ADA defines raw diet

[Guest guest]

Hi, Jeff -

 

As a member of ADA, I know that they are very mainstream, and likely

somebody who is not knowledgeable in raw diets wrote this particular paper.

To state that we cook foods to less than 160 degrees is very indicative that

somebody didn't really do her homework!

 

When I first got into raw foods, it was simply with the intention of trying

it out so I could understand what the raw food diet was and what motivated

people to follow this practice. I had fully intended to return to a cooked

vegan diet after a period of time. Little did I know that my body object

very strongly to that return!!

 

The official position of ADA is that " any food is ok in moderation " . So a

person can eat a fast food burger (e. coli), some roasted chicken

(salmonella, listeria), and any foods that have been cooked (nutrient

destruction), irradiated (ditto), pasteurized (ditto), treated with sulfites

(allergies) and/or otherwise processed and held for a ridiculous amount of

time, so that any possible remaining nutrients are history as well, which

makes our society reliant on supplements to replace those lost nutrients.

Supermarket foods that are developed to eliminate any possible enzymes (to

preserve shelf life) and that resemble little similarity to their original

source are deemed to be appropriate. Yet a diet based on fresh fruits and

vegetables is considered to be " extreme " . With proper food handling

practices (wash your hands, eat the food while fresh, any prepared raw food

dishes really need to be kept cold and eaten within a couple of days), the

food safety concerns become moot, because the food isn't normally held long

enough for bacteria to develop. In a 100% raw vegan household, the risk of

cross-contamination (a big source of food-borne illness in the omnivore

world) becomes negligible because you don't have to worry about using

different cutting boards for different foods. The potential risk is greater

in a mixed household - in that case, one cutting board and one set of knives

should be devoted exclusively to the raw foods, and, ideally, a preparation

separate from anything involving meat or dairy would also reduce the risk.

 

We just returned on Wednesday from spending 2+ weeks in Germany and England.

We again found that traveling is much easier when eating raw food, although

one should not rely on the bed & breakfast situation for having fresh fruit

available in the morning. The German hostels generally were able to find

some fruit for us, but it generally was not offered with their breakfast

buffet. Our B & B hostess in England didn't quite know what to do with us -

is this all you want for breakfast? Don't you want something else, like

some yogurt? No, we told her. Then I saw how much work she put into making

a traditional English breakfast for another couple that was staying there,

and I understood that it was just totally foreign to her to not put a lot of

labor into preparing breakfast. But she did learn that we enjoyed the

different tropical fruits, and she began buying some mangos, kiwis, etc.,

rather than just apples and bananas. Then, on our return flight, the flight

attendant insisted on trying to get some salads from 1st class for us. Big

mistake. I don't know what was in the salad dressing, or what preservative

might have been used on the salad itself, but both Steve and myself spent a

few hours of the flight in absolute gassy misery, I felt like I wanted to

throw up, it was that bad. Just as we started to feel better, she tried to

give us more processed food, " how about some yogurt? " " No, thank you! " So,

another word of caution to potential raw travelers: Don't eat the airline

food!! Bring your own!! Just plan on finishing any fruit before entering

the US or England. (And, BTW, the outdoor markets in continental Europe are

wonderful. You can eat from the markets & not worry about finding

restaurants.)

 

Sue

 

 

Jeff Rogers [jeff]

Friday, November 26, 2004 11:31 PM

RawSeattle

[RawSeattle] ADA defines " Raw Food Diet "

 

 

I came across this a moment ago. Apparently the ADA isn't too good at

research. I get the impression they don't want people eating raw.

Maybe they don't want people getting healthy. And if people try the

ADA's version cooking up to 159 degrees, they probably wouldn't get

much benefit.

 

Jeff

 

PS: For anyone up to correcting the ADA's definition or up for

enlightening them on your own experiences, the email for the PR

department is media. Kelly Liebbe is the manager; Doris

Acosta is the director.

 

http://www.eatright.org/Public/NutritionInformation/index_13313.cfm

 

The " Raw Food Diet "

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

Raw foods provide fiber, which is important to our overall health.

But is it really better to eat only raw foods?

 

The premise of the raw food diet is to cook foods below 160 degrees

Fahrenheit to keep food enzymes intact so that the body can better

absorb nutrients in the food. The problem with this theory is that

the body already makes the enzymes needed to digest and absorb foods.

 

The raw foods diet encourages you to eat fresh fruits and vegetables,

which is a definite nutritional plus. But there are real food safety

risks. The diet calls for eating a variety of sprouts, many of which

grow in environments that can promote harmful bacterial growth. And

cooking foods below 160 degrees Fahrenheit can lead to foodborne

illness.

 

As with any diet, when evaluating the " raw foods " approach, ask

questions. If you think " This sounds too good to be true, " it

probably is.

 

Produced by ADA's Public Relations Team