p. 253 | More Objections to Flesh Foods by A. B. Olsen

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Tacoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 13, 1913

More Objections to Flesh Foods

By A. B. Olsen

A. B. OLSEN, M. D., D. P. H.

THE great prevalence of disease among domestic animals used for food, and the grave dangers associated with the consumption of diseased flesh, ought to be sufficient reason to condemn flesh-eating. Furthermore, the fact that flesh foods obtained from a butcher's or meat shop are always in a varying state of decomposition and putrefaction, and consequently contain toxic substances more or less harmful to health, and are liable to cause serious or even fatal ptomain poisoning, is another sufficient reason for abstaining from their use. Who, we ask, can contemplate with anything like complacency or satisfaction the consumption of decayed food? Decomposed food literally means poisonous food. The fact that in most cases the poisons are not sufficiently numerous and abundant to produce grave or vital effects is no proper answer to this question. The same is true of many alcoholic beverages, and yet the majority of our readers would agree heartily to the principle of total abstinence. But there are still other equally sound and sufficient reasons why the flesh of dead animals does not furnish either a safe or a wholesome diet for man, and consequently should be avoided wherever possible.

Cancer

It is a mistake to think that parasitic and microbic diseases alone are associated with or caused by flesh-eating. We know that there are numerous other maladies that are more or less directly connected with meat-eating. Take cancer for instance. Here we have one of the most terrible scourges of civilized lands, a disease which is second in importance only to tuberculosis. Unlike tuberculosis, which we are happy to say is now slowly diminishing its dire ravages (although according to Metchnikoff it still claims one life in seven out of the total mortality of European lands), cancer is increasing each year by leaps and bounds.

At the present time we have good reason to believe that after the age of thirty-five, one out of twelve men is destined to die of cancer, and one out of eight women meet the same fate. In England and Wales alone there are no less than fifty thousand persons continually suffering the awful distress and misery associated with this fatal and all but hopeless malady. In his book “Preventable Cancer” Mr. Rollo Russell shows that the increase of cancer is clearly associated with the increasing consumption of flesh foods. He says: “It has been observed by Rayer, Leblanc, and others that carnivorous animals are more prone to cancer, caeteris paribus, than herb- or grain-eating animals.”

We need not hesitate to accept the following conclusion which we also quote from the same author: “In a general way it may be stated that all nations or races habitually using fresh and cool non-toxic foods and drinks are little affected by cancer.”

The medical registrar of England has pointed out in one of his animal reports that cancer is most prevalent in those parts of England where flesh foods are most freely consumed. Lack of space only forbids our quoting much more evidence to show the intimate relation that exists between flesh-eating and cancer. Although I am not prepared to say that the consumption of animal flesh is the only and sole cause of cancer, still I do believe that it is one of the most important factors in the causation of this deadly disease.

Appendicitis

Few people have failed to realize the increasing prevalence of appendicitis, emphatically a disease of civilized lands, where the use of flesh is all but universal. Some twenty years ago or thereabouts it was thought by some that appendicitis was caused by the introduction of foreign bodies into the alimentary tract. Although this is possible, still it is a rare occurrence, and to-day we know that appendicitis is almost invariably associated with the consumption of dead animals.

Various authorities have pointed out the comparative immunity of fruitarians and vegetarians from appendicitis. This is true of the Dukhobors of Canada, who are not only immune from cancer and appendicitis, but develop a vigor of health both physical and mental which is consistent with the abstemious life which they lead. They abstain wholly not only from alcohol and tobacco, but also from animal flesh. Again, the Hindus of India, who take little or no flesh, are remarkably immune from appendicitis, and the same is said to be true of the Chinese.

Appendicitis is in most cases simply a virulent form of germ invasion and ptomain poisoning, and the most important direct cause is undoubtedly consumption of poisonous animal food. Those who wish to be immune from cancer and appendicitis will find it necessary to adopt the fruitarian diet, and abstain from both stimulating drinks and stimulating foods.

Organic Extractives and Poisonous Wastes

It is a common but none the less great mistake to think that animal flesh is a very nourishing and sustaining diet. Why! even a dog's life could not be prolonged a single day by the use of beef broth. Dr. Tibbles says, “Dogs fed on beef tea die sooner than when not fed at all.” And yet many ignorant people often resort to beef tea, chicken broth, and similar preparations when in ill health, and some even regard them as important invalid foods. There could be no greater fallacy. Beef tea is merely an extract of the meat, and as such contains little nourishment and much of the poisonous wastes of the animal.

Even if the slaughtered animals were in comparative health, and even though they were eaten soon after slaughter and before serious decomposition set in, they are not by any means free from poisonous matters. In the case of the lower animals as well as man, the activities of life are constantly producing waste substances, known as organic extractives. In reality, these wastes are excretions, and during life are as speedily got rid of from the body as possible because of their injurious influence. The flesh of all animals always contains these poisonous excretions, and therefore we must regard animal food as anything but clean and pure. When we stop to think of it, we must realize that the poisonous excretions of animals form the worst and

most dangerous kind of filth, and it certainly seems passing strange that human beings should be willing to take this filth with their food.

The thought itself is repulsive, to say nothing about the harmfulness of the procedure. Think of consuming the liver of an ox or sheep, or the kidney, an organ which is always saturated with urine. And the various meat extracts and beef broths and teas are for all practical purposes the concentrated uriniferous products of the flesh. Such extracts are anything but nutritious, and must be looked upon solely as unwholesome stimulants.

The presence of these irritating and exciting poisons renders animal flesh the most stimulating of all foods, and its free use often leads to the development of a craving for stronger stimulants. There is no doubt that many persons have been led to take alcoholic beverages through the free use of animal flesh as well as tea and coffee. It is an accepted fact that inebriates and drunkards are more easily restored to sobriety on the fruitarian dietary than when allowed flesh foods.

Too Much Protein

Another important disadvantage of mixed feeding is the danger of taking a superabundance of nitrogenous food. Any one eating meat, except in very small quantities, is in great danger of taking more tissue-building food than he can use to advantage. It is bad enough to take sugar or starch foods in excess, but the evils resulting therefrom are slight compared with those consequent upon an oversupply of protein. Too much protein means extra work for the digestive and eliminating organs, and an undue increase in the nitrogenous waste products of the body. They serve to thicken the blood and clog the system, and there is no doubt that they are important factors in the causation of many nutritional diseases.

Rheumatism and Gout

The presence of these organic extractives, or as Dr. Haig would call them, uric acid and allied bodies, as well as the overconsumption of protein food of any kind, leads to various constitutional diseases and especially gouty, rheumatic, and neuralgic disorders. Dr. Haig and other scientific authorities have demonstrated very clearly the relationship which exists between flesh-eating and a long list of so-called “uric acid disorders.” Again, we would say that animal flesh is by no means the only causal factor in the production of these prevalent diseases; but that it is one of the most important, and, probably, in many cases, the most important factor in bringing on these disturbances is well established. The following is only a partial list of maladies which Dr. Haig believes to be more or less directly associated with meat-eating:—

“Headache, dyspepsia, constipation, anemia, diabetes, insomnia, hysteria, neurasthenia, mental depression, eczema, neuralgia, rheumatism, lumbago, sciatica, neuritis, gout, arthritis, Bright's disease.”