THE FLESH-FOOD FALLACY
[See Chapter III.]
demands more than the passing notice accorded to it in the chapters on
Consumption: The facts of chemistry are eternal and indisputable, as are
all the truths of science; but, as between two kinds of aliment, or two
substances which are being considered as to their adaptation to the
purpose of nourishing the body, while chemistry accurately points out
which contains the greatest amount of this or that constituent, and is
often of service, as affording data for a presumption, in the absence of
definite knowledge, she often fails to discover——despite the chemist’s, or
rather his blind pupil’s dogmatic assertion to the contrary——which is
really the _most natural_, and consequently the _best adapted_ for the
purpose of alimentation. In nothing do we observe this more strikingly
than in a comparison between flesh and vegetable foods. A three-column
criticism of a former work (How to Feed the Baby), in one of our leading
magazines, and which sums up its merits by “hoping the book will be read
by all on whom devolves the important duty, the care of children; for it
is an effort to institute the correct principle of feeding ‘the baby,’”
contains the following upon the subject of animal _vs._ vegetable food:
“We discover,” says the critic, “on page 98 that our author is a
vegetarian, after all. In speaking of a nutritious diet whereby to enrich
the breast milk, he makes the following startling statement: ‘Unleavened
bread, or mush, made from the unbolted meal of wheat, rye, or corn, has
_very much more nutriment_, pound for pound, than is contained in beef or
mutton, notwithstanding the fallacy that classes the latter as hearty
food.’ This is only a declaration without proof, contrary to all authority
on foods. We take the following table from Prof. Johnston’s ‘Chemistry of
Common Life’:
Lean beef. Wheaten bread.
Water and blood 77 40
Myosin or gluten 19 7
Fat 3 1
Starch 0 50
Salt and other mineral mat. 1 2
“From which is deduced the fact, that ordinary flesh is about three times
as rich in myosin or gluten as ordinary wheaten bread, or, in other words,
a pound of beefsteak is as nutritious as three pounds of wheaten bread. In
a second edition of Dr. Page’s book, we hope he will correct this great
error.”
It should be stated that bread made from whole, _i.e._, unbolted and
_unsifted_, meal, is much richer in gluten and certain invaluable salts,
than shown in the figures here given.
Because the most careful observation on the part of intelligent and
conscientious men who have had the best opportunities for ascertaining the
relative merits of these two classes of foods, viz.: nutrients proper, and
the stimulo-nutrients, or, in other words, foods which are naturally
adapted to the human organism, and those substances (as, for example, the
flesh of animals) which, along with a great deal of nourishment, contain
elements which, being of an excretory and noxious character, _excite_ or
_stimulate_ the organism, and are, consequently, to that degree
injurious——because, I would repeat, the proof is, in my estimation,
overwhelmingly in favor of vegetable food, more particularly the cereals
and fruits, so far from contemplating the “correction of this great
error,” I desire to reassert, most emphatically, as a fundamental truth in
dietetics, and in no sense an error, that, pound for pound, the cereal
grains are not only more nutritious (speaking of their effects upon the
human organism) than flesh, but, physiologically speaking, they are free
from the impurities which abound in the latter, and which are often
rendered still more noxious by the presence of actual disease among
animals _fattened_ for human food.
The advocates of flesh-food have a marvelous faculty for misrepresenting
some facts, and for the non-presentation of others which should appear if
the discussion is for the purpose of deciding the question on its merits.
To illustrate: I find in Johnson’s Encyclopedia (Article on Hygiene, by a
prominent physician) the following: “It must be admitted that men can,
under favorable circumstances, exist through long periods without meat.
This is shown in the instances of many tribes in Asia and Africa, who live
almost entirely on rice and other grains, and also by many of the
peasantry of Continental Europe, and the Scotch Highlanders who are
confined to a diet containing very little animal food. Yet it is equally
true that men can exist on meat alone, as is done by the Indian riders of
the South American pampas, for months together.” But the writer of the
above (from ignorance of the fact, doubtless,) does not add, that those
races who live upon a well-selected vegetable diet excel in every
way——mentally, morally, and physically——those races or tribes who subsist
entirely on flesh. What would the above authority call “favorable
circumstances” such as would enable men to “exist” without meat? Was he
thinking of the French officers, prisoners of war, who were fed, for a
year or more, on rice and Indian corn exclusively, with water for their
only drink, to return to their commands in improved health, to receive
promotion by reason of vacancies occasioned by the death of comrades who
had been favored with an abundance of meat? Or of the muscular Japanese,
hard-working men and finely developed women of whom a recent sojourner in
Japan says: “The quantity of food they eat is astonishingly small when
compared with the food devoured by meat-eaters from the Western world....
Seemingly their frames are as tough as steel, not susceptible of cold or
intense heat——going thinly clad in freezing weather, and not shrinking
from the sun in its most oppressive season.... They are a marvel of
strength, and illustrate the lesson that health, strength, and endurance
may exist on a light and scanty diet of rice and vegetables, together with
fish. The Rikisha men are not so heavily molded, being of much slighter
build, but they are also full of muscle, though not so prodigally
developed [as with the class of laborers before referred to]. The fatigue
these men undergo and withstand can be partially estimated when it is
remembered that it is not considered an extraordinary feat for them to
travel forty miles a day with their seated passenger. No matter how hot it
may be, while the passenger is complaining of the heat, he is being
whirled along and protected by his umbrella from the rays of the sun, and
the motive power never flags. This Rikisha man keeps up a pace like a
deer, his body generally bare to the sun, being guiltless of clothing that
could inconvenience the free movement of the body or limbs. He takes but
the slightest quantity of refreshment while on the road——a cup of tea and
a modicum of rice being the extent of his gormandizing during the travel.
And they repeat these exploits day after day, never eating meat.” Of the
women this writer remarks: “With beautifully rounded arms and limbs, with
smallest of feet and hands, and small-boned, they present the spectacle of
what the human form should be in its natural grace and finish.... The
women, young and old, are seen bearing loads upon their backs that the
uninitiated in such work would not be able to stand up under. They will
travel miles laden this way with a speed that would suffice to tire an
average Western woman if entirely unincumbered. In fact few of our women
could at all walk the distance the old women do here while bearing heavy
loads. And all this is performed on an abstemious vegetable diet.” Thus it
would seem that “the most favorable circumstances,” to use the language of
Johnson’s contributor, to enable men and women to live “without meat,” are
plenty of hard work in the open air,[55] and a somewhat restricted diet;
for it must be remembered that the people of whom we have been speaking,
are from necessity the least able to indulge in unlimited quantities of
their peculiar food of all the people in the land.
[Footnote 55: It is very generally agreed by the most eminent medical men
of all schools of practice, that in the absence of free exercise in the
open air, animal food _must_ be abstained from.]
As to the moral aspect of the question, I grant that a man can not sin
without knowledge. If he believes it necessary and right for the higher
animals, elevated human beings, to slaughter and feast upon the lower——the
gentle, mild-eyed creatures who serve and minister unto us so patiently,
so faithfully, and, indeed, so lovingly——then to kill and devour is, for
him, no crime. But if men were as ready to learn from their instincts, as
they are to yield to their artificial cravings, the natural loathing which
all, or most people, feel at the sight of bloodshed, and which so many
experience at the bare thought of taking life, would teach us the
unnaturalness and therefore the harmfulness of a flesh diet. (See
Appetite.)
Finally, there remains to be answered, one argument, the most rational of
all that are put forward in favor of the continued use of flesh-food,
viz.: heredity and habit, and a “second nature” resultant therefrom. Even
some hygienic writers argue stoutly the necessity of recognizing this law,
as particularly applicable to this question, and declare the absurdity of
the position assumed by those who demand the abandonment of flesh-food for
all who would insure to themselves the blessing of health. While affirming
that the vital organism may in a few years, even, become accustomed to the
_use_ of almost anything, no matter how repugnant or destructive it
naturally is, as opium, liquor, tobacco, etc., provided the process be
gradual enough, they still hold that with regard to animal food, a
substance acknowledged by them to be unwholesome, the organism can not
become accustomed to its _non-use_ until generations of better habits have
remodeled the organism to suit the conditions. Theoretically, it would
seem grossly absurd to say that when, as is the known fact, cats, dogs,
bears, and the like, can thrive perfectly on a strict vegetarian diet (I
have, myself, tried this successfully with the first two), that _man_
alone has no hope this side the grave of being able to abandon animal
food! In practice, it is found that the only thing required is to convince
the mind of an individual of the unnaturalness and unwholesomeness of
flesh-food; _then_ if he be conscientious the battle is won, and it only
remains to furnish him with a diet suited to his needs, (the selection and
preparation of which, many hygienists, however, are far from comprehending
fully; hence the only reason I can find for the continuance of the mixed
diet in any case). But if he be either unconvinced or lacking in moral
force, he can not be harmed by the presentation of the vegetarian
_theory_, for he will continue his flesh-eating and take the consequences.
So long, however, as any hygienist favors even a moderate indulgence in
animal foods as a necessity for most people throughout their lives, his
followers will take it upon themselves to decide as to what constitutes
moderation, just as is the case with coffee, liquor, and tobacco-users,
only the former (by reason of their ignorance as to what constitutes
health and symptoms of disease) have no such means of recognizing the
symptoms of excess, as have the latter. The truth is that “abstinence from
_all_ unwholesome practices, only, is easier than temperance.”
* * * * *
NOTE.——This chapter is particularly recommended to the notice of
members and friends of the American Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals.