|Is A Raw DIET Dangerous?|
A compilation of relevant literature by Dr. R.L. Wysong
|The following are some considerations from Dr. Wysong�s writings:|
�The Best Food"
| Everyone seems to have an opinion about what is best to feed his or her companion animal. Some think canned foods are best, others dry. Many think whichever food is most palatable is best.|
| There are a lot of �don�t feed� opinions. Don�t feed soy, don�t feed corn, don�t give too much fat, don�t use pet foods with by-products in them, or wheat, or plant lectins, or yeast, or bone meal, etc. There are an increasing number of pet owners who are troubled by ethical concerns about feeding any animal product to their pets and attempt to feed their captive carnivores vegetarian diets. (Also see, Question #26 - Wysong Use of Soy, Controversies #10 Nutritional Boogiemen and #11 The Bad Ingredients Controversy.|
| The pet food industry by and large, along with animal nutritionists, argues that as long as certain analytical minimums are met for protein, fat, vitamins and minerals, it makes little difference what the source of these components are. This sounds plausible on a theoretical basis, but it opens the door for manufacturers to throw together basically any concoction as long as it achieves certain percentages on the label. It denies the natural complex nutritional needs of all creatures. But manufacturers argue their case with various studies on laboratory colonies of animals fed a certain food over a certain number of weeks. They can also cite examples of animals that have become champions raised on analytically based diets.|
| Eating beliefs can take on an almost religious character. As in religion where hundreds of different sects can each claim to be �The Truth,� one need not fear disproof since adjudication will not occur until the afterlife. Eating beliefs may not bring consequences for decades or even generations into the future.|
| The body is extremely adaptable and will attempt to survive on whatever it is provided with. But if the food is incorrect, the body will ultimately be stressed beyond its ability to adapt, with resultant loss of vitality, and then disease and degeneration. Unfortunately, these consequences are so far removed from the eating cause that few make the connection and understand the relationship.|
| So, how do we sort through all of these competing ideas? Consider the logic of the following three premises:|
| If you consider these three premises, it becomes apparent that the best food is the food that animals would eat if they were in the wild.|
| Would tofu or pasta qualify? No, because they are found nowhere in nature. Would oatmeal porridge qualify? No, because oatmeal porridge is found nowhere in nature. Would sprouts qualify? No, because nowhere in nature would sufficient sprouts be available to sustain pets. Would beet pulp, brewer's yeast, hydrogenated soybean oil, or for that matter, looking at humans also, hamburgers, French fries, pop, breakfast cereals, canned foods, candy, sports drinks, muscle building powders, vitamins and minerals, mashed potatoes, or carrot cake qualify? No. None of these are found as such in nature.|
| Imagine yourself and your pet placed in nature in the total absence of modern technology. Ask yourself the questions: what would you eat and what could you eat? You could eat and digest fruits, nuts, insects, worms, eggs, and animal flesh. These are about the only food substances found in nature that humans or pets are capable of digesting without technological intervention. In fact, they are the very foods that are the mainstay of nomadic primitive societies and wild animals. Only when these foods become scarce do unpalatable, inedible foods such as most grains and vegetables become cooked and processed to change their palatability and increase digestibility.|
| This is an extremely simple nutritional principle that is not explained in any nutritional textbook. It cuts through all the theory, belief and guesswork. It matches natural bodies with natural food.|
| Our immersion in modern cookery and food processing has misled us. Foods such as pasta, granola, tofu, cauliflower and lettuce � which are marketed as the ultimate health foods � are in fact not natural human or animal foods at all. These products either do not exist in nature, or in their raw, precooked form are unpalatable and sometimes toxic. For example, raw soybeans contain a variety of chemicals that can stunt growth and interfere with the body�s digestive enzymes. Eat enough of them and you�ll die. Modern grain products are results of agriculture and in their raw form are unpalatable, indigestible and also toxic. How in nature would one ever find enough kernels of rice, wheat, or barley to make up a meal, even if they were edible in their raw form? Who, if they were really, really hungry, and had a choice, would eat raw broccoli, cauliflower or lettuce? These vegetables are now made palatable by cooking or doctoring with manufactured dressings.|
| This creates somewhat of a dilemma. Knowing what our natural diet is and consuming it are two different things. We are so acclimated to the modern diet that the notion of eating or feeding raw meat, for example, is nauseating to most. Nevertheless, as evidenced by primitive (but nutritionally advanced) peoples, raw meat and organs can be eaten with great nutritional benefit to humans and animals, and they are totally digestible and nontoxic.|
| It would be very difficult to achieve this ideal quickly or easily. If you keep this principle in mind, it helps you emphasize the appropriate genetically-adapted-to foods. This does not mean that you cannot or should not feed any processed or cooked foods. It simply means that if you do, you will be stressing your pet�s genetic capabilities and will not be achieving optimal health.|
| It is with this knowledge in hand that I cannot tell you to exclusively feed our processed pet food, much less anyone else's. You simply must supplement raw, fresh, natural foods to the diet of your pet if you are hoping to achieve optimal health.|
| In the meantime, we will continue to evolve our diets so that they reflect, in manufactured form, the closest thing we are able to produce to mimic the natural diet. Thus, by sprouting grains and using whole grains we are achieving better nutrition than using grain fractions or unsprouted grains. We are also continuing to increase the amount of fresh meat and organ ingredients in our dry foods, and have created the All Meat and Organ Canned DietsTM and our newest diet, ArchetypeTM (99+% meat � no grains). (Click here for the Archetype Technical Monograph.) In essence, every innovation we make in our foods is an attempt to achieve as close to the ideal diet as possible in processed form, always recognizing and always reminding our customers that it is still, at best, only second best to the raw, whole, natural prey diet.|
| A combination of Wysong Diets and supplements as recommended in the Wysong Optimal Health Program, along with fresh food feeding, is without a doubt the very best diet to achieve optimal health and requires the least amount of compromise.|
A Lesson from the Eskimos
| When native Eskimos were first observed and studied they were said to have a degree of physical excellence rarely found in any other race. They were robust, happy, had beautiful and straight teeth, sturdy bones, were well muscled and had incredible endurance and resistance against astonishing climactic conditions. They were a testament to what nature could do without the interference of modern food machinery.|
| They ate salmon and other fish, seal oil, fish eggs, caribou, nuts gathered by mice and squirrels, kelp, berries, blossoms, grass, the stomach contents of caribou, the organs of large sea mammals and the various layers of whale skin. They also hunted rabbits, muskrats, polar bear, foxes and migrant birds. The name Eskimo means eater of raw fish. When they ate animals, they ate everything raw, including the fat, kidneys, brains, crushed bones and marrow. They ate wild fowl eggs in season, including developing embryos. If the caribou meat was lean, the Eskimos worried about eating it for fear of getting sick. To balance this lean meat, they would eat caribou tallow or oily fish or sea mammal blubber. (No �low cholesterol� or �low fat� diet for these hearty, healthy people.)|
| Children would be breast fed until the next child was born or until the child was two or more years old. The first food a child would eat other than breast milk would be fish livers that had been prechewed by the mother. Slowly more solid foods would be introduced, including pieces of blubber to act as pacifiers, and cod liver oil. Agutuk was a mixture of fats and moose tallow given to young babies. As soon as teeth were well developed, children were introduced to the adult Eskimo foods.|
| Eskimos would also use culturing and fermentation to increase the digestibility of their foods. For example, they would put fish into a hole and then cover them with grass and earth so that they would ferment and decay. The Eskimos ate this rotten mass with great relish and benefit. The fermentation not only destroyed potential pathogens, but it also created a rich source of probiotic organisms. Enzymatic activity predigested the fish, preserving the Eskimos' energy for hunting and cold resistance rather than digestion. Another dish called matteak consisted of flakes of narwahl skin that had been preserved in caches for several years. The skin ends up tasting like walnuts and the blubber, turned green, tastes like Roquefort cheese. Giviak is a dish made by stuffing an eviscerated seal with hundreds of auks. Auks are birds that arrive in the arctic by the millions in the spring. The seal bag is then buried where the relative warmth of the summer causes the seal blubber to marinate the birds. An especially delicious delicacy, according to the Eskimos, is the lump of blood collected around the birds� hearts, which they claim is �almost heavenly to eat.�|
| Compare this with how fastidious and �clean� we feel our foods must be. If we don�t get something that looks like it has been vacuumed, steam cleaned, and refined we think we are going to be poisoned. We apply the same �logic� to our pets. At our offices, we get phone calls and letters from people expressing genuine alarm when they find a small piece of bone in canned food, or a piece of rice that has not been properly ground, or a small piece of tendon or ligament, or � heaven forbid � even a hair from a cow in a diet containing beef. (Also see Question #29 Hair And Feathers In Pet Food or Question #30 Bones In Canned Food.)|
| It is only when the Eskimos began to be touched by modern civilization, first by the Russians and then by the Americans after the purchase of Alaska by the U.S. in 1867, that Eskimo health began a dramatic decline. Sugar, canned milk, baking powder, candy, hydrogenated fats, coffee, a whole array of canned and processed foods, sodas, crackers, salt and alcohol displaced the native diet. The diet changed from a predominantly carnivorous one to one based on refined foods and carbohydrates.|
| Instead of eating about 318 grams of animal protein per day, they began to eat the modern, currently �recommended � amount of about 50 to 60 grams. Instead of receiving rich supplies of vitamins A, D, and B, high levels of omega 3 fatty acids and a complete compliment of quality protein, they now were eating, with great enthusiasm, the sweet, nutrient-barren confections of their conquerors.|
| Today they are hooked on sweets while their freezers are full of nutritious game meat. Rates of alcoholism are astronomical and the incidence of diabetes is the highest for any group in America. The children now grow quickly, are slender and have slight musculature. They reach puberty more quickly and are then riddled with diabetes, hardening of the arteries, heart disease, and obesity.|
|The Eskimos give us a dramatic life lesson in nutrition. Will we learn from it?|
Letter to Dr. Wysong
| Question: I want to do the fresh and raw suggestion you make in the Health Letter but I am worried about food poisoning. What is your answer to this problem?|
| Wysong Answer: Look to the archetypal pattern. Humans and animals survived fine without cooking and sterilizing foods for untold eons of time. Humans and the ancestors of today's pets were in fact scavengers, often eating carcasses that had been in the open decomposing for days. Having robust immune systems and a bounty of beneficial probiotic organisms in their digestive tracts, helped to nip potential pathogens in the bud. The long-term risk to health from not eating raw natural foods is far greater than the risk of food poisoning. If a bout of diarrhea is the trade off for not getting cancer, heart disease, arthritis, Alzheimer�s, and all the other chronic degenerative diseases linked to modern processed and cooked foods, the choice is easy. To help protect against such food poisoning, take Probiosyn�, a probiotic nutritional supplement. Pets should take Pet Inoculant� along with the Wysong Dry Diets, which are also enrobed with probiotics. If still uncomfortable, rinse foods with Citrox� or lightly cook. (A personal note: I ate three raw eggs daily for over two years while taking probiotics. I never was sick once from it. How's that for proof?)|
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.
& Dr. R.L. Wysong
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.
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.
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.