CHAPTER XVII._The Chemistry of Cookery

THE VEGETARIAN QUESTION

IN my introductory chapter I said, ‘The fact that we use the digestive

and nutrient apparatus of sheep, oxen, &c., for the preparation of our

food is merely a transitory barbarism, to be ultimately superseded when

my present subject is sufficiently understood and applied to enable us

to prepare the constituents of the vegetable kingdom to be as easily

assimilated as the prepared grass which we call beef and mutton.’

This sentence, when it appeared in ‘Knowledge,’ brought me in

communication with a very earnest body of men and women, who at

considerable social inconvenience are abstaining from flesh food,

and doing it purely on principle. Some people sneer at them, call

them ‘crotchetty,’ ‘faddy,’ &c., but, for my own part, I have a great

respect for crotchetty people, having learned long ago that every first

great step that has ever been taken in the path of human progress was

denounced as a crotchet by those it was leaving behind. This respect is

quite apart from the consideration of whether I agree or disagree with

the crotchets themselves.

I therefore willingly respond to the request that I should explain more

fully my view of this subject. The fact that there are now in London

eight exclusively vegetarian restaurants, and all of them flourishing,

shows that it is one of wide interest.

At the outset it is necessary to brush aside certain false issues that

are commonly raised in discussing this subject. The question is not

whether we are herbivorous or carnivorous animals. It is perfectly

certain that we are neither. The carnivora feed on flesh _alone_,

and eat that flesh raw. Nobody proposes that we should do this. The

herbivora eat raw grass. Nobody suggests that we should follow _their_

example.

It is perfectly clear that man cannot be classed with the carnivorous

animals, nor the herbivorous animals, nor with the graminivorous

animals. His teeth are not constructed for munching and grinding raw

grain, nor his digestive organs for assimilating such grain in this

condition.

He is not even to be classed with the omnivorous animals. He stands

apart from all as THE COOKING ANIMAL.

It is true that there was a time when our ancestors ate raw flesh,

including that of each other.

In the limestone caverns of this and other European countries we find

human bones gnawed by human teeth, and split open by flint implements

for the evident purpose of extracting the marrow, according to the

domestic economy of the period.

The shell mounds that these prehistoric bipeds have left behind, show

that mussels, oysters, and other mollusca were also eaten raw, and

they doubtless varied the menu with snails, slugs, and worms, as the

remaining Australian savages still do. Besides these they probably

included roots, succulent plants, nuts, and such fruit as then existed.

There are many among us who are very proud of their ancient lineage,

and who think it honourable to go back as far as possible and to

maintain the customs of their forefathers; but they all seem to

draw a line somewhere, none desiring to go as far back as to their

inter-glacial troglodytic ancestors, and, therefore, I need not discuss

the desirability of restoring their dietary.

All human beings became cooks as soon as they learned how to make a

fire, and have all continued to be cooks ever since.

We should, therefore, look at this vegetarian question from the

point of view of prepared food, which excludes nearly all comparison

with the food of the brute creation. I say ‘nearly all,’ because

there is one case in which all the animals that approach the nearest

to ourselves—the mammalia—are provided naturally with a specially

prepared food, viz. the mother’s milk. The composition of this

preparation appears to me to throw more light than anything else upon

this vegetarian controversy, and yet it seems to have been entirely

overlooked.

The milk prepared for the young of the different animals in the

laboratory or kitchen of Nature is surely adapted to their structure

as regards natural food requirements. Without assuming that the human

dietetic requirements are identical with either of the other mammals,

we may learn something concerning our approximation to one class or

another by comparing the composition of human milk with that of the

animals in question.

I find ready to hand in Dr. Miller’s ‘Chemistry’, vol. iii., a

comparative statement of the mean of several analyses of the milk of

woman, cow, goat, ass, sheep, and bitch. The latter is a moderately

carnivorous animal, nearly approaching the omnivorous character

commonly ascribed to man. The following is the statement:

+------------------------+-----+------+------+------+-------+-------+

+------------------------+-----+------+------+------+-------+-------+

| Water | 88·6| 87·4 | 82·0 | 90·5 | 85·6 | 66·3 |

| Fat | 2·6| 4·0 | 4·5 | 1·4 | 4·5 | 14·8 |

| Sugar and soluble salts| 4·9| 5·0 | 4·5 | 6·4 | 4·2 | 2·9 |

| and insoluble salts | 3·9| 3·6 | 9·0 | 1·7 | 5·7 | 16·0 |

+------------------------+-----+------+------+------+-------+-------+

According to this it is quite evident that Nature regards our food

requirements as approaching much nearer to the herbivora than to the

carnivora, and has provided for us accordingly.

If we are to begin the building-up of our bodies on a food more nearly

resembling that of the herbivora than that of the carnivora, it is only

reasonable to assume that we should continue on the same principle.

The particulars of the difference are instructive. The food which

Nature provides for the human infant differs from that provided for the

young carnivorous animal, just in the same way as flesh food differs

from the cultivated and cooked vegetables and fruit within easy reach

of man.

These contain less fat, less nitrogenous matter, more water, and more

sugar (or starch, which becomes sugar during digestion) than animal

food.

Those who advocate the use of flesh food usually do so on the ground

that it is more nutritious, contains more nitrogenous material and more

fat than vegetable food. So much the worse for the human being, says

Nature, when _she_ prepares the food.

But as a matter of practical fact there are no flesh-eaters among us,

none who avail themselves of this higher proportion of albuminoids and

fat. We all practically admit every day in eating our ordinary English

dinner, that this excess of nitrogenous matter and fat is bad; we do

so by mixing the meat with that particular vegetable which contains

an excess of the carbo-hydrates (starch) with the smallest available

quantity of albuminoids and fat. The slice of meat, diluted with the

lump of potato, brings the whole down to about the average composition

of a fairly-arranged vegetarian repast. When I speak of a vegetarian

repast, I do not mean mere cabbages and potatoes, but properly

selected, well cooked, nutritious vegetable food. As an example, I

will take Count Rumford’s No. 1 soup, already described, without the

bread, and in like manner take beef and potatoes without bread. Taking

original weights, and assuming that the lump of potato weighed the same

as the slice of meat, we get the following composition according to the

table given by Pavy, page 410:

+----------------+-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+

| +-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+

| Lean beef | 72·00 | 19·30 | -- | -- | 3·60 | 5·10 |

| Potatoes | 75·00 | 2·10 | 18·80 | 3·20 | 0·20 | 0·70 |

| +-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+

| |147·00 | 21·40 | 18·80 | 3·20 | 3·80 | 5·80 |

| +-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+

| of mixture | 73·50 | 10·70 | 9·40 | 1·60 | 1·90 | 2·90 |

+----------------+-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+

Rumford’s soup (without the bread afterwards added) was composed

of equal measures of peas and pearl barley, or barley meal, and

nearly equal weights. Their percentage composition as stated in the

above-named table is as follows:

+----------------+-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+

| +-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+

| Peas | 15·00 | 23·00 | 55·40 | 2·00 | 2·10 | 2·50 |

| Barley meal | 15·00 | 6·30 | 69·40 | 4·90 | 2·40 | 2·00 |

| +-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+

| | 30·00 | 29·30 | 134·80 | 6·90 | 4·50 | 4·50 |

| +-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+

| of mixture | 15·00 | 14·65 | 62·40 | 3·45 | 2·25 | 2·25 |

+----------------+-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+

Here, then, in 100 parts of the material of Rumford’s halfpenny dinner,

as compared with the ‘mixed diet,’ we have 40 per cent. more of

nitrogenous food, more than six and a half times as much carbo-hydrate

in the form of starch, more than double the quantity of sugar, about

17 per cent. more of fat, and only a little less of salts (supplied by

the salt which Rumford added). Thus the ‘mixed diet’ falls short in all

the costly constituents, and only excels by its abundance of very cheap

water.

This analysis supplies the explanation of what has puzzled many

inquirers, and encouraged some sneerers at this work of the great

scientific philanthropist, viz. that he allowed less than five ounces

of solids for each man’s dinner. He did so and found it sufficient,

because he was supplying far more nutritious material than beef and

potatoes; his five ounces was more satisfactory than a pound of beef

and potatoes, three-fourths of which is water, for which water John

Bull blindly pays a shilling or more per pound when he buys his prime

steak.

Rumford added the water at pump cost, and, by long boiling, caused

some of it to unite with the solid materials (by the hydration I have

described), and then served the combination in the form of porridge,

raising each portion to 19¾ ounces.

I might multiply such examples to prove the fallacy of the prevailing

notions concerning the nutritive value of the ‘mixed diet,’ a fallacy

which is merely an inherited epidemic, a baseless physical superstition.

I will, however, just add one more example for comparison—viz. the

Highlander’s porridge. The following is the composition of oatmeal—also

from Pavy’s table:

Water 15·00

Albumen 12·60

Starch 58·40

Sugar 5·40

Fat 5·60

Salts 3·00

Compare this with the beef and potatoes above, and it will be seen that

it is _superior in every item excepting the water_. One hundred ounces

of oatmeal contain 1·9 ounce more of albumen than is contained in 100

ounces of beef and potatoes mixed in equal proportions. The 100 ounces

of oatmeal supplies 39·6 ounces more of carbo-hydrate (starch). The 100

ounces of oatmeal is superior to the extent of 3·8 ounces in sugar. It

has the advantage by 3·7 ounces in fat, and 0·9 ounce in salts, but

the mixed diet beats the oatmeal by containing 58½ ounces more water;

nearly four times as much. This deficiency is readily supplied in the

cookery.

These figures explain a puzzle that may have suggested itself to some

of my thoughtful readers—viz. the smallness of the quantity of dry

oatmeal that is used in making a large portion of porridge. If we

could, in like manner, see our portion of beef or mutton and potatoes

reduced to dryness, the smallness of the quantity of actually solid

food required for a meal would be similarly manifest. An alderman’s

banquet in this condition would barely fill a breakfast cup.

I cannot at all agree with those of my vegetarian friends who denounce

flesh-meat as a prolific source of disease, as inflaming the passions,

and generally demoralising. Neither am I at all disposed to make a

religion of either eating, or drinking, or abstaining. There are

certain albuminoids, certain carbo-hydrates, certain hydro-carbons,

and certain salts demanded for our sustenance. Excepting in fruit,

these are not supplied by nature in a fit condition for _our_ use. They

must be prepared. Whether we do _all_ the preparation in the kitchen

by bringing the produce of the earth directly there, or whether, on

account of our ignorance and incapacity as cooks, we pass our food

through the stomach, intestines, blood-vessels, &c., of sheep and

oxen, as a substitute for the first stages of scientific cookery, the

result is about the same as regards the dietic result.

Flesh feeding is a nasty practice, but I see no grounds for denouncing

it as physiologically injurious, excepting in the fact that the

liability to gout, rheumatism, and neuralgia is increased by it.

In my youthful days I was on friendly terms with a sheep that belonged

to a butcher in Jermyn Street. This animal, for some reason, had been

spared in its lamb-hood, and was reared as the butcher’s pet. It was

well-known in St. James’s by following the butcher’s men through the

streets like a dog. I have seen this sheep steal mutton-chops and

devour them raw. It preferred beef or mutton to grass. It enjoyed

robust health, and was by no means ferocious.

It was merely a disgusting animal, with excessively perverted appetite;

a perversion that supplies very suggestive material for human

meditation.

My own experiments on myself, and the multitude of other experiments

that I am daily witnessing among men of all occupations who have cast

aside flesh food after many years of mixed diet, prove incontestably

that flesh food is quite unnecessary; and also that men and women who

emulate the aforesaid sheep to the mild extent of consuming daily

about two ounces of animal tissue combined with six ounces of water,

and dilute this with such weak vegetable food as the potato, are not

measurably altered thereby so far as physical health is concerned.[21]

On economical grounds, however, the difference is enormous. If all

Englishmen were vegetarians and fish-eaters, the whole aspect of the

country would be changed. It would be a land of gardens and orchards,

instead of gradually reverting to prairie grazing-ground as at present.

The unemployed miserables of our great towns, the inhabitants of our

union workhouses, and all our rogues and vagabonds, would find ample

and suitable employment in agriculture. Every acre of land would

require three or four times as much labour as at present, and feed five

or six times as many people.

No sentimental exaggeration is demanded for the recommendation of such

a reform as this.

FOOTNOTE:

[21] Since the above was written I have met with some alarming

revelations concerning the increasing prevalence of cancer, which, if

confirmed, will force me to withdraw this conclusion. This horrible

disease has increased in England with increase of prosperity—with

increase of luxury in feeding—which in this country means more flesh

food. In the ten years from 1850 to 1860, the deaths from cancer had

increased by 2,000; from 1860 to 1870 the increase was 2,400; from 1870

to 1880 it reached 3,200, above the preceding ten years. The proportion

of deaths is far higher among the well-to-do classes than among the

poorer classes. It seems to be the one disease that increases with

improved general sanitary conditions. The evidence is not yet complete,

but as far as it goes it points most ominously to a direct connection

between cancer and excessive flesh feeding among people of sedentary

habits. The most abundant victims appear to be women who eat much meat

and take but little out-of-door exercise.