The "Holy Cows" section of the site includes a picture of cows with glowing eyes so that readers can sense the energy of the picture.[24] In the "Question and Answer" section of his website, Brooks explains that the "Double Quarter-Pounder with Cheese" meal from McDonald's possesses a special "base frequency" and that he thus recommends it as occasional food for beginning breatharians.[25] He then goes on to reveal that Diet Coke is "liquid light".[25] Prospective disciples are asked after some time following the junk food/magic word preparation to revisit his website in order to test if they can feel the magic.[23] Brooks states that he may be contacted on his fifth-dimensional phone in order to get the correct pronunciation of the five magic words.[23] In case the line is busy, prospective recruits are asked to meditate on the five magic words for a few minutes, and then try calling again;[23] he does not explain how anyone can meditate with words they cannot yet pronounce. Brooks's institute charged varying fees to prospective clients who wished to learn how to live without food, which ranged from US$15 million to US$25 million. A payment plan was also offered.[26] These charges had typically been presented as limited time offers exclusively for billionaires.[27][28] New lower fees have been set to US$100,000 with an initial deposit of US$10,000.[1]..^..,'

... or ....
[/p]

[p]
How about DEITYarianism' these superstitious people eat their God!!!! This isn't their sole source of sustenance, but they are known to employ a ritual with the belief that the wine and bread taken into their mouths actually turns into the blood and flesh of their deity!!! You might even know some of these people. They assemble weekly to compare outfits (especially colorful hats) They believe in the 'Invisible man in the sky'? You know, the one the has the ten things you shall not do, or you will choke and cry and writhe in pain for all eternity ...... BUT... He loves you.... Oh and he is really bad with money... takes in Billions tax free every year, but always needs just a little bit more... (credit is due for the intent of these words, if not these exact words to the late great George Carlin)
[/p]

[p]
Really, other than the second example being generally argued as 'hey that hits too close to home', aren't these two ideas equally bizarre... and still on subject, i.e. of various diets.....even if we strayed a little to Soul Food....
[/p]

[p]
B.B.B.

"A McDonalds Double Quarter-Pounder with Cheese ... is the base frequency"

My life is a symphony!

Were I to be on a raw food diet

I would be my own fuel source

that not withstanding there is nothing like a truly ripe piece of fruit, when all the sugars are formed

The increasing prevalence of cancers [like child molestation] is rooted in improved information gathering & diagnosis...

I think there is some truth to paying attention to your salt intake, but like many things there is a range of deviation

& finally this is certainly an appropriate discussion, after all you guys know shyt

"you guys know shyt"

I'm excited to be moving up the Garthh Scale. As I understand it... that rates about 5 out of 10... _{^{I used to rate "You have your head up your a$$". which was about 3.}}

Chris

There's no question that raw fruits and vegetables are good for you and an essential part of a healthy diet in generous amounts.

There's also no question that if prisoners were forced to subsist on the "raw food diet" it would be considered a violation of human rights and of the Geneva Code.

Dietary changes that cause headaches, nausea and cravings are simply no good. These 'side effects' are signs of starvation.

If the raw diet causes underweight, low bone mass and dental erosion, then it is obvious that some foods are better for you when they are cooked!!! And that cooking makes some essential nutrients bioavailable which you cannot absorb from raw. So much for the basis for the diet, that nutrients are destroyed by cooking.

Don't forget that food deprivation is also a classic cult brainwashing technique because it weakens the mind as well as the body.

In revolt against green glop, Calvin claimed to be a meatatarian.

Veg(etari)ans shouldn't be upset about "whole hog," only cut-up hog.

With some care, combinations of vegan ingredients can be found that contain all the humanly essential amino acids. Like the salad shown, they can be delicious.

Great subject thanks.

Suffice to say a raw food diet is safe if the food chosen is safe to eat raw.

Raw does retain the enzymes which are essential for the bodies tissues and organs to function efficiently and effectively.

I would suspect that gathering cultures of the past wouldn't blink at consuming eggs though.

"Suffice to say a raw food diet is safe if the food chosen is safe to eat raw"

A stopover for my ship, in a famous European city was preceded by a warning not to eat raw vegetables with a graphic chart illustrating the hepatitis cycle.

The reason given (By the US Navy) was due to the use of human excrement for fertilizer.

That was in the 70's, I hope it is not the case today.

Hi Jaxi,

During Nature Cure Treatment I had gone through 21 days of diet which was raw such as fruits, vegetables, juices, nuts etc.I had to avoid all cereals such as wheat,rice,pulses, dairy products. As being veg I did not eat any meat products. Result was that my body had drained out all accumulated toxins, excessive fat etc. I was feeling young and active. It was like purification of whole body.

Regards,

Suresh Sharma.

Excellent reply!

If one (and many others) is happy, healthy, having no problems, long (or normal) life, does the opinion of the doctors (which is normally based on what he is taught in his collage days) matter?

For example, According to alopathy, salt is not good for health. But here in tropical countries, we loose so much of salt in our sweating, we need salt in our diet. Problems of health due to salt are always for those with white collar jobs. So opinion of the doctors regarding salt, should be judged on the local circumstances.

Raw food includes, all stuff told by Suresh, as well as spouted cereals, pulses, water soaked ground nuts, disinfected raw green vegetables and such things.

Hi russ,

When I was better than my earlier health then why I need Doctor?. Only sick people need to go to Doctor. More over I do not visit real Doctor for such proven treatment.

Suresh Sharma.

If a person is not ill then no reason to visit a doctor - for sure. Many of the allopathic (sp?) remedies are dangerous and proven so. Others offer some benefit.

but then a 'real doctor' knows next to nothing about healing and nutrition... they are just pill pushers.

I understand that in old days, in China, there was a different system of Doctors. T proctice was like below:

They used to allot an area of the city to particular doctor. The doctors were highly paid, and they were supposed to see that every person in the area is healthy. They used to deduct the amount from the salary, if some body fails sick.So doctors were taking all preventive cares, instead of treating one, after he/she fails sick.

Isn't it a Tao.... the real path of healthy citizens?

the path of health has been perverted since the creation of the FDA, and the interlocking cartel it forms with big pharma. It is a repeat performance of the Fed and the big banks... all meant to control the market and eliminate competition.

In this case, competition from natural source holistic healing.

anyone practicing medicine outside the lines is labeled as a quack, regardless of results.

It is really a paradox to me how people accustomed to think based on a scientific method easily "derail" when it comes to talk about medical issues. Taking into account that 60% of the USA adults are overweight, and a 30% are obese, I do understand your interest in nutrition, but what you actually need is medical advise and not chit chat about diets based on raw meals, eating according to a certain blood type or the benefits of colon hydrotherapy to prevent whatever disease you may imagine. One of the "Popes" of non traditional nutrition in the states was Dr. Atkins, who earned hundreds of millions by publishing his feverish ideas about loosing weight eating only proteins and fats. Besides clogging his own heart arteries, he harmed many people worldwide. Why don´t we talk about flying saucers instead...?

You are right! medicine is only for fools. Clever people automedicate, and people like me freak out (!!??) when not talked about engineering!

perhaps you haven't seen your loved ones dying in the care of these 'professionals', only to discover that there are cures and treatments.. just not prescribed by the industry, and therefore 'not allowed' in their book. It is currently illegal to prescribe natural products as a medical treatment, despite the fact that the entire industry derives its pharmaceutical products from natural sources... it is sheer insanity, greed, power mongering, and criminal to the extreme.

Presenting the things the way do, we should ban nuclear energy because of Chernobyl or oil extraction due to the current Gulf spill. Yes, there is greed, insanity and power mongering in the pharma industry... just like in politics, religion, TV, etc. So far, there is nothing new under the sun...

However, one must bear in mind that, thanks to modern medicine and sanitation practices, the average life expectancy throughout the world has pretty much doubled in the past century. Somebody must be doing SOMETHING right!

I think cancer was rare a hundred years ago... now it is 1 in 4.

and several cures have been know for decades...

its a vitamin deficiency. just like scurvy.

The increase in cancer rates can be related to a number of causes, among them increased pollution levels and the fact that people live longer today and thus experience longer exposure times and live long enough for the diseases to develop to a problematic stage. Diet could very well be an important factor for some cancers.

Not all cancers are the same, and should not be lumped together under a single category, but that is how most people deal with it.

The fact that cancer rates have increased over the past 100 years does not negate the fact that people generally live nearly twice as long as they did 100 years ago. What it does say is that some of the problems we faced 100 years ago were far more devastating than cancer...

Not to mention that no dies of the old 'common causes' illness any more. Something is assigned such as cancer, heart etc. Old statistics or comparisons to old statistics are generally useless in this case.

One more great advantage of raw food:

No cooking, means no fuel used, means reduction in global warming!

I also remember recently watching a film entitled, "Food Matters". In the film it cites research of someone I don't remember that at least 51% of one's diet should be raw, otherwise the body will be lacking something and ultimately early, chronic disease will be the result. Don't know how available it is, but I rented it from a Hastings in Texas.

This is consistent with some of the concepts I have encountered myself-

1- Have you noticed that foods don't taste the same as they used to? I am referring to raw and cooked fruits and vegetables especially. I first noted it with apples and bananas- then corn on the cob (although one can still occasionally find examples with the strong tastes I remember as a child- so, no, it's not just a matter of losing one's sense of taste with advancing years!)

2- Modern agricultural practices are directed towards higher yields and shorter growing seasons. This suggests less time for plants to assimilate minerals and manufacture vitamins, and suggests (to me, at least), that more of the plant bulk is going to be just water- less tasty stuff. This may sound like an argument for going "organic" but there is no guarantee that "organic" products have not been selectively bread for high yield/abreviated growing season as well.

3- With fruits, I have learned that the smaller, perhaps somewhat deformed varieties (i.e., apples & grapes) are going to have a lot more flavor than the big, beautiful, uniformly colored varieties in the next bin.

It could also be that intensive agriculture strips the critical minerals from the soil faster than nature can replenish. Which brings me to one of my arguments as to why Global Warming may not be such a bad idea. If you look at a globe, you see that the largest land masses are concentrated in the Northern hemisphere, with a good deal of the land lying at latitudes too far north to support agriculture. As the arctic regions start to warm up, more virgin land suitable for temperate crops should become available...

GA chris

Another major reason is that the whole agriculture is now become non organic. Chemical ferilizers are increasing the crop quantity and degrading the crop quality. Tere is even pollution of radioactive materials in the crops through the chemical fertilizers.

Now, slowly (very slowly), we are returning back to organic farming, which will improve the situation. But the damage already done (and being done yet) by chemicals is almost beyond repairs. It will take thousand years to repair the damage.

We are not returning to organic farming - most of the population would starve. Organic farming world wide provides an extremely small percentage of what is grown - in the US it is well less than 1%.

This forum is getting far away from science and engineering and into modern folklore, mythology and green wish stories.

Alright then, please expand the statement:

Organic farming world wide provides an extremely small percentage of what is grown - in the US it is well less than 1%.

Is this depiction of the area or land devoted to organic growing in the US? No matter really because of the craftily deployed Monsanto seed product and cross pollination of GM products we now realize. True organic farming using non-GM seed is a rarity anywhere in the world.

Shall we then address GM to increase nutritional values while maintaining production levels necessary to feed the world? Shall we devote X number of hectares to house hydroponic plantations?

Please detail your insight of the type(s) Ag to contain the necessary CO2 levels inside the complex and promote enzyme/nutrient rich food stocks near term.

1) Is this depiction of the area or land devoted to organic growing in the US? Yes

2) No matter really because of the craftily deployed Monsanto seed product and cross pollination of GM products we now realize. Greens very commonly whine about this though there is no basis in fact - nice smoke screen though

3)Shall we then address GM to increase nutritional values while maintaining production levels necessary to feed the world? Shall we devote X number of hectares to house hydroponic plantations? Address anything you wish but as you seem to be operating in the green world of make believe we will never agree on any point.

4) Please detail your insight of the type(s) Ag to contain the necessary CO2 levels inside the complex and promote enzyme/nutrient rich food stocks near term. I have no idea where this off the wall point comes from.

I'm bringing the conversation into the perspective you requested and you complain?

Instead of taking cheap shots how about you bring some facts to the table so we may discuss the material.

I'm not a greenie I just know more of it than you do and I can show studies done proving GM pollen traveling over 20 miles and x-pollinating organic crops.

You don't impress me much if you believe a NYT reporter has more than an inkling of familiarity with the issues concerning the Ag which is in my backyard; no not garden, the 25,000 acres of mixed corn/soybean cultivation adjacent to my yard.

Bring it...

This forum is getting far away from science and engineering

& thanks for contributing to that to that trend

We are not returning to organic farming - most of the population would starve. Organic farming worldwide provides an extremely small percentage of what is grown - in the US it is well less than 1%. Nice Rectal static, while less than 1% is accurate overall, corn, soybean & wheat skewing the numbers. The basis of this conversation is produce, not grain.

Purists will quibble about the definition, it's clear there is a market for at least the perception of organic food.

Another trend is the increasing return of farmers direct marketing their produce in the form of farmers markets.

Rectal - Nice fellow but what to say - merely replying to the previous comments! People who like organic generally refuse to believe it is a small segment but the truth is the truth. Extracts from the resource you provided express the point -

U.S. producers dedicated approximately 4.8 million acres of farmland—2.7 million acres of cropland and 2.1 million acres of rangeland and pasture—to organic production systems in 2008. California remains the leading State in certified organic cropland, with over 430,000 acres, largely (over 40 percent) used for fruit and vegetable production.

Only a small percentage of the top U.S. field crops—corn (0.2 percent), soybeans (0.2 percent), and wheat (0.7 percent)——were grown under certified organic farming systems - the bulk of the food supply is in this sector.

On the other hand, organic carrots (25 percent of U.S. carrot acreage), organic lettuce (8 percent), organic apples (5 percent) and other fruit and vegetable crops were more commonly organic grown in 2008. Lots of carrots an not much else.

Organic livestock was beginning to catch up with produce in 2008, with 2.7 percent of U.S. dairy cows and 1.5 percent of the layer hens managed under certified organic systems. Not much at all

My comments

- At 0.7% of US cropland it certainly isn't making any difference as far as climate change goes.

- Organic means most of the newer and safer pesticides can not be used. Organic approved materials are the more toxic anymore.

My garden - I use the minimum pesticide necessary - only when I can not take care of the problem by hand - lawn and garden weeds are removed by hand - fertilizer I use both compost and chemical

When I buy veggies and fruits I buy what my favorite vendor has that he promises tastes good. How it was grown and where it comes from I don't care.

Only a small percentage of the top U.S. field crops—corn (0.2 percent), soybeans (0.2 percent), and wheat (0.7 percent)——were grown under certified organic farming systems - the bulk of the food supply is in this sector.

The topic is raw food, which mostly means food other than grains

so your original statement is correct, but not accurate

- Organic means most of the newer and safer pesticides can not be used. Organic approved materials are the more toxic anymore.

got any validation of that?

funny you complain about the lack of science in the discussion & try to portray opinion as fact

I buy what ever produce looks the best, some of the time organic is actually cheaper.

Steve Savage does an excellent job on this point - He has several articles on this point.

You are the one whining about lack of science I believe.

If you read the post it shows the small percentage of selected raw foods that you are so worried about - even though it is a small part of the overall diet for 99 plus percent of the population.

http://redgreenandblue.org/2010/05/12/two-radically-different-views-of-celery/comment-page-1/#comment-103561ve

Actually you were the one whining that the discussion didn't even belong here on CR4 in your post #77

We are not returning to organic farming - most of the population would starve. Organic farming world wide provides an extremely small percentage of what is grown - in the US it is well less than 1%.

This forum is getting far away from science and engineering and into modern folklore, mythology and green wish stories.

Interesting link, which doesn't have anything to do with your assertion:

- Organic means most of the newer and safer pesticides can not be used. Organic approved materials are the more toxic anymore.

In which you seem to suggest organic pest control is more toxic [dangerous?] than the stuff monsanto/dow/basf sells.

Referring back to Post #73, where the question has been raised about whether foods available today have the same nutritional value of foods a century ago- apparently, the problem predates what we call "GM" or "organic" today. I suspect the problem is related to a phenomenon that began during World War I, and has to do more with accelerating the growth rate and increasing the crop yield. I suspect, whether the food is grown organically or not, whether it is GM or "selectively bred" (and we have had long discussions before about whether traditional methods of modifying crops are any better or any different from current GM attempts- I don't want to start that discussion again!), that the real problem is that we are not letting plants have enough time to properly "build" their nutrients, and that intensive agriculture, be it organic or otherwise, strips the soil of necessary minerals faster than nature can recover it. Here in Panama, traditional practice was to farm a section of land for four years, then let it lie fallow for ten years (probably running cattle on it), then rework the land. The cycle has been reduced significantly, as available land suitable for raising crops is decreasing.

These practices are true whether one is farming organically or otherwise. Furthermore, our "natural" foods have been modified so significantly over millennia that they no longer resemble the original plants. The question is not whether a vegan diet or a raw diet is healthy- the question is, are these foods going to provide the nutrition we traditionally expect from them?

This forum is getting far away from science and engineering and into modern folklore, mythology and green wish stories.

Shall we start a separate thread to discuss Organic Farming Vs Current farming?

We could spin off a whole separate forum: CH4 (stands for Compost Heap 4).

GA...I brought up the Monsanto speak only because another poster sought a scientific approach but now I realize it was only a ploy to fight about. I'm not going there...

Your point I believe is one should educate one's self about the food one eats.

"Your point I believe is one should educate one's self about the food one eats."

Indubitably

russ, jaxy and others..... come on other thread I opened for Organic farming

You forgot the link.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/56018

Thanks Jaxy, bwire for putting the link.

Raw rhubarb, raw potatoes, raw pork, and raw poultry certainly don't cut it. Other meats, fish, eggs, and seafood can be raw, if bacterial precautions are observed. If some type of food needs to be cooked, it seems best to cook it just enough to defeat bacteria or parasites, or achieve tenderness.

Even though raw apples are great, no one will ever wean me from apple pie! (Secret trick: replace 1/4 tsp of cinnamon with 3/4 tsp cumin--comes out like a chutney.)