The oft reiterated appeals to the American public to "Eat more meat to save the livestock industry" and exploitation of a so-called "all-meat diet experiment" by Stefansson and Anderson, justify the presentation of the special claims of other foodstuffs, so that those who desire to regulate their eating in accordance with their bodily needs, rather than to meet the exigencies of business, even to aid a declining industry, may have a fair opportunity to judge comparative merits and draw sound conclusions based upon scientific facts, rather than misleading statements or the biased dictates of custom. If the American people are really suffering for lack of meat the efforts of the Meat Board of Chicago should be regarded as a noble philanthropic effort to correct a national fault and to avert the dire consequences of the physical collapse which must necessarily result from a deficiency diet. But if it is not true that the average American eats less beefsteaks, chops, sausage, etc., than he needs, but as a matter of fact is actually suffering notable injury because of the great consumption of flesh foods of all sorts, then this persistent appeal to the American stomach to render economic service as well as to do its work of digestion, is not only a most extraordinary business anomaly but a grave menace to the health and welfare of the American people. The discussion of this question is germane to the objects of this convention, since nuts are the vegetable analogues of meats, and hence we cannot reasonably ask nor expect that more nuts will be eaten simultaneously with an increased consumption of meat. And so I shall undertake to give in this paper some of the reasons why we may properly urge the people of this country to eat more nuts and less meat. Nut meats are the real and original meat. Says Prof. Henry C. Sherman, of Columbia University in his admirable textbook, "Food Products": "To speak of nuts as 'meat substitute' is natural under the present conditions and reflects the prominence which has been given to meat and the casual way in which nuts have been regarded for some generations. Looking at the matter in evolutionary perspective, it might be more logical to speak of meats as 'nut substitute' instead." Evidently Professor Sherman believes, as do many other eminent scientists, that nuts were a staple in the diet of primitive man. Professor Elliot, of Oxford University, in his work, "Prehistoric Man," calls attention to the fact that in the early ages of his long career, man was not a flesh eater; and the famous Professor Ami, editor of the Ethnological History of North America, and other paleontologists, hold that man began the use of meat only after the glacial period had destroyed the great forests of nut trees on which he had formerly feasted.