In the raw

I'm not sure it makes sense for the lone food critic at the only alternative weekly serving Maine to be so publicly dismissive of an entire cuisine/diet. And after a two-paragraph intro that's entirely scornful and cynical ("nonsense", "cultists," "completely wrong") the compliments about a few of the menu items ring entirely hollow. Surely there were vaild things to criticize about this particular restaurant and perhaps some of the tenets of the raw-food movement (it's fine to share an informed opinion), but I found it all handled rather poorly: if a music reviewer kicked off a review of an experimental noise album with a snide, 200-word hissyfit about how lame the entire experimental-noise genre is, why bother reading the rest? I had always thought that the editorial mission of the Phoenix's reataurant/arts reviews was not so much to provide a soapbox for an individual writer to spout their own preferences, prejudices, and internal belief systems, but more to suss how well the chef/artist accomplishes what they intended to achieve. If someome opens an old-school Italian joint, the question should be: How much like mama's are your meatballs? Not: Italian places suck so this place sucks. That's not a question. I guess if you happen to open a restaurant or be working in an artistic genre -- especially an alternative one -- that a Phoenix reviewer just happens not to like, as a whole, you are out of luck in terms of coverage in a very small media market.--Josh Rogers, An Omnivore Not Entirely Sold on the Raw-Food Movement Either

I'm glad to see science in a food article, especially since the raw food movement makes faux-scientific claims about the benefits of its cuisine.   

Brian seems personally offended by the raw food movement, and thinks this animosity is an informed and reasonable reaction against the GRO establishment itself. He thinks raw food is a religion and revels in his "atheistic" reaction against "pseudo-science," yet writes a review that is far more bizarre than any claim GRO might make about food. Brian suggests that raw food necessitates a blind belief system as mystical as creationism. Raw food is not based on mythology thousands of years old, it is based on science that is as credible as Wrangham's work. Have you seen "Supersize Me"? Eating plants feels good, it is not a religion.
 
His dismissal of GRO (and the whole movement in general) is so emotional that the review of the food itself looses credibility for me. While GRO may have several things to learn from experienced critics, I got the impression that I was reading the review of a squeamish kid who doesn't like what he's eating cuz its new and he doesn't know what it is. Also, the Phoenix should know that its reader base is largely made up of a burgeoning element that healthily explores anti-consumer trends. Most Phoenix readers will probably not let an angry critique effect their preference for local veggies.

The last paragraph is particularly interesting. No quote in GRO glamorizes violence or blames victims of oppression, and most thinking people do find the politics of personal purity of utmost importance, and respect other people who do too. Also, it is not true that eating food that is hard to digest will keep you thin. Twinkies are hard to digest, yet they make you fat and give you diabetes.