-----Original Message-----
From: sturtevants [mailto:Sturtevants@qwest.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 11:53 PM
To: RawSeattle@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [RawSeattle] Re: Gullibility & Snake Oil article?

Here is the original message that I received.  It is a bit long.  Enjoy.

Ramona



I got this article from an acquaintance of mine and thought you all
may want to peruse it. Just to know what is being said out there.

Eric.


GULLIBILITY AND DIETARY SNAKE OIL:
The claims regarding raw diets that sound too good to be true

As mentioned above, those who believe the claims that raw diets will
cure any/all diseases, solve all the world's problems, and so on,
certainly expect a great deal from what is on their lunch plates--
i.e., embody unrealistic expectations. Such wild and fanciful claims
are similar to those made by the unscrupulous peddlers of patent
medicines in the U.S. in the late 1800s and early 1900s, from which
the term "snake oil" comes. (Similarly, one can find some peddlers of
multi-level-marketed supplements making wild verbal claims nowadays
about their products.) Because they are making similar claims, but
about diets, it is not unreasonable to characterize the dietary
extremists who promote "cure-all, perfect, and/or ideal" diets as
promoters of dietary snake oil.
It should be noted that not all promoters of dietary snake oil--maybe
not even most--are motivated purely by greed. Some of the current
dietary snake oil peddlers are people who: (1) went on a diet, and
then (2) experienced great improvement in health and/or healing on
the diet. Said individuals then: (3) mistakenly believe that their
short-run healing diet is also an ideal long-term maintenance diet
(for everyone!), with the result that (4) they become "missionaries"
for their diet.

In other words, some peddlers of dietary snake oil have, in fact,
duped themselves (via ignorance and failing to think clearly) into
the false belief that their diet is the "one true religion and
science of perfect health." Clearly, such dietary snake oil peddlers
are not motivated only by the desire to exploit others (and perhaps
may not even be aware that that characterizes part of what they are
doing)--but they are still snake oil peddlers. So... be wary of wild
claims: they may be coming from very sincere people, which in itself
does not prove anything although it certainly increases the
seductiveness of the claims made. Sincerity is fine and needed in
this world. It does not, however, guarantee anything.

An obvious answer to the question of why people are seduced by
dietary snake oil is that the same reasons apply as for traditional
snake oil. Some relevant reasons are:


We want a quick/easy fix for our problems--a magic pill, or a magic
diet. We want an easy fix because we want to avoid the task of
addressing the serious (and challenging) underlying mental,
emotional, spiritual, or external factors (job, family, environment,
other potential stress factors) that may well predispose us to ill
health over and above simply diet. Similarly, we want the fix to be
quick, as our society and technology encourages us to want the
solution yesterday, if not sooner.

From a certain spiritual viewpoint, one can characterize the demand
for a quick/easy fix as a form of laziness and greed. In demanding an
easy fix, not only are we lazy, but we are also thinking only of
ourselves--we want healing right NOW, this instant. And we do not
consider that a full solution, obtained by addressing the underlying
problems, might actually benefit others (especially our families: if
we become calmer, more positive people, and work to reduce stress in
the home, the entire family will benefit), our community, and even
the world. The world can be fixed, but only one person at a time.

We don't want to face reality--life, and ourselves--as they really
are. We don't want to face the reality that regardless of our diet,
drugs, lifestyle, or other factors, we ultimately don't have complete
control over our fate. It's easier to live in denial, and to think
that the "magic pill" or "magic diet" will solve (all) our problems,
and thereby empower us with the ability to fully control our fate. It
can be very difficult to face the issue of our own mortality.
The issue of control here is relevant and interesting, because
control is regarded as a major underlying factor in eating disorders,
especially anorexia nervosa. Those with anorexia often feel that even
if they can't control other factors of their lives, the one thing
they can control is what, and how much, they eat. Similarly, there is
a proposed new eating disorder: "orthorexia nervosa" (see the article
Health Food Junkie on this site for details). Orthorexia nervosa is
an inordinate obsession with dietary purity--with the quality of what
one eats. So, by obsessing over the quality of one's diet, and
strictly controlling one's diet according to the simplistic raw vegan
dogma promoted by dietary extremists, one may gain a (false) sense of
control over life as well.


Some folks in ill health are desperate. They have "tried everything,"
nothing helped much, and they will now "try anything." Such folks
need our encouragement and support. In their favor, raw diets have an
excellent anecdotal record of healing and health improvement, in the
short run.

Gullibility. The issue of gullibility underlies some of the above
points. Many of us really do want to believe that perfection--perfect
health or a perfect world--are quickly and easily available, as the
dietary snake oil peddlers claim. Or if not quickly and easily, at
least surely and certainly available (eventually) if one follows the
rules. This gullibility is also what keeps many dietary snake oil
peddlers/extremists in operation. P.T. Barnum reportedly once said
that "there's a sucker born every minute." In the context of dietary
snake oil and extremism, we could restate Barnum as: "Eating raw is
NOT the law, but there are a lot of suckers around who might believe
it anyway and spend money on books and tapes."

Side notes:

The criticism above of a "quick/easy fix" to health problems should
be considered in context: the advantages of finding long-term solution
(s) for health problems. There are times when a "quick fix" is
desirable and/or necessary. Examples include: relief from severe
pain, when necessary to save a life (e.g., heart attack), when
necessary to prevent long-term damage to vital bodily systems (e.g.,
demyelinative disorders of the central nervous system such as
multiple sclerosis), and so on. The criticisms above should not deter
one from seeking a "quick fix" when appropriate. The object of the
criticism above is to alert readers to the limits and constraints
inherent in "quick/easy fixes."

Raw vegan diets have an impressive anecdotal record of success as
short-term healing diets. (In the long run, the record as a
maintenance diet is rather dismal.) The point is that raw diets may
be healing for some in the short run, but they are not for everyone,
and they are not cure-alls. The claim that raw diets are cure-alls
(or even nearly so, since overidealism may be more believable if at
least a few exceptions to an all-powerful cure-all are admitted) is
clearly in the realm of dietary snake oil.



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

FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY:
Claims that the diet is perfect, ideal, and/or most natural

The false sense of security imparted by simplistic dietary dogma
follows from being "sold" a false naturalism/model of nature that
supposedly supports the diet. Further, the "sale" of such dogma may
depend, as discussed above, on the idealism and gullibility of the
potential follower of the dietary extremists. The security comes from
believing that the diet is one or more of the following, according to
the dogma: best, ideal, most natural, perfect, cure-all, solution to
all problems, and so on. Needless to say, such claims are false,
hence the sense of security is false, but this does not matter to the
(uninformed) follower, and the extremists are generally pleased to
have uninformed followers (though they of course may not consider
them to be so) who buy their books, tapes, newsletters, and so on.
Certain other aspects of raw dietary dogma promote a false sense of
security as follows:


Claims that the diet is based on "eternal health truths" or "eternal
health principles." One would expect "eternal" claims about something
physical (health) to have some rational proof, but such is usually
not the case. Instead, such claims are often treated as, in effect,
theological principles, which are allegedly self-evident, so do not
require proof.

On the other hand, one can find other extremists promoting their
diets based on "scientific" proof of their claims. Examples here
include such claims as: "protein is toxic" (in the sense that its
metabolic by-products are allegedly harmful), "fruit is just like
mother's milk," and so on. Many of these claims are
examined/discredited on this site. However, crank science can and
often does look like real science, and some people are duped by crank
science. If one believes crank science to be real science, one may
think their diet is the most "scientifically correct," which may
impart some sense of security.

To summarize this section: a sense of security, of knowing that your
diet is "right" or "best" (even if the belief is false), is a very
attractive and seductive part of simplistic dietary dogma.




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

SOCIAL ASPECTS: Uniqueness and attention

Individual reaction to the social impact of a raw vegan diet can vary
by individual preference. That is, the raw vegan diet may present
social opportunities, or be socially isolating. Thus the social
aspect may be an incentive (part of the seduction) or a disincentive,
to raw diets.
First, raw vegan diets are relatively rare. They make a person stand
out in modern society, and hence provide a certain uniqueness to the
person following the diet. Further, as many social events revolve
around food, the raw vegan may be the focus of considerable attention
at social events (because of the uniqueness of the diet). This
provides those with the "missionary" mindset many opportunities to
talk about what are usually their favorite subjects of discussion:
their raw vegan diets, and themselves. (In my experience, these two
are often correlated: raw/restricted diet and big egos).

Of course, one may be challenged about one's diet, but the missionary
mentality views such events as opportunities to preach the virtues of
the "one true religion and science of perfect health, the raw-food
diet." (On the other hand, challenge an extremist and you will
probably be the target of attacks and hostility.) Thus, that raw
vegan dogma provides an opportunity for dietary "missionary work" is
attractive to some rawists, and part of its seductive nature.

Side note: the above is intended as criticism of those who take
simplistic dietary dogma and elevate it to the level of religion. It
is not intended as criticism of legitimate, established religions
that include a dietary component, e.g., the Hallelujah Diet, perhaps
others, etc.

On the other hand, many rawists eventually tire of the hassle of
explaining their diet, and/or lack the social skills to handle
inquiries about their diet, due to immaturity in some cases, and
lunch-identification--the process of identifying with one's lunch--in
other cases. (See Functional and Dysfunctional Lunch-Attitudes on
this site for details.) When that happens, the usual result is that
the rawist avoids social events that include food--i.e., most social
events. In that situation, the diet can be very socially isolating,
and can even promote a negative mentality: "me (raw)" vs. "them
(cooked world)," which can promote further isolation. Even worse,
when your diet controls your social agenda and social life, then the
raw vegan diet is (figuratively) eating you, when it should be the
other way around!

In this situation, rawism and raw dogma can be social impediments,
and this can be a disincentive to raw (i.e., anti-seduction). One of
the things that I personally found very welcome when I discontinued
100% raw and resumed eating some cooked food was how relaxed--and
pleasant--social events became, and how much of life I was missing by
avoiding social events because the food (vegetarian, by the way)
was "cooked." [Personal note to socially isolated, emaciated, 100%
raw vegan fanatics: gaining some weight, and allowing yourself the
freedom to eat some cooked food, might actually improve your social--
and sex--life! :-) ] Basically, you should set the social agenda, and
not surrender that part of your life to the dictates of narrow,
simplistic dietary dogma.

To summarize this topic: the uniqueness of raw vegan dogma can be an
incentive to those who wish to promote the diet (and usually,
themselves, at the same time), but can be a disincentive and socially
isolating for others.





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

SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS AND REALLY BIG EGOS:
The perils of assigning moral values to diet

It is appropriate to begin this section with a quote from the
article, "The New Food Anxiety," by Paul Roberts, from the April 1998
issue of Psychology Today (vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 30-38, 74). From p. 38:

...the psychological appeal of such diets has almost nothing to do
with their nutritional benefits; eating the right foods is for many
of us very satisfying.... In truth humans have been assigning moral
values to foods and food practices forever.... Numerous studies have
found that eating bad foods...can cause far more guilt than any
measurable ill-effects might warrant, and not just for those with
eating disorders.
The morality of foods also plays a huge role in how we judge others.
In a study by Arizona State University psychologists Richard Stein,
Ph.D. and Carol Nemeroff, Ph.D., fictitious students who were said to
eat a good diet...were rated by test subjects as more moral,
likeable, attractive, and in-shape than identical students who ate a
bad diet....


It comes as no surprise to learn that raw-fooders often assign moral
values to their "ideal, perfect, most natural" diets. Indeed, it can
be hard to resist the temptation to consider yourself morally
superior when your lunch is fruit or sprout salad, and the lunch
of "other people" is hamburgers and chocolate-chip cookies. After
all, the fruit/sprouts are: fresh, live, enzyme-rich, whole,
unprocessed, organic, and other superlatives. Meanwhile the hamburger
and cookies are: cooked, dead, fractionated, processed, non-organic;
furthermore hamburgers and chocolate-chip cookies might violate
the "holy sacrament of food combining." :-) The raw-fooder takes
further satisfaction from knowing that he or she used to eat
such "degenerate" cooked foods, but has since broken the chains
of "cooked-food addiction" (according to rawist dogma), and become a
better(!?), more disciplined, and hence, MORALLY SUPERIOR person.
In reality, what actually happens is that the rawist, believing false
raw dogma, sets out to accomplish a bit of discipline--through
disciplined eating, namely a restricted diet of raw foods. Then, on
accomplishing this discipline, the rawist may reap the common result:
an inflated, inflamed ego, accompanied by massive self-righteousness.
(The same thing often happens to those who follow conventional,
cooked-food vegan diets.) What is ironic about this situation is that
the self-righteousness of raw dogma is far more addictive than cooked
foods may or may not be. How many people are self-righteous because
they eat cooked foods, rather than raw? (Maybe a few extremist
macrobiotics, but they are a tiny minority.)

And yet, the evidence available suggests that some (many) of the self-
proclaimed "100%-raw" role models do not strictly follow the diet
they promote, and instead binge-eat (often in secret, and on cooked
food!), while selling themselves to the world as supposedly
successful, 100%-raw role models (or "experts"). The relevant term
here is "raw hypocrisy." Further, raw dogma is often far more
restrictive than cooked food dogma ever was; an apt metaphor for raw
dogma is that of a "golden cage," because the rawist happily accepts
severe restrictions on his/her diet and life. (See the book The
Golden Cage: The Enigma of Anorexia Nervosa, by Hilde Bruch, 1978,
Harvard University Press, for the motivation for the metaphor).

Certain extremists actually promote the idea that eating 100% raw
makes you (genetically) "superior" to others. Such sentiments are
nothing but bigotry, partially hidden behind a "smoke screen" of
crank science and dietary dogma. The analogy to racism is obvious
here. Shame on the extremists who promote this as a reason to become
rawists!

To summarize: because of the discipline required to comply with
narrow, restrictive rawist dogma, self-righteousness and inflated
egos are risks and/or occupational hazards on the raw path. Once a
person is tainted by self-righteousness, raw dietary dogma has a firm
grip on them--it is very seductive indeed.





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

SELF-IDENTIFICATION WITH DIET AND MOVEMENT:
Something larger than yourself to believe in

Because raw diets are promoted via a false naturalism that claims
they are "most natural," and the claim is very attractive to
idealists, it is very common for those who follow raw diets to
develop what could be referred to as lunch-identification. This
happens when one identifies strongly with their diet; when the diet
and its dogma become an important part of the individual psyche. (See
the article, Functional and Dysfunctional Lunch-Attitudes on this
site for a fuller discussion.) One way to characterize this is
that "I'm a raw-fooder" can be more important than "I'm a human
being," to a person afflicted with lunch-identification.
Further, while those attracted to raw diets self-identify with the
diet and its simplistic dogma, they are usually also attracted to
the "raw movement." One can define the raw movement as the collection
of individuals and groups promoting raw-food (vegan) diets. Strictly
speaking, it is really a collection of small groups that often
disagree with one another on the details of the diets. Further, these
groups often compete with, or even conflict with, one another (e.g.,
there is an extremist raw/fruitarian wing that is extremely hateful
and dishonest, in my opinion and experience). However, the idea that
there is, in effect, a unified raw movement is appealing to
idealists, as it gives them something larger than themselves to
believe in. It gives them the hope for a "brave raw world" (a la
Aldous Huxley's Brave New World), which some of the extremists claim
(often in a hateful manner) will be a "paradise" with no sickness or
social problems of any kind.

Side note: the contrast between the hateful fanaticism of the lunatic
fringe of the raw/fruitarian movement, and the peaceful raw paradise
that they claim will result if the world follows the diet they
advocate or claim to follow is quite amazing. If the mind/body
connection works as the extremists imply it will, and the diet
changes your mindset, then the evidence--the hateful, hostile
behavior of the extremists--suggests that if you follow their diet,
then you too, will become a hostile, mentally unbalanced fanatic! :-)

The idea that a raw movement exists also provides some comfort to
lonely, socially isolated rawists, who strive to be raw in
the "cooked" world. As discussed earlier, such attitudes reflect more
accurately on the social maladjustment that raw dogma indirectly
promotes, by placing very high value on being raw, and low value on
other things. The idea that somewhere there are "people like me" is
comforting to the isolated rawist. Side note: while it is difficult
to be 100% raw and have a social life in this world, it is pretty
easy to have a social life if you are 75-95% raw. Is 100% raw really
worth it? As a former long-time 100% raw person, my personal answer
is a clear and emphatic: NO--there are many things in life that are
more important than what is on your lunch plate!

To summarize: to a limited extent, the idea that there is
a "glorious" :-) raw-food movement that one can be a part of is a
part of the seduction of raw dietary dogma, since:


It appeals strongly to idealists, and,

To a certain extent, it counters the social isolation that rawists
often experience in the "cooked" world.



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

RAW DOGMA AND CULTS: The cult of 100% raw

If one happens to follow the wrong dietary extremists, one may find
the raw experience to be cult-like. For many people this is a
disincentive, hence anti-seduction. For others, the cultish aspects
are part of the seduction, as cults usually promise great things if
you follow their teachings, and provide a well-defined group to
identify with. Below are a few of the cult-like aspects of raw dogma.

Belief that the cult has all the answers to your problems in life.
The extremists who teach that raw diets are the underlying answer to
all life's problems are prime examples of this; also, those
extremists who market 100% raw as some kind of "promised land."

Belief that the cult's teachings are (1) eternal, true, and/or (2)
best/optimal. The extremists who claim they are teaching "eternal
health truths" that they have discovered are good examples of (1);
those who promote the diet based on crank science are examples of (2).

Deification of the cult leader. This usually happens after the cult
leader is dead. Examples in raw foods include those natural
hygienists who effectively worship Herbert Shelton as the "great
saint of health," and regard his writings as, in effect, holy
scriptures. Another example is provided by those who follow maverick
hygienist/fruitarian T.C. Fry, despite the fact that Fry passed away
at age 70 of cardiovascular disease--very hard to explain if you
believe that fruitarianism is the best/optimal diet. (Of course, some
will say that Fry did not sufficiently practice what he preached, but
this just illustrates in another way how unrealistic false idealism
is, when even its leaders cannot or do not adhere to it.)

Adulation of the cult leader. This may occur when the cult leader(s)
is/are alive. Here the diet guru(s) encourage you to look to them as
ultimate authorities, even though they may have little experience, be
fakes, plagiarists, binge-eat in secret, etc. Those diet gurus who
rely on crank science as their marketing tool may denigrate all other
science as invalid, usually based on weak rationalizations and
invalid logic. That is, the diet gurus who rely heavily on crank
science may claim to have the only "true" science, or the only
correct interpretation of it.

Cults often have "sacred" rituals or objectives. In raw diets, the
prime objective, often viewed with the reverence appropriate for
sacred things, is "100% raw" and/or "100% raw fruit," and food
combining serves as a method of ritual eating.

A conversion experience (or ritual) is required or encouraged in
cults. The adoption of a 100% raw diet often causes a short-term
improvement in individual health. This often "confirms," in a way,
the wacky teachings of the dietary gurus (i.e., in effect it is a
conversion experience). The improvement in health makes the
individual think the dietary gurus know something. What the
individual does not know here is that the improvement in health due
to 100% raw is usually short-term, and the long-term is very
problematic. (Note: see The Psychology of Idealistic Diets and
Lessons Learned about Successes and Failures of Vegetarian Diets on
this site for more information on the conversion effect. Also see the
article Troubleshooting: Avoiding and Overcoming Problems in Raw and
Living-Foods Diets on the site for insight into the problems that can
occur on raw diets.)

Just as some rawists identify with the (whole) raw movement, and find
some comfort in that, other rawists may identify with the group
surrounding their diet guru(s). In some cases, these groups are
fanatical and very cult-like, and the cultish nature/aspects are
attractive, or seductive, to some.
Finally, some readers may note that some of the "cult" aspects above
can be used to describe religions as well. That is true, but there is
a big difference between a legitimate religion that has love at its
center (at least in theory), and the negative teachings of some raw-
food extremists. The dietary extremists promote pathological fear of
cooked food, protein, mucus, and/or the idea that eating raw makes
you "superior." Religions promote placing love at the center of your
life (and some legitimate religions have dietary teachings); while
raw dietary extremists want you (without themselves realizing this is
what they promote) to place obsessive fear, food obsessions, and/or
crank science at the center of your life.





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

Other reasons for the seductiveness of raw diets

Part of the attraction (or seduction) of raw diets comes not from the
dogma itself, but from the claims of god-like health made by the
dietary extremists. As mentioned previously, raw vegan diets have an
excellent anecdotal record as short-run healing/health-improvement
diets, while the long-run record is not very good (there are very few
long-time raw vegans).
However, there are many reasons to seriously question the honesty
and/or reliability of some of the claims of long-term success. For a
discussion on this, refer to the article Assessing Claims and
Credibility in the Realm of Raw and Alternative Diets on this site.





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

Epilogue

As long as one is gullible and reason is impaired by excessive
idealism (or high blood sugar from a fruit diet :-) ), there are
plenty of dietary "experts" and "gurus" who may seem very attractive,
some of whom are dubious peddlers of dietary snake oil, and who are
anxious to sell their diets, books, tapes, and newsletters to you.
The object of this site is to encourage you to start thinking--
clearly, carefully, and critically--about the claims of the so-called
dietary experts/gurus. If you do that, then you will have reduced
your gullibility and idealism, and will see that some of the (raw)
dietary gurus are extremists, promoting simplistic dietary dogma
and/or crank science. Remember: if the claims about a diet sound too
good to be true, then chances are good that they probably are.
I hope this article has given you some "food for thought." I wish you
good health, and good thinking!

--Tom Billings



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RawSeattle-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/