1. Humans are the only creatures on earth who cook food � does this not cause suspicion?
2. In the wild, carnivores eat raw, often filthy, putrid, decomposing prey with no adverse effects.
3. The attrition rate in the wild world is due to the inherent dangers there: predation, injury, drought, food diminishment, etc., not to the raw diet.
4. If raw foods were unhealthy, then no creature should exist today, since from the beginning of time it has been the only food choice.  Raw food, not cooked, puffed, dehydrated, pressurized, retorted, sheared, baked, and steam cleaned, is the very incubator from which life has emerged.
5. It is a fallacy that humans and pets enjoy better health and live longer today.  Modern medicine and technology self-servingly market these fallacious notions.  Longevity (the potential to live longer) has not increased but degenerative diseases have, creating a huge class of humans and companion animals that now �enjoy� a unique new existence: medicated survival.  Average life span has increased, but this is only because of improved hygiene (public works), better food distribution and decreased infant mortality. None of which have anything to do with the ability to extract starch and oil from grains and then create sterile, synthetic, chocolate-covered, melt-in-your mouth food. (Also see Controversy #16 - Are We Living Longer?)
6. Degenerative diseases do not abound in carnivores that age in the wild as they do in pets fed �100% complete� super bow-wow cutlets.
7. What is the most perfect food that humans and animals will ever eat?  Breast milk.  It�s raw and serves as the source of probiotic microbes that inoculate the gastrointestinal tract against pathogens, stimulate immunity, secrete digestive enzymes, and produce vitamins.  Processors have tried to market new, improved milk formulas and the results have been disastrous.  The literature now proves beyond doubt that breast milk (raw unprocessed food) is best.
8. The primary danger in feeding is the serious degenerative diseases (cancer, obesity, arthritis, diabetes, autoimmunities, dental disease, cardiovascular disease, etc.) that can result from imbalances caused by exclusively feeding fraction-based processed foods, not a rare bout of diarrhea from food-borne bacteria.
9. Microbe-phobia is a fear based upon the mistaken notion that disease is caused by microbes.  In fact, microbes will never be eliminated and cannot infect a creature properly fed and with a healthy immune system.  In even the most virulent plagues, some in a population always escape disease, not because of lack of exposure but because of the parapet of immunity.
10. In an effort to decrease Salmonella infection in chickens (the same Salmonella that causes food borne illness) baby chicks were removed from the mother into a sterile environment.  The result?  Increased infection and greater mortality.  Lack of exposure to probiotic organisms from the mother resulted in a totally vulnerable digestive tract.  A minor exposure resulted in severe unchecked (by probiotics) infection.  The solution was to feed the droppings from the mother to the chicks (known as autochthonous inoculation).  Infections and mortality dropped.
11. Wysong Diets and supplements contain probiotics to help seed the digestive tract with pathogen-fighting probiotic cultures.
12. Sterile, processed, 100% complete pet foods have maimed and killed thousands, but no like documentation proves animals die from eating raw foods.
13. Many people routinely eat raw foods including meat and eggs, and feed likewise to pets, yet no �epidemic� of disease results � particularly if probiotic supplements are consumed, such as those produced by Wysong.

14. The Wysong Optimal Health Program is the very best a person can do in terms of feeding optimally.  The proofs and logic are unassailable and the results will speak for themselves. (Optimal Health Program.)

�The Best Food"
(Companion Animal Health Letter, February 1997)

1. Just like a tree is genetically adapted to absorb certain nutrients, a lion is genetically adapted to thrive on prey, and a deer is genetically adapted to browse on vegetation, pets must also be genetically adapted to a certain kind of food.
2. The majority of pet foods we are presently exposed to are a product of the Industrial Revolution and occupy a small part of the genetic history of pets.  Consider this time line: The last 200 years during which humans and their companion animals have been exposed to modern foods, if represented on a linear time line, would occupy only 1 inch on a line 276 miles long, the total length of which represents the estimated time for life on Earth.
3. The natural genetically-adapted-to food for pets must predate them.  In other words, how could animals exist before the food they needed to survive existed?

A Lesson from the Eskimos                                         
Dr. R.L. Wysong

Letter to Dr. Wysong                                                                                  
(Health Letter, September 1998)

                                                                                                            
An Open Letter To D.V.M.�s  
From �Thought For Food� by Dr. R.L. Wysong

      What is the natural diet? One obvious characteristic stands out: The original diet for all species was raw.

      In fact, there are few health indications for the use of heat on foods. Exceptions might be the use of heat to gelatinize starches in grains, which are not readily digested by monogastrics, the neutralization of enzyme inhibitors such as trypsin inhibitors in soybeans, and the inactivation of pathogens in foods that were not grown, harvested or packaged with reasonable care in cleanliness. Otherwise, heat is used by modern food processors primarily to effect blending and extend shelf life, and by the modern cook to prepare palatable cookbook meals.

     Not readily apparent to the consumer is the insidious damage of heat. Not only is the American diet about two thirds empty calories with little nutrient density, but much of what remains is altered by heat into non-nutrients and even toxins. Amino acids in the utilizable raw �L� stereoisomeric form are altered to racemic mixtures with unusable �D� forms, raw colloids that enhance the effect of digestive juices are precipitated by heat, proteins and carbohydrates are caramelized forming compounds known to be genetically damaging and carcinogenic, pyrolyzed amino acids create mutagenic and carcinogenic substances, fatty acids can be converted from beneficial cis-configura�tions to trans-, all enzymes are inactivated and processing dramatically removes vitamins and minerals from the food supply.

     Some say: �No problem! Just synthesize what was lost and �enrich/fortify� it back into the food.� However, heat generated toxins are not removed, and the assumption is made that all is known � that we know exactly what was damaged in the food and exactly how to manufacture replacements. This information is not known as evidenced by continual new discovery (5 new essentials were discovered between 1974-77, and over 30 are under investigation currently), the short history of nutritional science (the first vitamin was discovered only about 70 years ago), and continually changing NRC requirements. Hence, absolute knowledge is not in hand. Reliance on denatured foods that are �fortified� as the basis for optimal nutritional health is not only na�ve, but dangerous.

     The absence of disease does not mean the presence of wellness. Low grade nutritional diseases from an inadequate or altered food supply (although we have much in quantity we have less in quality) or from genetotrophic considerations often are vague in form and have extended latency periods. The plethora of degenerative diseases plaguing both humans and domestic animals is likely rooted in this nutritional oversight. It is especially sobering to realize that human cultures and animals on a native raw diet are virtually free of these degenerative diseases.

     A more respectful view toward nature is required rather than the dominionistic, apex predator attitude that threatens not only our food supply, but also the widely interlinked ecologi�cal systems. Modern food processing practices that essentially kill food (the ability of a food to spoil may in fact be an important measure of its nutritional value), then �enrich� it with chemicals, embalming agents and cosmetics, must be re-evaluated. Raw food usage must be re-examined and efforts made to reverse the inadequacy of processed foods. However, end goals of least cost formulations, cosmetics, and shelf life must defer to efforts to optimize natural nutrient density and as much as possible present it to the consumer in an enhanced or natural raw state.

      Albert Schweitzer said, �We are united with all life that is nature.� The more complex the creature, the greater the dependence on nature. Small, photosynthetic, autotrophic organisms require little from nature � little more than sun. On the other hand, higher mammals are heterotrophic requiring myriad essentials for their sustenance.  Protein, carbohydrate, and fat have captured solar energy in their carbon skeletons, and require a widely diverse array of micronutrients to properly process this energy and create structure. Although there is no nutrient other than oxygen which we require daily, all nutrients, as our system was naturally adapted to recognize and receive them, must be in continuing supply if healthy life is to be sustained.

     Technology removes us further and further from our link with our environment, yet the welfare of life itself remains intimately linked to our natural heritage. Foraging for food, shelter, and clothing at one time was the consuming activity for all life. Now, for humans and their domesticated pets, necessities come in cans and packages and are treated as �givens,� with homage now paid to the food processor and chemist, rather than to the land itself. The psychological effect is that technology receives our respect and obeisance, and the land simply becomes an agent for our use and exploitation. As we become separated from the sources of life and turn responsibility over to producers and �experts,� control is lost and the individual loses options. Additionally, it is easy to lose sight of �earth ethics� that are now being shown by default to be an absolute prerequisite to long-term health of the earth and its biota.

     It is argued by many food processors and by traditional nutritional thought, that all is known in terms of what is essential, that the source of these essentials is not important, and that analytical evaluation can determine what is �good� and what is �bad.� New forms of ingredients, synthetic ingredients, synthetic coloring agents, preservatives, taste enhancers, etc. (all 3,000 plus properly �tested� of course), are argued to be perfectly healthy additions to the diet.

     Considering our natural heritage, one must wonder how credible such conclusions are. If one measures the time that humans and their fed animals have been consuming the modern processed diet, in relation to the time estimated for life�s existence, we find these conclusions highly tenuous. Life�s link to the natural environment � its adaptation to sunlight, air, and food � spans 2.5 billion years by theoretical evolutionary estimates. The use of heat on foods is relatively recent, and the use of processed foods and synthetic chemicals only has become widespread in this century. It is therefore unlikely that adaptation to these substances has occurred. Could we now be experiencing a culling in the form of chronic nutritional deficiency and toxicities manifest in immune failure and degenerative disease?

      Man�s unique ability to disrupt macrocyclic environmental forces has been made painfully apparent in the form of pollution of the air, water, and land. Life and its food are a familiar ecological system, subject to the same disruption and pathologic conse�quences.

     The design of food for man and animal must be subsumed under sound philosophic assumptions based on the fact that life is linked irrevocably with the environment. However, we act as if the universe is simply composed of parts that act against a background of nothingness, that Keynesian supply economics is the only ethic, that we are apex predators rather than fiduciary guardians. Man is fouling his own nest.

     Much can be done. However, as time passes, the opportunities for remedial actions shrink. The public is increasingly aware and is shifting economic support toward those who reflect responsible and sensitive attitudes. As professionals entrusted with not only the care of the already ill, but also the prevention of factors that can create risk not only for the present populations, but for future generations as well, we are in a pivotal position to lead rather than wait until demand beckons.

      As increasing data is accumulated and public awareness escalates, food producers must strive to supply more natural, pure, unadulterated products. There is resistance to change, but the consumer will ultimately dictate direction. Traditional nutritional thought, which suggests that the organism is non-discriminating in its need for food, that the source or form of a nutrient is unimportant since the body simply breaks everything down into elemental units, transports them across the mucosa and then reassembles them into necessary nutrients, is proving far too n�ive. Our knowledge in this area is at its beginning, not its end as a completed science.

      It is clear, although producers and much of the scientific community remain skeptical if not outright antagonistic, that better nutrition will come through food, not chemistry or single nutrient mania.

      Few wish to read �food� labels on packages that read more like a pharmacopoeia than a food description. But producers assure us that such additives are necessary and that they have all been �thoroughly tested�. There are over 3,000 food additives in use and over 50,000 chemical pesticide formulations. At best their effects are additive, at worst synergistic. The average American consumes over 9 pounds of additives yearly, and although fewer than 10% have been �tested� to any degree, the net effect is no test since their effects are additive and/or synergistic, and toxic reactions may not only be immediate, but they may be chronic, or even genetic.

     Some producers try to capture a perceived market by altering labels in such a way as to suggest the product is �additive free�, �natural,� etc. It is important for the consumer to cast a critical eye and differentiate between substance and word.  Again, some �natural� foods suggest that their fats are stabilized with Vitamin C (which is not even soluble in fat) or Vitamin E (which in its nutritionally active d-alpha form is a poor food antioxidant and is often inactivated in processing). On the other hand, those who use BHA, BHT, TBHQ, Propyl Gallate, etc., are introducing into the food supply foreign chemicals that are at best suspect and even banned in some countries, and at worst both immediately and chronically toxic. Additives have also been implicated in controlled studies to create hypersensitive skin conditions.

      Fat stability is a serious food issue that should not be avoided with �no preservatives� slogans. Rancidity not only creates off-flavors and odors, but oxidation can inactivate fat soluble vitamins and fatty acids and create various free radical oxygen species believed by many to be highly pathological once consumed. On the other hand, the pseudo-solution through use of toxic chemicals should not create more danger than the problem.

     Options are available. They are not evident if all is assumed well or the issue is simply skipped. We have formulated and tested the antioxidant activity of a variety of natural tocopherol epimers, an oleoresin extract of rosemary and sage, and peroxide active catalase enzymes.  Practically any combination of these products has demonstrated, in controlled tests with the Rancimat method, to have superior antioxidant activity over all other commonly used synthetic antioxidants such as BHA, BHT, and propyl gallate. These exciting results present to the industry a superior alternative to question�able synthetic preservatives, and to the consumer the reassurance of not having their and their pet�s food supply either degraded by rancidity or adulterated with chemicals, which do not belong in the food supply in the first place.

&
Competitive Exclusion
Dr. R.L. Wysong

     Does the germ or the environment cause infectious diseases? This debate has raged since the time of Pasteur. Although the germ-as-villain paradigm has won the war of popularity in modem medical practice, there is increasing evidence that it is the fertility of the host "soil" that plays the most significant role in whether the "weeds" of disease take root.

       Obviously the pathogen is not the whole answer; otherwise life would have long ago been annihilated. Even during highly virulent plagues, there are some from the population who only get mildly ill and recover, and others who develop no signs or symptoms whatsoever. It is not a matter of sporadic or selective contact, since microbes have the ability to spread with ease and can ubiquitously expose populations.

     Efforts to eliminate pathogens by washing, aerosolizing, and disinfecting cannot hope to remove the possibility of contact. Only under the most rigorous laboratory conditions can gnotobiotic (microbial-free) organisms be grown. When this is done, however, such sterile creatures are unsuitable for free living since their immune system has been untested and thus is unprepared to resist street microbes.

       In an attempt to solve the problem of food-borne pathogens in food animals, rigorous methods have been attempted such as sterilizing environments and eradication in situ through extensive use of antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents. The results of this microbial warfare have not been good. We are losing the war. 

       Nature has its own checks and balances. The more we learn of these important relationships, the more likely it is we will be able to take advantage of natural mechanisms developed over eons of time to assure the survival of species. One such mechanism is competitive exclusion (CE) of pathogens by probiotic organisms. If the digestive tract is populated with sufficient numbers of "friendly" microorganisms, the pathogens cannot as easily take root.

     Competitive exclusion is now being used in chickens, cattle, and swine to decrease pathogens that can infect humans. In effect, it involves the treatment of young animals with fecal material from healthy adults that is either defined or undefined. The FDA has recently (1998) approved the first CE product for use in poultry production. The usual method of treatment is spraying the material on young animals or inoculating the drinking water.

     Although the exact mechanism of action is not known, it is believed that probiotic organisms within CE material act through nutrient exclusion, competition for attachment sites, creating volatile fatty acids and fer�mentative gases that inhibit pathogens, and by decreasing the oxidation-reduction potential.

       In FDA-approved, double-blinded clinical field trials, 1-day-old chicks were treated with a one-time CE spray application. The result was that those treated were Salmonella-free, whereas untreated controls had a 9% infection rate. Several other studies have shown similar remarkable results. Competitive exclusion products have been shown to decrease fecal colonization of significant enteropathogens such as Salmonella enteritidis PT 13, PT 4, Salmonella gallinarium and Escherichia coli 0157:H7.  In swine, CE products given within four hours of farrowing (birthing) resulted in a 99% reduction in infection when challenged with Salmonella cholerasuis compared with controls. Salmonella shedding in treated pigs was 18%, compared with 100% in the untreated controls in other studies with pigs.

       In cattle, probiotic cultures consisting of nonpathogenic E. coli strains prevented colonization by E. coli 0157:H7. In another study 1,010 CFU�s (colony-forming units) of E. coli 0157:H7 were positive for E. coli (89-100%), compared to those treated with probiotic cultures (0-17%).

     Modern food-animal production practices, which separate the young from natural contact with the mother, increase vulnerability to infection. Better hygiene and aggressive antibiotic use has not solved the problem of escalating food-borne pathogens. Restoring natural balances with competitive exclusion holds great promise in helping to curb this threat.

     There is also a lesson here in that we too should be using probiotic cultures on a prophylactic basis (it is only by such preventive measures that competitive exclusion works) and thus help guard ourselves against disease-causing organisms.

      There is also a lesson in child rearing. Rather than concentrating on the sterility of the birthing theatre, removal of children to sterile incubators and bassinets, treating them with various antimicrobials and then feeding them with a processed and denatured synthetic milk via a sterile nipple and bottle, it would be much better to put the child in the mother's arms to suckle. Continued nursing and body contact with the mother help inocu�late children with competitive exclusion probiotic organisms and thus best prepare the child against a world of pathogens that will always be present. Assuming the parents are healthy, the practice in primitive societies of pre-chewing foods to feed to weaning children is an additional method of inoculating the digestive tract of the young with competitive exclusion organisms.

*
Pottenger�s Cats � Evidence Ignored for Over 60 Years (As taken from Archetype Technical Monograph � for entire monograph, click here: Archetype Monograph.)

      In 1932, prompted by the high mortality rate he observed among his laboratory cats, Dr. Francis Pottenger began a ten-year study on the effects of heat-processed foods.

     Although fed a diet of human-grade cod liver oil, cooked milk, and cooked meats and organs � a diet considered to be rich in all the important nutrients by the experts of the day � he noticed that the cats showed signs of deficiency.  He discovered that simply replacing cooked meats with raw noticeably improved the health of the cats.

     The effect was so dramatic that Dr. Pottenger undertook what is perhaps one of the most important (yet ignored) controlled studies in nutrition performed to date.  The chart below provides a summary of the findings of the Pottenger Cat Study.
*  

*

REFERENCES:

1.      Nature. 1973;241:210-211.

2.      Austr Vet J. 1977;53:82-87.

3.      JAVMA. December 15, 1998:1744-1746.

4.      J Food Protect. 1981;44:909-913.

5.      Poult Sci. 1995;74:1093-110l.

6.      Proceedings, 2nd lnt Symp Epidemiol Control of Salmonella in Pork. 1997:164-66.

7.      J Clin Microbial. 1998;36:64 1-647.

8.      Pottenger FM.  Pottenger�s Cats � A Study in Nutrition.  Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Inc.  La  Mesa, CA.  1983.

9.      Price, WA.  Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.  Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Inc.  La Mesa, CA.  1970.

10. Wysong, RL.  Rationale for Animal Nutrition.  Inquiry Press.  Midland, MI.  1993.