Does Man Naturally Require Meat? by Daniel H. Kress, M. D.

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Aug 31, 1915

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 42, No. 34.

Does Man Naturally Require Meat?

By Daniel H. Kress, M. D.

Does Comparative Anatomy Teach Us Anything?—What Was the Original Bill of Fare?—What Are the Very Best Foods?

By DANIEL H. KRESS, M. D.

BARON CUVIER, one of the best authorities on comparative anatomy, says, "The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears to consist of fruits, roots, and other succulent parts of vegetables."

Linnæus, the distinguished naturalist, says, "Man's organization, when compared with that of other animals, shows that fruits and esculent vegetables constitute his most suitable food."

Mr. Thomas Bell, lecturer on anatomy and diseases of the teeth, also said: "The opinion which I venture to give has not been hastily formed, 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 originally formed a frugivorous animal." He says further, "Those animals whose teeth and digestive apparatus most nearly resemble our own, namely, the apes and monkeys, are undoubtedly frugivorous."

IS COMPARATIVE ANATOMY CONCLUSIVE?

Comparative anatomy does not furnish conclusive proof that man is a frugivorous animal. It presupposes the apes, the monkeys, and the orang-utan to be frugivorous. While I believe this to be true, yet the orang-utan, on being domesticated, has been taught to eat and relish animal food. There is an inferior race of monkeys that subsist almost entirely on the flesh of other animals. If we knew nothing of the normal habits of the monkey, we would naturally conclude that the monkey is a carnivorous creature; and should man's structure be compared with that of the flesh-eating orang-utan or monkey, we would be inclined to class man as a flesh eater. Horses, cows, sheep, and other herb-eating animals can be trained to eat animal flesh, and have been known to prefer it, in time, to their natural diet. Comparative anatomy is of value if we are acquainted with the original dietetic habits of man and those of the lower creatures.

Should the alimentary canal, the teeth, etc., of man be precisely the same in structure as those of the lion or the dog, that would not prove him to be a flesh-eating animal. Our conclusions should be based on the knowledge we have, not of man's present but of his original dietetic habits.

CARNIVOROUS ANIMALS ON VEGETABLE DIET

The lion, the tiger, the dog, and other carnivorous animals may be trained to subsist entirely, and thrive, on a vegetable diet. This has been repeatedly done. There are dog trainers who feed their dogs on an almost exclusive non-flesh diet. The dogs are said to be more easily controlled; they are not so ferocious, and are more readily taught. Hunters usually feed their best dogs on corn bread. Flesh makes the dogs stupid and short winded. When dogs are sick, meat is usually discontinued, and they are fed instead on hard breads or biscuits. Even dogs, it seems, may enjoy better health, have a kindlier disposition, and live longer, on a non-flesh diet.

Are we not justified in concluding that this is the diet best suited for even the carnivorous animals? It would seem so, especially since this is in harmony with the record given in Gen. 1: 29. After God had created man, He said: "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Again: "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food." "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat." Gen. 2: 8, 9, 15, 16. It will be seen from this that the fruits, the grains, and the nuts constituted man's original diet.

To the animals were given the herbs of the field. The record reads, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat." Gen. 1: 30. This includes the lion, the dog, and every other creature aside from man. It is evident, therefore, that neither man nor the animals below him were originally carnivorous. All subsisted on the natural products of the earth.

WHEN MAN FELL

After man fell, and was sent forth from the Garden of Eden to cultivate the soil, God foresaw that he would be placed where there would be a scarcity of fruits and grains, or perhaps where they could not be obtained at all; so He said, "Thou shalt eat the herb of the field," the food given originally only to the lower creatures.

In providing for the creatures in the ark, the command to Noah was, "Take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten [this included fruits, grains, nuts, and vegetables, or herbs], and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them." Gen. 6: 21.

THE DIET AFTER THE FLOOD

During the Flood, vegetation was destroyed. Grass and other inferior herbage no doubt immediately began to spring forth after the water subsided. These afforded support to the herbivorous animals. But these herbs alone could not sustain man. On account of the absence of better food, God gave permission to Noah to eat, in addition to the herbs he might gather, the flesh of animals. God said, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." Gen. 9: 3.

Herbs are an inferior food for man when compared with grains, nuts, and fruits; and the flesh of animals is inferior to both. The necessity of subsisting on such food only existed until the earth could be brought under cultivation and again yield to man the pure foods best adapted for him,—grains, nuts, and fruits.

With our present system of railways and other means of transportation, we are able to get grains, legumes, nuts, and fruits, from all parts of the earth. There can be no reason why man should continue to slay the lower creatures and feast upon them, and certainly there is no reason why he should raise animals for the sole purpose of slaughter in a land of plenty. Paul said, "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient." 1 Cor. 6: 12.

LAWFUL, BUT NOT PROFITABLE

While it is lawful to subsist on the flesh of animals, certainly it is not profitable so to do, when better foods may be obtained. To eat and drink to the glory of God, or for strength and health, necessitates the selection of the purest foods that it is possible to obtain. This naturally leads man to discard the flesh of animals. Not only so, but he will gradually eat less of the herbs, which all must acknowledge are inferior as a food for man.

The laws of God, however, are suited to the circumstances of the people. In the absence of the food originally given to man, he is justified in eating the herb of the field; and in the absence or scarcity of both, he may even slay and eat.

THE DIET OF THE WILDERNESS

When the Lord led the children of Israel out of Egypt to the land of Canaan, a land of plenty, He educated them away from the use of flesh foods, and other inferior foods to which they had become accustomed in Egypt. The people rebelled, and asked for flesh. God "gave them their request; but sent leanness into their souls." Ps. 106: 15. He then gave them statutes pointing out minutely the clean and the unclean animals, and commanded them to eat only the clean. This additional statute was given because they had rebelled.

A question similar to one the Pharisees asked of Christ anciently is asked by the teachers of the law to-day: "Did not Moses command the eating of clean animals?" To this question, reply may be given similar to that which Christ gave: "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you" to eat the flesh of these animals; "but from the beginning it was not so."

The flesh the children of Israel demanded and ate brought leanness of soul, and the visitation of a great plague, which carried off many by disease. They were at liberty to eat it, but it certainly was not profitable to do so. God does not force the mind. He places before us good and evil, life and death, and then appeals to all to choose life.

The apostle Paul, in referring to the experience of the children of Israel, says, "But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness." Then he adds: "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. . . . Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." 1 Cor. 10: 5-11.

Certainly we ought to profit by Israel's experience.