Proper Diet for Man

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Jun 13, 1878

Proper Diet for Man.

MAN NATURALLY FRUGIVOROUS.

If we now look, as we should have done at first, at the class of animals next below man in the scale of being, considered from an anatomical standpoint, at least, we see at once a most striking similarity. And, indeed, this is just what we should naturally expect. The teeth of the orang-outang are precisely the same in number and order of arrangement as those of man, the principal, and almost the sole, difference being that the cuspids are somewhat longer, and more powerful, and pointed. The front and back teeth are entirely similar, as are also the articulation and motion of the jaws. The alimentary canal is a trifle shorter, however, and the cuspids are separated a little from the other teeth; which facts, together with that previously mentioned in regard to the cuspids, would place this class of animals rather nearer the carnivora, but, at the same time, plainly place man at a still greater distance from the latter class. It is a well-known fact, moreover, that in a wild state the orang-outang lives exclusively upon fruits, nuts, and esculent roots, at least when not urged by hunger to do otherwise; they are consequently frugivorous. This being the case, and the intimate dietetic relation of the human species with this class having been established, we seem to be shut up to the conclusion that man is also a frugivorous animal. Since, then, all the productions used as food by frugivorous animals belong to the vegetable kingdom, are we not compelled to acknowledge that man's diet should also be derived from the same source?

TESTIMONY OF EMINENT MEN.

While it is true that some eminent men contend that man is carnivorous in his dietetic character, it is also true that many of our ablest anatomists and physiologists, who have bestowed both time and attention upon the investigation of this important subject, when expressing their candid convictions in regard to the matter, unhesitatingly pronounce man to be purely frugivorous as regards his dietetic character, when viewed from the standpoint of anatomy. We will give the testimony of some of the most eminent of these authors.

Sir Everard Home says: "While mankind remained in a state of innocence there is every reason to believe that their only food was the produce of the vegetable kingdom."

Said the great naturalist, Linnæus, in speaking of the dietetic character of man, "His organization, when compared with that of other animals, shows that fruits and esculent vegetables constitute his most suitable food."

Speaking of fruit, the same author said, "This species of food is that which is most suitable to man; which is evinced by the series of quadrupeds, analogy, wild men, apes the structure of the mouth, of the stomach, and of the hands."

Gassendi, who lived in the seventeenth century, and of whom Gibbon says that he was the most learned of the philosophers, and the most philosophic of the learned men of that age, after a thorough investigation of the comparative anatomy of the teeth, came to the following conclusion:—

"Wherefore, I repeat, that from the primeval and spotless institution of our nature, the teeth were destined to the mastication, not of flesh, but of fruits." "As to what relates to flesh, it is indeed true that man may be sustained on meat; but how many things does man do which are contrary to his nature! Such is the perversion of manners, now, by a general contagion enameled into him, that he seems to have become a new creature. Hence the doctrines of morality and philosophy are directed to no other object than to recall mankind to the paths of nature which they have abandoned."

Baron Cuvier, one of the very highest authorities on comparative anatomy, says, "The natural food of man, then, judging from his structure, appears to consist of fruits, roots, and esculent parts of vegetables."

Prof. Lawrence, of England, fully agrees with Baron Cuvier, and remarks that the opinion held by some that man holds a middle ground between carnivorous and herbivorous animals appears to have been derived from experience rather than from comparative anatomy.

Mr. Thomas Bell, who occupied the position of lecturer on anatomy and diseases of the teeth at Guy's Hospital, in a work upon the subject, says, "The opinion which I venture to give has not been hastily formed, nor without what appeared to me sufficient grounds. It is not, I think, going too far to say that every fact connected with human organization goes to prove that man was formed a frugivorous animal."

Many other names of equal celebrity might be cited; but these are sufficient to convince that class of persons who judge of the truth of any theory more by the great names appended than by the real strength of argument that evidence of this character is not wanting in support of the positions taken.

We have now examined some of the anatomical evidences upon this subject, and we think the candid reader who has carefully weighed them will not be unwilling to acknowledge that the unequivocal testimony of anatomy is in favor of a vegetable diet for man, at least in his primitive state. We have seen how little weight and real force there are in the arguments based upon the so-called canine teeth of man, and upon the comparative length of his alimentary canal. Indeed, it must be evident that those arguments were never framed from a careful consideration of the evidences of comparative anatomy, but were seized upon as a sort of apology for the practice of meat eating so prevalent in this country and England at the present time.

Many more evidences might be drawn from comparative anatomy, but we forbear, feeling confident that the arguments already elucidated are sufficient to fully establish that man is in no sense a carnivorous or omnivorous animal, but that he rightly belongs to the frugivorous class, and consequently should derive his food exclusively from the vegetable kingdom.