.jpg)
Yummy pasta with creamy vegan sauce
A friend recently mentioned to me that she first went vegan for ethical reasons and then a raw foods diet just seemed the "next logical step." I can't imagine why. To me, there is nothing especially logical or beneficial about eating only raw foods.
True, raw foods are packed with all kinds of things that are good for you—tons of fiber and all of the nutrients and phytochemicals that are found in plants. Although nuts and dried fruits are calorie-dense, a raw foods diet is usually much lower in calories than many other ways of eating and can be an effective route to weight loss.
But cooking has some important benefits. Although some foods taste great in the raw state, cooking improves the flavors of others. Even a quick blanch of one minute in boiling water perks up the flavor of broccoli and other veggies. Cooking also expands the food supply; some foods that are difficult to chew or digest in the raw state can be consumed if they are cooked.
Although excessive heat destroys nutrients, gentle cooking of vegetables can actually boost nutrient absorption. For example, some studies have shown that iron is better absorbed from cooked vegetables compared to raw. And leavening grains—which is what happens when flour is cooked with yeast to make bread—improves availability of minerals like iron and zinc.
Cancer-fighting antioxidants like lycopene in tomatoes (which reduces risk for prostate cancer) and beta carotene in carrots, are more available to the body if a food is cooked. Cooking can also neutralize toxic compounds or anti-nutrients in foods.
But from an ethical standpoint, there are other factors that are just as important. Raw foods diets don’t help create a realistic image for a vegan lifestyle. Vegan activists need to model diets that will convince others that they can be vegan, too. Our diets need to be appealing and practical. And the type of diet we recommend should be something that new vegans can learn quickly and can stick with for the long term. When it comes to outreach, a varied vegan diet that includes cooked foods is likely to do the most good.
Comments
To each her own. After being vegan for 12 years, I decided to go raw. My two year anniversary is this July. I've never felt better. After a month of eating raw foods, my energy level practically doubled, my skin cleared up, I lost weight, and my digestive system "normalized." I can't imagine going back. I still eat quinoa and vegan sushi on occasion, but 99% of my diet is raw. If you feel like you can't be completely raw, just add more raw foods into your diet. You'll be glad you did.
You make a very good point about vegan activists modeling a diet that is accessible to others. I can imagine a vegetarian making a similar argument about veganism, if their ethical interest is in convincing people to give up the SAD diet.
But I'm not sure if all vegans would describe themselves as "activists"...I don't usually think of my diet as anyone else's business. Also, according to the logic of making my diet understandable to others, I should stop whipping up gourmet vegan foods and fantastic desserts because not everyone has mad kitchen skillz like I do.
Also, ethics aren't usually what drives someone to raw foods - it's an interest in personal health, weight loss, or vanity. And meeting someone who has improved his or her health radically on a raw vegan diet instead of conventional medicine provides a different kind of model.
THANK YOU for posting this! Raw foodists are one of my biggest pet peeves.
Actually, let me be more clear about that before I come under siege by all my raw food friends ;)
My pet peeve is raw foodies who think that all vegans "should make the next step" and become raw foodists. Like you said, from an ethical perspective it just doesn't make sense and plus, as a nutrition major, I don't feel that it is possible to easily attain all of the nutrients our bodies need to function on a raw foods diet and like you said, it adds an additional hurdle that makes veganism look more difficult than it is and upholds the vegan stereotype that all we eat is "rabbit food".
also get the feeling that a lot of raw foodists could care less about animals and the environment and that it's strictly for health reasons.
So, that's where my pet peeve lies and of course that doesn't apply to all raw foodies :)
be careful what you say ed. why are you, of all people, pigeonholing vegans? all vegans are not alike. tastes (and naive opinions) change over time. i never expected to eat mostly raw but now do simply because, over the centuries, i grew tired of the same old cooking routines. all that foody alchemy was fun at first, but it's just less hassle for me now in my old age and decrepitude to prepare the food and eat it, without being a slave to things like time, heat and dirty cookware. the better nutrition is just a byproduct. plus, raw food indeed is an acquired taste. after a while, it becomes preferred by some, but don't fret, not all will go to the raw side. lighten up, or should i say, "turn down the heat." now is not the time for vegans to be fighting amongst ourselves. there's a planet out there to rescue.
Just a little bit of clarification. This is not meant to attack a particular group of vegans. Rather, it's to point out that some vegan practices don't further the cause of reducing animal suffering. For those of us who share that goal--and who choose vegan diet because of our concern for animals--a raw foods diet makes no sense. There is no scientific basis for adopting this way of eating *and* it makes vegan diets look more difficult than necessary. (And I agree with Ed; it is definitely more difficult to meet nutrient needs on a raw diet.) Whenever we add unnecessary restrictions to a vegan diet (like no fat, no cooked food, no coffee, no sweets), we make vegan diets look just a little bit more unappealing to most people. To help animals, we have to make vegan diets as easy as possible--while still eating a healthful diet, of course. Those who choose vegan diet only for their own health won't be convinced by this argument, I know. But my article was aimed at vegans who want to reduce animal suffering.
Well said!
There are several issues here that were completely white-washed.
1. The author states that going raw won't help the cause of the "ethical vegan." If by ethical-vegan you mean a person whose ethics won't allow him/her to eat animals, then by all means the author is correct. If, however, by ethical-vegan you mean someone who is vegan for ethical reasons, then the author is incorrect. The raw food vegan diet is a much more ethical approach than the cooked vegan approach. In fact, after the animal industry itself, the number two largest cause of production of greenhouse gasses is the cooking of our food; vegan or otherwise. Yes, cooking food contributes more to global warming than commuting by car to work. This huge issue simply cannot be overlooked when discussing ethical veganism, in my opinion.
2. The author suggest that eating a raw foods diet doesn't set a realistic example for others. What, may I ask, is unrealistic about eating raw frutis and vegetables? And why use such an unrelated argument in a discussion of whether eating raw foods is supportive of the ethical vegan approach, unless there is insufficient valid information?
3. The author mentions that eating cooked foods makes certain nutrients more available. This may be a good thing, but of course, we can also be harmed by overdoses of many nutrients. The author neglects to mention that approximately 10,000 nutrients are lost for every 1 that is gained in the cooking process. Again, what does this have to do with the question of ethical veganism? Nothing, according to the author's approach. But if by ethical we mean not creating a burden on others because of our own lifestyle choices, wouldn't the eating of the most nutritious and health-supportive foods be the most ethical approach?
4. If we are going to teach ethics, wouldn't truth be part of that ethic? No other animal cooks its food. There is no model for cooking in nature. There is no valid support of cooking, other than that it makes edible foods that could otherwise not be eaten in the raw state. Personally, I don't see this as a justification for cooking, and certainly not an ethical one. I see it as support for eating foods that we are not designed to consume.
5. When it comes to ethics, the raw vegan takes the cake, hands down. There is no such thing as gentle cooking. Try gently cooking your hand and you will see what I mean.
6. As for people stating on this page that they have problems with raw fooders, I have no comment on what appears to be a lost cause, other than suggesting that those people attempt to live without raw foods and see how they do.
Further to Dr Graham's points:
Is it ethical to support the unnatural environment of mono-culture crops of grains which deplete the topsoil (after having cleared the forests)?
Or is it more ethical to support the fruit trees (a 3 dimensional crop) which:
- brings a higher yield;
- sends deep roots to seek nutrients;
- builds topsoil rather than depleting it; and
- provides a home for an abundance of life both above and below the ground?
A raw diet of fruits and vegetables typically involves the consumption of less packaging, making it a more ethical choice.
Change to a cooked vegan diet is a noble gesture, but how ethical is it to compromise your own nutrition and thus your health, falling short of your potential and achieving less for both yourself and the animals?
People used to use the same argument against veganism and in support of vegetarianism; "Vegan diets are not realistic; Vegan diets that will not convince others that they can be vegetarian, too; Our diets need to be appealing and practical, and giving up all animal products will not appeal or seem practical to the average person; the type of diet we recommend should be something that people can learn quickly and can stick with for the long term, thus, a varied vegetarian diet that includes eggs and dairy is likely to do the most good." People choose Raw Food diets for same reasons they choose vegan diets; ethical and health reasons. I don't think it is productive for regular vegans to put down Raw Food vegans. we are all promoting positive change.
Your argument is based on a logical fallacy. You say that because vegans should be convincing non-vegans to eat like them, going raw doesn't make sense for ethical vegans. You ignore the fact that a raw diet is actutally much better from an environmental standpoint. I'm a vegan and i don't eat a raw diet, but i had to comment because this article is so ridiculous. in fact, i would say that articles like this do more to harm the drive towards veganism. taking this article off the web would be a good step towards being more ethical.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!