Chapter XI: Section 17: Par. 3.—“Carcasses or parts of carcasses found infected (2)

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.