with hydatid cyst (echinococcus) _may be passed_ after condemnation of
the infected part or organ.”
Similar quotations could be supplied _ad libitum_; but the above
will doubtless suffice for our purposes. From them we see that—all
statements to the contrary notwithstanding—a very great deal of
diseased meat _does_ get into the market—so much, in fact, that it
becomes highly probable that a large percentage of it is diseased; and
that we probably run more chance of buying diseased meat than we do of
obtaining meat clean and free from infection.
These facts and figures relate only to the meat slaughtered under
Federal Inspection, it must be remembered; and represent the best
possible condition in which our meat is obtained. This meat is passed
by expert Government Inspectors; the packing houses are considered the
best and the cleanest in the country, etc. What, then, of the meat
killed by local butchers, on farms, and _without_ Federal Inspection
altogether? The reader may think that there are but few cattle and
hogs killed in this way; and that their flesh is not disposed of upon
the public market to any extent. If he is of this opinion, he is sadly
mistaken, as the following figures will show. I take them from Dr A.
M. Farrington’s Report to the Bureau of Animal Industry, which is
published as Circular No. 154, under the supervision of the U. S.
Department of Agriculture. As we have seen that the tendency of the
Bureau is to under rather than over-estimate the facts in the case, the
following statements will appear all the more impressive. The figures
given below relate to the year 1907, but much the same conditions
prevail to-day, and but little has been done to check the conditions
depicted. The following is the result of a careful statistical inquiry,
in tabulated form:—
────────────────────────────────┬───────────┬────────────┬──────────
ITEM │ CATTLE │ SHEEP │ SWINE
─—─—─—─—————————————————─—─—─—─—┼─——————─—─-┼————————─—─—┼─—————─—─—
Slaughtered under Federal │ │ │
Inspection │ 7,633,365 │ 10,252,070 │ 32,885,377
│ │ │
Estimated Farm Slaughter │ 1,500,000 │ 1,000,000 │ 16,500,000
│ │ │
Slaughtered by Butchers without │ │ │
Federal Inspection │ 4,972,052 │ 7,793,133 │ 10,316,300
─—─—─—─—————————————————─—─—─—─—┴─——————─—─-┴─———————─—─—┴─—————─—─—
It will be seen from the foregoing that practically 5,000,000 cattle,
nearly 8,000,000 sheep, and over 10,000,000 hogs were slaughtered by
butchers in 1907 without Federal Inspection, to which may be added
about 3,000,000 calves. All these 26,000,000 animals were consumed by
the people of the United States, and the responsibility of inspecting
them rested wholly upon the State and local authorities, since they are
beyond the reach of the Federal Inspectors.
And now, how about the sanitary conditions of the slaughter-houses
in which these animals were killed, and how about the state of the
animals themselves? Were they free from disease? were they sick? Were
the surroundings filthy and poisonous in the extreme? If I should give
an account of the real state of affairs in my own words, I should
be accused of exaggeration—to use the very mildest term. I prefer,
therefore, to quote entirely from the Report of the Bureau of Animal
Industry, before referred to. This Report states in part:
“The slaughter-houses, where animals are killed for local consumption,
are usually isolated or scattered about the city or town.... Such
houses, in addition to being unsightly, malodorous, unclean, and
insanitary in the extreme, are actually centres for spreading
disease.... A recent investigation made by the State Board of Health
in Indiana of those slaughter-houses which do not have Federal
Inspection ... states that:
“‘Of the 327 slaughter-houses inspected, only 23, or 7 per cent.,
were found to fulfil the sanitary standards.... At nearly all
slaughter-houses inspected, foul, nauseating odours filled the air
for yards round. Swarms of flies filled the air and the buildings and
covered the carcasses which were hung up to cool. Beneath the houses
was to be found a thin mud, or a mixture of blood and earth, churned
by hogs, which are kept to feed upon offal.... Maggots frequently
existed in numbers so great as to cause a visible movement of the mud.
Water for washing the meat was frequently drawn from dug wells, which
receive seepage from the slaughter-house yards, or the water was taken
from the adjoining streams, to which the hogs had access. Dilapidated
buildings were the usual thing, and always the most repulsive odours
and surroundings existed.’ ...
“One of the butchers was asked what they did with ‘sick’ cattle. He
laughed and answered ‘What do they all do with them?’
“In another large eastern city there are only four slaughter-houses in
the city proper which do not have Federal Inspection. The total kill
at these places is about 1,000 cattle and 2,500 hogs per month. The
only inspection is furnished by one inspector of the board of health,
and this inspector is not a veterinarian. Previous to his employment
by the board of health, he was a hotel porter.”
It need only be added that such strict economy is practised in all
these slaughter-houses that the odds and ends—the “trimmings”—are
now valued by the butchers at about 14 per cent. of the whole. The
trimmings consist of every part of the animal except the actual refuse
it contains, everything else being utilised in one way or another. As
one Chicago packer proudly expressed it, when speaking of hogs, “we use
everything but the squeal!”
This, be it observed, is the meat placed upon the market and eaten by
the American public, to the extent of millions of carcasses yearly!
Is it any wonder that the people have cancer, and tapeworm, and
tuberculosis, and other illnesses, and break down prematurely and
become miserable and die? It would be a wonder indeed if they did
anything else!
It is well known that large quantities of diseased meat are constantly
being introduced and placed upon the market—far more than the public
is aware of. But, for the present argument, it is not necessary that
we should force this conclusion, since we can establish the point,
even assuming that all the meat eaten is from the carcasses of healthy
animals—the actual content of the tissue containing toxic material,
no matter how free the animal may be from what is generally known as
“disease.” This being true, all the arguments advanced above will
remain perfectly valid—no matter how “healthy” the animal may be.
VI
THE ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE
(_Nations and Individuals_)
“There is a difference,” observes Chalmers, “between such truths
as are merely of a speculative nature, and such as are allied with
practice and moral feeling. With the former, all repetition may
be often superfluous; with the latter, it may just be by earnest
repetition that their influence comes to be thoroughly established
over the mind of the inquirer.”
These words are particularly true when applied to the subject matter
before us. No matter how perfect, theoretically, an argument may be,
it will never appeal to the public mind as do a few concrete facts.
The arguments I have presented, drawn from comparative anatomy, from
physiology, chemistry, and from hygiene, would weigh but little in many
minds against the testimony of human experience. They would contend
that, no matter how good the theoretical argument might be, the facts,
nevertheless, would seem to prove the contrary; and show that the
majority of all the more civilised people of the earth, particularly
the ruling and governing nations, _do_, as a matter of fact, eat meat;
and hence, practically, meat is a suitable article of diet. I propose
to consider these arguments in the following chapter, and see how far
they rest upon facts, and how far upon misconception.
Pythagoras, one of the most celebrated philosophers of antiquity, was
one of the first to defend the “vegetable diet.” He not only totally
refrained from animal food himself, but also strictly prohibited the
use of it by his disciples, so that those who abstain from it at the
present time are sometimes known as Pythagorians. Pythagoras flourished
about five hundred years before the Christian era. He was a man of
immense learning, and extraordinary powers of intellect. He was the
first demonstrator of the forty-seventh problem of the first book of
Euclid, and entertained correct views of the solar system. Ovid speaks
of him with great admiration.
Zeno, the Stoic, Diogenes, the Cynic, Plato, Plutarch, Plautus,
Proclus, Empedocles, Socrates, Quintus Sextus, Apollonius of Tyana,
Porphyry, and numerous others, among the ancients, abstained from
animal food and, more recently, Haller, Ritson (celebrated for his
numerous works and varied talents), Dr Cheyne, Dr Lambe, Mr Newton
(who wrote a splendid book, “The Return to Nature”), Shelley, Dr
Hufeland, Sir Richard Phillips, and many others have both advocated and
personally tried for many years a strictly and exclusively vegetable
diet.
Hesiod, the Greek poet, Herodotus, Hippocrates, Pliny, Galen, and many
other writers of antiquity could be quoted as defending a simple,
non-flesh diet. Of late years numerous scientific men and physicians
have come forward in support of this claim; and their testimony will be
found in various parts of this work.
If the past has produced individual giants, mental and physical, who
subsisted upon a vegetarian dietary, the present may also claim its
champions; and there are doubtless more at the present day than ever
before. Many athletes are now adopting a vegetarian diet, largely on
account of the Fletcher-Chittenden experiments before referred to;
largely because of individual study and investigation. The fact that
strength and endurance are greatly increased by a strict vegetarian or
fruitarian dietary cannot be gainsaid. I have adduced some of this
evidence in the chapter on hygiene, and shall adduce further evidence
in the present and following chapters. The frequently quoted case
of the seventy-mile walking match, that took place in Germany some
years ago, should at least be referred to. Fourteen meat-eaters, and
eight vegetarians started on a seventy-mile walking match. All the
vegetarians reached the goal, it is said in “splendid condition”—the
first covering the distance in fourteen and a quarter hours. An hour
after the last vegetarian came in, the first meat-eater appeared, and
he was “completely exhausted.” He was also the last meat-eater to
finish the race, as all the rest had dropped off after thirty-five
miles. A further and almost exactly similar illustration is furnished
by the Dresden to Berlin walk of 1902. For this, eighteen vegetarians
and fourteen meat-eaters started, and ten of the vegetarians, but only
three of the meat-eaters came in. The winner (Karl Mann) was upwards
of seven hours in front of the first meat-eater. It is to be noted
that Mann was a strict fruitarian, and practically never touched the
ordinary vegetarian foods. The last meat-eater only just got in within
the time limit, and was beaten by more than four hours by a man of
fifty-nine, who had been a vegetarian for thirty-eight years. In this
race the championship of Germany was decided, and the winner made two
world’s records. The proceedings were watched, and the organs and
circulation of competitors were measured and recorded by a committee of
physiologists, for the benefit of the German government and army.
Dr Alexander Haig, in his “Diet and Food,” p. 100, says:
“A week or two after the race I had the pleasure of examining the
winner, who had, to a large extent, arranged his diet by the aid of
a previous edition of this book.... His circulation was far better
than that of any meat-eater, which, to a large extent, explains his
victory; and the records show that his heart was smaller at the end
of the race than at the beginning. I have but little doubt that the
meat-eaters who gave up had dilated hearts, owing to their obstructed
circulation.... In my opinion, a few more hard facts like these (and
plenty more of such records will be forthcoming) will quite dispel the
meat-eating delusion that strength and endurance can be attained on no
food but flesh. The truth is that 50 per cent. _more_ endurance and
strength can be obtained with many other foods; and the chief reason
for this can now be seen and gauged in a moment by the rate of the
capillary circulation of the individuals concerned; and this capillary
circulation is proportioned to the uric acid in the blood, and is
therefore slowed and obstructed by meat, which introduces uric acid.”
Professor Baelz, of Tokio, Japan, made some experiments on vegetarian
natives, and, after measuring and recording some of their feats of
endurance, he gave some of them meat, which they took eagerly, and
regarded as a great luxury, because it was used by the “upper classes”;
but after three days they came and begged to be let off the meat,
as they felt tired on it, and could not work as well as before. The
Professor then made some similar experiments on himself, and he found
that he also was sooner tired, and more disinclined for exertion when
he took meat.
Mr Eustace H. Miles, formerly amateur champion of the world and
holder of the gold prize at tennis, amateur champion of the world at
racquets, and of American squash, tennis, etc., is a strong advocate
of vegetarianism, and has written a number of works on this subject,
defending the non-flesh diet—which books are too well known to need
more than a mere reference. Mr Miles, though he must be approaching
middle age, is a remarkably young-looking man, with a brilliant
complexion, and thinks that he will be as good ten or fifteen years
from now as he is to-day. In a conversation with me, Mr Miles stated
that he considered diet the all-important factor, so far as health is
concerned; and exercise, and other forms of health-getting “a luxury.”
I agree with him absolutely, and defended this very position in my
“Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 618-621. I too think that if the
food be regulated in quality, and sufficiently reduced in quantity,
all other factors might be more or less neglected, and perfect health
maintained.
But it would be useless to refer to a large number of individual
cases of this character. However many I might cite, the defenders of
meat-eating would be enabled to cite an equal number of cases in favour
of their argument; and for this reason I do not think that individual
cases are of value in establishing any conclusion beyond this one—viz.
such cases show us conclusively that men _can live_, and _can maintain
a high standard of physical health and mental brilliancy upon a diet
derived exclusively from the vegetable world_. That is an important
point, but would not be conclusive. In order to arrive at a definite
conclusion, far larger numbers of vegetarians and meat-eaters must be
investigated; and the question, therefore, becomes one of statistics
and of the diets of nations, rather than of individuals. I shall
accordingly turn to this aspect of the problem—after mentioning one
additional point that must not be lost sight of, in this connection.
It must be remembered, throughout, that, for every vegetarian in
England or America, there are doubtless 100 or more meat-eaters, so
that the percentage of success in the athletic field and elsewhere
_should be_ at least 100 to 1—and probably a great deal more, if the
balance is to be maintained between the vegetarian and flesh-eating
athletes, and others before the public eye. But, as a matter of fact,
we find that the percentage is very much lower than this; and that,
within the last few years, at any rate, quite as many vegetarian
athletes secured successes and achieved records as did the meat-eating
athletes; and in some instances, where the two ran in competition, it
was found that a _larger_ percentage of vegetarian athletes achieved
success than did the meat-eaters. Inasmuch as the number is so
disproportioned, in the two cases, it would certainly appear that the
vegetarian athletes did, on the whole, achieve a far greater percentage
of successes than did the meat-eating athletes.
* * * * *
The diets of the various nations have so frequently been summarised and
presented by writers upon this subject that it will not be necessary
for me to do more than to mention briefly a few of the most essential
points; and to refer the reader to those works in which these facts and
arguments are to be found in full. Dr Graham, in his “Science of Human
Life”; Dr John Smith, in his “Fruit and Farinacea”; Dr Anna Kingsford,
in her “Perfect Way in Diet,” and, more recently and fully, the Hon.
Rollo Russell, in his extensive volume, “Strength and Diet: A practical
treatise with special regard to the life of nations”—all these writers
have discussed this question of national health, as compared with
national diet, and found, almost invariably, that in every nation whose
diet consisted almost exclusively or even largely of meat, the natives
were small in stature, depraved mentally and morally, and afflicted
with diverse diseases; whereas those nations which were largely
vegetarian did not suffer in the same way from the sicknesses and
pestilences that affected their fellow-men; but were, on the contrary,
more forceful, superior morally and mentally, and in every way higher
in the scale of evolution than those nations which subsisted largely
upon meat.
A striking example of this is to be found in the pigmy races of Central
Africa. In his work, “The Pigmies,” Professor A. de Quatrefages has
shown us that this miniature people, stunted as they are, mentally,
physically and morally, subsist almost entirely upon meat. He says:
“The Mincopies are exclusively hunters and fishermen, living upon the
shore of a sea filled with fishes, close to great forests where boars
run at large, and which furnish them, besides, honey and nuts, they
have not felt the necessity of wringing by labour from the soil, a
supplement to their food supply; and this very luxuriance of food,
perhaps, has been of influence in keeping them at the lowest point
in the social scale. Francis Day informs us that a very small tribe
of Mincopies camped near the English establishments, and receiving
daily rations, took besides, in a single year, five hundred boars,
one hundred and fifty turtles, twenty wild cats, fifty guianas and
six bugongs.... All the descriptions agree in attributing to the
Akkas, men and women, an extreme abdominal development, which causes
the adults to resemble the children of Arabs and negroes.... But it
is evident the abnormal development of the abdomen, among the Akkas,
is not a true race characteristic, but that it is largely due to
their manner of life, the quantity of their food, perhaps also to
the general conditions of their habitat. This fact results from some
observations of Count Minis Calchi, who has seen, after some weeks of
regular and wholesome diet, the extreme development of the abdomen
disappear, and the vertebral column resume its normal state.”
These people are described as cruel, cowardly and wanting in all the
qualities that would raise them in the scale of evolution: yet their
diet consists almost entirely of meat—the supposed “strengthening” and
courage-breeding food of civilised nations! Emaciation is very common
among them, under certain conditions. It cannot be objected to what I
have said that this condition is brought about by their cannibalism,
for we read (“The Pigmies,” p. 155) that: “Far from seeking human
flesh, the Andamanese regard it as a deadly poison.”
The Esquimaux are another race which is very inferior; and in them
nothing is developed, scarcely, save the mere animal nature; hence
their stomachs have all the nervous power, almost, of their whole
constitutions. They have virtually no mental life beyond that necessary
for carrying on the affairs of daily life. One never hears of any
mental achievement coming from an Esquimau; more than this, their
animal nature is itself actually inferior in muscular power to that of
those tribes and races of men whose general régime is comparatively
free from fats and animal oils.
Throughout history the general run of the people—the natives—subsisted
almost entirely upon a vegetarian diet; and any large quantity of
meat was not consumed, for the reason that it could not be procured.
The upper classes subsisted more or less upon meat—which might
have accounted for their eventual degeneracy!—as the whole nation
degenerated when meat-eating became general, as in Greece and Rome. But
in the early stages of the history of these nations, and of others,
meat was a luxury, to be eaten on holidays and fête days, rather than
a steady article of diet; it could by no means be procured every day
or every meal, as is now the case. The principal food of the natives
of Egypt, India, Mexico, Chili, Brazil, Cyprus, Arabia, Bolivia, the
Canary Islands, Italy, Ceylon, Japan, Sierra Leone, Greece, Malta,
Turkey, China, Palestine, Algiers, the African Coast, Poland, Russia,
Norway, Spain, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria,
Sweden, Switzerland, Scotland, Ireland, and, until recently, England—is
some form of vegetarian food—bread, rice, fruits, cheese, and various
grains. The details of these dietaries are to be found in Russell’s
“Strength and Diet,” where a very full summary of all these dietaries
are to be found. I refer my reader to that work for further information
upon these lines. But one or two examples are needed to illustrate
this. Thus we read:
“It is indeed surprising to see how simple and poor is the diet of the
Egyptian peasantry, and how robust and healthy most of them are, and
how severe is the labour they undergo. The boatmen of the Nile are
mostly strong muscular men, rowing, poling and towing continually; but
very cheerful and often the most so when most occupied, for they amuse
themselves by singing.”
The staple food of India is, of course, rice, to which is added a poor
grain called râgi, pulse, roots, fruits, and one or two other articles
of diet. The men from the hilly district are described as tall—being
from five feet ten inches, to six feet high. They used to carry the
mail from Calcutta to Bombay by foot—but twenty-five days being allowed
for this journey, an average of sixty-two miles a day.
Few people surpass the Arabs for longevity, agility, and power of
endurance; yet they subsist largely upon dates, milk, and honey. The
peasants of Italy are a splendid, hardy set, living almost entirely
upon cakes and porridge of chestnut, bread, garlic, and a little wine.
The Greek boatmen are exceedingly abstemious, their food consisting of
a small quantity of black bread, made of unbolted rye or wheat meal, a
bunch of grapes or raisins, figs, etc. They are extremely vigorous and
active, as well as blithesome, jovial and full of hilarity. Sir William
Fairbairn, in his “Report on Sanitary Conditions,” says:
“The boatmen and water carriers of Constantinople are decidedly,
in my opinion, the finest men in Europe, as regards their physical
development, and they are all water drinkers; they take a little
sherbet at times. Their diet is chiefly bread, now and then a
cucumber, with cherries, figs, dates, mulberries, or other fruits
which are abundant there; now and then a little fish.”
In Dr Mackenzie Wallace’s “Russia,” we read:
“Eggs, black bread, milk and tea—these form my ordinary articles of
diet during all my wanderings in northern Russia. Occasionally a
potato could be had, and afforded the possibility of varying the bill
of fare.... The people of Russia generally subsist on coarse black rye
bread, and garlics. I have often hired men to labour for me in Russia,
which they would do from sixteen to eighteen hours, for eight cents
a day. They would come on board in the morning with a piece of their
black bread weighing about a pound, and a bunch of garlics as big as
one’s fist. This was all their nourishment for the day of sixteen or
eighteen hours labour.”
The fare of the Swiss workmen is very frugal.
“They rarely taste flesh, their food being principally, bread, cheese,
potatoes, vegetables and fruit, though in the towns the consumption of
meat is somewhat greater. The middle classes fare pretty much as the
working classes, all consuming large quantities of milk.”
Mr H. Irving Hancock, in his “Japanese Physical Training,” says of
their diet:
“When making their phenomenal marches, Japanese troops often carry no
food except a small bag of rice. When practicable, barley and beans
are issued in small quantities, though this is only done for the sake
of adding variety to the diet.... A bowl of this grain (rice) and a
handful of fish is considered an ample meal for the coolie who is
called upon to perform ten or twelve hours of hard manual work in a
day.”
It would be possible to add quotations and references such as the above
_ad lib._; but it is hardly essential for our argument, since this has
been done so frequently by able writers on the vegetarian diet, that it
hardly needs recapitulation in this place. Anyone may test the value
of the diet for himself, and thus verify from that most satisfactory
of all sources—personal experience—what has been outlined here, as a
theoretical possibility. Before closing, however, I desire to call
attention to one or two aspects of this question which have been more
or less overlooked, or wrong inferences drawn from the facts—apparently
vitiating the argument, and showing that meat-eating has a substantial
basis, and that there are valid objections to the vegetarian dietary
that have hitherto been lost sight of. Let us consider these briefly.
One great argument will always be raised against this theory of
vegetarianism, or non-flesh-eating—at first sight a very rational
objection. It will be said that all the nations who are flesh-eating
are the most progressive and dominating races or nations; and that
those who are largely vegetarian on principle are invariably overruled
by the nations who eat meat. The old case of the Hindu and the
Englishman may be cited here: it being contended that the meat-eating
Englishman dominates and holds in check the vast hordes of India, and
this largely or exclusively on account of his meat diet! Many other
examples of this character might be referred to, and in fact a strong
case apparently made out from these arguments alone. I do not think
that the argument is in any way valid, however; for the following
reasons, among others:—
In the first place, the Hindu is the man he is—peaceful, docile,
kind—more on account of his philosophy than on account of his diet.
He is opposed to killing and bloodshed in any form whatever, and will
not kill any animal (except, very occasionally, a snake) because of
his belief in reincarnation and the transmigration of souls. It can
readily be seen, therefore, that, holding such beliefs as these, and
being naturally of a philosophic and introspective turn of mind, and
being, moreover, a rural, rather than a warlike people, killing their
fellow-men would not appeal to them as it does to us. With them, the
aim and object of life is, not to acquire material possessions, but
true spiritual progress. They look upon material possessions as so much
ephemeral matter, which shall count for very little, when compared
with the ultimate destiny of the human soul. European nations, on the
other hand, who consider the material nature only, cannot understand
that attitude of mind; they are so saturated with materialism and the
materialistic thoughts of the age that they cannot even conceive the
viewpoint of one such as the Hindu, who considers and values only
the immaterial. Both consider the other as dreamers, and as victims
of illusion—people carried away by vain baubles—in the quest of mere
delusions! Holding such views, therefore, it can hardly be wondered at
that Hindus should view with more or less indifference the conquests
and despotism of foreign nations: to them these are mere incidents
in the passing of one life. This argument can, therefore, hardly be
pressed against the Hindus and similar nations; it is invalid, for
these reasons alone.
Again, it must be admitted that the highest evidence of
civilisation—the most advanced evidences of evolution—are hardly
those of war and bloodshed, but rather peace and tolerance! As a
friend of mine expressed it: “If you mean that those nations are the
most advanced and progressive which shoulder a gun and go out and kill
their fellow-man, then I must admit that European nations are the most
advanced; but if you mean anything else, this cannot be said.”
As Dr Trall, when discussing this question, remarked:
“If it be alleged, as an argument against the position I am
endeavouring to occupy, that the milder and more civilised and
peaceful nations are degraded and enslaved by their more ferocious
and warlike neighbours, I can merely reply that human beings may, and
in fact do, like predacious animals, riot upon and tyrannise over the
more amiable and more lovely, as the wolf preys upon the lamb, and the
vulture upon the dove. And I can see no end or remedy for this seeming
cruelty—save in that law of benevolence and progress which permits
suffering for a season, and as a means of development, and overrules
all for good, by that law which, in due process of time, will not only
exterminate from the face of the earth the beasts of prey, but also
all the appetences of human beings for preying upon other animals.”
Lastly, I must contend that it is by no means invariably the case that
vegetarian nations are subservient to the meat-eating; but they are, on
the contrary, almost invariably superior to them physically, as well
as mentally and spiritually. The Japanese have only lately given us an
excellent example of this fact; and it is illustrated in the histories
of all nations. It might almost be said that meat-eating nations have
never stood at the head of the military world until recently. The
Greeks and Romans were not meat-eating, but were strictly vegetarian,
for the most part; when meat-eating and wine-drinking and debauchery
generally were introduced, the Government speedily disintegrated
and went to pieces. The same is true of every nation of which we
have any authentic account. The great mass of the people were always
vegetarian, and must have been. Even a hundred or so years ago meat was
considered a luxury, and was served only on special occasions; bread
and vegetables were eaten the rest of the year. Even in our own day,
the majority of the peasantry in all countries are almost entirely
vegetarian, and only in the large cities can the very poor buy meat.
A brief glance at the “diets” of various nations will confirm this
statement.
There is slightly more excuse for natives of frigid or temperate zones
eating meat than there is for any inhabitant of the tropics; but, as a
matter of fact, when an inhabitant of the temperate zone _does_ visit
the tropics, he still clings to his meat diet—his rich, greasy dishes,
his wines, and his roast beef! Even upon his own showing these should
be largely sacrificed, when visiting the hot countries; and yet, as a
matter of fact, they are not given up—showing the illogical stand taken
by those who defend the flesh diet, and conclusively proving that it is
merely a matter of habit and prejudice rather than bodily requirements.
Mr Salt, in his “Logic of Vegetarianism,” has indeed tersely and
wittily summed up this argument as follows:—
“_British Islander._—Vegetarianism? No thank you; not here! All very
nice in Africa and India, I dare say, where you can sit all day under
a palm tree and eat dates.
“_Vegetarian._—But I have not observed that when you visit Africa
or India you practise vegetarianism. On the contrary, you take your
flesh-pots with you everywhere—even to the very places where you admit
you don’t need them, and where, as in India, they give the greatest
offence to the inhabitants.
“_British Islander._—Oh, well, it’s no affair of theirs, is it, if I
take my roast beef?
“_Vegetarian._—Yet you think it your affair to interfere with the
cannibals when they take their roast man. And have you observed that
it is in the tropical zone, not the temperate zone, that cannibalism
is most rife?
“_British Islander._—Why do you remind me of that?
“_Vegetarian._—To show you that all this talk about vegetarianism
being ‘a matter of climate’ is pure humbug. The use of flesh is a
vicious habit everywhere, and nowhere a necessity, except where other
food is not procurable.
“_British Islander._—But do we not need more oil and fat in northern
climates?
“_Vegetarian._—Undoubtedly; but these can be obtained without recourse
to flesh.
“_British Islander._—Then how do you account for the fact that
northern races have been, to so great an extent, carnivorous?
“_Vegetarian._—Perhaps because in primitive times hunting and
pasturage were less toilsome than agriculture. But I am not called on
to ‘account’ for such a fact. Their past addictedness to flesh food
no more proves the present utility of flesh-eating, than their gross
drinking habits prove the utility of alcohol.
“_British Islander._—Can you quote any scientific authority for your
contention?
“_Vegetarian._—There is one which is all the more valuable because
it is an admission made by an opponent. Sir William Lawrence wrote:
‘That men can be perfectly nourished, and that their physical and
intellectual capabilities can be fully developed in any climate by a
diet purely vegetable, has been proved by such abundant experience
that it will not be necessary to adduce any formal argument on the
subject.’ ‘In any climate,’ mark! And a diet ‘purely vegetable’;
whereas all _you_ are asked to do is to forego the actual flesh foods,
and not the animal products. But come now, let me ask the great
question!
“_British Islander._—What is that? There is only one other I have in
mind. What would become of the Esquimaux?
“_Vegetarian._—Of course! I have always been profoundly touched by
the disinterested concern of the Englishman (when vegetarianism
looms ahead) for the future of that arctic people. Well, perhaps the
question of what ice-bound savages might do or might not do, need
scarcely delay the decision of civilised mankind. For that matter,
what would become of the polar bears? If you cannot dissociate your
habits from those of the Esquimaux, why don’t you eat blubber? At
least they have a better reason for eating blubber than some people
have for eating beef—they can get nothing else.”[29]
[29] “Logic of Vegetarianism,” pp. 67-68.
This whole question of diet, so far as it is decided by experience at
all, can in reality be summed up in a very few words. In the first
place, all that it is necessary for anyone to do is to experiment
upon himself. Let him study the subject sufficiently, first of all—so
that he may be sure he is balancing his diet properly, when the meat
is discarded; and then give up meat, and continue the new dietary for
a year or so—or even a few weeks, for that matter. The result will
soon be apparent. In the next place, it is ridiculous to raise the
question at all, as a matter of fact—as to its “possibility”—when we
consider that seven-tenths of the inhabitants of the whole globe are
vegetarians! They are not the scattered few, here and there, as the
majority suppose; but the great bulk of the people in every country.
The peasantry in every land have always subsisted almost exclusively
upon fruits, grains and vegetables; and it is only recently, when the
price of meat has been so greatly reduced, and the average wages of the
people increased, that they have been enabled to buy meat at all, with
any regularity. Meat-eaters have always been in the minority—and have,
as a rule, shown signs of degeneracy before many centuries or even
generations have passed. To anyone knowing these facts, it is little
less than absurd to speak of the “impossibility” of subsisting without
flesh-foods! It displays the greatest short-sightedness.
Dr Trall, in writing upon this question some years ago, said:
“They say that vegetable food is not sufficiently nutritious. But
chemistry proves the contrary. So does physiology. So does experience.
Indeed, it can be demonstrated that many kinds of fruit are nearly as
nutritious as flesh. Many kinds of vegetables are quite as much so,
and the grains and nuts several times as nutritious. They allege that
human beings cannot have permanent strength without the use of animal
food, right in face of the fact that the hardest work is now being
done, and has always been done, by those who use the least animal
food; and right in the face of the fact, too, that no flesh eating
animals can endure prolonged and severe labour. I should like to see
them try the experiment of working a lion or a tiger, or a hyena
against an ox, a camel, or a mule. Examples exist here and there, all
over the world, of men of extraordinary powers of endurance who do not
use animal food at all; and history is full of such examples in all
ages of the world. And again: the largest and strongest animals in the
world are those which eat no flesh-food of any kind—the elephant and
rhinoceros.”[30]
[30] “Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism,” p. 20. As a matter of fact,
all the work in the world is done by vegetarian animals—the horse, ox,
camel, elephant, etc.
I cannot refrain here from alluding to the most common objection
to vegetarianism we meet with in this country; and I do so for the
purpose of explaining it away. The objection is, that vegetarians
are themselves poor specimens of health. And the answer is that the
great majority of those who are the subjects of notice and comment
are invalids who are restricted to a vegetable diet, because they
can recover health in no other way; and many of them are living on a
strict vegetable regimen because it is the only way they can live at
all. At the various hydropathic establishments in this country the most
desperate cases are put on a vegetable diet, simply because it affords
them the best chance of getting well. The casual observer, who judges
by appearances, will always find an argument in favour of flesh-eating
in the fact that the best-looking persons, physiologically, are those
who eat meat.
There are, however, scattered, in America, in England and elsewhere,
many persons who will not suffer by comparison, either physical or
mental, with the flesh-eaters of any country that can be found. In
bodily vigour and in mental capacity they are equal to any meat-eaters.
Let us consider this a little more fully.
It is usually thought that athletes cannot be developed upon a
non-meat diet (though the fallacy of this argument has long since been
disproved, in reality). It will be well to give a few instances, from
among many, of the success of vegetarians over their opponents. It is
true that these have not been numerous, but then, there are but few
vegetarian athletes; and _proportionately_ their triumphs have been
singularly frequent. A useful summary of some of these successes is
given in Mr Charles Forward’s book, “The Food of the Future.” He says:
“In the latter part of the year 1880 Gaston de Bennet, a young
Austrian, 17 years of age, and a vegetarian of the strictest sect,
using neither eggs nor milk, won the first prize in a grand swimming
contest in Lord Harlick’s Park ... against 11 flesh-eaters, most of
them full-grown men. He also won the first prize in the ‘Cooler’ race,
and, though well drenched, kept his wet clothes on for hours, and
took no harm. As a flesh eater, he had been extremely delicate, very
subject to cold, and constantly taking physic.
“In the year 1884, the Brothers Whatton and Mr A. W. Rumnay, as
representatives of Cambridge, in the inter-university races, carried
all before them—a fact which directed considerable public attention to
their vegetarian dietary.
“The first path race of the vegetarian cycling club took place in
1891, but it was not until 1893 that the performances of Messrs S.
H. Potter, H. Sharp, and W. Kilby, turned out so far in advance of
previous work that the Committee decided upon issuing a Club Challenge
Shield. During 1895, two of its members ... gained first and second
prizes, in the North London Club’s Road Race; and, in the same year,
Mr H. E. Brinning wrested the Club Challenge Shield from Mr Warlow,
who had won it a year previously.
“Since then, Mr Brinning had been to Calcutta, and soon after his
arrival, won from scratch nearly every race he competed in, besides
becoming possessor of three challenge shields put up for competition
in Calcutta, and securing the cycling championship of India.
“The achievements of the members of the Vegetarian Cycling Club
were much discussed in vegetarian circles all over the world; and
particularly among German vegetarians; and when, in 1893, a walking
competition took place from Berlin to Vienna, several vegetarians
were amongst the competitors, who numbered 16 in all. The winner was
Otto Peitz, who reached the judge’s box at 4.40 P.M., on the 4th of
June. About an hour later, another vegetarian, Elsässer, arrived. No
other competitors arrived until about 22 hours later, when, at about
3 o’clock on the following day, Carl Nauhaus passed the post. He was
not a vegetarian, but he expressed the opinion that it was a mistake
to eat much flesh on a long walk. The fourth arrival was a Berlin
university law student, arriving on the sixth of June, at 6.52, whilst
a few minutes later Fritz Goldbach reached the Committee Box. Dr
Heller, a Vienna physician, and an opponent of vegetarianism, partook
of raw flesh on the journey; but on the second day he began to
reconsider the task before him, and he subsequently posted a dispatch
to the Committee, announcing his withdrawal from the contest, and
went on to Vienna by train. Owing to a technical breach of the rules,
Elsässer put in a claim for the gold medal. He had been a strict
vegetarian for over four years, not even using eggs, milk, butter or
cheese. All that he took during his walk was bread, fruit and water,
and, on one or two occasions, a glass of seltzer. He had undergone no
regular training at all. Otto Peitz, who secured the second prize,
consumed bread and butter, and occasionally eggs and milk. He was a
compositor by trade, and being poor, had to ‘rough it,’ not being able
to pay for a bed during the walk....
“On the 21st of January, 1894, the ‘Winter Walk’ of the German Long
Distance Walk Society took place, the route being from Berlin to
Fredericksburg, a distance of about 30 miles. The roads were soft and
muddy, and the weather rainy and windy. Of the first four competitors
who arrived at the winning post, two were vegetarians—namely,
Frederick Bruhn and Carl Harmann. That the result of these walking
matches was no mere ‘fluke’ is clear from the fact that the vegetarian
competitors have repeated their successes on subsequent occasions; and
impartial students of dietetics were ready to admit the soundness of
the vegetarian position.”
VII
MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS
In the five preceding chapters I have advanced a number of reasons for
thinking that the natural diet of man is vegetarian or fruitarian, and
have endeavoured to show why flesh-eating is injurious. We saw that,
from anatomical structure, from physiological function, from chemical
analysis, for hygienic reasons, and because of the past experience of
nations and individuals—for all these reasons man should abstain from
meat. In the present chapter I shall adduce a number of miscellaneous
arguments, tending to show that flesh is not man’s natural food;
and that he cannot make it an article of his diet without violating
many of the laws of his organisation—mental and moral, as well as
physiological. These laws are important, also, and have their rightful
place, just as mental and moral considerations have their place in any
other question; and I shall accordingly consider them here.
There is first of all the humanitarian argument. This argument is
perfectly legitimate, so far as it goes, and a most forceful one. The
idea of taking life unnecessarily is very repellant to some—those
who have not become hardened, and who have thought of this matter at
all. To see a cartload of young animals going to the slaughter-house
is a sad if not a disgusting sight—especially when we consider that
these animals are soon to be cut up, and made into human food! The
ill-treatment which the animals receive, during shipment, is certainly
not in favour of their flesh being in any too good condition when it is
received at the slaughter-house; and, if mental conditions count for
anything, in their effect upon the composition of the blood and tissue
juices, there is very good reason for thinking that their bodies are
pretty well poisoned before they are killed—even if they were healthy
when they left the stock-farm. But, apart from such considerations,
every animal has its right to live; the ox and the calf, and the sheep,
and even the swine, has its mental life, just as man; and there is
a universal life running throughout the animal kingdom, which it is
no part of man’s duty to take needlessly. This brings me to a very
important factor in the argument. It is the taking of life _needlessly_
which the vegetarian protests against so strongly. If it were necessary
to kill these animals; if man could not live without flesh, then
killing and eating would be perfectly justifiable. It would simply
be a case of the survival of the fittest, and man would be entitled
to kill and eat other animals, just as the carnivora do. But it is
not necessary in any degree. Man can live perfectly well without meat
of any kind; and not only live as well, but far better! My arguments
in the chapter devoted to the hygiene of this subject should prove
that to the satisfaction of the reader. Man can live without animal
flesh; consequently the eating of this flesh is purely to gratify an
appetite—and a perverted appetite at that. No normal appetite could
possibly crave flesh of any kind. So that there is no possible excuse
for the killing and eating of animals, than this—except, of course,
ignorance. After all, that is the greatest factor!
It is against this taking of life unnecessarily that the vegetarian
protests not the taking of life at all. Besides, there is a difference
between killing a highly organised and sensitive animal, and one far
lower in the scale of Evolution. Shedding the blood of such animals is
against all normal instincts. Said a lady once, to a gentleman who was
eating beef: “How can you eat a thing that looks out of the eyes?”
The very plaintiveness, coupled with the helplessness of such animals,
should inspire a certain pity in the breasts of all who have any
humanitarian instincts.
This aspect of the controversy throws a different and a more rational
light upon this question. It has frequently been contended, _e.g._,
that, if this humanitarian argument were carried far enough, it would
become absurd, for the reason that every drop of water we drink, and
every breath of air we breathe contains living animals, which we kill
within our bodies! Moreover, every vegetable we cut or pick, takes life
(such as it is) and consequently this argument cannot be carried to its
logical conclusion, and is consequently worthless!
The position I have indicated above answers this objection. If we
cannot live without taking the lives of certain animalculæ, or that
of certain plants, then we must take their lives (for the most part,
be it noted, unconsciously). But there is a great difference between
this and taking the lives of highly organised animals intentionally
and voluntarily. Besides, the one is necessary, the other not. As I
said before, if meat were a necessary article of diet, there could be
no possible objection to making it an article of food; but it is _not_
necessary. That is the _crux_.
Further, it can be shown that, on a fruitarian diet, it is not
necessary to take the life even of the fruit eaten! If a cabbage be
cut, _e.g._, we thereby kill the cabbage—its psychic life, that is.
The same is true of all other vegetables. But it will be observed
that, when fruits are eaten, nothing is destroyed; no life taken
unnecessarily. Fruits, when they are ripe, fall from the tree, and
rot upon the ground—thus exposing the seed, and allowing it to become
buried in the soil. It will be seen that the pulp of the fruit is of
no further use to the seed; it has nourished it up to the time of its
falling to the ground, but thenceforward, it is virtually useless to
the seed. So that we might with justice feel that we were taking no
life at all in eating this pulp of the fruit—which, again, would seem
to indicate that fruit is man’s natural diet.[31] However, as I said
before, I do not think it is necessary to split hairs so finely on this
question. The valid ground to take is that it is wrong and cruel to
take highly organised life uselessly; and I do not think that such an
attitude is in any way open to criticism.
I may as well answer, in this place, one objection that has been
frequently raised against vegetarians by the meat-eaters, which is
that, if we did not eat meat, we should soon be overrun by the various
animals, and there would be no room for man upon the earth! They would
eventually crowd man out! This supposed argument is really absurd.
In the first place, hardly one-tenth of the animals now brought into
the world would be raised. They are now especially bred for eating
purposes, and if the demand decreased, the supply would decrease also.
Further, how is it that we are not overrun by wild animals of all
sorts? We have never been in any danger from _them_, somehow; but it
has invariably been found that they tend to recede before the advance
of civilisation. Many survive, to be sure, but Nature seems to take
care that their numbers are not unduly increased, so as to be a menace
to the human race. If this be true of wild animals—which might really
be a menace to the human race, if their numbers were sufficiently
increased—it is certainly all the more true of the harmless domestic
animals. Nature would
[31] _Cf._ Genesis i. 29, where man is distinctly told that he is a
fruitarian; and not only that, he is told the character of fruit he
must eat. “And God said. Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, _in
the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be
for meat_.” The seed-fruits are here clearly indicated, as well
as man’s originally frugivorous diet. see to it that man was not
overrun by animals of any sort, as she always has in the past. People
need not worry about the future welfare of the bovine race, if they
would only be a little more humane in their treatment of its present
representatives!
There is an ethical and an æsthetic aspect of diet, just as there
is a hygienic and chemical aspect. There is a wider view of this
question of diet than merely that of supplying the body with pabulum
for the tissues; the body itself cannot be built equally well from all
food-stuffs, but the body is cleaner and internally purer on some foods
than upon others. The keeping of the body in a clean, pure state—a
fit tenant for the soul—is in itself an aspect of the diet problem
that should affect us most keenly. It is not as though food had no
effect upon mental life and morals. Far from it. There is the closest
inter-relation. The whole process of ingesting food is disgusting, in
one sense, but that is no excuse for choosing, in consequence, carrion
and offal to feed upon! Think of the condition of a man’s stomach who
has eaten a regular _table-d’hôte_ dinner, and compare it, in the
mind’s eye, with the stomach of a man who has dined on peaches and
Brazil nuts! Were one to stop and think of what meat _is_, and what
it _was_, it is doubtful if one could eat it. It is merely dead and
decaying flesh—flesh from the body of an animal. There is nothing more
repellent to think about than the “scorched corpses,” as Bernard Shaw
calls them, which grace the tables of so-called civilised people. The
sight, the smell, the taste, all are repellent. Only by the fact that
they are covered up, and their true nature concealed by cooking, and
basting, and pickling, and peppering and salting can we eat them at
all. If we were naturally carnivorous animals, we should delight in
bloodshed and gore of all kind! We should go out and kill our dinner,
just as we now eat it; and the one would seem no more repulsive to
us than the other. Carnivorous animals secure their food in this way,
and so should we, if we were naturally carnivorous. We should eat our
flesh warm and quivering—just as it comes from the cow! But instead of
this, what do we find? That the majority of people in civilised nations
will not even consent to go near a slaughter-house! And when they _do_
go, they come away sickened at the sights and the odours which they
encounter. Take for example the following extracts from a diary—the
notes being descriptive of a Chicago meat market:—
“Slithered over bloody floor. Nearly broke neck in gore of old porker.
Saw few hundred men slicing pigs, making hams, sausages, and pork
chops. Whole sight not edifying; indeed, rather beastly. Next went
to the cattle killing house. Cattle driven along gangway and banged
over head with iron hammer. Fell stunned: then swung up by legs, and
man cuts throats. Small army of men with buckets catching blood; it
gushed over them in torrents—a bit sickening. Next went to sheep
slaughter-house. More throat-cutting—ten thousand sheep killed a
day—more blood. Place reeks with blood; walls and floor splashed with
it, air thick, warm, offensive. Went and drank brandy....”[32]
[32] “Logic of Vegetarianism,” p. 55.
And so would anyone else who had witnessed like scenes! I say
_witnessed_ them merely: how would it be if each one had to perform
the actual process of killing, before he could have a piece of his
“delicious beef-steak”? How would our society women like to spend the
morning in a slaughter-house, before they could procure their meat
for the evening dinner? And yet _someone_ has to do this work—work
disgusting and degrading enough to be below the lowest of men, and
fit only for the lowest of animals. The butcher does this, you say;
he is paid for it? Very true, but he only learns to do this work
after many days and even weeks of revulsion; and it is invariably
against his nature to do it. And this brings me to one very important
factor—the degradation of the butcher. Of all recognised occupations
by which in civilised countries a livelihood is sought and obtained,
the work which is looked upon with the greatest loathing (next to
the hangman’s) is that of the butcher. He becomes depraved mentally,
morally and physically. His is a dangerous business, and it is well
known that slight cuts and scratches, which, in the average man, would
amount to very little, frequently cause blood-poisoning and death to
the butcher. Their work brutalises them, too—as it necessarily must.
This is well known; and butchers are forbidden to sit in a jury, in
certain countries, as we know, because of the perversion of their moral
natures. And all this because certain persons, under the delusion that
they “must have meat” demand this from these men! The crime, and the
ugly, dirty work in connection with meat-eating, does not rest upon
the butchers—who are paid for their work, and would doubtless starve,
lacking it—it rests upon the eaters of meat throughout the country!
As the Whitechapel butcher remarked to the flesh-eating gentlemen:
“It’s such as _you_ makes such as _us_!” Yes; the stain rests upon the
flesh-eaters, not upon the flesh providers!
But there is another argument in favour of the vegetarian diet,
and more especially in favour of the fruitarian diet, as against
meat-eating. It is that any given area of land will supply far more
food per acre in the one case than in the other. When the soil is given
up to the feeding of cattle, upon which man is to feed, the given area
of land would supply far less nutriment, so to speak, than would the
same soil, if grains were raised upon it; and that would give less, in
turn, than if fruit-trees were grown upon it. Dr Smith pointed out
this fact in his “Fruits and Farinacea” years ago; and stated that
twenty times the population could be supported upon a diet of grains,
coming from a given limited area, than could be supplied, if that area
were devoted to the raising of cattle. And far more would this be the
case if fruits were grown upon this same area. It is safe to say that,
if one person could be fed from a certain area of land, provided he ate
the meat it produced, ten could be fed from the same area, upon grains
and cereals, and twenty upon the fruits and nuts such an area could
provide. This fact is in itself of great importance and significance.
Although the time is doubtless far distant when man will have to figure
so closely on his land space for feeding the people, that time must
come some day; and it would be well to know that many more persons can
be fed from the same area of ground upon one diet than upon another.
These and many other arguments could be urged against the practice of
meat-eating. They are all valid arguments, though all of them, in my
estimation, subordinate to the hygienic argument. If it were necessary
to kill animals, in order to live, I should have no compunction in
doing so; but as it is not necessary, I must protest against this
useless waste of life; and more especially so since this meat is
positively pernicious and harmful to the system. There is a sort
of half-formulated idea in men’s minds that they must have meat,
because the blood is _red_, and because the blood of their own bodies
is red; and they think that, by eating large quantities of meat,
they can increase the quantity and improve the quality of their own
blood—thereby curing anæmia, etc.! Of course there is no foundation
at all for this superstition. In the first place, the tables of the
chemical values of the various foods show us conclusively that meat
is far _less_ nutritious than many other articles of diet; while it
contains, in addition, certain poisons which are extremely harmful to
the system. Further, all food, no matter what its nature, is converted
into a creamy substance known as chyle before it is appropriated by the
system; and, no matter what the food may be, it is resolved into this
cream-coloured chyle before it is digested. Where, then, is the “good,
red blood” of the meat? And I have previously shown that, although
there are practically no chemical differences between the chyme formed
from vegetable and that formed from animal substances, nevertheless,
the vital properties of the chyme vary greatly—and are in favour of
the vegetable foods. Finally, I would point out that, if this argument
were sound, we should not eat the flesh of animals, for the reason that
“it most nearly resembles our own,” but would become cannibals and
eat _human_ flesh—since _that_ most nearly resembles our tissues! And
yet it has been found by actual experiment, that, so far from being
wholesome food, human flesh is exceedingly indigestible and unwholesome!
If flesh-eating is as harmful as I have been endeavouring to show,
however, how comes it about that the practice is so universal? And
how did the practice of flesh-eating originate, in the first place?
These are questions often asked of vegetarians, and there is a simple
answer to both of them. Flesh-eating is all but universal, simply
because people follow habit and custom blindly, without thinking of
their actions in the least—and, strangely enough, on this most vital
of all questions—food and diet. On most other topics, people are quite
capable of thinking for themselves; but in this question, they take not
the slightest interest! So long as the food _tastes_ nice, that is all
they care to think about it; and the actual preparation of the food,
and all questions concerning its composition and combination with
other foods, they are content to leave to an ignorant Chinaman or Irish
cook, who knows as much about the physiology and hygiene of dietetics
as a cow of the constitution of the moon. It is really amazing that
this should be so. It shows, of course, that people have not really
thought about their food in this light, and realised the tremendous
consequences of a false and perverted diet, or the benefits of a simple
and nutritious one. Flesh-eating doubtless sprang into existence
ages ago, at a time when little or no other food was to be obtained,
and they had to live upon it or starve. But we are not called upon
to explain the origin of meat-eating, as a matter of fact, any more
than we are the origin of alcohol-drinking. We must take conditions
as we find them, and endeavour to better them, as best we can. It is
certain that animals can be taught to eat meat, quite contrary to their
natural dietetic habits—as indicated by their structure, and by the
unperverted dietetic habits of the rest of their species. Thus, horses
have been taught to eat meat and drink beer; and, at certain seasons,
the horses on the coast of Norway are said to dash into the sea, and
endeavour to catch fishes in their mouths. Dogs and cats can be taught
to like alcoholic beverages of all kinds; and similar perversions of
taste in the animal world might be cited by the score. If animals can
thus be trained to like foods and drinks of this character, certainly
man can be taught to like and to eat and drink them also; and it is
doubtless due to this fact that the habit of meat-eating originated.
Once perverted, the appetite would have a tendency to stay perverted,
by reason of heredity; and in any case the environment and education
of the growing child would be quite sufficient to engender the desire
for meat—especially if the individual were brought up under the notion
that he “cannot live” without meat, and that it is a most essential
article of his diet! The medical profession is to blame for much of
this perverted reasoning, and the public for blindly following it,
without investigating its doctrines for themselves. Only when this is
done can we hope for a widespread and radical reform—one which will
revolutionise diet and cookery and spread health and harmony among the
human race and the animal kingdom—as well as restore man to a position
of elevated spiritual insight.
VIII
DAIRY PRODUCTS
Coming, as these do, from the animal world—more or less directly—they
are eschewed by many strict vegetarians and hygienists, as being
open to all those objections which might be urged against the use of
flesh-meat, only in a lesser degree. There is no doubt that this is
the only logical ground to assume, in this question, and the one which
many of us occupy from choice. There can be no question, moreover, that
man can persist, and maintain all his faculties—physical and mental—on
a diet devoid of all these articles of food. They are not open to
any such serious objections as are the flesh-meats, however; and are
certainly to be preferred to them. As found upon the market, they are
all more or less adulterated, unfortunately; and preservatives, in the
shape of salt, etc., introduced, to prevent rapid decomposition. Eggs
are also objectionable, on the ground that they have been kept on ice,
as a rule, for long periods of time, before they are offered for sale.
But, even granting that these articles of diet are fresh, and the best
that can be procured, there are still weighty objections to their use,
as I can readily show. Let us consider them a little more fully, in
turn.
* * * * *
_Milk._—Milk is, of course, the natural food of man for the first year
or so of his life. This is no reason, however, for supposing that man
can continue to eat, or rather drink, milk, for the rest of his life
with impunity—especially when this milk comes from the cow. Milk as
an article of diet has been highly praised by many authorities. For
example, in the pamphlet issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
we read:
“Milk is peculiarly adapted for use as a food by man for several
reasons. It contains all the four classes of nutriments—protein, fats,
carbohydrates and mineral matter—in more nearly the proper proportion
to serve as a complete food than any other food material, although no
one substance can furnish a complete food for an adult.”
While this may be true, the differences that are noted between human
milk and cow’s milk are highly important ones. It is to be remembered,
in this connection, that the blood and chemical composition of
the calf’s body are different from those of man; and its natural
food—milk—must consequently be different, for that reason. The chemical
composition of cow’s milk is therefore not suited exactly for the human
being, and, in order to render it more nearly ideal in composition,
various other ingredients have to be mixed with it, in order to make it
more nearly resemble the milk of the human species.
Mr Otto Carqué, writing in his “Folly of Meat Eating,” said:
“Milk is a nutritious food which is best suited for the new-born
mammal. Only the infant’s digestive apparatus is adapted for the
proper digestion of milk; his salivary glands are not yet developed
and his alimentary canal is almost a straight tube, quite different
from that of the adult. There is a little bulge in the tube, from
which the stomach gradually develops, and during this time very little
gastric juice is formed. When milk enters the stomach of an infant
it goes easily through and down into the intestines where it can be
digested. In the stomach of the adult, which is of different shape and
secretes more acid gastric juice, milk forms large, tough curds which
are not easily digested.
”_Cow’s milk is a splendid food for calves, but it cannot be
recommended very well for human beings._ The natural food-supply
of the infant—mother’s milk—forms very small, soft curds which are
easily broken up and digested. They are entirely different from the
curds formed by cow’s milk which are tough and only adapted to the
four-stomach digestive apparatus of the calf. An exclusive diet of
milk may often increase the weight of a person, but this is due to its
large percentage of water, while it does not contain enough organic
salt for the adult who needs a larger percentage of iron, sulphur and
silicon in his food.
“Cow’s milk is sometimes diluted with water and sweetened with refined
sugar to serve as food for children. Warning cannot be sounded often
enough against this injurious practice of diminishing the percentage
of organic salts in the milk, a circumstance which at once interferes
with the proper oxidation and circulation of the blood, giving rise
to a larger number of infantile diseases. _Refined sugar_ is entirely
deficient in mineral matter and therefore always injurious to health.”
But there is a far greater danger in milk than any we have so far
considered. I refer to the unhealthy condition of cows. Bovine
tuberculosis and other diseases are very prevalent among cows of all
sorts—far more so than is usually believed. E. F. Brush, M.D., in his
book, “Human and Bovine Tuberculosis,” says:
“My occupation brings me into close contact with dairy cattle, and I
have therefore been compelled to devote my attention to the diseases
afflicting dairy stock, and that there is a large number of dairy cows
afflicted with tuberculosis I can affirm; that there has never been
any attempt to exterminate the disease is a fact of which I am also
cognisant.... I have been told by inspectors of the Bureau of Animal
Industry that a much larger percentage of our cows are affected than
is the case in England. Indeed, among the thoroughbred Jerseys in the
Northern states, twenty per cent. are affected, as I have been told
by Professor R. A. McLean, chief of this district from the bureau.”
And in his work on “Milk,” this author says:
“Diseases may be conveyed by milk taken from an animal suffering
from disease, or by milk contaminated in a dairy, or by contact with
diseased or affected persons.”
These words were written some years ago, and it is probably true that
conditions have somewhat improved since that time; but there can be no
question that a large number of diseased cattle still exist and supply
milk to the various cities—their standard being kept somewhat low by
continued in-and-in breeding. And it must not be overlooked, in this
connection, that no matter if the animal be perfectly healthy, the
milk partakes of the nature and general character and composition of
the animal’s body; and while this may not be actually diseased, it is
doubtless in a more or less depraved condition—as are practically all
domesticated animals, particularly the cow—during the confined period
of winter. And the milk, being a secretion, naturally takes on the
conditions of the body of the animal—as would any other secretion.
Indeed, Professor L. B. Arnold, an excellent authority on all dairy
matters, says:
“Milk is the scavenger of the cow’s body.”
But now suppose we have the best of milk, from perfectly healthy
cows, there would still remain several objections to its use. In all
conditions of torpor of the liver, or in all dyspeptic conditions,
or whenever there is a tendency towards biliousness, milk is sure
to cause distress, being unsuited to the organism. Milk contains a
large percentage of liquid (upwards of 90 per cent.) to a very small
percentage of solid; and while this proportionate percentage is right
for the body of the babe, it is not suited for that of the adult. He
should eat more solid food, and, if necessary, drink water separately.
Milk contains a large percentage of fat, and but a small percentage of
proteid and mineral salts, and the adult can usually balance his diet
better by leaving out milk and by ingesting a smaller bulk of more
nutritious food material, which he is able to assimilate, but which the
babe cannot.
* * * * *
_Cream_, if used to the same extent as milk, would doubtless be far
more injurious. Those who partake of large quantities of cream usually
become bilious, as is evidenced by the colour of the complexion, the
whites of the eyes, blotches and eruptions which appear upon the skin,
etc. But, taken in the very limited quantity that it usually is, it is
probably less harmful than milk, on that account. Both milk and cream,
if taken at all, should be considered a food rather than a drink, and
should be thoroughly masticated before being swallowed—since important
chemical changes take place in the mouth, and the milk is also
prevented from curdling in the excessively large clots that would form,
were milk drunk in quantity, without being separated in the mouth.
* * * * *
_Butter._—If we dispense with milk—that is, leave it to the calf,
for whom nature intended it—there will, of necessity, be no butter;
and, from a sanitary point of view, the absence of it would perhaps
be no great loss, it being by no means as wholesome an article of
diet as either milk or cream. Like other oils, it is, to a degree,
indigestible; not that it gives “a pain in the stomach,” as a
general thing, but it does not enter into those vital changes which
are necessary to convert food into chyle proper. It mixes with the
pancreatic juice in the form of an emulsion, simply, and goes into the
blood in that crude condition; and being carried through the system by
the capillaries, it is deposited _as fat_ in the various tissues, and
largely in the skin. From the very nature of its constituents, butter
has but little nutritive value It usually contains 3 to 5 per cent. of
casein (due to the presence of the milk) and about twice that amount of
water; the other substances are oils, fixed and volatile. These readily
decompose upon exposure to the atmosphere, and butyric and other fat
acids are set free.
Persons who live largely upon butter emit a strong odour from the skin,
very perceptible to those who do not use animal foods. The salt which
has to be mixed with it to make it “keep” is not, to the hygienist,
a desirable addition, for reasons which will be hereafter stated.
Pereira says: “Fixed oil or fat is more difficult of digestion and more
obnoxious to the stomach than any other alimentary principle.” Indeed,
in some more or less obvious or concealed form, I believe it will be
found the offending ingredient in nine-tenths of the dishes which
disturb weak stomachs. Many dyspeptics, who have religiously avoided
the use of fat in its obvious or ordinary state (as fat meat, marrow,
butter, and oil) unwittingly employ it in some more concealed form,
and, as I have frequently witnessed, have suffered therefrom. Such
individuals should eschew the yolks of eggs, livers (of quadrupeds,
poultry and fish) and brains, all of which abound in oily matter. Milk,
and especially cream, disagree with many persons, or, as they term it,
“lies heavy on the stomach,” in consequence of the butter it contains.
Rich cheese, likewise, contains butter, and on that account is apt to
disturb the stomach.
Schlickeysen, in speaking of the use of butter, eggs, and cheese,
remarks:
“These cause an excess of fat in the system, and an offensive, slimy,
condition of the mucous secretions of the mouth and nose, quite
apparent to those who, contrary to their usual habit, eat them. Their
effects are apparent also in eruptions upon the skin, especially upon
the face.”
_Eggs._—Eggs are pretty generally conceded to be a “bilious diet”;
and if eaten freely at each meal for a few weeks, the whites of the
eyes usually show the presence of bile. They contain an excess of
sulphur. The albumen (whites of the eggs) cooked soft, would be less
objectionable than the yolks, which contain about 30 per cent. of oil.
If eggs are eaten they should be fresh, their use not too frequent,
and confined to cool weather. The fowls should be allowed plenty of
clean territory to run over, and an abundance of fresh pure water, pure
air, and good grains. Unfortunately, the habits of the bird are not
the cleanest; it will pick up and eat almost anything that comes in
its way. This is why country eggs and country fowl (provided there are
good and healthful surroundings) are always to be preferred. In towns
or cities the chickens are necessarily confined to the house and yard;
whereas in the country they have access to the open fields, and feed
largely on grains.
Persons who are subject to torpor of the liver would do well to refrain
from the use of either eggs or butter; and those who have sound
livers—and desire to keep them so—can take a hint!
A great many vegetarians are strong advocates of dairy products, and
particularly eggs. They claim, rightly enough, that they contain a
large amount of proteid, and hence are valuable meat substitutes. But
this same proteid can be obtained from nuts and vegetables, as we have
seen—without the necessity of resorting to eggs in order to secure it.
From the ethical point of view, there is no excuse whatever for the
eating of eggs; and there are many objections to their use on purely
hygienic grounds. It is remarkable, in this connection, to find so
strong a belief in egg-eating, when we take into account the fact that
these eggs are all intended to be chickens by nature, and we are really
eating chickens _in embryo_—a very disagreeable thought, when we come
to consider it. All other eggs—swallow’s eggs, ostrich’s eggs, robin’s
eggs, etc.—we think of as existing only for the purpose of bringing
into the world little swallows or ostriches or robins: but the hen’s
egg we consider, for some mysterious reason or other, laid for our
especial benefit—as a suitable and even necessary food! It is really
remarkable that such curious ideas should have originated in the human
mind. Doubtless they originated in the days of savagery, when but
little else could be obtained for food, but which culture and modern
ideals should have outgrown long ago.
* * * * *
_Cheese._—“The fresh curd of milk is perfectly wholesome, and pot
cheese is also a practically harmless article of diet. Green cheese
is not very objectionable, but old, strong cheese, is one of the most
injurious and indigestible things in existence. It is also one of the
most constipating articles of food that can be found. It is a common
fancy among medical men, and a common whim among the people, that old,
strong, rank cheese, though itself very indigestible, stimulates the
stomach to digest other things. Hence almost all the medico-dietetic
works quote the old adage:
“‘Cheese is a mity elf,
Digesting all things but itself.’
“There is more poetry than truth in the doggerel quoted. Old cheese
occasionally undergoes spontaneous decomposition, during which process
acrid and poisonous elements are developed, as is frequently the case
with bacon and sausages.”[33]
[33] “Hydropathic Cook Book,” p. 107.
Although cheese is, in one sense, a valuable article of diet, in that
it contains a large percentage of fat and proteid, it is nevertheless
objectionable in many ways. The fact that it is derived from milk,
and hence indirectly from the animal world, necessitates the same
objections to its use as have been raised against all the other animal
products. The same proteid may be obtained from nuts and purely
vegetable substances, without the injurious admixture of possible toxic
materials, impurities, and adulterants. In this connection it may be
added that the common salt which is generally introduced into cheese
in order to preserve it, renders it an unhygienic article of diet; and
hence it is to be debarred, since other substances (containing the
same amount of proteid, etc.) can be obtained, in which these mineral
ingredients are lacking.
IX
VEGETABLES
_Peas, Beans, Lentils, etc._—It can be seen by referring to the
tables of foods that these articles of diet contain a large amount of
proteid, and are consequently good substitutes for meat; and, if the
ordinary vegetarian diet be adhered to, they should form the staple
foods in place of the meat that has been omitted. They are very hearty
articles of diet, however, and contain a large amount of proteid in a
concentrated form, and for that reason should be eaten in the winter
months, if at all. These articles of food, moreover, all contain
a certain percentage of uric acid-forming materials, and for this
reason should be avoided whenever possible. Dr Haig, throughout his
writings, has argued very strongly against the legumes as food for
man, and has shown that an excessive consumption of such foods tends
to create uric acid—and results in the evil consequences which follow
from its presence, whenever eaten in large quantities. He recommends
in their place nuts, cheese, and milk. Cheese and milk we have already
considered, and the value of nuts we shall ascertain when we come to
the chapter on the fruitarian diet. On the whole, then, it cannot be
said that peas, beans, and lentils are desirable articles of food,
whenever they can be avoided. Their chief value consists in the amount
of proteid they contain, and this can be supplied by nuts, as we have
seen, and shall see further. In addition to this, we now know that
large amounts of proteid are not required by the system, and are
detrimental rather than beneficial to it.
“In the early spring,” says Dr Dodds, in her “Health in the
Household,” p. 40, “when we have grown tired of ‘last year’s
leavings,’ the tender vegetables fill our markets, and delight our
eyes in glad anticipation of a change in the repast. The young beets,
the spinach, and asparagus, the early cauliflower, and even the
lettuce and onions have charms for us then. As summer draws nigh,
the varieties of choice vegetables multiply, giving us green peas,
tomatoes, string beans, summer squashes, and an almost endless variety
of products. Then come the autumn days, and with them the great
lima beans, the hubbard squashes, and the sweet potatoes. Nor does
the supply fail us when winter approaches; there are still turnips,
potatoes, cabbage, winter squashes, and other good things. Really it
is little less than wonderful what varieties of vegetable products
there are even in a single latitude of climate.”
Although vegetables are capable of supporting life, and contain many of
the nutritious properties most necessary for bodily sustenance, there
are, nevertheless, objections to be raised against almost every one
of these foods. Personally, I do not believe that they are suitable
articles of diet for the human race. When we come to the chapter on
the fruitarian diet, I shall endeavour to show that fruits and nuts in
their uncooked, primitive form, are the suitable and proper diet for
mankind; and I believe that, although he can subsist upon vegetables,
and even maintain a certain degree of health upon the ordinary
vegetarian diet, I do not think that it begins to compare in excellence
with the fruitarian or raw-food diet. Throughout this book, I have been
used to speaking of “vegetarian” as opposed to a “mixed” diet—including
meat—and I certainly think it preferable to that generally followed;
but the diet I would advocate is as far superior to the ordinary
vegetarian diet as _that_ is superior to the mixed diet. It consists
almost exclusively of fruits and nuts. The fruitarian diet, then, is,
in my estimation, the ideal diet, and the reasons for this I shall
endeavour to give in full in Chapter XII.
All vegetables, to be rendered fit articles for human food, must
be _cooked_, in the first place, and this fact alone renders the
ordinary vegetarian diet less nutritious and less wholesome than
the fruitarian or raw-food diet. With few exceptions, moreover, the
vegetables contain but little nutritive matter. Those which _do_
contain a high percentage of proteid are open to the same objections
as were raised against meat—namely, that they create uric acid. But
the majority of vegetables supply nothing that cannot be derived in
simpler and in better form from the fruit and nut dietary; and they
contain, moreover, a large percentage of indigestible and fibrous
material—refuse—from which the other foods are free. A brief glance
at each of the vegetables individually will confirm this. _Potatoes_
are nearly all starch; they contain practically no proteid, fats, or
mineral substances of value, and are, generally speaking, constipating
articles of food. The objections to _peas_, _beans_ and _lentils_
we have discussed. _Asparagus_, _spinach_, and similar vegetables
contain but little nutriment, and much waste, and on the whole can
be considered little better than weeds. _Cabbages_ of various sorts,
_brussels sprouts_, _cauliflower_, _broccoli_, etc., are also open to
these objections. They contain a large amount of fibrous, indigestible
matter, with but a small amount of nutriment. Cabbage, eaten raw, is
not such a bad article of diet, but cooked in the way in which it
usually is, the iron, and its valuable salts, pass into the water in
which it is cooked—so that there is, in one sense, more nutriment
in the water than there is in the mere “skeleton” that is left, and
which we eat! _Onions_, _leeks_, and _garlics_ may have their uses in
certain diseases, when eaten raw, but they would doubtless lose these
properties when cooked, and many persons cannot eat them. They are
very strong articles of food, and it is doubtful if they are intended
for human aliment at all. _Turnips_ and _parsnips_ consist almost
entirely of water, and are practically valueless as food. They contain
a very small percentage of carbohydrates, but they are spongy and
fibrous, and frequently hard to digest. The same objections would apply
more or less to _carrots_, _beetroots_, and _artichokes_. _Mushrooms_
should by all means be avoided. They are exceedingly indigestible, in
a large number of cases, and there is, in addition, a great danger
of becoming poisoned by toadstools, or other fungi. _Corn_ is an
exceedingly indigestible food—especially if insufficiently masticated,
as it invariably is. The proteid it contains can be supplied in many
other more wholesome foods. _Celery_ consists almost entirely of fibre,
and cannot rightly be considered as suitable for human food. _Endives_,
_cresses_, _capers_, _dandelions_, _radishes_, etc., are all weeds,
and, if uncultivated, would be totally unfit for the human stomach.
_Lettuce_ contains a certain amount of opium; and _cucumber_ is widely
known for its great indigestibility.
Summing up the nutritive values of these various vegetables, then,
we can fairly say that none of them contain the essential properties
suitable for human food. The majority of them are indigestible and are,
by their innate composition, improper foods for the human race. All the
nutritive materials which they contain can be supplied in a purer and
better form by the various fruits and nuts, while the tough, fibrous
nature of most of the vegetables necessitates an enormous outlay of the
energy of digestion, which should be conserved and utilised for other
and better purposes. The fact, further, that these various food-stuffs
have to be cooked in order to render them palatable and edible, is
another objection to their use. Even Dr Tibbles, who strongly insists
on the value of vegetables as human food, is forced to write in his
“Food and Hygiene,” p. 193:
“Persons in robust health with healthy stomachs, and leading active
lives may eat all kinds of vegetables, however cooked, without injury,
except when they are taken in excess.... Those who are only able to
digest vegetables, especially green vegetables, with difficulty should
have them in the form of consommé or purée. In their preparation, the
cooked vegetable is minced and pounded in a mortar until it is reduced
to a pulp, and then rubbed through a hair sieve to remove skin and
rough fibres.”
In other words, it is practically admitted that vegetables are hard
to digest at all times, and that as soon as the energy of digestion
is lowered, this fact is immediately apparent! This is evident from
the directions that are given to remove the skin and tough fibres. On
the fruitarian diet none of these objections would be encountered—the
bland, soothing, cooling, antiseptic properties of the fruit juices
being readily seen, and practically never cause indigestion, no matter
how enfeebled it may be, or how sick the patient—provided eating be
possible at all—and provided that they do not contain an excess of
acids and other substances injurious to the body in its then state of
health. Vegetables are, further, a very _bulky_ food, and for this
reason, also, I consider them objectionable.
X
CEREALS
There is much dispute as to the relative value of wheat, and other
cereal foods, as articles of diet. Numbers of authors contend that
they are in very truth the “staff of life ”; others, on the contrary,
maintain that they are totally unsuited for human food, and that
it would be far better for the human race if cereals of all kinds
were replaced by other articles of food, containing somewhat similar
constituents. We shall examine these opposite opinions a little later
on. Let us first of all consider these foods, their functions, and
how far they may be supported to nourish the body and maintain the
health. Let us take first of all _wheat_. The five outer layers of the
bran contain very little except cellulose—a woody, fibrous substance,
forming the cell walls. When burned, the ash of bran is found to
contain a large proportion of phosphoric acid, potash, and a small
amount of other mineral matters. The cereal layer is, of all parts of
the grain, the richest in nitrogenous substances—the chief of which is
the creatine, from which it takes its name. Gluten is one of the most
important constituents of the wheat.
Unfortunately, this is separated from the grain, as is well known,
and adheres to the husk, when this is removed; and for this reason
“superfine” white flour contains but very little nutriment, and a large
quantity of starch—a very constipating food and one which necessitates
a large amount of vital expenditure when converting it into bodily
tissue. As is well known, all starch must go through several processes
or stages of digestion before it can be used by the system. The body
can never use starch _as starch_. It must be converted into glucose
sugar before the body can make use of or appropriate it. It must
first of all be converted into various substances—dextrose, maltose,
etc.—before it is finally transformed into glucose—in which form the
body can utilise it. _Starch, then, must be converted into sugar
(glucose) before the body can use it_; and must be transformed into
this substance at the expense of the bodily energy, of which a great
amount has to be expended in these varied processes of conversion. Now,
this being the case, _why would it not be easier and better for us to
eat those foods that supply this glucose or grape-sugar direct_—without
necessitating any of these energy-wasting transformations? Were we to
take this grape-sugar directly into the system (stomach) as an article
of food, we should thereby save all the energy of digestion, which
would otherwise be wasted in useless processes of conversion. There
can be no valid reason why this should not be the case.[34] And, since
fruits contain this very grape-sugar in a free and natural state, it
becomes obvious that we can obtain from fruits all that we derive from
grains and cereals (with the exception of proteid matter, which we can
get from nuts) and in a far better state—because more appropriable by
the system. I am strongly convinced that nothing is to be derived from
wheat or similar grains and cereals that cannot be derived equally well
or better from fruits and nuts of various kinds. And this applies to
all other grains—rye, barley, oats, etc.—as well as to wheat. They are
all objectionable for the same reason; and a properly balanced diet of
fruits and nuts is superior to any diet of grains and cereals.
[34] It is important to note, in this connection, that but a small
percentage of the starch is ever converted into sugar, even by the
most thorough mastication. I say this on the authority of Dr John
Goodfellow, F.R.C.S., author of “The Dietetic Value of Bread,” etc.,
who conducted a number of careful experiments on this very point. (See
his letter to Dr Densmore, in “How Nature Cures,” pp. 237-239.) In
raw cereals, only about one per cent. was converted! As this process
of conversion cannot go forward in an acid medium—_i.e._ in the
stomach—it is evident that the bowels must be called upon to effect
this conversion—a useless tax upon them, and a cause of constipation
as well.
It is well known that toast is more wholesome than ordinary bread: it
is given to invalids, when bread is debarred. The reason for this—which
comparatively few persons know—is that a portion of the starch
contained in the flour is converted into dextrine, by this process of
toasting. In this manner, a portion of the original starch contained in
the bread is “predigested,” and hence saves the vital energies so much
tax—when it comes to the digestion of this starch. But would it not be
better to give the patient fruits, in which _all_ these processes of
conversion have already been performed by nature—and hence save far
more of the bodily energies than even the giving of toast? It must be
remembered that starch contains nothing that is useful to the system
except this grape-sugar, which can also be obtained from fruits of all
kinds, in a natural and appropriable form. This being so, why not give
fruits in the first place—thus saving all this useless expenditure of
energy? There is also the additional argument that fruits of all kinds
are cleansing and slightly laxative—instead of being constipating—and
have also powerful germicidal properties. However, I shall consider
this question more at length in the chapter devoted to the fruitarian
diet.
Many writers upon the subject of dietetics are very laudatory of
wheat and other cereal foods. Dr Tibbles, indeed, in his “Food and
Hygiene,” p. 229, says that “so large a part do they fulfil in domestic
preparations that it is almost safe to say that if the entire crop of
cereals failed for one year nearly 90 per cent. of the inhabitants of
the earth would die”! This might be true in a certain sense, for there
would be no article of food to take the place of the cereals destroyed;
but if nuts and fruits had been cultivated instead, it would be found
that all the cereals could be dispensed with easily enough, and that
none of the inhabitants would die; but, on the contrary, that they
would retain a high degree of health—far higher than they now possess.
If the whole wheat, containing all the grain—the nutritious gluten as
well as the (comparatively speaking) innutritious starch—were supplied
to the body, there would be far less objection to the use of grains and
cereals; but as a matter of fact, this is rarely the case, and only
health-reformers insist upon having bread made of whole wheat flour
or gluten bread. The majority eat bread made of white, “superfine”
flour—flour totally divested of its nutritious elements. Such flour
contains none of the valuable salts which the whole grain contains;
it is devoid of the proteid matter; it is constipating, and in other
ways objectionable. And a practical proof of the correctness of this
position is afforded by the fact that dogs, fed by Magendie upon
superfine white flour, _all died_; while those dogs which were fed upon
whole-wheat flour lived and retained their health. Such an experiment
is worth any amount of theorising, for or against.
Dr S. Rowbatham, writing some years ago on this subject, said:
“Bread [from wheaten flour], when considered in reference to the
amount of nutritious matter it contains, may with justice be called
the staff of life; but in regard to the amount of earthy matter, we
may with equal justice pronounce it the staff of death.... It is quite
right to suppose that nutritious food is necessary to support and
strengthen the fœtus; but the nutritious and the solid earthy matter
in food are very different substances. Wheaten flour, on account of
its containing so much earthy matter, is the most dangerous article a
female can live upon, when pregnant. The other grains are bad enough,
but better than wheat.... Persons of a dull, cadaverous appearance,
with harsh rough skins, who are thin and bony and continually
troubled with some complaint or other, I have always found to be
greatly attached to a food of a solid, earthy nature, such as bread,
puddings, pies, tarts, cakes, and flour preparations in general....
Heavy, clumsy persons, whose movements—when they do move—are stiff and
awkward are always great consumers of solid food, especially of bread
and pastry of all kinds.... Among children and young persons too, it
may be seen that the dull, heavy, ill-tempered ones are mostly great
consumers of solid grain foods; while the more active and lively are
less anxious for food of a solid character, but mostly fond of light,
fluid, saccharine substances.... These facts and many others which
could be advanced, all tend to support and prove the position that
food and drink alone are the source of the calcareous earthy matter
which is generally deposited in the body, and which by degrees brings
on a state of induration, rigidity and consequent decreptitude—which
ends in a total cessation of consciousness, or death. We have seen
that different kinds of food and drink contain these earthy elements
in different proportions; and we cannot avoid the conclusion that the
more we subsist upon such articles as contain the greatest amount,
the sooner shall we choke up and die; and the more we live upon such
substances as are comparatively free, the longer will health, activity
and life continue.”
In the twenty-second and twenty-third chapters of the third book of
Herodotus, describing a visit of some Persian ambassadors to the
long-lived Ethiopians (Macrobii), the Ethiopians asked what the Persian
king was wont to eat, and to what age the longest-lived Persians had
been known to attain. They told him that the king ate bread, and
described the nature of wheat—adding that eighty years was the longest
term of man’s life among the Persians. Hereat, he remarked: “It did
not surprise him, if they fed on _dirt_ [bread] that they died so
soon! Indeed he was sure that they never would have lived so long as
eighty years, except for the refreshment that they got from that drink
[meaning the wine], wherein he confessed that Persians surpassed the
Ethiopians.”
From what has been said, it will be apparent why I do not consider
grains and cereals valuable articles of food—far less the indispensable
articles they are usually supposed to be. As generally purchased,
these flours and grains are innutritious, clogging, and particularly
unwholesome articles of food; but even at their best, and taking the
whole grain, they contain nothing that cannot be supplied in a better
state by an exclusive fruit and nut diet. We must remember Magendie’s
experiments on dogs. One died in forty days, while fed upon fine wheat
and flour, while another dog, fed upon brown bread, lived without any
disturbance, and in good health. This should show us conclusively
that the fine flour upon the market—the flour invariably consumed—is
practically useless as food; but since all the nutritive properties of
grains may be derived in a better form from fruits, nuts, etc., the
only remaining reason for eating grains and cereals vanishes.
XI
CONDIMENTS, SPICES, ETC.
We now come to consider the various “food accessories,” as they
are called—meaning the various condiments, etc., which go to make
unappetising food palatable! If the food were natural to the organism,
it should need no such appetisers: but I let that pass. Let us consider
the relative values of these articles of diet, and see how far each
of them may be considered as necessary and beneficial to the human
organism. I shall begin with the one in most common use, and one that
the majority think they cannot live without—salt!
* * * * *
_Salt._—The arguments in favour of salt-eating, as found in the books,
may be summarised thus:
1. It is natural to man, the habit being universal.
2. It is necessary to life. Human beings deprived of it die.
3. Wild and domestic animals crave and seek it.
4. It is an invariable constituent of the solids and fluids of the
body; hence it must be supplied.
5. Cattle, when given it, increase greatly in weight, so that if not
itself food, it may take the place of food by making it “go further.”
6. It retards the waste of the system, and in this way may prolong life.
7. It is essential to promote the secretion and flow of saliva and bile.
8. It promotes appetite by rendering the food more palatable.
The first three of the above propositions constitute what may be styled
the prescriptive or old-fashioned argument. The next four, grouped
together, are the chemical theory of the value of salt, and are of
more recent origin. The last, though seldom advanced as a scientific
reason, partakes of the character of science as well as of tradition.
In regard to No. 1, let us see how far it is borne out. To destroy
logically the value of the proposition it would only be necessary to
establish the case of a single individual who does not and has not used
salt—raw salt—in his food. The universality, that which it rests upon,
would then be broken. We ought not to be content with that, however. I
think it would not be difficult to show that there are whole nations
and tribes of people who do not eat salt. I am told by an Italian, who
has lived among them, that the Algerians do not. I was myself informed,
while in that region, that the Indian tribes inhabiting the banks of
the Columbia River and Puget Sound do not. It is noteworthy also that
those tribes are among the most peaceful, intelligent and industrious
tribes in North America, and are of fine personal appearance. I
think there is little doubt that the inhabitants of the islands of
the Pacific Ocean lived from a period of vast antiquity, until their
discovery by Europeans, without putting salt crystals on their food.
It has continually happened that hunters, tourists, soldiers and
explorers have been left for weeks, months and years without a supply
of salt, by accident or otherwise, and have survived without apparent
injury. Finally, there are many persons in the United States who have
voluntarily abandoned the use of salt for periods ranging from one to
twenty years (and for aught I know longer), not only without injury
but with increased health, strength and activity. So far from being
natural to man, the instincts of children, especially when born free
from an inherited bias in its favour, go to show by their rejection of
it that it is _un_natural. Like the taste for coffee, tea and various
seasonings, it is an acquired one. Few if any children do not prefer
unsalted food.
It should not be overlooked that the manufacture and distribution of
salt as an article of commerce is a thing of history, and has attained
its enormous dimensions within the past century and a half. It is
inconceivable that in past times the population of the world, made
up as it was largely of pastoral and nomadic people inhabiting the
interior of the great continents, should have supplied themselves with
salt as an ingredient of food, as we do. The omission of any mention
of it in the older chronicles and even among the more perfect records
of the classics, except at the luxurious tables of the rich, goes to
confirm this supposition.
Propositions Nos. 2 and 3 are of the same character, and have a like
origin. It is discouraging to discover how little thorough sifting
of beliefs there is among mankind—especially concerning matters of
such primary importance as their daily diet—a neglect for which their
hair-splitting casuistry on topics of faith and morals in no way
atones. The foundation of the notion that men die when deprived of salt
(and the inference therefrom that it is because of it), so far as I
have been able to trace it, rests on an experience related in the older
works on physiology, and copied with childlike confidence into the
later ones, to the effect that, more than one hundred years ago, during
the wars waged by England on the Continent, several thousand British
soldiers, being shut up as prisoners of war in the low countries—at
the Hague, I believe—and after an incarceration of many months, all
died of disease, induced, it is stated, by being deprived of salt! The
same cry, it will be remembered, has been charged to modern nations
in more recent wars, and notably during the American Civil War, when
the mortality was so great in the southern prisons. It needs no great
natural acumen nor book learning to discover that there are other and
far more potent disease-inducing causes at work to account for the
dreadful mortality—even in these days of superior civilisation and
greater humanity. Observation satisfies me that inattention to ordinary
sanitary precautions—partly incident to confinement and partly to the
rooted superstition in the minds of those who had charge of them, that
disease is a something to be fought out with specific medicines after
it has appeared, rather than prevented from making its appearance—will
abundantly reconcile the facts, if they be facts; and in this I am
confirmed by a comparison of the appalling ratio of mortality recorded
in some of the most famed of London and Paris hospitals, where gangrene
and fevers alone did their deadly work, in spite of the attentions of
doctors, without appreciable aid from those inevitable attendants of
war-prisons—homesickness, filth and bad diet. Such evidence as this
would hardly be received in a trial for larceny; and yet it is solemnly
repeated generation after generation by those who should be teachers of
teachers.
The third proposition, in regard to the wild and domestic animals, is,
like the preceding, not formidable when examined. I have diligently
inquired of old hunters and pioneers for confirmation of the story
that deer and buffalo are in the habit of visiting regularly the salt
springs or “licks,” in order to eat the salt. I have not been able
to find one who has ever seen the licking process himself. There is
reason to believe that hunters do take their positions at certain
brine-springs to find their game, and that the deer at certain seasons
of the year resort to them—precisely why is not determined. Nothing
of the kind is now claimed of the buffalo; that is a tradition.
But suppose it were all true, as claimed, does that justify man in
sprinkling the solid residue of the brine on his food? Is there not
here too lofty a structure upon too slight a foundation? It is
notorious that all the salt springs hold in solution (sometimes found
encrusted on their sides) large amounts of lime, sulphur, iron, and
commonly other ingredients.
The very purest of our table salts of commerce contain from 2 to 4
per cent. of the sulphate of lime, after they are supposed to have
been purified and larger amounts of it removed. May it not be that at
certain seasons, as in the winter when the herbage is covered by snow,
or during pregnancy, when the fœtus requires it, the deer (or buffalo,
if you will) repair to these spots instinctively for that which nature
denies them at the time? We know that cows on a scant pasture, at
such times, will chew and partly dissolve an old bone; yet it would
be equally reasonable to put ground bones on our food as an inference
from this trait; indeed, more so, as the latter is an admitted fact of
everyday occurrence, while the other is somewhat in doubt; and besides
the economy of lime in the system is patent.