Flesh-Eating and Disease.
An editorial in The Daily Drovers Telegram of October 24, published at Kansas City, Mo., intimates that when animals that are examined for tuberculosis do not show a generalization of the disease in their organs, having only one or two minor glands affected, so far as inspection goes, the diseased parts are removed and the rest of the carcass is considered as wholesome and free from disease as any other meat, and is put into the trade channels. The inspectors endeavor, when the infection is more extensive, to condemn the whole carcass and destroy it for food purposes. This is confirmed by another statement in The Telegram for November 2, which speaks of a herd brought to Kansas City for slaughter. The tuberculosis test was demonstrated by post-mortem examination, showing that each of the animals indicated had tuberculosis and was more or less infected with the disease. The Telegram continues: “In some cases the infection was so slight that careful investigation of all the glands was necessary to discover it. In such instances only the viscera of the animal were condemned, and the meat was allowed to go into food channels. In a few cases, several glands were affected, and the animals were condemned, and the carcasses destroyed.” We would like to raise the question, if it is not sometimes true that in the incipient stages of disease, the germs are as virulently active, altho not always so manifest as in the latter stages. All observers know this to be true in contagious diseases in the humankind. It is very difficult to tell sometimes whether a patient has one of several different kinds of fevers; and yet the germs,9of whatever fever it may be, are very active. The question is, if a post-mortem examination, conducted as they are in slaughter houses would demonstrate the extent of disease without careful microscopical examination. The further question is, whether this meat from cattle which show that they are infected with tuberculosis, altho according to tests but slightly, is not just as dangerous meat as where some glands are seriously affected. Our informant, a reliable man, who has been for years in the stock-raising business, writes us that he had a long conversation with a United States inspector who told him that they seldom condemned cattle unless some of the larger glands like the lungs were badly affected. They merely ordered the infected parts to be cut out, and considered the rest of the beef wholesome. In speaking of hogs, the same inspector said if they were to condemn every hog that was affected with tuberculosis, there would be practically no pork on the market; and he added that a hog had to be badly affected with disease before it was sent to the rendering vat. All of which goes to show how much more preferable vegetarianism is. A man can inspect his vegetables, and if in any way affected, he can throw them away at less expense than to throw away the carcass of a beef. He can live upon his vegetable food without fear of ptomain poisoning, or of being saturated with a thousand and one disease germs which affect the various mammalian food animals. We lay these things before our readers, assuring them from an experience lasting over thirty years, and the experiences of thousands of others lasting a greater or less term of years, that the preferable diet altogether is vegetarianism, or to put it in its broader form, a diet consisting of fruits, grains, nuts, vegetables, milk, and eggs. It is not in any sense a starvation diet; it is not in any sense a weakening diet. Vegetarians can do as hard work, as strong work, and can work as many hours a day, and even more, than those who live upon a flesh or a mixed diet, doctors to the contrary notwithstanding. It is an old proverb that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the true test of vegetarianism, in its broad sense, is in the lives of those who have been vegetarians. Usually, those who would condemn vegetarianism do so on the showing of some who have brought themselves near to death’s door on a mixed diet, and who have adopted vegetarianism as a last resort. It sometimes takes years to build up what years have torn down. It is a frequent thing to find those whose whole digestive apparatus has been ruined by a number of years of bad diet, mixed diet, during which time they have eaten freely of flesh foods of various kinds. They have come to vegetarianism as a last resort; they are much better than when they first began the new diet. It takes some time to know just how to adapt oneself to a complete change in diet, but when they have once learned that, almost invariably progress toward health and strength is rapid and sure. If some of those who stand as critics of the vegetarian diet, could find an equal army of those who had given up vegetarianism for a flesh diet, and had improved in the doing of it, it would be worth something. It certainly is not a fair way of argument to take the very poorest specimens in the ranks of vegetarianism, those who have ruined their health on a mixed diet, and contrast them with healthy specimens who live on a mixed diet, and who have inherited constitutions strong enough to endure all sorts of hardship in the way of poor provender; for that is what a meat diet essentially is. The writer is often asked: “Why have you adopted a vegetarian diet? Is it because of your religion? Is it required of you that you shall do that?” And we are always pleased to tell them: “Not at all: we have tried both, and we have adopted vegetarianism as the very best which the earth affords, which will give better service and longer service for the same amount of food.” We commend these things to our readers. It is not as a matter of religious faith, not as a matter of mere fear of disease, but as the choice of the very best in God’s kingdom, and that which will help every reasonable soul to render unto his Master the best service; for the best diet rule ever given is that of the apostle Paul, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”