Untitled article by John Norton Loughborough

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, March 24, 1868

FromReview and Herald, Vol. XXXI, No. 15

TEA AND COFFEE.

By John Norton Loughborough

In the Farmers’ Agricultural Club, New York, Dec. 10, 1867, Dr. Snodgrass, an eminent physician of New York, made the following spicy remark: “Next to alcohol, the medical profession is more indebted to the use of coffee and tea for the means by which they live, than to any other substance which lays the foundation for disease.”

In the session of “the Club,” reported in the Tribune Jan. 1st, we have the following debate called forth by the above statement:

Tea and Coffee.—THOS. SHANNON, Lavonia, Steuben Co., N. Y.: Dr. Snodgrass tries to make us believe that tea and coffee are the great head centers of disease; but this is backed by mere assertion. Good tea and coffee, when properly used, are not only wholesome, but actually nutritious.

DR. SNODGRASS.—I now repeat, that more than thirty years’ observation both South and North, as a physician, has convinced me that tea and coffee, and particularly the latter, are the cause of a number of chronic diseases. Tea is not so injurious as coffee, because its effect is evanescent, and more particularly on the nervous system; whereas coffee directly congests the liver, and obstructs what is known as the portal system, followed by piles, rheumatism, neuralgias, and erysipelas, to say nothing of the common forms of dyspepsia. In the open country, or on the ocean, working people do not suffer so much from these narcotics as in cities. For a man in the nineteenth century to say that coffee and tea are healthful, is simply ridiculous.

MR. LAWTON.—I believe in the use of both tea and coffee, and I think that alcohol is beneficial, if not profitable, under certain circumstances.

A STRANGER.—I am 72 years old, have used tea and coffee all my life, yet I do not know what disease is.

DR. JARVIS.—These gentlemen argue that because they have lived so many years enjoying good health, with the use of tea and coffee, therefore the drinks are not injurious. How long will their children last? The whole Anglo-Saxon race and all other races will go to destruction by the promulgation of such a doctrine. The health which these persons boast of is far short of what it ought to be. We have but few healthy people in this country. No man is in perfect health who has tartar on his teeth, and there is hardly a man to be found free from it, especially among those who drink hot drinks. Wild animals, on the other hand, are never troubled with it. I do not say that tea and coffee of themselves produce disease so much as the hot water, for when it is heated it loses its invigorating powers.

DR. HALLOCK.—One word on this question. Nature makes provision for the most useful things. Universality of an article is a hint that it has a use in the human system. One should examine himself, and if he finds what he uses is injurious, then he should abandon it. What is good for others will not agree with me. I cannot bear the bitter of the hop—it is detestable. I would not give it to a hog. But shall I set myself up to say that it is injurious to others? We do not know what is best.

DR. JARVIS.—According to the gentleman’s argument of universality, we might with equal propriety say that the more who are going to hell—going in the broad road—the better it is for us. I can tell which of my patients lose their teeth by the use of coffee, which by the use of tea, and which by alcohol. Notwithstanding our boasting, we fall victims to our folly. Families of good habits will hold out for a few generations, but in the end are exterminated.

These are facts worthy of consideration, and we are glad to see them introduced in as public and conspicuous a place as the Farmer’s Agricultural Club.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.