while surfing around live science, I found some anti-raw articles by a man who has a strange habit of contradicting himself.
http://www.livescience.com/health/060704_bad_raw_food.htmlDespite major flaws in the raw diet philosophy, one needs to question why a so-called natural diet leaves the dieter dependent on pills for B12 (impossible to get without animal products, such as meat or eggs) or zinc (very hard to get on a raw diet).
you got to admit that he has a point! I mean, if we only live on raw meat, how are we supposed to get B12, which only exists in meat?
(yes, he was talking about diets containing raw meat... At least in previous paragraph)
Raw foods certainly aren't safer than cooked food, as some claim. Most commercial chicken and a good deal of beef and pork, sadly, are loaded with bacteria and parasites
if you click on "loaded with bacteria", you come to another one of his articles that says
Pity the poor bacterium, the Rodney Dangerfield of the unicellular world. It eats our trash, makes soil fertile, turns the food we swallow into useful vitamins, and yet it gets no respect. Most people, when you get right down to it, are just plain bacteria bigots. They want to run all 2,000-plus species of bacteria out of town just because of a few ornery germs that can harm us.
and lastly, has anyone else heard of this?
That said, humans have always eaten some cooked food. So, too, do many land animals; and so did our human ancestors. How? Largely in the form of roasted grasshoppers or other small critters caught in forest fires and brushfires. Fire foraging was quite natural and helped secure our survival. This is how we developed the taste for cooked food.
this statement just sounds so obscure
