The Natural Food of Man: Being an attempt to prove from comparative anatomy, physiology, chemistry and hygiene, that the original, best and natural diet of man is fruit and nutsCarrington, Hereward
Science
The Natural Food of Man: Being an attempt to prove from comparative anatomy, physiology, chemistry and hygiene, that the original, best and natural diet of man is fruit and nuts
Carrington, Hereward
Food; Vegetarianism
Look, however, at the other side of the argument as drawn from the
lower animals. How numerous are they by whom salt is rejected or to
whom it is hurtful? The whole of the birds avoid salt. It is fatal
to chickens and tame birds, as every housewife knows. Indeed, there
is strong ground for supposing that much of what is called “chicken
cholera,” “gapes,” and the like, is in part due to the presence of
salt—not always in minute quantities—in the food taken from the table.
Wild birds have no such epidemic diseases affecting the mucous linings
of their organs. It is also fatal to the hog, that foulest and hardiest
of omnivora, which, out of some stress of famine, or from its peculiar
prolificacy, men have been led to dwell with and propagate as a food
supply. I believe it is well ascertained that when hogs get a moderate
amount of brine, or pickled salt meat, it is impossible to save them.
To vary the phrase a little: that which will make a hog sick cannot,
_prima facie_, be good food for his owner. Of all the range of wild
animals, clean or unclean, it is yet to be shown that a single one eats
salt voluntarily as food. Why should man be the exception?
It is further claimed that salt is a necessary constituent of the
diet, for the reason that, when the body is examined, _post-mortem_,
a certain amount of salt is found therein. From this it is argued
that salt is therefore necessary to the human body! It is queer logic.
Were opium or nicotine found in the body of the dead man, would it be
argued that _therefore_ opium or nicotine were necessary to the body in
health? Yet the argument is just as logical, and the conclusion just as
warranted.
All that can be urged, logically, is that salt is a necessary article
of diet; and that, no one would deny. Certainly I would not. But
I must insist that this salt can be supplied to the body in its
_organic_ form—just as any other salt can. It is contained in fruits
and vegetables, together with other salts: why not eat it in that way,
just as we eat those other salts? To be sure, we need common salt, just
as we need iron, and potash, and sulphur, and lime, and other mineral
salts; but no one thinks of sprinkling lime and potash and iron filings
over his food, just the same! There is no more reason why we should
sprinkle sodium chloride, or common salt, over our food, than there
is why we should sprinkle any of these other salts. Both are equally
mineral elements: both are inorganic substances; and hence both are
equally unusable by the system. Salt can have no more effect upon the
economy than iron filings can; and there is no more reason for taking
the one into the system in this crude form than there is for taking the
other. Only habit and prejudice sustain the custom.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account