country boy:
I seem to recall reading about what happened to Harley on the 80/10/10 discussion forum, located at
http://www.vegsource.com/talk/raw/index.html
.
I think Harley got tested for B12 after a time when he had been eating a raw vegan diet which was relatively high in fat. But then I think he switched to a low fat raw vegan diet (more in accordance to the 10% fat intake dictated by the 80/10/10 program), and then got tested for B12 a second time several months later. My recollection is that his B12 levels were 4x higher on the 2nd test.
But this is just from my memory. I think there are some old posts on the 811 board related to this.
The reason for the abrupt jump is that it appears that fat inhibits the absorption of B12...another reason to have a low fat diet!
I think you are confused:
I guess the thought is that if we have more orchards, more mouths will be fed with less land, so that then we can leave more land in its natural state, uninfluenced by human development. Presumably it is preferable from an ecological standpoint to allow land to be undeveloped, rather than let cattle graze on it.
Another raw food ethic point which I don't think has been mentioned here: Raw fooders are not cooking! We are not burning fossil fuels to prepare out food.
777:
All I can say is that I disagree. I think fruits & vegetables are much richer in vitamins & minerals than grains. Sufficient calories, fat, & protein are all available in raw foods. I don't think humans are natural grain eaters; the only natural grain eaters are birds. Grains cannot be eaten in their natural state, they must be processed (i.e. cooked). No other species on Earth has to cook food...why should humans be different?