particular attention to this question of minute ash percentages: Dr
H. Lahmann, in Germany, and Mr Otto Carqué, in America. Both of these
authors have gone to considerable trouble to obtain exact figures upon
this question.[16] Let us consider Dr Lahmann’s argument first: Taking
milk (of the human species) as the standard with which to compare
analyses of all foods—since it is to be supposed that this would
contain all organic salts as well as proteid, fats and carbohydrates in
exactly the right proportion for the upbuilding of the healthy human
body—he found, by comparison, that the quantities of soda and lime
contained in our ordinary food are far below the quantities necessary
to maintain a healthy existence, whereas the quantities of potash, iron
and phosphoric acid are generally too high. Although his conclusions
may not be accepted in full, it is evident that some of them, at least,
are correct; and one of the most important conclusions to be drawn from
his argument is that, generally speaking, anæmia has nothing to do
with want of iron in the blood. It is due to other causes—principally
over-feeding, as I have endeavoured to show in my “Vitality, Fasting
and Nutrition,” pp. 604-605.
[16] In a letter to Mr Carqué, on this subject, Dr Wiley writes:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY
WASHINGTON, D. C.
MR OTTO CARQUÉ, _1st August 1904_.
765 N. CLARK ST., CHICAGO, ILL.
DEAR SIR,—I regret to say that no one in this country has undertaken
a complete analysis of all the mineral constituents of foods.
An analysis usually relates to the nutritive value and general
composition, but does not give, as a rule, the composition of the ash.
I think it is highly desirable that the composition of ash be
carefully studied and hope that some chemist will take that matter up
in the near future. Respectfully,
(_Signed_) H. W. WILEY, Chief.
Dr Lahmann shows us that we may replace any quantity of meat or
lentils, as well as bread and flour, by fruits or green vegetables,
and that the amount of lime and other bone-forming salts will be
increased thereby. As a general thing it may be said that there is a
superabundance of potash in vegetable food. A large number of diseases
were found to be due to a disproportion of the organic salts—this
argument running throughout Dr Lahmann’s book. The following table
will show clearly the percentage of the various mineral salts in
food-stuffs, and will prove conclusively that certain salts, lacking
in the human system, can never be supplied by any amount of meat; and,
further, that a number of these salts cannot be supplied in proper
quantities by any other articles of food than _fruits_. These, and
these alone, contain many salts in solution which the system needs. I
shall, however, consider this question at greater length when I come
to discuss the value of the fruitarian dietary. For the moment, let us
turn our attention to the tables of ash percentages.
Now, if we compare the figures in the following tables, we find that
in practically every case the quantity of any given food-salt is
greater in all fruits, and practically in every other article of diet
than it is in meat. Taking potassium, for example, we find that meat
averages (out of the total percentage of mineral matter) 41.30 per
cent., while blueberries average 57.1 per cent.; and olives, 80.9 per
cent. If we compare the quantity of sodium, we find that meat contains
3.6 per cent.; while apples contain 26.1 per cent.; strawberries, 28.5
per cent.; dried figs, 26.2 per cent. As some of these, however, are
percentages of smaller _total_ ash percentages, the disproportion is
not so great as would at first appear, though it is evident that the
fruits contain much more, even allowing for this. Making the same
reservations, we find that while meat contains, of iron, an average of
.7 per cent., strawberries contain 5.9 per cent.; gooseberries 4.56 per
cent.; prunes, 2.5 per cent.; while spinach contains 3.35 per cent.;
asparagus, 3.4 per cent.; and lettuce, 5.2 per cent.
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Composition of Food Products │
│ _PER CENT._ │
│ I II III IV V │
├───────────────────┬───────┬───────────┬───────┬─────────┬─────────┤
│ │ Water │ Protein │ Fat │ Carbo- │ Mineral │
│ │ │ (Albumen) │ │ Hydrates│ Matter │
│ │ │ │ │ (Sugar, │ │
│ │ │ │ │ Starch) │ │
├───────────────────┼───────┼───────────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┤
│ Human Milk │ 87.02 │ 2.36 │ 3.94 │ 6.23 │ 0.45 │
│ Cow’s Milk │ 87.20 │ 3.55 │ 3.70 │ 4.88 │ 0.71 │
│ Meat (Average) │ 72.00 │ 20.00 │ 5.00 │ 0.40 │ 1.10 │
│ Blood of the Ox │ 80.80 │ 18.10 │ 0.20 │ 0.03 │ 0.85 │
│ Eggs │ 73.70 │ 12.55 │ 12.10 │ 0.55 │ 1.10 │
│ Seafish │ 81.00 │ 17.10 │ 0.34 │ — │ 1.60 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ =_Fruits._= │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Apples │ 84.80 │ 0.40 │ — │ 13.00 │ 0.50 │
│ Strawberries │ 87.70 │ 0.50 │ — │ 7.70 │ 0.80 │
│ Gooseberries │ 85.70 │ 0.50 │ — │ 8.40 │ 0.40 │
│ Prunes │ 81.20 │ 0.80 │ — │ 11.05 │ 0.71 │
│ Peaches │ 83.00 │ 0.40 │ — │ 11.80 │ 0.30 │
│ Blueberries │ 78.40 │ 0.80 │ — │ 5.90 │ 1.00 │
│ Cherries │ 79.80 │ 0.70 │ — │ 12.00 │ 0.70 │
│ Grapes │ 78.20 │ 0.60 │ — │ 16.30 │ 0.50 │
│ German Prunes │ 84.90 │ 0.40 │ — │ 8.20 │ 0.66 │
│ Dried Figs │ 31.20 │ 1.34 │ 1.45 │ 65.90 │ 2.86 │
│ Olives │ 30.07 │ 5.24 │ 51.90 │ — │ 2.34 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ =_Nuts._= │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Walnuts │ 4.70 │ 16.40 │ 62.90 │ 7.90 │ 2.03 │
│ Chestnuts, Dried │ 7.30 │ 10.80 │ 2.90 │ 73.80 │ 3.00 │
│ Almonds │ 6.00 │ 23.50 │ 53.00 │ 7.80 │ 3.10 │
│ Cocoanuts │ 46.60 │ 5.50 │ 35.90 │ 8.10 │ 1.00 │
│ Beechnuts │ 9.09 │ 21.70 │ 42.50 │ 19.20 │ 3.86 │
└───────────────────┴───────┴───────────┴───────┴─────────┴─────────┘
Key to Mineral Matter
K Potassium P Phosphorous
Na Sodium S Sulphur
Ca Calcium Si Silicon
Mg Magnesium Cl Chlorine
Fe Iron
┌─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ Composition of Mineral Matter │
│ │ _AS GIVEN IN THE 5th COLUMN_, _PER CENT._ │
│ │ K │ Na │ Ca │ Mg │ Fe │ P │ S │ Si │ │
│ │ K₂O │ Na₂O │ CaO │ MgO │Fe₂O₃ │ P₂O₅ │ SO₃ │ SiO₂ │ Cl │
├─────────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼──────┼─────┼──────┼──────┤
│Human Milk │ 33.80│ 9.12│ 16.70│ 2.16│ 0.22│ 22.66│ 0.95│ 0.02│ 18.38│
│Cow’s Milk │ 24.67│ 9.70│ 22.05│ 3.05│ 0.55│ 28.45│ 0.30│ 0.04│ 14.28│
│Meat (Avge) │ 41.30│ 3.60│ 2.80│ 3.21│ 0.70│ 42.50│ 1.60│ 1.10│ 3.85│
│Blood of Ox │ 7.60│ 45.00│ 1.10│ 0.60│ 9.40│ 5.25│ 3.05│ 0.8 │ 34.40│
│Eggs │ 17.40│ 22.90│ 10.90│ 1.10│ 0.40│ 37.60│ 0.30│ 0.30│ 9.00│
│Seafish │ 21.80│ 14.90│ 15.20│ 3.90│ — │ 38.16│ — │ — │ 11.40│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│=_Fruits._= │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Apples │ 35.70│ 26.10│ 4.10│ 8.75│ 1.40│ 13.70│ 6.10│ 4.30│ — │
│Strawberries │ 21.10│ 28.50│ 14.20│ — │ 5.90│ 13.80│ 3.15│ 12.05│ 1.70│
│Gooseberries │ 38.65│ 9.90│ 12.20│ 5.85│ 4.56│ 19.70│ 5.90│ 2.60│ 0.75│
│Prunes │ 48.50│ 9.05│ 11.50│ 3.60│ 2.50│ 16.00│ 3.20│ 3.15│ 0.40│
│Peaches │ 54.70│ 8.50│ 8.00│ 5.20│ 1.00│ 15.20│ 5.70│ 1.50│ — │
│Blueberries │ 57.10│ 5.16│ 8.00│ 6.10│ 1.10│ 17.40│ 3.10│ 0.90│ — │
│Cherries │ 51.85│ 2.20│ 7.50│ 5.50│ 2.00│ 16.00│ 5.10│ 9.00│ 1.35│
│Grapes │ 56.20│ 1.40│ 10.80│ 4.20│ 0.40│ 15.60│ 5.60│ 2.75│ 1.52│
│German Prunes│ 59.20│ 0.50│ 10.00│ 5.50│ 3.20│ 15.10│ 3.70│ 2.40│ — │
│Dried Figs │ 28.36│ 26.27│ 18.91│ 9.21│ 1.46│ 1.30│ 6.75│ 5.93│ 2.70│
│Olives │ 80.90│ 7.53│ 7.46│ 0.18│ 0.92│ 1.33│ 1.05│ 0.65│ 0.18│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ =_Nuts._= │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Walnuts │ 31.10│ 2.25│ 8.60│ 13.00│ 1.32│ 43.70│ — │ — │ — │
│Chestnuts │ 56.70│ 7.12│ 3.87│ 7.47│ 0.14│ 18.10│ 3.80│ 1.50│ 0.50│
│Almonds │ 28.00│ 0.20│ 8.80│ 17.66│ 0.50│ 43.60│ 0.37│ — │ — │
│Cocoanuts │ 43.90│ 8.40│ 4.60│ 9.40│ — │ 17.00│ 5.09│ 0.50│ 13.40│
│Beechnuts │ 17.15│ 5.20│ 18.40│ 14.15│ 1.00│ 30.50│ 2.45│ 2.70│ 2.44│
└─────────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴─────┴──────┴─────┴──────┴──────┘
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Composition of Food Products │
│ _PER CENT._ │
│ I II III IV V │
├───────────────────┬───────┬───────────┬───────┬─────────┬─────────┤
│ │ Water │ Protein │ Fat │ Carbo- │ Mineral │
│ │ │ (Albumen) │ │ Hydrates│ Matter │
│ │ │ │ │ (Sugar, │ │
│ │ │ │ │ Starch) │ │
├───────────────────┼───────┼───────────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┤
│ _=Vegetables.=_ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Spinach │ 88.50 │ 3.50 │ 0.60 │ 4.44 │ 2.10 │
│ Savoy-Cabbage │ 87.10 │ 3.30 │ 0.70 │ 6.00 │ 1.64 │
│ Red-Cabbage │ 90.06 │ 1.83 │ 0.20 │ 5.86 │ 0.77 │
│ Onions │ 76.00 │ 1.70 │ 0.10 │ 10.80 │ 0.70 │
│ Carrots │ 87.05 │ 1.00 │ 0.20 │ 9.40 │ 0.90 │
│ Horse Radish │ 76.70 │ 2.70 │ 0.35 │ 16.00 │ 1.50 │
│ Asparagus │ 93.75 │ 1.80 │ 0.25 │ 2.60 │ 0.54 │
│ Radishes │ 93.30 │ 1.20 │ 0.15 │ 3.80 │ 0.74 │
│ Cauliflower │ 90.90 │ 2.50 │ 0.30 │ 4.55 │ 0.83 │
│ Cucumbers │ 95.60 │ 1.20 │ 0.10 │ 2.30 │ 0.44 │
│ Lettuce │ 94.30 │ 1.40 │ 0.30 │ 2.20 │ 1.03 │
│ Potatoes │ 75.09 │ 2.08 │ 0.15 │ 21.00 │ 1.10 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ _=Legumes &=_ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ _=Cereals.=_ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Lentils │ 12.35 │ 25.70 │ 1.90 │ 53.30 │ 3.04 │
│ Peas │ 15.00 │ 22.85 │ 1.80 │ 52.40 │ 2.58 │
│ Beans │ 14.76 │ 24.30 │ 1.60 │ 49.00 │ 3.26 │
│ Whole Wheat │ 13.40 │ 13.60 │ 1.90 │ 69.10 │ 2.00 │
│ Superfine Flour │ 12.60 │ 10.20 │ 0.90 │ 74.70 │ 0.50 │
│ Rye │ 15.06 │ 11.50 │ 1.80 │ 67.80 │ 1.81 │
│ Barley │ 13.80 │ 11.10 │ 2.20 │ 64.90 │ 2.70 │
│ Oats │ 12.40 │ 10.40 │ 5.20 │ 57.80 │ 3.02 │
│ Corn │ 13.10 │ 9.85 │ 4.60 │ 68.50 │ 1.51 │
│ Rice, _Unpolished_│ 13.10 │ 7.85 │ 0.88 │ 76.50 │ 1.00 │
└───────────────────┴───────┴───────────┴───────┴─────────┴─────────┘
┌─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ Composition of Mineral Matter │
│ │ _AS GIVEN IN THE 5th COLUMN_, _PER CENT._ │
│ │ K │ Na │ Ca │ Mg │ Fe │ P │ S │ Si │ │
│ │ K₂O │ Na₂O │ CaO │ MgO │Fe₂O₃│ P₂O₅ │ SO₃ │ SiO₂ │ Cl │
├─────────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼──────┼─────┼──────┼──────┤
│=Vegetables.=│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Spinach │ 16.60│ 35.30│ 11.90│ 6.40│ 3.35│ 10.25│ 6.90│ 4.50│ 6.30│
│Savoy-Cabbage│ 27.50│ 10.20│ 21.40│ 3.60│ 1.70│ 14.75│ 8.20│ 4.78│ 7.90│
│Red-Cabbage │ 22.10│ 12.10│ 27.90│ 4.44│ 0.10│ 3.90│15.30│ 0.50│ 13.65│
│Onions │ 34.00│ 2.50│ 22.90│ 4.65│ 2.30│ 17.35│ 5.68│ 8.50│ 2.40│
│Carrots │ 36.90│ 21.20│ 11.30│ 4.40│ 1.00│ 12.80│36.45│ 2.40│ 4.60│
│Horse Radish │ 30.76│ 4.00│ 8.20│ 2.90│ 1.94│ 7.70│30.80│ 12.70│ 0.90│
│Asparagus │ 24.00│ 17.10│ 10.85│ 4.30│ 3.40│ 18.60│ 6.20│ 10.10│ 5.90│
│Radishes │ 32.00│ 21.15│ 14.00│ 3.10│ 2.80│ 10.90│ 6.50│ 0.90│ 9.15│
│Cauliflower │ 44.36│ 5.90│ 5.60│ 3.70│ 1.00│ 20.20│13.00│ 3.70│ 3.40│
│Cucumbers │ 41.20│ 10.00│ 7.30│ 4.15│ 1.40│ 20.00│ 6.90│ 8.00│ 6.60│
│Lettuce │ 37.60│ 7.50│ 14.70│ 6.20│ 5.20│ 9.20│ 3.80│ 8.10│ 7.65│
│Potatoes │ 60.01│ 3.00│ 2.60│ 4.93│ 1.10│ 16.90│ 6.53│ 2.00│ 3.50│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│_=Legumes &=_│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ _=Cereals.=_│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Lentils │ 34.80│ 13.50│ 6.30│ 2.50│ 2.00│ 36.30│ — │ — │ 4.63│
│Peas │ 43.10│ 1.00│ 4.80│ 8.00│ 0.80│ 35.90│ 3.40│ 0.90│ 1.60│
│Beans │ 41.50│ 1.10│ 5.00│ 7.15│ 0.50│ 38.90│ 3.40│ 0.65│ 1.80│
│Whole Wheat │ 31.20│ 2.10│ 3.25│ 12.10│ 1.30│ 47.20│ 0.40│ 2.00│ 0.30│
│Superfine Flr│ 34.40│ 0.80│ 7.50│ 7.70│ 0.60│ 49.40│ — │ — │ — │
│Rye │ 32.10│ 1.50│ 2.90│ 11.22│ 1.20│ 47.70│ 1.30│ 1.40│ 0.50│
│Barley │ 16.30│ 4.10│ 0.70│ 12.50│ 1.70│ 32.80│ 3.00│ 28.70│ — │
│Oats │ 17.90│ 1.70│ 3.60│ 7.10│ 1.20│ 25.60│ 1.80│ 39.20│ 0.90│
│Corn │ 29.80│ 1.10│ 2.20│ 15.50│ 0.80│ 45.60│ 0.80│ 2.10│ 1.90│
│Rice, Unpold.│ 25.00│ 4.20│ 3.70│ 11.10│ 1.40│ 53.76│ 0.50│ 2.60│ 0.10│
└─────────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴─────┴──────┴─────┴──────┴──────┘
It is evident that, making all allowances for a smaller total ash
percentage, these articles of diet contain a far greater percentage
of iron than does meat, and the same is true of practically all other
salts, as can be seen by referring to the tables. It is evident,
therefore, that other food-stuffs, and particularly fruits, will supply
us with more mineral matter than will the best of meats, and are to be
preferred in consequence.
It will not be necessary for us to compare the columns headed “Refuse”
and “Water,” since these are practically the same in all food-stuffs,
on the average, and they do not effect, appreciably, the food-value of
any article of diet.
There remains only one valid objection to my argument, and that is
based upon the supposed fact that a larger percentage of animal proteid
is appropriated by the system than is the case in vegetable foods.
That is, given a certain quantity of animal and vegetable foods, both
containing an equal amount of proteid, more will be appropriated from
the animal than from the vegetable food-stuffs. A great many writers,
such as Miss Leppel, in England, have taken this ground. But I would
point out, first of all, that, even if it were true, it would not
invalidate the argument in the least, for the reason that a far larger
percentage of proteid is contained in a smaller amount of non-flesh
food, such as nuts; and for that reason it would be easy enough to
supply the system with the same amount of proteid from an equal, or
even a lesser, bulk of food—even granting the validity of the argument.
But I dispute the fact itself. Professor Russell H. Chittenden, of
Yale University, one of the most famous physiologists in America, and
director of the Sheffield Scientific School, writes in his “Nutrition
of Man” as follows:—
“In the digestion of proteid food-stuffs by the combined action
of gastric and pancreatic juice in the alimentary tract, a large
proportion of the proteid is destined to undergo complete conversion
into amino-acids; and, from these fragments, the body, by a process
of synthesis, can construct its own peculiar type of proteid. This
latter suggestion is worthy of a moment’s further consideration; as
is well known, every species of animal has its own peculiar type of
proteid, adapted to its particular needs. The proteids of one species
directly injected into the blood of another species are incapable of
serving as nutriment to the body, and frequently act as poison....
The availability or digestibility of food can be determined only by
physiological experiment. By making a comparison, for a definite
period of time, of the amount of the different food ingredients, and
the amount that passes unchanged through the intestines, an estimate
of its digestibility can be made.... In a general way it may be stated
that with animal foods, such as meats, eggs, and milk, about 97 per
cent. of the contained proteid is digested, and thereby rendered
available to the body. With ordinary vegetables, on the other hand,
as they are usually prepared for consumption, only about 85 per cent.
of the proteid is made available. With a mixed diet, with a variable
admixture of animal and vegetable foods, it is usually considered
that about 92 per cent. of the proteid contained therein will undergo
digestion.”
At first sight, it would appear that this runs counter to the argument
that has been advanced; but we must take into account the fact that
Professor Chittenden is here speaking only of vegetable proteid, and
has made no mention of _nuts_; and, as we have seen from the tables,
nuts contain a far larger percentage of protein than meats. When we
take into consideration the small disproportion in the percentage
assimilated, and find that when meat is mixed with other articles
of food, as it invariably is, the percentage of its availability is
reduced to 92 per cent., while vegetable foods are proportionately
raised to the same figure, we see that the apparent discrepancy
practically vanishes to nothing. And when we further take into account
the fact that an equal amount of proteid can be obtained from a far
_less_ quantity of non-flesh food, we see that, from an equal bulk
of food material, a far larger _proportionate_ percentage would be
assimilated from the vegetable foods than from the animal.
Another great argument which has always been advanced in favour of
meat-eating, or the ingestion of proteid in the form of animal, as
opposed to vegetable food, is that the proteid derived from the
animal is far more quickly and readily assimilated by the system than
vegetable proteid. The _rapidity_ of the digestion of animal food has
always been urged as one of the strongest arguments in its favour,
and it is largely for this reason that it has been administered to
invalids, and to patients in a depressed and weakened state of body.
But now we find that physiological research has completely disproved
this old dogma! Professor Chittenden, on p. 30 of his “Nutrition and
Man,” says:
“It is evident from what has been stated that the gastric digestion
of proteid foods _is a comparatively slow process_, involving several
hours of time; and further, that food material in general remains
in the stomach for varying periods, dependent upon its chemical
composition.... It is a mistake to assume that the digestion of
proteid foods is complete in the stomach. Stomach digestion is to be
considered more as a preliminary step, paving the way for further
changes to be carried forward by the combined action of intestinal and
pancreatic juice in the small intestines.... The importance of gastric
digestion is frequently overrated.”
Dr Sylvester Graham, writing on this subject years ago in his “Science
of Human Life,” said:
“In vain have they attempted to regulate the diet of man on the
chemical principles, and insisted on the necessity for certain
chemical properties in the human element to sustain the vital economy.
That economy has shown them that it can triumph over the chemical
affinities and ordinary laws of organic matter, and bend them to its
purposes at pleasure; generating and transmuting from one form to
another, with the utmost ease, the substance which human science calls
elements; and while the living organs retain their functional power
and integrity, elaborating from every kind of element on which an
animal can subsist, a chyle so nearly identical in its physical and
chemical character, that the most accurate analytical chemists can
scarcely detect the least appreciable difference.... Though, while the
health and integrity of the assimilating organs are preserved, the
physical and _chemical_ character of the chyle are nearly identical,
whatever may be the elementary substance from which it was elaborated,
yet the _vital_ constitution of the chyle and blood, and consequently
of the solids, is greatly affected by the quality of the food. When
chyle is taken from the living vessels, the vital constitution of
that which is elaborated from flesh meat is capable of resisting
the action of bacterial decomposition only a short time, and will
begin to putrefy in three or four days at the longest; while the
vital constitution of that which is elaborated from pure and proper
vegetable elements, will resist this decomposing action for a much
larger period, yet it will in the end putrefy with all the phenomena
of that formed from flesh meat.”
The bearing of these facts on physical training, the health of the
body, and the decomposition of the body after death, need only be
pointed out.
It is really extraordinary how writers on dietetics, seem to
take a delight, as a rule, in making as many mis-statements and
misrepresentations as possible. Take, for example, the following
passage in Dr C. S. Read’s Book, “Fads and Feeding”:—
“It is necessary, with the vegetable products, to take the nitrogenous
product as Nature gives it to us, which is a drawback; and secondly,
vegetable foods are relatively much poorer in this respect than
animal foods.... A vegetable diet must needs be bulky, because of
its wateriness, especially when cooked, and the large amount of
indigestible matter it contains. This tends to abnormally distend
the stomach and bowels. The capacity of the stomach becomes greater,
more food can be taken, but the distention produces a feeling of
satiety before sufficient nourishment has really been ingested. The
dealing with such a bulk internally means the expenditure of much
nervous energy which might have been better utilised. The wateriness
of vegetable foods is extremely disadvantageous, since on absorption
it tends to render all the tissues flabby. The individual who leads a
sedentary life will feel the disadvantage of vegetarianism more than
the active worker.”
Now, not a sentence in the above quotation is correct. If Dr Read
had studied vegetarians at first hand, he would have found out his
mistakes, and would not have written such rubbish. As a matter of
fact, vegetable foods _do not_ supply less nitrogen than meat, but on
the contrary more; a vegetable diet _need not_ be bulky, if properly
selected—_less_ of it need be eaten than of a mixed diet, because of
its greater nutritive value; while the notion that the absorbtion
of water from the foods make the tissues “flabby” is, of course,
absurd. Altogether, this is almost the greatest string of inaccuracies
regarding diet that I have ever come across.
There is one aspect of this question which it might be well to touch
upon in this place. The air that we breathe, as we know, contains
a large percentage of nitrogen. Might it not be possible for the
system to utilise some of this nitrogen, when the body is in a state
of nitrogen starvation? Dr De Lacy Evans, surgeon to St Saviour’s
Hospital, in London, contended that this might be the case, and in his
“How to Prolong Life,” pp. 76-80, wrote:
“It has been argued that fruits will not sustain life, because they
do not contain sufficient nitrogen; this argument is founded upon a
_theory_ which is demonstrably incorrect, and it is an ascertained
_fact_ that fruits alone will support life and good bodily health....
By experiments on ourselves, on friends, and on natives of tropical
regions, we find a comparatively small quantity of nitrogen necessary
to sustain life; in fact, fruits, taken as a class, contain sufficient
nitrogen to sustain human life.... Now fruits will sustain life, and
all fruits contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, and most of them a
small quantity of nitrogen; and if these fruits which will sustain
life do not contain sufficient nitrogen, may not man, who breathes and
is in contact with an atmosphere (four-fifths of which is nitrogen),
by means of his lungs, the surface of which is supposed to be more
than twenty times that of the whole body, _absorb the necessary
nitrogen directly from the atmosphere_? From careful observation of
the diet of natives in tropical regions, and from direct experiments
in England, we may state that this is positively the case. This is
often observed in the herbivora: their natural food contains little
nitrogen, still it is found in their flesh in about the same ratio
as in the carnivora. Further, the carnivora live on food rich in
nitrogen—yet one is as well nourished as the other.... Man may
live entirely upon fruits, in better health than the majority of
mankind now enjoy. Good, sound, ripe fruits are never a cause of
disease; but the vegetable acids, as we have before stated, lower
the temperature of the body, decrease the process of combustion and
oxidation—therefore the waste of the system—less sleep is required,
activity is increased, fatigue or thirst hardly experienced: still
the body is well nourished, and as a comparatively small quantity of
earthy salts are taken into the system, the cause of ‘old age’ is in
some degree removed, the effect is delayed, and life is prolonged to a
period far beyond our ‘three score years and ten.’”[17]
[17] “On one occasion, when living for five days entirely upon
oranges, our temperature was lessened, still we felt a pleasant glow
throughout the system; but to other individuals we felt cold; animal
heat is therefore only _relative_. We further found that only three or
four hours sleep was required in the twenty-four hours.”
The consensus of modern opinion, however, seems to be against any such
supposition. Chittenden, for example, writes:[18]
[18] “Nutrition of Man,” p. 4.
“Man lives in an atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen. He can and does
absorb and utilise the free oxygen of the air he breathes; indeed, it
is absolutely essential for his existence, but free nitrogen likewise
drawn into the lungs at each inspiration is of no avail for the needs
of the body.”
As, however, all bodies contain more or less nitrogen in excess,
there would be no need to call upon the air for its supply. It would
be interesting to note the effects in cases of nitrogen starvation;
but the simple fact that animals _do die_ when sufficient nitrogen is
subtracted from their food, would seem to indicate that but little
nitrogen, if any, can be extracted from the air, even under these
circumstances.
* * * * *
After the above lengthy argument, which endeavours to show that
sufficient proteid can be supplied the body from vegetable foods,
it is somewhat amusing to find that, as a matter of fact, _far too
much proteid_ has invariably been eaten by practically all civilised
peoples—and that so far from there being any danger of nitrogen
starvation, or lack of sufficient proteid, the danger is all the other
way, and four-fifths of all the maladies from which mankind suffers
are due to the very fact that an excess of proteid has been eaten!
All physiologists agree that the majority of people eat far more, not
only of proteid, but of all kinds of food, than is required, according
to their tables; and Professor Chittenden has recently shown, as the
result of an elaborate series of experiments conducted at Yale, that
the average proteid standard set by physiologists, as being necessary
for the maintenance of health, is at least _three times too high_! That
is, the majority of persons eat considerably more than three times too
much proteid! In view of these facts, it is amusing to find so much
fear exhibited on all hands in case the proteid supply should not be
sufficient in quantity.
These Yale nutrition investigations are now so widely known that it
would be useless to do more than refer to them in this place. As the
results of experiments upon University professors, upon athletes, and
upon a squad chosen from the United States army, it was definitely
proved that the proteid standards were far too high: the men
flourishing, improving in every direction, and even doing a _greater_
amount of physical work than usual on a diet averaging, in proteid
value, about a third said to be necessary by the physiologists. When
we take into account the fact that most people eat far more proteid
than the physiologists said was necessary, it will be seen at once
the tremendous disproportion which exists between the amount actually
consumed, and the amount really needed by the body; and how absurd it
is, in face of these facts, to persist in demanding an excess of those
foods which contain such high proteid percentages! Chittenden says:
“There is no question, in view of our results, that people ordinarily
consume much more food than there is any real physiological necessity
for, and it is more than probable that this excess of food is in the
long run detrimental to health, weakening rather than strengthening
the body, and defeating the very objects aimed at.... One-half of
the 118 grams of proteid food called for daily, is quite sufficient
to meet all the physiological needs of the body, certainly under the
ordinary conditions of life; and with most individuals, especially
persons not living an active outdoor life, even a smaller amount will
suffice.”[19]
[19] “Physiological Economy in Nutrition,” pp. 274-275.
The figures and calculations throughout his works, however, show that
the proteid intake may be reduced to fully one-third of that said to be
necessary in standard physiologies, with nothing but increased health
and strength.
In summing up this question of the necessity of meat-eating, one
important fact must not be lost sight of, which, in a sense, may be
said to settle the argument in favour of the vegetarian dietary without
further additional evidence of any kind. It is this: That the bodies
of all animals are built from vegetable foods, and consequently,
when we eat those animals, we merely eat the vegetable foods, upon
which _they_ have subsisted, at second hand! We appropriate or
obtain the _same_ chemical elements in organic compound that they
originally obtained from their food, _but we obtain nothing else_.
Animals have the power to create nothing. The single fact that all
nutritive material is formed by vegetables—animals having the power
to appropriate but never to form or create food elements—is proof
positive, to my mind, that we can derive all the nutriment we need
directly from the vegetable world, and that the best food, and that
which is most conducive to man’s highest development—bodily, mentally
and spiritually—is found in the use of these vegetables themselves.
Those who eat animal food do not get a single element of nutrition,
save that which those animals have obtained from vegetables. Hence man,
in taking his nutrition indirectly, by the eating of animals, must of
necessity get the original nutriment more or less deteriorated from the
unhealthy conditions and accidents of the animal he feeds upon—with
the impurities and putrescent matters mingled with the blood and in
the viscera of animal substances, which are invariably present. Apart
from this aspect of the problem—which is one rather of hygiene than of
chemistry, and hence will be discussed in the following chapter—it is
evident that man can derive no single element of nutrition from the
bodies of animals, which he cannot also obtain from suitable vegetable
foods. He need not eat grass and herbs, as do the cows and sheep, in
order to obtain this material—since chemical analysis of the foods
will readily show us that these same elements are contained in fruits,
nuts and other substances suited to his economy. This argument alone
should, therefore, as a matter of fact, settle the whole case in favour
of vegetarianism as against flesh-eating, without any further or
additional proof being necessary.
V
THE ARGUMENT FROM HYGIENE
We have seen in the preceding pages that it is perfectly possible for
man to live upon vegetable and kindred foods without necessitating
the eating of animal foods of any character—which merely confirms the
evidence afforded us by a study of comparative anatomy and physiology.
Having thus seen that it is _possible_ for man to live and thrive
upon these foods, the question at once arises: Can man thrive _best_
upon such foods? Can he maintain a _higher_ level of vital and bodily
health, and of mental and moral powers, upon these foods than he can
upon the usual mixed diet of to-day—including meat and its various
products? If it can be shown that this is the case—that a man cannot
only live, but improve in health and bodily strength on the vegetarian
régime—then it will be pretty obvious that this is the diet best suited
for man, and the diet upon which he can thrive best. It would, in fact,
confirm the argument drawn from comparative anatomy, physiology, and
chemistry, and would conclusively prove that man can live and thrive
best upon a diet devoid of flesh.[20]
[20] “ ... The American must be educated in the principles of the
frugivorous diet. ‘Its never too late to learn,’ and ‘now is the
appointed time.’ Unquestionably man can live on a diet of fresh
meats—proof of which is amply afforded by the very fact that the
larger part of the people of the North American continent of to-day
are living almost wholly or largely on such a diet. When it comes to a
discussion of the relative merits of the two diets ... we need go no
further than to chemistry and physiology, which show that the flesh
meats do not begin to contain the same amount of nutriment as do the
nuts, and some of the other articles of vegetable origin.” “The Art of
Living in Good Health,” p. 197. By Daniel S. Sager, M.D.
In order to understand the evil effects of flesh-eating thoroughly, it
will be necessary for us, first of all, to consider the normal body
when living, and the process of death. When the body of any animal
is living, two processes are simultaneously going on within it—viz.
the constructive and the destructive (Anabolism and Catabolism). The
former of these processes feeds and bathes the tissues, while the
latter is that process whereby the dead matter is thrown off, and
conveyed, by means of the venous blood, to the various eliminating
organs. The arterial blood conveys the food material to the bodily
tissues; the venous blood conveys the dead, worn-out, effete material
from the various tissues to the eliminating organs. If either of these
two processes ceases, or is in any way interfered with, grave results
follow—which, if persisted in long enough, will result in the death
of the organism. It must be remembered that all the poisons which are
thrown off by the cells, throughout the body, are not really eliminated
until they have been conveyed to the depurating organs, and been
completely dissipated in that way. If they are still in the venous
blood or in the tissues, they are still _in the animal_, and a part
of its flesh. These waste substances are poisonous, and are produced
very rapidly by an animal in movement, or even by the very process of
living, so that every animal, no matter how healthy, must and does
contain a vast amount of these poisons, the accumulation of which
would soon kill the animal if not removed—as has often been proved
by varnishing the surface of the body, _e.g._ When the action of the
skin is stopped in this manner the animal soon dies. Again, when a man
is strangled, and the blood forced to pass through the lungs several
times without being oxidised and purified by contact with the oxygen of
the atmosphere, the blood soon becomes almost _black_ in appearance
(due to retained poisons), and the man dies as the result of the rapid
formation of poisons within his system. These facts must be borne in
mind, in what follows. This constant formation of deadly poisons, as
the mere result of living, is a most important factor in the problem,
as we shall soon see; and is one that cannot be overlooked when
considering this question of the propriety and wisdom of flesh-eating.
Having grasped the above facts, let us now proceed to apply them to the
problem before us. When an animal is killed in any manner whatever,
it does not instantly die. It loses consciousness, its heart ceases
to beat, its conscious and somatic life end, but its _tissues_ still
continue to live—for several hours, in the case of warm-blooded
animals, for several days in the case of cold-blooded animals, like
the snake and the turtle. During the time which elapses between death,
so-called, and the actual death of the cells and tissues of the body,
the activity of the animal tissues consumes the soluble food material
which is in contact with these cells and tissues—at the same time
continuing to produce those waste substances, which, during life, are
rapidly removed from the body through the kidneys, lungs, and other
excretory organs.
It is by the accumulation of these poisons after death that the tissues
are killed. During life, the tissues are washed by a pure stream of
blood, which not only bathes but feeds them, and at the same time
gathers up the waste substances and carries them to the liver for
distribution to the kidneys, lungs and skin, for elimination. “When the
heart ceases to beat, this cleansing process ceases, and the poisons
which are ever forming, accumulate at a rapid rate until the vital
fluids are so saturated that every living structure is killed. The
arteries continue to contract after death until all the blood which
they contain is forced on into the tissues, and still farther on into
the veins, so that the flesh of a dead animal contains nothing but
venous blood and poisonous juices, in addition to the organised tissues
which have not yet been broken down.
From the foregoing, it will be apparent why it is that meat-eating is
so destructive. In addition to the useful and necessary nitrogenous
products that are contained within the flesh of the animal, there are
also, contained within its tissues, these poisons created during life,
and retained within the body of the animal after its death. It is
almost impossible to extract these poisons by any process which will
also leave the tissues of the animal free from them, and wholesome
in consequence. By long continued washing, it is possible to extract
the greater proportion of them; but this is never done, as a matter
of fact, and even if it were it would leave behind a tough, elastic
substance, almost tasteless, which would be quite unappetising to the
person attempting to eat the meat. It would no longer have any charms!
This, then, is the greatest objection that can be raised against
meat-eating (from this particular aspect)—viz. that, in addition to the
nutritious portion of the meat, there are and must always remain, and
go along with it, these poisons which are consequently eaten with it.
Now, I ask, would it not be better to eat that food which provides us
with the useful material (proteid) for the upbuilding of the body; but
food in which these poisons are not present, and which we consequently
escape? Such being the case, why not eat only those foods which supply
the nutriment, without the poisons?
I have observed above that certain poisons are invariably retained
in the tissues of an animal which has died; and that these poisons
may be, to a certain extent, washed out by water—they, of course,
remaining in the water into which they have been washed. This is the
case with “beef tea”—the boiling having the effect of washing out all
these poisons, and dissolving them in the water in which the meat
has been cooked. Instead of throwing away this water, however, it is
carefully preserved, and given to patients, as valuable and precious
nutriment! Instead of regarding it as so much poison and filthy
excreta in solution, it is given to patients as a restorative tonic!
It is really amazing that patients ever get well at all under such
treatment. It is certain that none of the real goodness of the meat can
be extracted by any process of boiling or washing, for the reason (1)
that all the arterial blood has been converted into venous blood soon
after the death of the animal; and (2) because animal tissue is _per
se_ indissoluble in water. Were this not so—if our tissues dissolved
in water in this manner—then we should melt and dissolve like a lump
of sugar whenever we went out in the rain, or when we happened to fall
into the water; but we know that such is not the case. It is obvious,
therefore, that only the excrementitious products can be washed away
in this manner; and these are the parts of the tissue which are soaked
and boiled into the water. In beef tea, therefore, we obtain; only the
refuse and poisonous excreta of an animal—and very little, if any, of
its real nutritive qualities.
But it may be contended that beef tea _does_ benefit sick persons:
they really do feel better after taking it! Quite possibly; but this
feeling of elation is due to _stimulation_. If the public understood
what stimulation really is, they would not urge any sick patient to
eat or drink anything that in any way stimulated him; but would on
the contrary forbid him to eat or drink anything which affected him
in this way! If they understood the _rationale_ of stimulation, they
would never urge or suggest that any stimulating food be administered
to the patient again. For how do stimulants stimulate? What is the
_rationale_ of their “action”?
When we see a horse plodding slowly along the street, and the driver
suddenly cuts it across the back with his whip, the horse jumps, and
reaches the end of the street more quickly than if he had not been so
whipped. In such a case, does anyone suppose that any strength has
been _imparted_ or _given to_ the horse; or is it not rather that the
energy already present in the horse has been forced, and expended a
little more quickly? Of course, the latter. In other words, the energy
has been extracted _from_ the horse, and not imparted _to_ it. It is
the same with all stimulants whatever. In every case, their action is
the same. It is not that energy has been imparted to the organism, but
rather that it has been abstracted from it—in the process of resisting
and expelling the stimulant. Stimulation does not impart strength; it
wastes it. Vital power does not go out of the brandy into the patient,
but occasions vital power to be exhausted from the patient in expelling
the brandy. The system expends its force to get rid of the alcohol,
but never derives any force, great or small, good, bad or indifferent,
_from_ the alcohol. Stimulants merely occasion the expenditure of
strength and energy; they do not impart either _to_ the system.[21]
[21] “See pp. 34-44 of my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” where
this question is discussed at length.
From the above facts, it will readily be seen why it is that beef tea
is a stimulant of the highest order; and for that reason an apparent
supporter of strength. In fact, it is now becoming to be realised
in many quarters that beef tea is more of a stimulant than a food;
and, if you believe in the one, you cannot accept the other. These
facts will also enable us to understand the stimulating character
of meat—a quality which has gained for it the reputation of being
“strengthening,” and consequently “good food” for the weak invalid!
But it so happens, unfortunately, that _because_ of this very fact
it is really disqualified as a food for the invalid; and this would
be seen clearly enough if the true _rationale_ of stimulation
were properly understood. The fact of the matter is that the more
stimulating a food, the less nutritious, and _vice versa_. Perhaps I
cannot do better than quote Dr Trall in this connection. He says:
“Medical men teach us that animal food is more stimulating. Here, for
once, the premise is true. But stimulation and nutrition happen to be
antagonistic ideas. Just so far as a thing stimulates, it does not
nourish. Just so far as it nourishes, it does not stimulate.
“There is no more widespread delusion on earth than this, which
confounds stimulation and nutrition. This is the parent source of that
awful error—or, rather multitude of errors—which are leading all the
nations of the earth into all manner of riotous living, and urging
them on in the road to swift destruction. This terrible mistake is
the prime cause of all the gluttony, all the drunkenness, all the
dissipation, all the debauchery in the world—I had almost said, of all
the vice and crime also.
“But what is this stimulus of animal food? Let us see if we cannot
understand it. What is a stimulant? It is anything which the vital
powers resist with violence and expel with energy. The disturbance of
the organism which denotes this resistance, constituting a kind of
feverishness, is stimulation. It is a morbid process. It is disease,
hence a wasting process. Medical books have a class of medicines which
are called stimulants. They are all poisons, and not foods. Among them
are alcohol, phosphorus, ammonia, cayenne pepper, etc. Anything which
is foreign to the organism may provoke vital resistance, and in this
sense be called a stimulant.
“But how does animal food stimulate? It always contains more or less
effete materials—the debris of the disintegrated tissues, the ashes
of the decayed organism—with more or less of other excrementitious
matters. These impurities cannot be used in the organism, and
therefore must be expelled; and this expulsive process, amounting
to a feverish disturbance, this vital resistance, is precisely the
_rationale_ of the stimulating effects of animal food. And thus we
prove that animal food is impure precisely in the ratio that it is
stimulating, and for this reason objectionable.
“All that can be alleged in favour of flesh-eating because of its
stimulating properties can be urged, and for precisely the same
reasons, in favour of brandy-drinking or arsenic-eating.”[22]
[22] “Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism,” pp. 23-24.
There is nothing more certain than that the eating of meat, even if the
meat be clean and wholesome, and the eating of it be not excessive,
will in time produce grave results and diseases of the foulest and
worst type. Not invariably, of course, but almost invariably. The rapid
increase in uric acid which results from a flesh diet has previously
been pointed out, and is now well known. In addition to this, there
are numerous other poisons that are formed, or introduced into the
body, as the result of flesh-eating—as Bouchard and others have proved
conclusively. These poisons and their effects were carefully studied
by Bouchard, and the results of his experiments are very interesting
and convincing. He succeeded in isolating a number of poisons from the
urea of flesh-eaters, and injecting them into animals, and noted the
results. “One of the poisons in most minute doses produces death with
violent spasms; another causes rapid fall of temperature until death
occurs; another influences animal temperature in another direction;
still another produces death with most profound coma.”
The basis of the demonstration is this. The urine is really an
extract from the tissues; the kidneys do not manufacture poisons _de
novo_, but simply separate from the blood poisons found in solution
therein, which have been washed by the blood-current from the tissues
which it bathes in passing through the capillary network of systemic
circulation. Bearing these facts in mind, Bouchard and his assistants
injected into live rabbits certain known quantities of these poisons,
and noted the results. Death invariably resulted—frequently in a very
short time, and as the result of taking an extremely small dose of the
poison. It was also found that, by increasing the amount of meat in the
diet, the amount of these toxins could be increased accordingly, and
proportionately; the greater the amount of meat consumed, the greater
the amount of toxin given off by the animal in its urine, and the more
deadly its effects. It was even found that a person living almost
exclusively upon a flesh diet increased these toxins to fourfold the
normal limit!
Again, it is now well known that in all infectious and contagious
diseases there are created within the system certain poisons which play
a large part in the disease—they are a factor of immense importance.
This being the case, it becomes obvious how important it is to keep
out of the system all other and unnecessary poisons—such as might be
introduced into the system by foul air, bad water, food containing
poisons, etc. Since meat and beef tea contain these poisons in excess,
it is certain that they should not only form _no_ part of the diet of
invalids, but should be strictly _forbidden_, just as any other poison
is.
Metchnikoff has recently pointed out, with great emphasis, the immense
influence upon health of intestinal putrefaction. He insists that it
shortens life; is one of the chief causes of premature old age and
death, and is the cause of many diseases and much misery during life—in
all of which he is doubtless quite right. The method of checking this
intestinal putrefaction, however, does not appeal to me as other than
a palliative measure. Lactic acid is, for him, the great preventive of
putrefaction of this type; but is it not obvious that such a treatment
is merely one that aims at _results_, rather than at _causes_? one
which attempts to patch up existing conditions, instead of trying to
find out what gave rise to those conditions, and checking _them_? M.
Metchnikoff has apparently failed to realise the fact that there is no
need whatever for the human intestine being in any such diseased and
disgusting condition as it is generally; that, in certain cases, it may
be rendered absolutely sweet and clean—with virtually no putrefaction
going on in the bowel at all. In the case of Mr Horace Fletcher, for
instance (and in many of his disciples), no such conditions are present
or possible. Mr Fletcher, writing in his “New Glutton or Epicure,” says
(pp. 144-145):
“One of the most noticeable and significant results of economic
nutrition, gained through careful attention to the mouth treatment of
food, or buccal-digestion, is not only the small quantity of waste
obtained but its inoffensiveness. Under best test conditions the ashes
of economic digestion have been reduced to one-tenth of the average
given as normal in the best text-books on physiology. The economic
digestion ash forms in pillular shape, and, when released, these are
massed together, having become so bunched by considerable retention
in the rectum. There is no stench, no evidence of putrid bacterial
decomposition, only the odour of warmth, like warm earth or ‘hot
biscuit.’ Test samples of excreta, kept for more than five years,
remain inoffensive, dry up, gradually disintegrate, and are lost.”
To my mind, it has always been so obvious that, if we supplied no food
to decompose, there could be no decomposition, that I hardly thought
the question was open to debate at all. It would appear to me to be
axiomatic that if we only supplied the body with as much food as it
really needed, and of the proper quality, there would be virtually no
food left to decompose, or to offer pabulum for germs of any character
whatever. Certainly this is the case outside the human intestine,
and why not in it? One can quite easily see why it should be—why
putrefaction should take place, if the amount of food ingested were
excessive in quantity, or poisonous in quality; _but not otherwise_.
The former of these two questions I have discussed at length in my
former volume on fasting; the latter aspect of the problem is the one I
propose to discuss in this book.
If we compare the decomposition of various articles of food, we find
there is a very great difference (both as to the quality and the
quantity) in the various food-stuffs. Under the same conditions, and
during the same period of time, the extent of the decomposition, and
its character, will be very different, in the two cases. Compare the
decomposition of a pear, a peach or a plum, _e.g._, with that of a
piece of beef or mutton! Animal tissues and products, when undergoing
the process of decay or decomposition are particularly offensive; and
this fact is well borne out by a comparative study of the excreta of
the various animals. As before pointed out, that of the herbivora and
frugivora is comparatively inoffensive, while that of the carnivora is
very offensive, and dangerous also. This is particularly the case with
man, when he eats meat of any character. His fæces at once assume a
characteristic odour and character; and clearly indicate that he has
wandered away from his natural diet, and is living upon food altogether
foreign and unnatural to him. His tissues also take on the chemical
composition of the resulting mass—being coloured and influenced by it.
Meat and all animal products easily decomposing, and being in a moist,
warm place, where they might easily decompose at once, they assume a
most offensive character; and it does not require much imagination to
see that the results would be disastrous in a very short time, under
such circumstances; and clearly indicate that the individual is living
on food unsuited to his needs and his organism.
Even when an animal is perfectly healthy, its tissues begin to
decompose as soon as the animal is really dead—as soon as _rigor
mortis_ has passed away. Even when meat is kept at a very low
temperature, it has been found that it decomposes after the first
twenty-four hours; so that the amount of decomposition present in
all animals whose carcasses have been hanging up for hours, and even
days, in a shop may easily be imagined! In the case of game, the
carcasses are frequently green and blue with decomposition, and the
chemicals injected into the animal in order to preserve it from such
decomposition. For only in this manner can meats be preserved; and
it has been proved time and time again that meats are treated and
“doctored” with drugs and chemicals of all kinds in order to delay
their decomposition. To think that we really eat such stuff, and give
it to our children, and even _prescribe_ it for invalids, is too
revolting for words! It passes all comprehension! Dr Kellogg, in his
excellent little book on this subject, says, when speaking of the
deadly effects of the poisons formed within the body:
“Physiologists sometimes, for experimental purposes, separate from its
bony attachments one of the muscles of a frog’s leg, and arrange it
in such a manner, in connection with a battery and a suitable device,
that by a repetition of electric shocks the muscle may be made to
contract and lift a small weight. After being thus made to work for a
longer or shorter period, the muscle becomes fatigued to such a degree
that it no longer contracts in response to the electric stimulus. This
is shown to be due to the accumulation of the waste matters, of which
mention has been made. If at this point the muscle is washed with a
weak saline solution, it at once recovers its ability to work. If now
a _fresh_ muscle is thus prepared, and strong beef tea or solution
of beef extract applied to it, the muscle at once becomes expanded
or unable to contract, the same as if it had been working for a long
time, but without having done any work whatever! The reason for this
is that the beef tea or beef extract is simply a solution of the
same poisons which are developed in the muscles by work, and to the
paralysing effect of which its fatigue and inability to contract are
due.... By injection of the fluid obtained by compressing a piece
of beef steak or so-called beef juice into the veins of a rabbit,
it has been proved to be highly deadly in character. The quantity
of beef juice required to kill a rabbit of given weight is _less_
than the amount of urine required to produce the same effect.... The
juice obtained from the flesh of a dog was twice as poisonous as that
obtained from ox flesh; in other words, it required twice as much beef
juice to kill an animal of given weight as the juice obtained from the
flesh of a dog....”[23]
[23] “Shall We Slay to Eat?” pp. 53-56.
Upon this subject of beef tea, Dr Tibbles says:
“Beef tea, mutton broth, chicken broth, and other meat infusions are
useful for sick persons, for they are stimulating and restoring, but
they are recognised now chiefly as stimulants to tissue change or to
metabolism rather than as foods proper. They do not prevent wasting
of the body; indeed, when given alone, _they cause more rapid wasting
than no food at all. Dogs fed on beef tea die sooner than when they
are not fed at all._”[24]
[24] “Food and Hygiene,” p. 138.
In the U. S. Dept. of Agr. Bulletin, No. 102, “Experiments on Losses in
Cooking Meat,” we read:
“Beef which has been used for the preparation of beef tea or broth
has lost comparatively little nutritive value, though much of the
flavouring material has been removed” (p. 64).
It will thus be seen that beef tea extracts practically nothing from
the meat; and that the bulk of the nutriment, such as it is, remains in
the meat. This, however, is invariably thrown away! We thus see that
neither the beef tea nor the remaining mass of meat is of any use;
while both are certainly harmful. So much for beef tea!
It is now a well-known fact that meat-eating is the more or less
direct cause of various diseases. Tapeworm is one of these, most
easily and directly traceable to meat; and a very serious disease it
can become. Beef and pork are two great carriers of the cysts, or
tapeworm embryos; and they develop in the intestine, whence it is most
difficult to extract them. Fish is another great cause of tapeworm; and
no matter how fresh these meats may be, this same danger is run, and
can never be completely guarded against. These facts are now so well
known that it is unnecessary to quote authority in support of them.
The deadly trichina, found mainly in pork, but also in fish, fowls,
and in other meats, is the direct cause of trichinosis—a disease so
closely resembling cerebro-spinal meningitis that it is impossible to
distinguish between the two at first, and without a detailed diagnosis.
The history of the infection is said to be somewhat as follows:—rats
visit a cemetery, and become infected with trichinæ. After a time, the
rat dies of infection. The hog—the universal scavenger—eats it. Man—the
greatest of all scavengers—eats the hog, and thus becomes infected in
turn! It is not a very pleasant thought, or one calculated to elevate
man to a position “a little lower than the angels!”
Tuberculosis is another disease that is very frequently communicated to
the human organism from the carcasses of dead cattle. In his “Human and
Bovine Tuberculosis,” Dr E. F. Brush contends most strenuously that
phthisis is very frequently contracted in this manner, and advances
strong evidence in support of his claim. He says (pp. 9-10):
“The total number of cows in the United States for the year 1887 was
14,522,083—that is, one cow to every four and three-fourths (4.7)
persons. There exists, according to Lynt, a true parallel between
human and bovine phthisis; the curves of double mortality are the same
for different districts in the Duchy of Baden. Now this must mean that
a larger proportion of the bovine race dies from phthisis than of the
human race, because of the difference in the length of life between
the races. We have no statistics of this kind in the United States,
but Professor R. A. McLean tells me that, where cows are affected
by tuberculosis in great numbers, the death rate from phthisis is
correspondingly large in the human race in the same districts. This is
his observation from his large experience among diseased cattle.”
It would be useless for me to enumerate in full all the numerous
diseases that are traceable to meat-eating. That alone would occupy
an extensive volume. Typhoid fever has frequently been traced to the
eating of oysters. A disease closely related to hog-cholera has been
known to be contracted by the human being, as the result of eating
pork. Meat-eating is known to be one of the chief and most direct
causes of the decay of the teeth—the small fibres of the meat becoming
wedged in between them, and, decomposing, cause rapid decay of the
teeth. It is probable that this is one of the chief causes of the bad
teeth we see about us. Gout and rheumatism are now well known to result
from the eating of meat. The reasons for this might perhaps be given.
As the result of excessive meat-eating, and eating _too much_ food, the
body becomes choked with an excess of mal-assimilated food material,
and particularly with uric acid—a product of the meat. The blood, being
surfeited with this material, deposits some of it in the vicinity of
the joints, and this gives rise to the various symptoms of gout. It is
beginning to be realised that this disease, formerly thought to be the
direct result of the drinking of wine and other alcoholic beverages,
is due to “good old English beef.” Rheumatism is largely due to the
same cause. Meat poisoning shows itself in various forms; but the cause
is the same. It is now known that meat-eating is the chief cause of
Brights disease; and to all unprejudiced minds, it will be obvious that
this _must_ be so. The excess of albumen in the system cannot well be
due to any other cause: and the mode of cure thus becomes apparent also.
It is certain, to anyone who has studied the facts carefully,
that meat-eating predisposes the body to all forms of disease. In
pestilences of any character—statistics, so far as they have been
kept, conclusively show that the vegetarians escaped the disease, and
that the meat-eaters were the chief sufferers. The excess of poisons
introduced into the system predispose it to any form of disease to
which it may be exposed at the time; the general tone of the system
being lowered, owing to the lessened resistance, it becomes a ready
prey to any contagious disease which might be prevalent at the time.
In further support of this, it has long been known that wounds heal
far more rapidly in vegetarian soldiers and in all others who live
upon foods of this character, than in those who live largely upon
meat. Carnivorous animals are far more subject to blood poisoning than
are vegetarian animals. These latter may be very badly wounded, and
escape with a scar; but lions and tigers and other carnivorous animals
frequently die from blood poisoning, though but slightly wounded. There
can be no reason for this, beyond that indicated above. The tissues of
the animal’s body are more or less saturated with poison, in the first
place; and it required but a small amount in addition, to turn the
scale against the animal, and cause its death. It is surely the same,
to a great extent, in the case of human beings.
Epilepsy is another disease which has been more or less directly
traced to meat-eating. A few years ago, Dr Warner, of the Eastern
Illinois Insane Asylum, called attention to the profound influence of
flesh dietary upon epileptics. He found that it had a most pernicious
influence. By experiment he also ascertained that cats fed upon meat,
or allowed to eat the mice they caught, frequently become epileptic.
It has been ascertained, further, that a strictly vegetarian diet is
the best possible preparation that can be made for a surgical operation
of any kind; and that vegetarians die less frequently, as the result
of severe operations, than do meat-eaters. Paget, in his “Lessons
on Clinical Surgery,” states that there is a higher death rate from
operations in cities than in rural districts; and he considers that
this is largely due to the greater amount of meat consumed in the
cities.
Of late years much attention has been devoted to the relations of
cancer and meat-eating. Several authors have called attention to
this fact; Dr Alexander Haig, in his “Uric Acid in the Causation of
Disease,” strongly contends that the consumption of flesh is one of the
chief causes of cancer, and points out that any irritant to the tissues
will invariably be one of the chief factors in the causation of this
disease. As he showed that meat-eating created much uric acid in the
system, and that this uric acid acts as an irritant upon the tissues,
it is obvious that the consumption of flesh-foods is one of the chief
causes of this dreaded disease. Lately, the Hon. Rollo Russell, in
his book, “The Reduction of Cancer,” has defended this view very
strongly, and has gathered together a great deal of evidence bearing
upon this problem—showing that there is a definite connection between
the amount of flesh consumed and the number of cases of cancer, in any
one locality. He has also advanced strong reasons for supposing that
the one is directly _caused_ by the other. As a result of comparing the
food habits and the mortality tables of a large number of countries
and districts, it was found to be the invariable rule that when, in
any locality, meat-eating was excessive, the cancer rate was high; and
where meat-eating was small, it fell to a comparatively low figure. A
number of other authorities could be quoted in this connection. Thus Dr
Lambe remarks:
“The effects of animal food, and other noxious matter, in inducing
and accelerating fatal disease, are not immediate, but ultimate
effects. The immediate effect is to engender a diseased habit or state
of constitution; not enough to impede the ordinary occupations of
life, but, in many, to render life itself a long-continued sickness;
and to make the great mass of society morbidly susceptible to many
passing impressions which would have no injurious influence on healthy
systems.”
Drs Clarke, Buchan, Abernethy, Sir Edward Berry, Drs Sigmond, Copland,
Alphonus Lercy, Graham, Wardell, Trall, and many other of the older
writers were of the same opinion; and a number of recent authorities
have taken the same stand. It is beginning to be realised that
meat-eating is one of the most potent of all the causes of deadly and
fatal diseases of many kinds—all more or less directly traceable to it.
But, in addition to these varied diseases, there are induced states
of the body which must rightly be looked upon as diseased—though they
are not actual diseases, in the sense generally understood by that
term. Meat-eating is, however, one of the most potent of all factors
in inducing that state of the body known as “predisposition” to
disease—and in deadening and lowering the vitality, and in enfeebling
the senses. I shall now proceed to adduce evidence in support of these
various statements, and show that the effects of meat-eating are far
more insidious and widespread than is generally believed; and that the
effects of this practice, even among the supposedly healthy, are indeed
baneful and disease-engendering.
In the first place it must be pointed out and insisted upon that
meat is a highly _stimulating_ article of food, and for that reason,
innutritious. Stimulation and nutrition invariably exist in inverse
ratio—the more the one the less the other, and _vice versa_. The very
fact, then, that meat is a stimulant, as it is now universally conceded
to be, shows us that it is more or less an innutritious article of
diet, and that the supposed “strength” we receive from the meat is due
entirely to the stimulating effects upon the system of the various
poisons, or toxic substances, introduced into the system, together with
the meat. It is for this reason that those who leave off meat, and
become vegetarians, experience a feeling of lassitude and weakness, for
the first few days—they lack the stimulation formerly supplied, and now
notice the reaction which invariably follows such stimulation. This
feeling of weakness, or “all-goneness,” is therefore to be expected,
and is in no wise a proof that the diet is weakening the patient. Let
him persist in his reformed manner of living for some time, and he will
find that this reaction wears off, and that a general and continued
feeling of energy and well-being follow.
It is commonly supposed that only by eating large quantities of animal
foods can the bodily heat be maintained in cold climates. Such is
by no means the case. Although the Esquimaux, and the inhabitants of
Greenland and Iceland, do subsist almost entirely upon fats and animal
substances, many of the peasants of Northern Russia and other parts of
the globe, eat very little meat—for the reason that they cannot secure
it. Dr Graham, in his “Lectures,” went so far as to say that: “All
other things being precisely equal, the man who is fully accustomed
to a pure vegetable diet, can endure severer cold, or bear the same
degree of cold much longer than the man who is fully accustomed to a
flesh diet.” The truth probably is, as Dr Trall pointed out, that,
“the ordinary farinaceous foods and fruits contain all the carbon and
hydrogen requisite to sustain the animal heat in all climates, and
under all circumstances of temperature; and if ever surplus carbon or
hydrogen is taken into the system, it is, of course, thrown off; and
when a large amount of surplus carbon and hydrogen is taken, the labour
of expelling it is attended with a feverish excitement—which, instead
of warming the body permanently, only wastes its energies, and renders
it colder in the end.” The body is, in other words, continually in a
more or less feverish condition.
In discussing this question in my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition”
(Book III., ch. 4, “Bodily Heat”) I said:
“There can be no doubt that the oxidation of the tissues throughout
the system, and the combination of the oxygen with the carbon are
sources of animal heat, in common with all the organic functions and
chemical changes which take place in the body. All the conditions
requisite for the due regulation of the animal temperature are:
good digestion, free respiration, vigorous circulation, proper
assimilation, and perfect depuration; in two words—_good health_.”
It is thought by many that “stamina” can only be maintained upon a diet
derived largely from flesh, but this is not at all the case. In the
chapter on the experience of nations and individuals, I shall adduce
a considerable quantity of evidence tending to show that a _greater_
amount of endurance can be secured upon a vegetarian than upon a mixed
diet! But many persons do not mean by the word “stamina,” endurance
alone. It is often difficult to get a definition of this word, as it
varies with individual conceptions. If, however, by “stamina,” is meant
stoutness of person, and fullness of blood, such “stamina” constitutes
the very food of disease, and the person in such a state is not only
more liable to febrile and epidemic attacks, but is also in much
greater danger while labouring under them, than one whose development
is such as to allow all the secretary functions to be performed
with ease, and whose blood is not so charged with either natural or
extraneous elements. How frequently do we hear of those who are said
to be looking well and healthy being suddenly cut off by apoplexy, or
some malignant disorder! The fact is, we are deceived by appearances,
by what we erroneously consider the indications of health; for those
whom we are taught to regard as healthy and robust are generally the
farthest from safety, and only need a slight exciting cause to bring
on a fatal disease. It is not the apparent disease which is the real
cause of death, but men die because the body is worn out; the tone of
the fibres is destroyed, and the principle of motion fails. The obvious
disease is the mask under which the condition is concealed.
I have referred before to the protection against epidemics afforded
by a strictly hygienic life, and particularly by the vegetarian
diet. There is an abundance of testimony on this point to which it
is impossible to more than refer. Bush, in his “Works,” vol. iv.,
p. 55, observed that the negroes of the West India Islands, were at
that time almost wholly exempt from yellow fever, which cut off the
resident upper classes in large numbers. Mr Hardy, a noted Scotch
philanthropist, escaped the yellow fever in New York, he asserts, by
his course of living; while Mr Whitlaw, of New Orleans, Dr Rush, of
Philadelphia, and Dr Copeland, also assert that they escaped yellow
fever by abstinence. The poet Shelley, in his “Vindication of Natural
Diet,” p. 18, says:
“There is no disease, bodily or mental, which adoption of vegetable
diet and pure water has not infallibly mitigated, wherever the
experiment has been fairly tried. Debility is gradually converted
into strength, disease into healthfulness; madness, in all its
hideous variety, from the ravings of the fettered maniac, to the
uncontrollable irrationalities of ill-temper, that makes a hell of
domestic life, into a calm and considerable evenness of temper—that
alone might offer a certain pledge of the future moral reformation
of Society. On a natural system of diet, old age would be our last
and our only malady: the term of our existence would be protracted;
we should enjoy life, and no longer preclude others from enjoyment
of it. All sensational delights would be infinitely exquisite and
perfect; the very sense of being would then be a continued pleasure,
such as we now feel in some few and favoured moments of our youth. By
all that is sacred in our hopes for the human race I conjure those
who love happiness and truth to give a fair trial to the vegetable
system. Reasoning is surely superfluous on a subject whose merits
and experience of six months would set for ever at rest. But it is
only among the enlightened and benevolent that so great a sacrifice
of appetite and prejudice can be expected—even though its ultimate
excellence would not admit of dispute.”
Another argument in favour of the vegetarian dietary, as against
meat-eating, is found in the fact that such a diet is conducive to
symmetry and normal development of the human frame. We shall see (p.
142) how the abdomens of the pigmies were greatly reduced, as a result
of abandoning their exclusive flesh diet. Many men are said to have
reduced their weight from ten to one hundred and fifty pounds by an
abstemious, non-flesh diet. The body also assumes a more symmetrical
form, and the skin and complexion a ruddier and more healthful glow. It
must be admitted, however, that the flesh of meat is not, of itself,
a fat-forming food; and many persons are put upon a diet of minced
beef and hot water, in order to reduce their weight. This they do,
generally, however, at the expense of the general bodily health. In
the Banting cure, and the various cures which are followed in America
and in England, the weight is reduced, but with doubtful benefit to
the patient. The large amount of beef creates an excess of acid within
the system, which has a tendency to eat away the fatty tissues; and it
is in this manner that they are destroyed. The excess of acid which is
thus manufactured, however, remains in the system, and is the chief
cause of resulting diseases of various kinds.
In addition to all these arguments, it can be shown that a vegetarian
diet improves and renders more acute the various senses. Sight and
smell, taste and hearing—all are influenced—in some cases more than
in others. Frequently patients are enabled to see distances or to
smell odours, after living on this diet for some weeks, which they
have never been able to do before. The appetite no longer craves the
highly-seasoned and stimulating articles of food formerly desired, but
is content with the simpler foods. The general acuteness and sense of
well-being will more than compensate for any feeling of deprivation
that may at first follow the abolition of meat from the diet. There can
be no question that the food exerts a tremendous influence over the
mental, moral, and emotional life. Says Dr Haig[25]:
[25] “Life and Food,” pp. 8-9.
“I believe that as the result of a rational, natural and proper diet,
producing the best circulation in the great power-house of the human
body, we shall get not only freedom from gross disease, but that
we shall get, developing gradually, conditions of mind, thought,
judgment, and morality, which will, in the future be as different from
what they have been in a diseased and degraded past as the light of
Heaven is different from the darkness of the dungeon; and that while
there are to-day many things in human nature which all believers in
the great, and good, and true, can only most heartily deplore, I
believe that in the future there will be more harmony, more strength,
more beauty, more unselfishness, more love—in a word, a truer and
greater and more complete _sanity_.”
It can be shown, further, that the length of individual life as well
as its usefulness and freedom from disease, are dependent largely upon
the character of the diet. Longevity, properly so-called, is not a
prolongation of the period of decrepitude and helplessness, as some
imagine; but an extension of that period of life when men can fully
appreciate the blessings of existence. It has been proved that any
animal should live, roughly speaking, five times as long as it takes to
mature. The dog matures at two, and lives, on an average, until it is
ten; and so on, throughout the animal world. Man, who matures at (say)
twenty, should live to be at least one hundred, and probably more,
without showing any of the signs of decrepitude and imbecility which
at present frequently accompany old age. As a matter of fact, we find
that the average length of life is a fraction over forty-two years;
and, in addition to this, these forty-two years are filled with diverse
diseases and miseries, which should at no time afflict the individual.
_Something_, therefore, is wrong, producing this result. In some way we
are consciously or unconsciously perverting the laws of Nature. Now, in
no way do we so flagrantly and so continually pervert her laws as in
this question of food; and we can for this reason account both for the
sicknesses which occur—these being engendered by depraved conditions of
the body—and for the shortening of life, which we perceive about us on
every hand. Philosophically, as well as practically, this should be so.
As Dr Graham pointed out years ago: “A life cannot be both _in_tensive
and _ex_tensive.” And the more it approaches the one, the less can it
approach the other. Anything which tends to rapid living—or, what is
perhaps the same thing, rapid bodily consumption or combustion—will
consequently tend to shorten life. All stimulants would, of course,
produce this effect; and, as meat is a highly stimulating article of
food, it will be seen that its consumption, if long continued, will
ultimately tend to devitalise and wear out the body—for the reason
that it hastens the vital wear and tear, and consequently shortens
life. This is, further, in agreement with the fact that “the heart
of the habitual meat-eater beats from 72 to 80 beats a minute, while
that of the person living on a pure diet of fruits, nuts, etc., will
beat ten times less per minute. Fifteen hundred extra heart strokes
every twenty-four hours makes a very appreciable strain upon the vital
forces.”[26]
[26] “Food Value of Meat,” p. 45. By W. R. C. Latson, M.D.
These conclusions are further borne out by the fact that the average
standard of longevity is higher among those peoples and nations who
subsist largely upon a vegetarian diet, than among the meat-eating
races.
There is an additional argument against meat-eating which might be
mentioned in this place. It is this: That meat, being a highly
stimulating article of diet, has a tendency to make us eat _too much_,
both of meat, and of other foods, which are before us at the time.
When the meal consists largely of simple, non-stimulating food-stuffs,
it will be found that this tendency is absent, and there will be no
temptation to overeat, or eat to excess, as is the case when meat is
largely indulged in. _Less_ food, and not more, will be eaten—which
corresponds with the argument drawn from physiology and chemistry—which
shows us that we can abstract the same amount of nutriment from less
food of another character. Instead of eating more food, when we adopt
a vegetarian diet, therefore, we should eat less! And, as a matter of
fact, most vegetarians _do_ eat less than meat-eaters. Thus, Mr Henry
Salt, in his “Logic of Vegetarianism,” p. 63, says:
“If the chemist were a man of action, and not merely a man of study,
the practical aspects of this question might, at the outset, give him
pause. Had he known vegetarians, lived among vegetarians, and talked
with vegetarians, instead of regarding them theoretically, he would
have been aware that the average vegetarian eats decidedly _less_ in
bulk than the average flesh-eater.”
This agrees with our argument advanced elsewhere—that meat is not as
nutritious as other articles of food; and, further, when we come to
consider the question of a fruitarian diet, we shall find that cooking
also destroys a large amount of the vital properties of food, and that
less raw food may be eaten than cooked food. For further discussion on
this point, I would refer the reader to the chapter on the quantity of
food necessary to sustain life.
The question of the influence of the diet upon the mental, emotional
and moral life should, perhaps, be insisted upon a little more fully.
Many of the older writers have insisted on this fact very strongly,
and furnished numerous examples and illustrations of the effects of the
diet upon this side of man—either for better or worse. Judge Woodruff,
writing on this subject, says:
“On my return to Smyrna, I stopped at Syra.... I there became
acquainted with Dr Korke, an eminent teacher from Switzerland. He
had charge of the principal school at Syra, containing from two
hundred to three hundred pupils.... I can truly say that these Greek
children manifested a capacity for learning which exceeded anything
I had ever before or have since witnessed. Dr Korke attributed this
extraordinary ability in his pupils, mainly to their habits of living,
which were exceedingly simple. Coarse, unbolted wheat-meal bread, with
figs, raisins, pomegranates, olives, and other fruit, with water,
constituted their diet. Figs and other fruit composed a large portion
of their food; but I am confident they did not consume an ounce of
flesh meat in a month.”
It is generally conceded that the eating of large quantities of meat
tends to make the consumer pugnacious and animal-like in nature. This
has been insisted upon over and over again, and innumerable cases
could be adduced in support of this contention, if necessary. The
Tartars, who live principally on animal food, possess a degree of
ferocity of mind and fierceness of character which form the leading
feature of all carnivorous animals. On the other hand a vegetable diet
gives to the disposition, as in the Brahmin, a mildness of feeling
directly the reverse of the former. To many, it would appear that, if
a choice had to be made, it would be better to resemble the former
class than the latter—since the one conquers and controls and the
other is conquered and controlled. This is not invariably the case,
however. The pigmies of Africa, and the Esquimaux do not possess this
fierce disposition, but are frequently cowardly, and easily overruled
by other European nations. It would appear, therefore, that dietetic
considerations cannot settle this question—which is too largely a
matter of philosophy, on the one hand, and of personal idiosyncrasy, on
the other, to allow of any definite conclusions being drawn therefrom.
If we desire to arrive at definite results, we must experiment upon
different individuals of the _same_ race; and then, by observing the
_same_ individuals, while upon a meat diet, and while upon a vegetarian
diet, some definite results might be obtained.
There are two consequences of meat-eating which should be noted, in
this place, however—the influence upon the passional nature, and the
influence upon the desire for alcohol. Meat, being a stimulant, excites
the bodily functions unduly—stimulating and irritating them in an
unnatural manner, and exciting the individual to acts which he would
not think of performing, were his body less stimulated and more under
control. This is not saying that a vegetarian diet destroys or lowers
the sexual powers, or the tone of the animal nature—far from it. But
it does not keep the sexual organs in a more or less constant state of
irritation, as is the case upon a meat diet. The potential energy is
there; but the desire to expend it so frequently is not noted. Here is,
at all events, a very important factor in civilisation—how important,
few realise (see Sanger’s “History of Prostitution”). At all events
this is one very strong argument in favour of the vegetarian diet, and
should by no means be overlooked.
The relation between meat-eating and the consumption of alcohol is now
becoming widely known and recognised. No sooner does the amount of meat
consumed, _per capita_, rise, than the quantity of alcohol consumed
rises also. The two—meat-eating and alcohol-drinking—invariably go
hand in hand; and the reason is obvious. Meat is a highly-stimulating
article of food. All stimulants call, after a time, either for an
increase in the amount of the stimulus, or for a stimulant of another
character—in order to produce the desired result. Now, of all solid
foods, there is no stimulant which is more powerful than meat; and for
that reason liquid stimulant is sought. One stimulant craves another.
And another reason for the invariable accompaniment of the two is this.
It would be practically impossible to create a desire for alcoholic
beverages while eating fruits, nuts and vegetables. They do not call
for alcohol, and there would be no desire for it manifested. In every
way we see, therefore, that drunkenness would be largely abolished by
the simple introduction of vegetarianism as a diet—and this has been
confirmed by the fact that in certain sanatoriums, where the vegetarian
diet has been introduced as a cure for inebriety, it has been found to
work to perfection; and the patients, while on this diet—and although
allowed all the alcohol they craved at first—soon ceased to want it,
and the craving left them after a few days—never to return, so long as
they maintained their reformed habits of living.[27]
[27] See, in this connection, H. P. Fowler: “Vegetarianism, the
Radical Cure for Intemperance”; Dr Jackson’s “How to Cure Drunkards,”
etc.
In conclusion, I wish to call special attention to the very great
effects of a properly regulated vegetarian dietary upon the body
(1) when diseased; and (2) to its power to _prevent_ such diseased
states. In any form of chronic or acute disease—no matter what its
nature may be—only good will follow the adoption of a vegetarian
regimen; and the more closely this is followed, and the more sparing
and abstemious the diet—the sooner will the patient mend and get well.
And if the vegetarian diet be adopted when the patient _is_ well, and
conscientiously followed, there can be no question whatever that he
will _stay_ well—provided he does not eat _too much_, and that he pays
reasonable attention to the general laws of health. The preventive
influence of the diet is very profound and far-reaching.
But now, it may be asked, if all this be true; if these diverse and
grievous diseases that afflict man result from the eating of meat; how
comes it about that it is such a universal article of diet? How is
it that everyone believes in its value so thoroughly? The answer to
this is simple. The majority simply follow where custom leads, without
further thought, and without stopping to inquire into the _reasons_
for the course of life they daily pursue. But the scientists, and the
physiologists? They surely ought to know better! They ought, indeed;
but they do not seem to! It would really appear as though this whole
doctrine of meat-eating could be traced back to the old and fallacious
dogma that we have canine teeth in our heads! _They_ have been the
source and the cause of all the trouble! But, as Dr Trall said years
ago, in writing of this very question:
“Sometimes, when I think how perfectly ridiculous as well as sad this
carnivorous tooth blunder is, on the part of doctors of learning and
unlearned people, I am reminded of that very beautiful experiment of
a dog running after his own tail. Take a dog, give his head a sudden
twist round towards his tail, at the same time holding his tail in
the line of his mouth, and say ‘catch it,’ and the poor, deluded dog
will run round and round with all his might, till he falls down dizzy
and exhausted, all the while fancying himself going the straightest
possible road in pursuit of his tail. And after he has rested a
little, and recovered a little breath, he will up and at it again.
“It is very much so with our flesh-eaters. The doctors have given
their heads a roundabout twist; told them they had carnivorous teeth;
set them agoing; pointed to the beasts of the field, the fowls of the
air, and the fishes of the sea, and said ‘catch them.’ And the whole
world has gone to hunting and fishing and fattening and butchering
and salting and pickling, and smoking and broiling, and frying and
eating, until they have become filled with morbid humours, scrofula,
cancer, erysipelas, gout, rheumatism, biliousness and putrid fevers;
then they have rested a while, lived on vegetable food until they have
measurably recovered, and then resumed their carnivorous raid in the
animal kingdom!
“And sickness has not taught them the lesson it ought to have done.
Instead of regarding their maladies as the necessary consequences
of their eating habits, they have looked upon them as the arbitrary
inflictions of chance, or of a mysterious Providence. Even when, in
the middle ages, the great pestilences prevailed over Europe, at a
period of the world’s history when for three hundred years the people
literally rioted and revelled in the abundance of flesh blood and
alcoholic beverages; and when, during those three centuries, the
terrible plague—the ‘Black Death’ and the ‘Great Mortality,’ as it was
then called—desolated London, Paris, and other great cities—sweeping
off one hundred millions of the earth’s inhabitants—the medical
profession, and the people with them, wholly mistook the lesson it
taught.
“And so it is now. People eat all manner of animal products, with
their morbid humours, foul secretions, diseases, impurities and
corruptions; and when their bodies become so obstructed and befouled
that they retch, and vomit, and spit, and expectorate, and go into
fever and inflammation, and gripes and spasms, they wonder what the
matter is! And then they send for the family physician, and he wonders
also. Why, the only wonder is that they are not all matter!”
Throughout the whole of the above argument, I have assumed that the
meat eaten is from _healthy_ animals, and have assumed that no
diseased meat finds its way upon the table of the average meat-eater—an
assumption which is certainly not warranted by facts. I wished,
however, to give my adversaries every advantage in this discussion,
and for that reason have assumed throughout that the meat was obtained
from healthy animals, and was not adulterated before coming to the
table. As a matter of fact, however, neither of these two conditions
are invariably fulfilled. We might say that the second condition is
very rarely fulfilled. It is generally known that meat is inoculated
with chemicals of all kinds before it is placed upon the market, and
for that reason it is enabled to be shipped from place to place, and
to hang in the butcher’s shop by the hour without being kept upon
ice—for how, otherwise, could this be? We know that meat decomposes
very rapidly—especially in moist or warm weather—but it is apparently
enabled to hang, nevertheless, for hours at a time in the butcher’s
shop! If chemicals of various kinds were not injected into the meat,
this would be impossible. Most graphically does Upton Sinclair describe
this process of “pickling” in his book, “The Jungle,” where he says:
“Jonas has told them how the meat that was taken out of pickle would
often be found sour, and how they would rub it up with soda to take
away the smell, and sell it to be eaten on free lunch counters;
also of all the miracles of chemistry which they performed, giving
to any sort of meat, fresh or salted, whole or chopped, any colour
and any flavour which they chose. In the pickling of hams they had
an ingenious apparatus, by which they saved time, and increased the
capacity of the plant—a machine consisting of a hollow needle attached
to a pump; by plunging this needle into the meat and working with his
foot, a man could fill a ham with pickle m a few seconds. And yet, in
spite of this, there would be found ham spoiled, some of them with
an odour so bad that a man could hardly bear to be in the room with
them. To pump into these the packers had a second and much stronger
pickle which destroyed the odour—a process known to the workers as
‘giving them thirty per cent.’ Also, after the hams had been smoked,
there would be found some that had gone to the bad. Formerly these had
been sold as ‘Number Three Grade,’ but later on, some ingenious person
had hit upon a new device, and now they would extract the bone, about
which the bad part generally lay, and insert in the hole a white-hot
iron. After this invention there was no longer Number One, Number Two,
and Number Three Grade—there was only Number One Grade! The packers
were always originating such schemes. They had what they called
‘boneless hams,’ which were all the odds and ends of pork stuffed into
casings; and ‘California Hams,’ which were the shoulders, with great
knuckle joints, and nearly all the meat cut out; and fancy ‘skinned
hams,’ which were made of the oldest hogs, whose skins were so heavy
and coarse that no one would buy them—that is, until they had been
cooked, and chopped fine and labelled ‘head cheese’!”
This question of _diseased meat_ is, therefore, one which deserves our
close attention, largely because it has been treated so ineffectually
in the past, in other books dealing with this subject. The defect has
been due to the fact that, until recently, no definite _facts_ have
been available; and, although everyone knew in a general way that
much of the meat said to be “inspected” and found free from disease
was, as a matter of fact, unfit for human food, there were no data to
which the vegetarian could point, and say: “Here are facts and figures
incontrovertible! What have you to say in defence now?”
Lately, however, several such exposures have been published. It would
be well for us to summarise the facts; and I cannot do better, in this
connection, than to turn to Dr Albert Leffingwell’s book, “American
Meat.” (I would refer all those interested to its fascinating pages.) A
very brief summary must suffice. This will be enough, however, for our
purpose:
“During the period of 1901-1906 inclusive, over 660,000 _post-mortem_
inspections were made of animals, which before slaughter had been
rejected in the stock yards as apparently diseased. Of these, only
85,000—_less than one in eight_—were finally condemned as wholly unfit
for food purposes.... What is it that the United States inspector
is required by his regulation to condemn as unfit for human food?
The carcasses of animals which he might find affected by cancer
or malignant tumours? No. He is directed to condemn _the tumour_,
the part of the carcass which was affected, the organ which was
infiltrated by disease! The remainder of the carcass—what becomes
of that? Is there anything which prevents it from being turned into
the food supply of the poorer classes? There is sometimes a silence
which accords assent.... Suppose the entire liver of a hog to be a
mass of cancerous disease; what is there in these regulations of the
Department of Agriculture to prevent transmuting the muscular tissues
and unaffected organs into various food delicacies or food products,
which in due time should find their way to the tables of rich and poor
in England and America? Not a word!...
“The United States Department of Agriculture advances yet another
step, and, under certain circumstances, _requires_ the inspector’s
approval of the flesh of tuberculous animals as fit food for human
beings:
”_Rule C._—The carcass, if tuberculous lesions are limited to a single
or several parts or organs of the body (except as noted in Rule A)
without evidence of recent invasion of tubercle bacilli into the
systemic circulation, SHALL BE PASSED, after the parts containing the
localised lesions are removed and condemned.”
The following table affords matter of interest:—
_Number of Carcasses (Approximately) found on inspection to be
affected with tuberculosis, of which “parts” were condemned, and the
remainder passed as wholesome food._[28]
YEAR CATTLE HOGS
1900 85 1,061
1901 256 44
1902 152 4,700
1903 250 52,006
1904 703 118,820
1905 647 142,105
1906 1,114 113,491
1907 10,530 364,559
1908 27,467 628,462
—————— ————-———
Total 41,204 1,425,248
[28] Abstract from the Annual Report of the Bureau of Animal Industry.
The significance of these figures should not escape the reader. Here is
the proof, based upon official statistics, of the utilisation for food
purposes of animals suffering from tuberculous disease!
But the figures prove far more. They illustrate the terrible
indifference to public interests which governed the inspection of
meat, especially before the legislation of June, 1906. Note the vast
difference which obtains between the number of animals found “partly”
diseased in 1907, and the number of preceding years. For instance, the
total number of beef carcasses inspected in 1907 showed an increase of
precisely 10 per cent. above the figures of 1906. Yet the number of
cattle, of which the carcasses were “in part” condemned increased—not
10 per cent.—but _over_ 800 _per cent._ above the figures of the year
before. Almost as many hogs were condemned in one year (1907) as “in
part affected” by this disease, as during the entire seven years that
preceded it! Was there any noteworthy sudden increase in the prevalence
of this disease among animals intended for human food? There is no
hint of it in the official report. The only conclusion we can reach
is that, following the agitation and legislation of 1906, thousands
of hogs and cattle were at least partly condemned, which in preceding
years, without even the condemnation of a part, _passed into the food
supply of the world_.
During eight years, 1900-1907, there were slaughtered, under Government
Inspection, over 203,000,000 hogs. Since there can be no doubt that
the trichina was as common among all the animals as among those whose
carcasses were examined, it follows that, during this period of eight
years, over 5,000,000 carcasses of hogs, or about 1,000,000,000 _pounds
of pork_, infested by trichinæ—at least half of which at the time of
slaughter were potent for mischief—were turned into the meat supply of
an unsuspecting world!
The following “Government Regulations,” in this connection, are
certainly remarkable and well worth quoting. It is hardly likely that
the general public suspects what is given to them in the form of meat;
and the following quotations will probably help to open their eyes:
_“Malignant Epizootic Catarrh._—The carcasses of animals affected with
this disease, and showing general inflammation of the mucous membranes
with inflammation, shall be condemned. If the lesions are restricted
to a single tract, or if the disease shows purely local lesions, the
carcass _may be passed_.”
_Skin Diseases._ Section 16.—“Carcasses of animals affected with mange
or scab, in advanced stages, or extension of the inflammation of the
flesh, shall be condemned. When the disease is slight, the carcass
_may be passed_.”