Chapter III: The Argument From Physiology (4)

“But how does animal food stimulate? It always contains more or less effete materials—the debris of the disintegrated tissues, the ashes of the decayed organism—with more or less of other excrementitious matters. These impurities cannot be used in the organism, and therefore must be expelled; and this expulsive process, amounting to a feverish disturbance, this vital resistance, is precisely the _rationale_ of the stimulating effects of animal food. And thus we prove that animal food is impure precisely in the ratio that it is stimulating, and for this reason objectionable.

“All that can be alleged in favour of flesh-eating because of its stimulating properties can be urged, and for precisely the same reasons, in favour of brandy-drinking or arsenic-eating.”[22]

[22] “Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism,” pp. 23-24.

There is nothing more certain than that the eating of meat, even if the meat be clean and wholesome, and the eating of it be not excessive, will in time produce grave results and diseases of the foulest and worst type. Not invariably, of course, but almost invariably. The rapid increase in uric acid which results from a flesh diet has previously been pointed out, and is now well known. In addition to this, there are numerous other poisons that are formed, or introduced into the body, as the result of flesh-eating—as Bouchard and others have proved conclusively. These poisons and their effects were carefully studied by Bouchard, and the results of his experiments are very interesting and convincing. He succeeded in isolating a number of poisons from the urea of flesh-eaters, and injecting them into animals, and noted the results. “One of the poisons in most minute doses produces death with violent spasms; another causes rapid fall of temperature until death occurs; another influences animal temperature in another direction; still another produces death with most profound coma.”

The basis of the demonstration is this. The urine is really an extract from the tissues; the kidneys do not manufacture poisons _de novo_, but simply separate from the blood poisons found in solution therein, which have been washed by the blood-current from the tissues which it bathes in passing through the capillary network of systemic circulation. Bearing these facts in mind, Bouchard and his assistants injected into live rabbits certain known quantities of these poisons, and noted the results. Death invariably resulted—frequently in a very short time, and as the result of taking an extremely small dose of the poison. It was also found that, by increasing the amount of meat in the diet, the amount of these toxins could be increased accordingly, and proportionately; the greater the amount of meat consumed, the greater the amount of toxin given off by the animal in its urine, and the more deadly its effects. It was even found that a person living almost exclusively upon a flesh diet increased these toxins to fourfold the normal limit!

Again, it is now well known that in all infectious and contagious diseases there are created within the system certain poisons which play a large part in the disease—they are a factor of immense importance. This being the case, it becomes obvious how important it is to keep out of the system all other and unnecessary poisons—such as might be introduced into the system by foul air, bad water, food containing poisons, etc. Since meat and beef tea contain these poisons in excess, it is certain that they should not only form _no_ part of the diet of invalids, but should be strictly _forbidden_, just as any other poison is.

Metchnikoff has recently pointed out, with great emphasis, the immense influence upon health of intestinal putrefaction. He insists that it shortens life; is one of the chief causes of premature old age and death, and is the cause of many diseases and much misery during life—in all of which he is doubtless quite right. The method of checking this intestinal putrefaction, however, does not appeal to me as other than a palliative measure. Lactic acid is, for him, the great preventive of putrefaction of this type; but is it not obvious that such a treatment is merely one that aims at _results_, rather than at _causes_? one which attempts to patch up existing conditions, instead of trying to find out what gave rise to those conditions, and checking _them_? M. Metchnikoff has apparently failed to realise the fact that there is no need whatever for the human intestine being in any such diseased and disgusting condition as it is generally; that, in certain cases, it may be rendered absolutely sweet and clean—with virtually no putrefaction going on in the bowel at all. In the case of Mr Horace Fletcher, for instance (and in many of his disciples), no such conditions are present or possible. Mr Fletcher, writing in his “New Glutton or Epicure,” says (pp. 144-145):

“One of the most noticeable and significant results of economic nutrition, gained through careful attention to the mouth treatment of food, or buccal-digestion, is not only the small quantity of waste obtained but its inoffensiveness. Under best test conditions the ashes of economic digestion have been reduced to one-tenth of the average given as normal in the best text-books on physiology. The economic digestion ash forms in pillular shape, and, when released, these are massed together, having become so bunched by considerable retention in the rectum. There is no stench, no evidence of putrid bacterial decomposition, only the odour of warmth, like warm earth or ‘hot biscuit.’ Test samples of excreta, kept for more than five years, remain inoffensive, dry up, gradually disintegrate, and are lost.”

To my mind, it has always been so obvious that, if we supplied no food to decompose, there could be no decomposition, that I hardly thought the question was open to debate at all. It would appear to me to be axiomatic that if we only supplied the body with as much food as it really needed, and of the proper quality, there would be virtually no food left to decompose, or to offer pabulum for germs of any character whatever. Certainly this is the case outside the human intestine, and why not in it? One can quite easily see why it should be—why putrefaction should take place, if the amount of food ingested were excessive in quantity, or poisonous in quality; _but not otherwise_. The former of these two questions I have discussed at length in my former volume on fasting; the latter aspect of the problem is the one I propose to discuss in this book.

If we compare the decomposition of various articles of food, we find there is a very great difference (both as to the quality and the quantity) in the various food-stuffs. Under the same conditions, and during the same period of time, the extent of the decomposition, and its character, will be very different, in the two cases. Compare the decomposition of a pear, a peach or a plum, _e.g._, with that of a piece of beef or mutton! Animal tissues and products, when undergoing the process of decay or decomposition are particularly offensive; and this fact is well borne out by a comparative study of the excreta of the various animals. As before pointed out, that of the herbivora and frugivora is comparatively inoffensive, while that of the carnivora is very offensive, and dangerous also. This is particularly the case with man, when he eats meat of any character. His fæces at once assume a characteristic odour and character; and clearly indicate that he has wandered away from his natural diet, and is living upon food altogether foreign and unnatural to him. His tissues also take on the chemical composition of the resulting mass—being coloured and influenced by it. Meat and all animal products easily decomposing, and being in a moist, warm place, where they might easily decompose at once, they assume a most offensive character; and it does not require much imagination to see that the results would be disastrous in a very short time, under such circumstances; and clearly indicate that the individual is living on food unsuited to his needs and his organism.

Even when an animal is perfectly healthy, its tissues begin to decompose as soon as the animal is really dead—as soon as _rigor mortis_ has passed away. Even when meat is kept at a very low temperature, it has been found that it decomposes after the first twenty-four hours; so that the amount of decomposition present in all animals whose carcasses have been hanging up for hours, and even days, in a shop may easily be imagined! In the case of game, the carcasses are frequently green and blue with decomposition, and the chemicals injected into the animal in order to preserve it from such decomposition. For only in this manner can meats be preserved; and it has been proved time and time again that meats are treated and “doctored” with drugs and chemicals of all kinds in order to delay their decomposition. To think that we really eat such stuff, and give it to our children, and even _prescribe_ it for invalids, is too revolting for words! It passes all comprehension! Dr Kellogg, in his excellent little book on this subject, says, when speaking of the deadly effects of the poisons formed within the body:

“Physiologists sometimes, for experimental purposes, separate from its bony attachments one of the muscles of a frog’s leg, and arrange it in such a manner, in connection with a battery and a suitable device, that by a repetition of electric shocks the muscle may be made to contract and lift a small weight. After being thus made to work for a longer or shorter period, the muscle becomes fatigued to such a degree that it no longer contracts in response to the electric stimulus. This is shown to be due to the accumulation of the waste matters, of which mention has been made. If at this point the muscle is washed with a weak saline solution, it at once recovers its ability to work. If now a _fresh_ muscle is thus prepared, and strong beef tea or solution of beef extract applied to it, the muscle at once becomes expanded or unable to contract, the same as if it had been working for a long time, but without having done any work whatever! The reason for this is that the beef tea or beef extract is simply a solution of the same poisons which are developed in the muscles by work, and to the paralysing effect of which its fatigue and inability to contract are due.... By injection of the fluid obtained by compressing a piece of beef steak or so-called beef juice into the veins of a rabbit, it has been proved to be highly deadly in character. The quantity of beef juice required to kill a rabbit of given weight is _less_ than the amount of urine required to produce the same effect.... The juice obtained from the flesh of a dog was twice as poisonous as that obtained from ox flesh; in other words, it required twice as much beef juice to kill an animal of given weight as the juice obtained from the flesh of a dog....”[23]

[23] “Shall We Slay to Eat?” pp. 53-56.

Upon this subject of beef tea, Dr Tibbles says:

“Beef tea, mutton broth, chicken broth, and other meat infusions are useful for sick persons, for they are stimulating and restoring, but they are recognised now chiefly as stimulants to tissue change or to metabolism rather than as foods proper. They do not prevent wasting of the body; indeed, when given alone, _they cause more rapid wasting than no food at all. Dogs fed on beef tea die sooner than when they are not fed at all._”[24]

[24] “Food and Hygiene,” p. 138.

In the U. S. Dept. of Agr. Bulletin, No. 102, “Experiments on Losses in Cooking Meat,” we read:

“Beef which has been used for the preparation of beef tea or broth has lost comparatively little nutritive value, though much of the flavouring material has been removed” (p. 64).

It will thus be seen that beef tea extracts practically nothing from the meat; and that the bulk of the nutriment, such as it is, remains in the meat. This, however, is invariably thrown away! We thus see that neither the beef tea nor the remaining mass of meat is of any use; while both are certainly harmful. So much for beef tea!

It is now a well-known fact that meat-eating is the more or less direct cause of various diseases. Tapeworm is one of these, most easily and directly traceable to meat; and a very serious disease it can become. Beef and pork are two great carriers of the cysts, or tapeworm embryos; and they develop in the intestine, whence it is most difficult to extract them. Fish is another great cause of tapeworm; and no matter how fresh these meats may be, this same danger is run, and can never be completely guarded against. These facts are now so well known that it is unnecessary to quote authority in support of them. The deadly trichina, found mainly in pork, but also in fish, fowls, and in other meats, is the direct cause of trichinosis—a disease so closely resembling cerebro-spinal meningitis that it is impossible to distinguish between the two at first, and without a detailed diagnosis. The history of the infection is said to be somewhat as follows:—rats visit a cemetery, and become infected with trichinæ. After a time, the rat dies of infection. The hog—the universal scavenger—eats it. Man—the greatest of all scavengers—eats the hog, and thus becomes infected in turn! It is not a very pleasant thought, or one calculated to elevate man to a position “a little lower than the angels!”

Tuberculosis is another disease that is very frequently communicated to the human organism from the carcasses of dead cattle. In his “Human and Bovine Tuberculosis,” Dr E. F. Brush contends most strenuously that phthisis is very frequently contracted in this manner, and advances strong evidence in support of his claim. He says (pp. 9-10):

“The total number of cows in the United States for the year 1887 was 14,522,083—that is, one cow to every four and three-fourths (4.7) persons. There exists, according to Lynt, a true parallel between human and bovine phthisis; the curves of double mortality are the same for different districts in the Duchy of Baden. Now this must mean that a larger proportion of the bovine race dies from phthisis than of the human race, because of the difference in the length of life between the races. We have no statistics of this kind in the United States, but Professor R. A. McLean tells me that, where cows are affected by tuberculosis in great numbers, the death rate from phthisis is correspondingly large in the human race in the same districts. This is his observation from his large experience among diseased cattle.”

It would be useless for me to enumerate in full all the numerous diseases that are traceable to meat-eating. That alone would occupy an extensive volume. Typhoid fever has frequently been traced to the eating of oysters. A disease closely related to hog-cholera has been known to be contracted by the human being, as the result of eating pork. Meat-eating is known to be one of the chief and most direct causes of the decay of the teeth—the small fibres of the meat becoming wedged in between them, and, decomposing, cause rapid decay of the teeth. It is probable that this is one of the chief causes of the bad teeth we see about us. Gout and rheumatism are now well known to result from the eating of meat. The reasons for this might perhaps be given. As the result of excessive meat-eating, and eating _too much_ food, the body becomes choked with an excess of mal-assimilated food material, and particularly with uric acid—a product of the meat. The blood, being surfeited with this material, deposits some of it in the vicinity of the joints, and this gives rise to the various symptoms of gout. It is beginning to be realised that this disease, formerly thought to be the direct result of the drinking of wine and other alcoholic beverages, is due to “good old English beef.” Rheumatism is largely due to the same cause. Meat poisoning shows itself in various forms; but the cause is the same. It is now known that meat-eating is the chief cause of Brights disease; and to all unprejudiced minds, it will be obvious that this _must_ be so. The excess of albumen in the system cannot well be due to any other cause: and the mode of cure thus becomes apparent also.

It is certain, to anyone who has studied the facts carefully, that meat-eating predisposes the body to all forms of disease. In pestilences of any character—statistics, so far as they have been kept, conclusively show that the vegetarians escaped the disease, and that the meat-eaters were the chief sufferers. The excess of poisons introduced into the system predispose it to any form of disease to which it may be exposed at the time; the general tone of the system being lowered, owing to the lessened resistance, it becomes a ready prey to any contagious disease which might be prevalent at the time. In further support of this, it has long been known that wounds heal far more rapidly in vegetarian soldiers and in all others who live upon foods of this character, than in those who live largely upon meat. Carnivorous animals are far more subject to blood poisoning than are vegetarian animals. These latter may be very badly wounded, and escape with a scar; but lions and tigers and other carnivorous animals frequently die from blood poisoning, though but slightly wounded. There can be no reason for this, beyond that indicated above. The tissues of the animal’s body are more or less saturated with poison, in the first place; and it required but a small amount in addition, to turn the scale against the animal, and cause its death. It is surely the same, to a great extent, in the case of human beings.

Epilepsy is another disease which has been more or less directly traced to meat-eating. A few years ago, Dr Warner, of the Eastern Illinois Insane Asylum, called attention to the profound influence of flesh dietary upon epileptics. He found that it had a most pernicious influence. By experiment he also ascertained that cats fed upon meat, or allowed to eat the mice they caught, frequently become epileptic.

It has been ascertained, further, that a strictly vegetarian diet is the best possible preparation that can be made for a surgical operation of any kind; and that vegetarians die less frequently, as the result of severe operations, than do meat-eaters. Paget, in his “Lessons on Clinical Surgery,” states that there is a higher death rate from operations in cities than in rural districts; and he considers that this is largely due to the greater amount of meat consumed in the cities.

Of late years much attention has been devoted to the relations of cancer and meat-eating. Several authors have called attention to this fact; Dr Alexander Haig, in his “Uric Acid in the Causation of Disease,” strongly contends that the consumption of flesh is one of the chief causes of cancer, and points out that any irritant to the tissues will invariably be one of the chief factors in the causation of this disease. As he showed that meat-eating created much uric acid in the system, and that this uric acid acts as an irritant upon the tissues, it is obvious that the consumption of flesh-foods is one of the chief causes of this dreaded disease. Lately, the Hon. Rollo Russell, in his book, “The Reduction of Cancer,” has defended this view very strongly, and has gathered together a great deal of evidence bearing upon this problem—showing that there is a definite connection between the amount of flesh consumed and the number of cases of cancer, in any one locality. He has also advanced strong reasons for supposing that the one is directly _caused_ by the other. As a result of comparing the food habits and the mortality tables of a large number of countries and districts, it was found to be the invariable rule that when, in any locality, meat-eating was excessive, the cancer rate was high; and where meat-eating was small, it fell to a comparatively low figure. A number of other authorities could be quoted in this connection. Thus Dr Lambe remarks:

“The effects of animal food, and other noxious matter, in inducing and accelerating fatal disease, are not immediate, but ultimate effects. The immediate effect is to engender a diseased habit or state of constitution; not enough to impede the ordinary occupations of life, but, in many, to render life itself a long-continued sickness; and to make the great mass of society morbidly susceptible to many passing impressions which would have no injurious influence on healthy systems.”

Drs Clarke, Buchan, Abernethy, Sir Edward Berry, Drs Sigmond, Copland, Alphonus Lercy, Graham, Wardell, Trall, and many other of the older writers were of the same opinion; and a number of recent authorities have taken the same stand. It is beginning to be realised that meat-eating is one of the most potent of all the causes of deadly and fatal diseases of many kinds—all more or less directly traceable to it. But, in addition to these varied diseases, there are induced states of the body which must rightly be looked upon as diseased—though they are not actual diseases, in the sense generally understood by that term. Meat-eating is, however, one of the most potent of all factors in inducing that state of the body known as “predisposition” to disease—and in deadening and lowering the vitality, and in enfeebling the senses. I shall now proceed to adduce evidence in support of these various statements, and show that the effects of meat-eating are far more insidious and widespread than is generally believed; and that the effects of this practice, even among the supposedly healthy, are indeed baneful and disease-engendering.

In the first place it must be pointed out and insisted upon that meat is a highly _stimulating_ article of food, and for that reason, innutritious. Stimulation and nutrition invariably exist in inverse ratio—the more the one the less the other, and _vice versa_. The very fact, then, that meat is a stimulant, as it is now universally conceded to be, shows us that it is more or less an innutritious article of diet, and that the supposed “strength” we receive from the meat is due entirely to the stimulating effects upon the system of the various poisons, or toxic substances, introduced into the system, together with the meat. It is for this reason that those who leave off meat, and become vegetarians, experience a feeling of lassitude and weakness, for the first few days—they lack the stimulation formerly supplied, and now notice the reaction which invariably follows such stimulation. This feeling of weakness, or “all-goneness,” is therefore to be expected, and is in no wise a proof that the diet is weakening the patient. Let him persist in his reformed manner of living for some time, and he will find that this reaction wears off, and that a general and continued feeling of energy and well-being follow.

It is commonly supposed that only by eating large quantities of animal foods can the bodily heat be maintained in cold climates. Such is by no means the case. Although the Esquimaux, and the inhabitants of Greenland and Iceland, do subsist almost entirely upon fats and animal substances, many of the peasants of Northern Russia and other parts of the globe, eat very little meat—for the reason that they cannot secure it. Dr Graham, in his “Lectures,” went so far as to say that: “All other things being precisely equal, the man who is fully accustomed to a pure vegetable diet, can endure severer cold, or bear the same degree of cold much longer than the man who is fully accustomed to a flesh diet.” The truth probably is, as Dr Trall pointed out, that, “the ordinary farinaceous foods and fruits contain all the carbon and hydrogen requisite to sustain the animal heat in all climates, and under all circumstances of temperature; and if ever surplus carbon or hydrogen is taken into the system, it is, of course, thrown off; and when a large amount of surplus carbon and hydrogen is taken, the labour of expelling it is attended with a feverish excitement—which, instead of warming the body permanently, only wastes its energies, and renders it colder in the end.” The body is, in other words, continually in a more or less feverish condition.

In discussing this question in my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition” (Book III., ch. 4, “Bodily Heat”) I said:

“There can be no doubt that the oxidation of the tissues throughout the system, and the combination of the oxygen with the carbon are sources of animal heat, in common with all the organic functions and chemical changes which take place in the body. All the conditions requisite for the due regulation of the animal temperature are: good digestion, free respiration, vigorous circulation, proper assimilation, and perfect depuration; in two words—_good health_.”

It is thought by many that “stamina” can only be maintained upon a diet derived largely from flesh, but this is not at all the case. In the chapter on the experience of nations and individuals, I shall adduce a considerable quantity of evidence tending to show that a _greater_ amount of endurance can be secured upon a vegetarian than upon a mixed diet! But many persons do not mean by the word “stamina,” endurance alone. It is often difficult to get a definition of this word, as it varies with individual conceptions. If, however, by “stamina,” is meant stoutness of person, and fullness of blood, such “stamina” constitutes the very food of disease, and the person in such a state is not only more liable to febrile and epidemic attacks, but is also in much greater danger while labouring under them, than one whose development is such as to allow all the secretary functions to be performed with ease, and whose blood is not so charged with either natural or extraneous elements. How frequently do we hear of those who are said to be looking well and healthy being suddenly cut off by apoplexy, or some malignant disorder! The fact is, we are deceived by appearances, by what we erroneously consider the indications of health; for those whom we are taught to regard as healthy and robust are generally the farthest from safety, and only need a slight exciting cause to bring on a fatal disease. It is not the apparent disease which is the real cause of death, but men die because the body is worn out; the tone of the fibres is destroyed, and the principle of motion fails. The obvious disease is the mask under which the condition is concealed.

I have referred before to the protection against epidemics afforded by a strictly hygienic life, and particularly by the vegetarian diet. There is an abundance of testimony on this point to which it is impossible to more than refer. Bush, in his “Works,” vol. iv., p. 55, observed that the negroes of the West India Islands, were at that time almost wholly exempt from yellow fever, which cut off the resident upper classes in large numbers. Mr Hardy, a noted Scotch philanthropist, escaped the yellow fever in New York, he asserts, by his course of living; while Mr Whitlaw, of New Orleans, Dr Rush, of Philadelphia, and Dr Copeland, also assert that they escaped yellow fever by abstinence. The poet Shelley, in his “Vindication of Natural Diet,” p. 18, says:

“There is no disease, bodily or mental, which adoption of vegetable diet and pure water has not infallibly mitigated, wherever the experiment has been fairly tried. Debility is gradually converted into strength, disease into healthfulness; madness, in all its hideous variety, from the ravings of the fettered maniac, to the uncontrollable irrationalities of ill-temper, that makes a hell of domestic life, into a calm and considerable evenness of temper—that alone might offer a certain pledge of the future moral reformation of Society. On a natural system of diet, old age would be our last and our only malady: the term of our existence would be protracted; we should enjoy life, and no longer preclude others from enjoyment of it. All sensational delights would be infinitely exquisite and perfect; the very sense of being would then be a continued pleasure, such as we now feel in some few and favoured moments of our youth. By all that is sacred in our hopes for the human race I conjure those who love happiness and truth to give a fair trial to the vegetable system. Reasoning is surely superfluous on a subject whose merits and experience of six months would set for ever at rest. But it is only among the enlightened and benevolent that so great a sacrifice of appetite and prejudice can be expected—even though its ultimate excellence would not admit of dispute.”

Another argument in favour of the vegetarian dietary, as against meat-eating, is found in the fact that such a diet is conducive to symmetry and normal development of the human frame. We shall see (p. 142) how the abdomens of the pigmies were greatly reduced, as a result of abandoning their exclusive flesh diet. Many men are said to have reduced their weight from ten to one hundred and fifty pounds by an abstemious, non-flesh diet. The body also assumes a more symmetrical form, and the skin and complexion a ruddier and more healthful glow. It must be admitted, however, that the flesh of meat is not, of itself, a fat-forming food; and many persons are put upon a diet of minced beef and hot water, in order to reduce their weight. This they do, generally, however, at the expense of the general bodily health. In the Banting cure, and the various cures which are followed in America and in England, the weight is reduced, but with doubtful benefit to the patient. The large amount of beef creates an excess of acid within the system, which has a tendency to eat away the fatty tissues; and it is in this manner that they are destroyed. The excess of acid which is thus manufactured, however, remains in the system, and is the chief cause of resulting diseases of various kinds.

In addition to all these arguments, it can be shown that a vegetarian diet improves and renders more acute the various senses. Sight and smell, taste and hearing—all are influenced—in some cases more than in others. Frequently patients are enabled to see distances or to smell odours, after living on this diet for some weeks, which they have never been able to do before. The appetite no longer craves the highly-seasoned and stimulating articles of food formerly desired, but is content with the simpler foods. The general acuteness and sense of well-being will more than compensate for any feeling of deprivation that may at first follow the abolition of meat from the diet. There can be no question that the food exerts a tremendous influence over the mental, moral, and emotional life. Says Dr Haig[25]:

[25] “Life and Food,” pp. 8-9.

“I believe that as the result of a rational, natural and proper diet, producing the best circulation in the great power-house of the human body, we shall get not only freedom from gross disease, but that we shall get, developing gradually, conditions of mind, thought, judgment, and morality, which will, in the future be as different from what they have been in a diseased and degraded past as the light of Heaven is different from the darkness of the dungeon; and that while there are to-day many things in human nature which all believers in the great, and good, and true, can only most heartily deplore, I believe that in the future there will be more harmony, more strength, more beauty, more unselfishness, more love—in a word, a truer and greater and more complete _sanity_.”

It can be shown, further, that the length of individual life as well as its usefulness and freedom from disease, are dependent largely upon the character of the diet. Longevity, properly so-called, is not a prolongation of the period of decrepitude and helplessness, as some imagine; but an extension of that period of life when men can fully appreciate the blessings of existence. It has been proved that any animal should live, roughly speaking, five times as long as it takes to mature. The dog matures at two, and lives, on an average, until it is ten; and so on, throughout the animal world. Man, who matures at (say) twenty, should live to be at least one hundred, and probably more, without showing any of the signs of decrepitude and imbecility which at present frequently accompany old age. As a matter of fact, we find that the average length of life is a fraction over forty-two years; and, in addition to this, these forty-two years are filled with diverse diseases and miseries, which should at no time afflict the individual. _Something_, therefore, is wrong, producing this result. In some way we are consciously or unconsciously perverting the laws of Nature. Now, in no way do we so flagrantly and so continually pervert her laws as in this question of food; and we can for this reason account both for the sicknesses which occur—these being engendered by depraved conditions of the body—and for the shortening of life, which we perceive about us on every hand. Philosophically, as well as practically, this should be so. As Dr Graham pointed out years ago: “A life cannot be both _in_tensive and _ex_tensive.” And the more it approaches the one, the less can it approach the other. Anything which tends to rapid living—or, what is perhaps the same thing, rapid bodily consumption or combustion—will consequently tend to shorten life. All stimulants would, of course, produce this effect; and, as meat is a highly stimulating article of food, it will be seen that its consumption, if long continued, will ultimately tend to devitalise and wear out the body—for the reason that it hastens the vital wear and tear, and consequently shortens life. This is, further, in agreement with the fact that “the heart of the habitual meat-eater beats from 72 to 80 beats a minute, while that of the person living on a pure diet of fruits, nuts, etc., will beat ten times less per minute. Fifteen hundred extra heart strokes every twenty-four hours makes a very appreciable strain upon the vital forces.”[26]

[26] “Food Value of Meat,” p. 45. By W. R. C. Latson, M.D.

These conclusions are further borne out by the fact that the average standard of longevity is higher among those peoples and nations who subsist largely upon a vegetarian diet, than among the meat-eating races.

There is an additional argument against meat-eating which might be mentioned in this place. It is this: That meat, being a highly stimulating article of diet, has a tendency to make us eat _too much_, both of meat, and of other foods, which are before us at the time. When the meal consists largely of simple, non-stimulating food-stuffs, it will be found that this tendency is absent, and there will be no temptation to overeat, or eat to excess, as is the case when meat is largely indulged in. _Less_ food, and not more, will be eaten—which corresponds with the argument drawn from physiology and chemistry—which shows us that we can abstract the same amount of nutriment from less food of another character. Instead of eating more food, when we adopt a vegetarian diet, therefore, we should eat less! And, as a matter of fact, most vegetarians _do_ eat less than meat-eaters. Thus, Mr Henry Salt, in his “Logic of Vegetarianism,” p. 63, says:

“If the chemist were a man of action, and not merely a man of study, the practical aspects of this question might, at the outset, give him pause. Had he known vegetarians, lived among vegetarians, and talked with vegetarians, instead of regarding them theoretically, he would have been aware that the average vegetarian eats decidedly _less_ in bulk than the average flesh-eater.”

This agrees with our argument advanced elsewhere—that meat is not as nutritious as other articles of food; and, further, when we come to consider the question of a fruitarian diet, we shall find that cooking also destroys a large amount of the vital properties of food, and that less raw food may be eaten than cooked food. For further discussion on this point, I would refer the reader to the chapter on the quantity of food necessary to sustain life.

The question of the influence of the diet upon the mental, emotional and moral life should, perhaps, be insisted upon a little more fully. Many of the older writers have insisted on this fact very strongly, and furnished numerous examples and illustrations of the effects of the diet upon this side of man—either for better or worse. Judge Woodruff, writing on this subject, says:

“On my return to Smyrna, I stopped at Syra.... I there became acquainted with Dr Korke, an eminent teacher from Switzerland. He had charge of the principal school at Syra, containing from two hundred to three hundred pupils.... I can truly say that these Greek children manifested a capacity for learning which exceeded anything I had ever before or have since witnessed. Dr Korke attributed this extraordinary ability in his pupils, mainly to their habits of living, which were exceedingly simple. Coarse, unbolted wheat-meal bread, with figs, raisins, pomegranates, olives, and other fruit, with water, constituted their diet. Figs and other fruit composed a large portion of their food; but I am confident they did not consume an ounce of flesh meat in a month.”

It is generally conceded that the eating of large quantities of meat tends to make the consumer pugnacious and animal-like in nature. This has been insisted upon over and over again, and innumerable cases could be adduced in support of this contention, if necessary. The Tartars, who live principally on animal food, possess a degree of ferocity of mind and fierceness of character which form the leading feature of all carnivorous animals. On the other hand a vegetable diet gives to the disposition, as in the Brahmin, a mildness of feeling directly the reverse of the former. To many, it would appear that, if a choice had to be made, it would be better to resemble the former class than the latter—since the one conquers and controls and the other is conquered and controlled. This is not invariably the case, however. The pigmies of Africa, and the Esquimaux do not possess this fierce disposition, but are frequently cowardly, and easily overruled by other European nations. It would appear, therefore, that dietetic considerations cannot settle this question—which is too largely a matter of philosophy, on the one hand, and of personal idiosyncrasy, on the other, to allow of any definite conclusions being drawn therefrom. If we desire to arrive at definite results, we must experiment upon different individuals of the _same_ race; and then, by observing the _same_ individuals, while upon a meat diet, and while upon a vegetarian diet, some definite results might be obtained.

There are two consequences of meat-eating which should be noted, in this place, however—the influence upon the passional nature, and the influence upon the desire for alcohol. Meat, being a stimulant, excites the bodily functions unduly—stimulating and irritating them in an unnatural manner, and exciting the individual to acts which he would not think of performing, were his body less stimulated and more under control. This is not saying that a vegetarian diet destroys or lowers the sexual powers, or the tone of the animal nature—far from it. But it does not keep the sexual organs in a more or less constant state of irritation, as is the case upon a meat diet. The potential energy is there; but the desire to expend it so frequently is not noted. Here is, at all events, a very important factor in civilisation—how important, few realise (see Sanger’s “History of Prostitution”). At all events this is one very strong argument in favour of the vegetarian diet, and should by no means be overlooked.

The relation between meat-eating and the consumption of alcohol is now becoming widely known and recognised. No sooner does the amount of meat consumed, _per capita_, rise, than the quantity of alcohol consumed rises also. The two—meat-eating and alcohol-drinking—invariably go hand in hand; and the reason is obvious. Meat is a highly-stimulating article of food. All stimulants call, after a time, either for an increase in the amount of the stimulus, or for a stimulant of another character—in order to produce the desired result. Now, of all solid foods, there is no stimulant which is more powerful than meat; and for that reason liquid stimulant is sought. One stimulant craves another. And another reason for the invariable accompaniment of the two is this. It would be practically impossible to create a desire for alcoholic beverages while eating fruits, nuts and vegetables. They do not call for alcohol, and there would be no desire for it manifested. In every way we see, therefore, that drunkenness would be largely abolished by the simple introduction of vegetarianism as a diet—and this has been confirmed by the fact that in certain sanatoriums, where the vegetarian diet has been introduced as a cure for inebriety, it has been found to work to perfection; and the patients, while on this diet—and although allowed all the alcohol they craved at first—soon ceased to want it, and the craving left them after a few days—never to return, so long as they maintained their reformed habits of living.[27]

[27] See, in this connection, H. P. Fowler: “Vegetarianism, the
Radical Cure for Intemperance”; Dr Jackson’s “How to Cure Drunkards,”
etc.

In conclusion, I wish to call special attention to the very great effects of a properly regulated vegetarian dietary upon the body (1) when diseased; and (2) to its power to _prevent_ such diseased states. In any form of chronic or acute disease—no matter what its nature may be—only good will follow the adoption of a vegetarian regimen; and the more closely this is followed, and the more sparing and abstemious the diet—the sooner will the patient mend and get well. And if the vegetarian diet be adopted when the patient _is_ well, and conscientiously followed, there can be no question whatever that he will _stay_ well—provided he does not eat _too much_, and that he pays reasonable attention to the general laws of health. The preventive influence of the diet is very profound and far-reaching.

But now, it may be asked, if all this be true; if these diverse and grievous diseases that afflict man result from the eating of meat; how comes it about that it is such a universal article of diet? How is it that everyone believes in its value so thoroughly? The answer to this is simple. The majority simply follow where custom leads, without further thought, and without stopping to inquire into the _reasons_ for the course of life they daily pursue. But the scientists, and the physiologists? They surely ought to know better! They ought, indeed; but they do not seem to! It would really appear as though this whole doctrine of meat-eating could be traced back to the old and fallacious dogma that we have canine teeth in our heads! _They_ have been the source and the cause of all the trouble! But, as Dr Trall said years ago, in writing of this very question:

“Sometimes, when I think how perfectly ridiculous as well as sad this carnivorous tooth blunder is, on the part of doctors of learning and unlearned people, I am reminded of that very beautiful experiment of a dog running after his own tail. Take a dog, give his head a sudden twist round towards his tail, at the same time holding his tail in the line of his mouth, and say ‘catch it,’ and the poor, deluded dog will run round and round with all his might, till he falls down dizzy and exhausted, all the while fancying himself going the straightest possible road in pursuit of his tail. And after he has rested a little, and recovered a little breath, he will up and at it again.

“It is very much so with our flesh-eaters. The doctors have given their heads a roundabout twist; told them they had carnivorous teeth; set them agoing; pointed to the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea, and said ‘catch them.’ And the whole world has gone to hunting and fishing and fattening and butchering and salting and pickling, and smoking and broiling, and frying and eating, until they have become filled with morbid humours, scrofula, cancer, erysipelas, gout, rheumatism, biliousness and putrid fevers; then they have rested a while, lived on vegetable food until they have measurably recovered, and then resumed their carnivorous raid in the animal kingdom!

“And sickness has not taught them the lesson it ought to have done. Instead of regarding their maladies as the necessary consequences of their eating habits, they have looked upon them as the arbitrary inflictions of chance, or of a mysterious Providence. Even when, in the middle ages, the great pestilences prevailed over Europe, at a period of the world’s history when for three hundred years the people literally rioted and revelled in the abundance of flesh blood and alcoholic beverages; and when, during those three centuries, the terrible plague—the ‘Black Death’ and the ‘Great Mortality,’ as it was then called—desolated London, Paris, and other great cities—sweeping off one hundred millions of the earth’s inhabitants—the medical profession, and the people with them, wholly mistook the lesson it taught.

“And so it is now. People eat all manner of animal products, with their morbid humours, foul secretions, diseases, impurities and corruptions; and when their bodies become so obstructed and befouled that they retch, and vomit, and spit, and expectorate, and go into fever and inflammation, and gripes and spasms, they wonder what the matter is! And then they send for the family physician, and he wonders also. Why, the only wonder is that they are not all matter!”

Throughout the whole of the above argument, I have assumed that the meat eaten is from _healthy_ animals, and have assumed that no diseased meat finds its way upon the table of the average meat-eater—an assumption which is certainly not warranted by facts. I wished, however, to give my adversaries every advantage in this discussion, and for that reason have assumed throughout that the meat was obtained from healthy animals, and was not adulterated before coming to the table. As a matter of fact, however, neither of these two conditions are invariably fulfilled. We might say that the second condition is very rarely fulfilled. It is generally known that meat is inoculated with chemicals of all kinds before it is placed upon the market, and for that reason it is enabled to be shipped from place to place, and to hang in the butcher’s shop by the hour without being kept upon ice—for how, otherwise, could this be? We know that meat decomposes very rapidly—especially in moist or warm weather—but it is apparently enabled to hang, nevertheless, for hours at a time in the butcher’s shop! If chemicals of various kinds were not injected into the meat, this would be impossible. Most graphically does Upton Sinclair describe this process of “pickling” in his book, “The Jungle,” where he says:

“Jonas has told them how the meat that was taken out of pickle would often be found sour, and how they would rub it up with soda to take away the smell, and sell it to be eaten on free lunch counters; also of all the miracles of chemistry which they performed, giving to any sort of meat, fresh or salted, whole or chopped, any colour and any flavour which they chose. In the pickling of hams they had an ingenious apparatus, by which they saved time, and increased the capacity of the plant—a machine consisting of a hollow needle attached to a pump; by plunging this needle into the meat and working with his foot, a man could fill a ham with pickle m a few seconds. And yet, in spite of this, there would be found ham spoiled, some of them with an odour so bad that a man could hardly bear to be in the room with them. To pump into these the packers had a second and much stronger pickle which destroyed the odour—a process known to the workers as ‘giving them thirty per cent.’ Also, after the hams had been smoked, there would be found some that had gone to the bad. Formerly these had been sold as ‘Number Three Grade,’ but later on, some ingenious person had hit upon a new device, and now they would extract the bone, about which the bad part generally lay, and insert in the hole a white-hot iron. After this invention there was no longer Number One, Number Two, and Number Three Grade—there was only Number One Grade! The packers were always originating such schemes. They had what they called ‘boneless hams,’ which were all the odds and ends of pork stuffed into casings; and ‘California Hams,’ which were the shoulders, with great knuckle joints, and nearly all the meat cut out; and fancy ‘skinned hams,’ which were made of the oldest hogs, whose skins were so heavy and coarse that no one would buy them—that is, until they had been cooked, and chopped fine and labelled ‘head cheese’!”

This question of _diseased meat_ is, therefore, one which deserves our close attention, largely because it has been treated so ineffectually in the past, in other books dealing with this subject. The defect has been due to the fact that, until recently, no definite _facts_ have been available; and, although everyone knew in a general way that much of the meat said to be “inspected” and found free from disease was, as a matter of fact, unfit for human food, there were no data to which the vegetarian could point, and say: “Here are facts and figures incontrovertible! What have you to say in defence now?”

Lately, however, several such exposures have been published. It would be well for us to summarise the facts; and I cannot do better, in this connection, than to turn to Dr Albert Leffingwell’s book, “American Meat.” (I would refer all those interested to its fascinating pages.) A very brief summary must suffice. This will be enough, however, for our purpose:

“During the period of 1901-1906 inclusive, over 660,000 _post-mortem_ inspections were made of animals, which before slaughter had been rejected in the stock yards as apparently diseased. Of these, only 85,000—_less than one in eight_—were finally condemned as wholly unfit for food purposes.... What is it that the United States inspector is required by his regulation to condemn as unfit for human food? The carcasses of animals which he might find affected by cancer or malignant tumours? No. He is directed to condemn _the tumour_, the part of the carcass which was affected, the organ which was infiltrated by disease! The remainder of the carcass—what becomes of that? Is there anything which prevents it from being turned into the food supply of the poorer classes? There is sometimes a silence which accords assent.... Suppose the entire liver of a hog to be a mass of cancerous disease; what is there in these regulations of the Department of Agriculture to prevent transmuting the muscular tissues and unaffected organs into various food delicacies or food products, which in due time should find their way to the tables of rich and poor in England and America? Not a word!...

“The United States Department of Agriculture advances yet another step, and, under certain circumstances, _requires_ the inspector’s approval of the flesh of tuberculous animals as fit food for human beings:

”_Rule C._—The carcass, if tuberculous lesions are limited to a single or several parts or organs of the body (except as noted in Rule A) without evidence of recent invasion of tubercle bacilli into the systemic circulation, SHALL BE PASSED, after the parts containing the localised lesions are removed and condemned.”

The following table affords matter of interest:—

_Number of Carcasses (Approximately) found on inspection to be affected with tuberculosis, of which “parts” were condemned, and the remainder passed as wholesome food._[28]

YEAR CATTLE HOGS
1900 85 1,061
1901 256 44
1902 152 4,700
1903 250 52,006
1904 703 118,820
1905 647 142,105
1906 1,114 113,491
1907 10,530 364,559
1908 27,467 628,462
—————— ————-———
Total 41,204 1,425,248

[28] Abstract from the Annual Report of the Bureau of Animal Industry.

The significance of these figures should not escape the reader. Here is the proof, based upon official statistics, of the utilisation for food purposes of animals suffering from tuberculous disease!