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.
This, however, likewise agrees with Holy Writ. We read in Genesis 1:29: "And God said, behold I have given you every herb yielding 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." So the real meat grew on trees and herbs. Beefsteak and chops are poor substitutes for the real meat, which still constitutes the food of the human race, for with the exception of the Anglo-Saxon race and a few savage tribes, meat forms no substantial part of the human diet. The teeming millions of India and China, which constitute nearly half of the whole human race, eat practically no meat. The thronging millions of Central Africa thrive on corn, nuts, bananas, peanuts, manioc, sweet potatoes and melons. The same is true at the present time of the natives of Mexico, Central and South America, who find in maize, beans, potatoes and various tropical fruits ample and satisfying sustenance.
The average American consumes 165 pounds of meat a year; the Japanese, four pounds; the people of South China less—practically none at all. Taking the human race as a whole, meat fills only a very insignificant place in the world's bill of fare. Bread is the staff of life, and nuts, the real meat, are gradually recovering their old prestige. It is only in comparatively recent years that meat has entered so largely into the bill of fare of civilized nations. Major J. B. Paget, a writer in the English Review, calls attention to the fact that there has been in England a deterioration in stature and otherwise since the Peninsular War, the reason for which he thinks "is not difficult to discover. We are the same race with the same climate and the same water. The only difference is our diet."
According to Wellington's Quartermaster General's Report, the rations of the men who fought the Peninsular War under the Iron Duke, was one pound of wheat per day and a quarter of a pound of goat's flesh. But they had to catch the goats who ran wild in the mountains and so they seldom got that part of their ration.
According to General Sir William Butler these soldiers were "splendid men with figures and faces like Greek gods." And he adds with regret, "Such men have passed away."