Jay Rayner, writing in Guardian's The Observer, makes some good points (e.g., a few of the raw-food gurus are "self-satisfied and smug," even condescending and at least one is downright arrogant) but the reason I read his whole column was becuse his railing and ranting is very funny. From "Why raw food fanatics make my blood boil":
I'm a big fan of evolution. Among the fantastic things it has gifted me – the ability to walk without dragging my knuckles, central heating, Sky Plus – my favourite is the silver cupboard with the knobs on that I keep in the kitchen. It's called an oven, and the mere fact I own one is proof that I am no longer a hairy-bummed ape, who nests in trees and pulls flies out of his mate's hair and eats them (unless she's been really sweet to me and asks nicely).
We are humans, ergo, we cook. ...
Which brings me to the raw foodies, those swivel-eyed enemies of all that is edible who swear that the route to human salvation lies in taking an evolutionary step backwards and not cooking. God, but I hate them. I hate their self-satisfied, smug mien. I hate their dippy thinking and their delusional, anti-science worldview. Hunting the web for quackery is a little like trying to get wet by jumping in a river: unavoidable. Still, a few minutes scanning the rubbish spouted by raw foodies can be useful, if only to give you an extra jaw work-out from the grinding of teeth.
They will tell you there is a nut, the eating of which, will instantly cut your risk of developing cancer by 50%. This is bollocks. They will tell you a raw food diet will increase your energy levels, when it will do the opposite. They will tell you it will make your skin glow, your asthma subside, and bring world peace. I wish I could tell you I made the last one up but I didn't.
Click to read the rest.
Comments