| |
 Mostly,
people appear to question the legitimacy of what might appear to be a diet
of "rabbit food". Raw foods diets evoke images of late-night pay per view
juicer offers and waking up on the couch. In light of this history, some
incredulity is hardly surprising regarding the general skepticism many Americans
feel towards vegetarianism and veganism. For those who scoff at the hamburger-denying
populace, the living foods movement may be entirely too much to bear. |
| |
 Raw
and living foods proponents not only uphold essentially vegan principles,
they attempt to avoid anything that's been heated above 115° Fahrenheit.
Rawfoods.com is a website whose goal is to educate the public about living
foods and to serve as a support source for raw foodies everywhere. They
claim that based on sound scientific studies, cooking deprives food of almost
all nutrients, vitamins, antioxidants, and life giving energy. They even
go so far as to say that proteins denatured during the cooking process are
rendered "toxic". This is a significant statement considering common belief
holds that proteins are more digestible as a result of exposure to extreme
heat. |
| |
 Aside
from the doomsday claims about cooked foods, there appear to be some very
appealing benefits to a living foods lifestyle. Glowing health, long life,
increased alertness and a more positive outlook all sound very good. It
supposedly staves off cancer, heart disease, and high cholesterol. On some
levels, it's hard to argue with living foods advocates. Greens cooked until
they are brown are thought to be completely void of any antioxidants, nutrients,
minerals or any other good stuff. Not to mention, they taste bad. There
is also a certain aesthetic appeal to enjoying foods in their most natural
state. It might be refreshing to experience food that hasn't been preserved,
plumped and prodded. |
| |
 Philosophically,
the living foods movement holds some very respectable views. They believe
in sustainable organic and biodynamic farming practices which are gaining
serious momentum in the mainstream. Organics are becoming less and less
about "fruity" hippy culture and more and more about logical responsible
stewardship. A reduced need for non-renewable energy sources is a nice benefit
of eating all of one's foods raw too. |
| |
 On
the other side of the debate, some people say that cooking is what makes
these vitamins and minerals available to us in the first place. More significantly,
the act of cooking approaches the ritualistic. Imagine a kitchen without
a stove. And, what about pasta? Bread? Cookies? Are we ready to let go of
these things? The living foods movement runs completely counter to what
the USDA food pyramid tells us to eat. For these people, the food pyramid
isn't just part of the past, it's ancient history. But, most Americans would
argue that a strict diet of raw foods would lead to something approaching
malnutrition, if not starvation. Eating a lot, however, does not mean that
one is eating well. Americans are grossly overindulgent when it comes to
proteins and starches, and as a result could technically be considered malnourished
themselves. Cows and potatoes are practically national symbols. We could
all probably benefit from eating more raw fruit and vegetables. Why not
serve them in creative new ways? |
| |
 Next
summer, renowned chef Charlie Trotter will be putting out a cookbook written
in collaboration with Roxanne Klein, Chef/Owner of Roxanne's, a restaurant
in Larkspur, California, dedicated entirely to raw and living foods. Should
we open our eyes to what may be a natural culinary progression? Or, is the
increased interest in this trend nothing more than an extension of a desire
to return to a simpler world? In other words, is the living foods movement
just a reaction to what has become an over-processed world filled with over-processed
chemically tainted food? Will restaurants everywhere be looking to hire
a chef de crudités? |
| |
 Let
the
debate begin. |
| |
|
