p. 20 | Should Food Taste Good? by L. A. H.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Nov 5, 1914

Should Food Taste Good?

By L. A. H.

THAT the good taste of food is for our enjoyment is seen in the great variety of good-tasting things that is given us by “God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy.” Many articles of real food value, containing practically no nourishment, are quite essential to the rational bill of fare because of their flavor or because they serve as relishes.

It is said that when young Walter Scott one day expressed his enjoyment of his soup, his father at once mixed with it a pint of water to take the devil out of it. Many others have in one way or another robbed food of its good flavor and taken away the enjoyment of eating it. The enjoyment of a good meal is not wicked indulgence.

Ex-President Eliot of Harvard is quoted as saying: “Sensuous pleasures, like eating and drinking, are sometimes described as animal, and therefore unworthy; but men are animals, and have a right to enjoy without reproach those pleasures of animal existence which maintain health, strength, and life itself.”

The true health reformer will not mistake such a position as one of immoderation or hurtful indulgence. He will agree, however, that the laws of health demand that we get as much rightful pleasure as possible from our meals.

Importance of Palatability

The importance of palatability has been greatly overlooked or ignored. When viewed in its true place as an aid to digestion, nourishment, and resultant health, it becomes an essential hardly second to any dietetic requirement. Careful investigation has demonstrated that food eaten with enjoyment is much more readily digested than food which is not relished, even though the latter be composed of elements naturally more digestible.

Professor Pawlow, of Petrograd, demonstrated by unmistakable evidence that the mere presence of food in the stomach is not sufficient to cause a flow of gastric juice, but that appetite, or desire for food, causes an abundant flow of it. Food eaten without enjoyment may lie like lead in the stomach, doing more harm than good.

On the other hand, a person may have a jaded appetite stimulated by the pleasant flavor of food. Who has not known a “coming appetite” brought on by relishing the food eaten? A poor appetite is a symptom to be treated, and the best remedy is palatable food.

Luther Burbank suggests that if we eliminate palatability from food, it is no more than a medicine, to be taken because it produces certain necessary results. We know how averse most persons are to taking medicine. The same aversion to some foods has been shown by persons, particularly young persons, who have been taught that certain things were good for them, even though they were not good.

What is termed “appetite juice” is one of the most important of all the digestive elements, and has much to do with the health. The man who eats in a mechanical manner, taking no notice of his food, is wanting in this important factor, and is preparing the way for disease. His cure will not come without a reform on this point.

It is not generally known that much of the pleasure of eating comes through the sense of smell. Sweet, sour, salt, and bitter are alone confined to the sense of taste. Hence the importance of flavor and aroma in their relation to the enjoyment of food.

Palatability of food means more than flavoring; hence the mere addition of flavorings does not meet the demands of a true dietary. A careful use of the many flavorings available will be helpful, but the skillful cook will do much more in utilizing and developing the varied and delicate flavors found in different food elements.

Variety is essential to the enjoyment of food. A monotonous diet palls on the appetite, fails to stimulate the digestive organs, and causes dyspepsia and other ills. Within bounds that are quite wide, variety can be secured at no additional cost over a restriction of food materials.

At a conference on diet in schools, held in London, all the speakers agreed that “monotony is the most fatal thing to digestion in both young and old, and that the knowledge that such and such a dish must inevitably come on Monday, and such and such another on Tuesday, is destructive beforehand to appetite, which is essential to good digestion and nutrition.”

Work of Cooks

Persons interested as we are in healthful living can appreciate this question of palatability of food. We recognize at once that those who do the cooking are the ones who carry the greatest responsibility in dietary matters.

Lecturers may talk all they please, and writers may say what they will, but the best argument for wholesome eating lies in the proper preparation of the food. The better the vegetables are cooked, the less need will there be of talking against meat.

Food is cooked to sterilize it, make it more nutritious and more easily digested, and to make it palatable. The last-named purpose of cooking is not the least in importance.

It may be of interest to note how much this matter of palatability is mentioned in connection with the wholesome preparation of food, in the instruction that has come to us in the “Testimonies for the Church.” Only a few of the many statements can be given here. One of the first statements is this:—

“Learn how to cook with simplicity, and yet in a manner to secure the most palatable and healthful food. . . .”

“Some . . . persons call themselves health reformers, but they are not. They do not know how to cook. They prepare cakes, potatoes, and Graham bread, but there is the same round, with scarcely a variation, and the system is not strengthened. They seem to think the time wasted which is devoted to obtaining a thorough experience in the preparation of healthful, palatable food. Some act as though that which they eat were lost, and anything they could toss into the stomach to fill it, would do as

well as food prepared with so much painstaking.”

Then comes this statement, the importance of which deserves more attention, perhaps, than we have given it: “It is important that we relish the food we eat.” Note what follows: “If we cannot do this, but eat mechanically, we fail to be nourished and built up as we would be if we could enjoy the food we take into the stomach.”—Volume I, pages 681, 682.

“Food is prepared without painstaking, and there is continual sameness. There should not be many kinds at one meal, but all meals should not be composed of the same kinds of food without variation. Food should be prepared with simplicity, yet with a nicety which will invite the appetite.”—Id., Vol. II, page 63.

“Old and young should learn how to cook more simply. Wherever the truth is presented, the people are to be taught how to prepare food in a simple, yet appetizing way. . . .

“Some of our people, while conscientiously abstaining from eating improper foods, neglect to supply themselves with the elements necessary for the sustenance of the body. Those who take an extreme view of health reform are in danger of preparing tasteless dishes, making them so insipid that they are not satisfying. Food should be prepared in such a way that it will be appetizing as well as nourishing. . . .

“Let us never bear a testimony against health reform by failing to use wholesome, palatable food in place of the harmful articles of diet that we have discarded.”—Id., Vol. IX, pages 161-163.

Much more could be presented to show that health reform does not mean deprivation of that which is really good, robbing us of the enjoyments of eating, but that true health reform will be marked by a palatability of food that appeals to the natural senses and to common sense. L. A. H.