A Plea for Vegetarianism and Other Essays/Chapter 6
SIR HENRY THOMPSON ON “DIET.”
SIR HENRY THOMPSON’S article on “Diet,” published in the May number of the Nineteenth Century, 1885, has probably given considerably more satisfaction to Food Reformers than to members of the medical profession. For, though Sir Henry Thompson takes especial care to disavow the slightest sympathy with what is known as the “Vegetarian” movement, and though his espirit de corps leads him to make a sharp attack on the Vegetarian Society, yet his article is practically an admission of what the Vegetarians have been preaching for the last ten or twenty years—-viz., that flesh-food is unnecessary in a temperate climate. This admission is, of course, most valuable to Food Reformers, as coming from one of the most distinguished members of a profession which is still hostile, in the main, to the spread of the reformed diet ; and we can therefore pardon Sir Henry Thompson for his somewhat bitter remarks about Vegetarianism as a dietary system, more especially as they are entirely irrelevant to the real subject of discussion.
“An exclusive or sectarian spirit,” he says, “always creeps in sooner or later, wherever an ‘ism’ of any kind leads the way.” This may conceivably be a valid objection to the whole system of forming societies in order to propagate any particular doctrine; but it certainly has no special applicability to the Vegetarian movement; and it would not be difficult to show that this “exclusive or sectarian spirit” has manifested itself quite as strongly in the medical profession as in any recently-formed society. But, passing this over, I must protest against Sir Henry Thompson’s extraordinary assertion that, in calling themselves “Vegetarians,” Food Reformers, who for the most part use eggs and milk, have deliberately sacrificed accuracy of expression, in order to gain the small distinction of a party name. It is quite true that most—not all—Food Reformers admit into their diet such animal food as milk, butter, cheese, and eggs, and, therefore, the term “Vegetarian,” as applied to these, is not an accurate one; but it is quite a mistake to imagine that this misleading title is coveted or purposely retained by the Vegetarians themselves. On the contrary, the desirability of finding a more suitable name has again and again been discussed in the pages of the Dietetic Reformer ; and there has been no attempt whatever on the part of the Vegetarian Society, or its members, to claim the merit of a purely vegetable diet. But the fact is, that the word “Vegetarian,” in its general application to those who abstain from flesh, has long become too firmly fixed in the language to admit of any sudden limitation or restriction. It is the most difficult thing in the world to alter a word which has once become nationalised in a particular sense; and the reason why Food Reformers are still called “Vegetarians” is simply that nobody has yet been able to suggest any title which would have the least chance of ousting the more popular term. “I feel sure,” says Sir Henry Thompson, “that my friends ‘the Vegetarians,’ living on a mixed diet, will see the necessity of seeking a more appropriate designation to distinguish them ; if not, we must endeavour to invent one for them.” If Sir Henry Thompson will make this endeavour, all Vegetarians will be sincerely grateful to him ; at present the only alternative title seems to be the word “Akreophagist,” which is hardly likely to take permanent root in the English language.
But this attack on Vegetarians, for the use of a title which they have long been vainly trying to get rid of, is surely made by Sir Henry Thompson rather as a diversion than as a serious part of his article. It is thrown out as a sop to Cerberus, who, in the form of the medical profession, might otherwise be grievously chagrined at this unexpected corroboration of the ignorant and unprofessional assertions of Food Reformers. When medical men have been telling their patients, with more and more persistence, that it is impossible to live healthily without using flesh-food, it is, of course, very annoying and irritating to find the most eminent of English surgeons admitting precisely the contrary. To cover their retreat, and mitigate their possible resentment, Sir Henry Thompson mercifully determined to make this timely diversion by abusing the Vegetarians roundly, while thoroughly endorsing the essence of their teaching. Our medical friends are welcome to whatever cold comfort they can derive from Sir Henry Thompson's dislike of Vegetarian propagandists and Vegetarianism as a system ; but, in the meantime, we Vegetarians, or Food Reformers, or Akreophagists, or whatever it may please the British public to call us, are quite clear on this one point. It is the substance that we care for, and not the shadow. We have long asserted that flesh-food is not, as the doctors would have had us believe, a necessary part of our English diet system ; and this, our chief contention, is now explicitly admitted by Sir Henry Thompson. “It is a vulgar error,” he says, “to regard meat in any form as necessary to life.” Precisely so ; that has been the sum and substance of our teaching during the last quarter of a century, in spite of every sort of denial, ridicule, and misrepresentation ; and now that medical men are beginning to find they were after all in the wrong, they ingeniously attempt to cover their own confusion by raising a perfectly irrelevant cuckoo-cry about the title of their opponents. Let them call us anything they will—the mere name is quite immaterial to us ;—but at least let them have the candour to admit that we were right, and they were wrong as regards the necessity of the slaughter-house.
However, as Sir Henry Thompson has thought fit to challenge our position on this question of the use of eggs and dairy produce, it may be well to consider it more fully. It is quite a mistake to suppose, as he seems to imply, that Food Reformers use eggs and milk very largely as a substitute for flesh ; on the contrary, I believe that most of us use them sparingly and in moderation, believing, as Sir Henry Thompson himself remarks, that “for us who have long ago achieved our full growth, and can thrive on solid fare, milk is altogether superfluous and mostly mischievous as a drink.” Milk, as it has been well said, is “an excellent thing—for calves ;” and Food Reformers, for the most part, being well aware of this, are careful not to use dairy produce in the quantity mentioned by Sir Henry Thompson. But why, it may be asked, do they not renounce eggs and milk altogether, and thus establish an unequivocal claim to the title of Vegetarian ? To this it must be answered that the immediate object which Food Reformers aim at is not so much the disuse of animal substances in general, as the abolition of flesh-meat in particular ; and that if they can drive their opponents to make the very important admission that actual flesh-food is unnecessary, they can afford to smile at the trivial retort that animal substance is still used in eggs and milk. It is not the mere name of “animal” food they are afraid of, but they consider the use of butcher’s meat at once unpleasant and degrading. though, as such strong objections cannot be urged against dairy produce, many who abstain from beef and mutton continue to use eggs, milk, cheese, and butter. There is, of course, the additional reason that it is hard all at once to make the complete change to a strictly vegetarian diet, and many Food Reformers are glad to use eggs and milk as being at present cheap and plentiful, and as affording a modus vivendi to those who might otherwise be entirely cut off by dietetic differences from the society of their friends, though, at the same time, they are well aware that even dairy produce is quite unnecessary and superfluous, and will doubtlessly be dispensed with altogether under a more natural system of diet. In the meantime, however, one step is sufficient. Let us first recognise the fact that the institution of the slaughter-house, with all its attendant horrors, is one that might easily be abolished ; that point gained, the question of the total disuse of all animal products is one that will easily be decided hereafter. What I wish to insist on is that it is not “animal” food which we Food Reformers primarily abjure, but nasty food, expensive food, and unwholesome food. It is, therefore, absurd to twit us with the use of eggs and milk, because we do not eat fowls and beef. And the climax of absurdity is reached when Sir Henry Thompson gravely points out to us that the infant who thrives on mother’s milk is not subsisting on vegetarian diet! Talk of “equivocal terms, evasion,—in short, untruthfulness!” Was there ever such evasion of the real issue as this? It would be equally logical and scientific to argue that a cow must be classed among the carnivora, because a calf drinks milk.
Another point on which Sir Henry Thompson again and again insists in his paper on “Diet” is that it is unwise to limit in any way the choice of foods. “The great practical rule of life,” he says, “in regard to human diet will not be found in enforcing limitation of the sources of food which nature has abundantly provided.” I may here remark in passing that Sir Henry Thompson’s reference to the Esquimaux, as an instance of a people to whom a vegetarian diet would be impossible, is not of much practical value to English readers in the elucidation of this food question ; for we desire to know what diet system is appropriate to the inhabitants of the temperate zones, and not those of the arctic circle. However, as far as the purely physical aspect of the food question is concerned, Food Reformers may be quite content to agree to Sir Henry Thompson’s opinion that we ought not “to limit man’s liberty to select his food and drink.” Everybody must choose {or himself on this most important question, for “no man,” as Sir Henry Thompson wisely remarks, “can tell another what he can or ought to eat without knowing what are the habits of life and work—mental and bodily—of the person to be advised.” Still, it does not constitute a very serious or insidious attack on individual liberty to point out, as the Vegetarian Society does, what advantages have been found in a particular line of diet by a large number of people. There is nothing dogmatic or sectarian in teaching of this kind ; indeed, it is adopted by Sir Henry Thompson himself in this same article, when he speaks of the question of alcohol. “It is rare now,” he says, “to find any one, well acquainted with human physiology, and capable of observing and appreciating the ordinary wants and usages of life around him, who does not believe that, with few exceptions, men and women are healthier and stronger—physically, intellectually, and morally—without such drinks than with them.” Substitute the word food for drink, and you have an exact exposition of the Vegetarian doctrine.
But I must now return to our main position. We have it emphatically stated, on the authority of Sir Henry Thompson, that in a temperate climate, such as that in which we live, flesh-food is not necessary.[1] He qualifies this admission by repeatedly stating that he does not wish to dispense with it altogether in its proper place and time ; but though he hints that flesh-food may at times be “desirable, and even essential to life,” be nowhere gives any clear indication of when this necessity may arise. But now come in other aspects of the case which are wholly ignored by Sir Henry Thompson in his purely professional treatment of it. He has given us an entirely medical and scientific view of this subject of diet, and the upshot of What he says is this: “Flesh-food is quite unnecessary in the large majority of cases. but you had better eat a little now and then for fear you should become sectarian and narrow-minded. and thus cause the exclusion of any of the recognised sources of food.” Cæteris paribus, this statement of the case is most unobjectionable and satisfactory ; but, unfortunately for Sir Henry Thompson’s conclusions, there are various other considerations which (however uninteresting to medical men) are of the greatest possible importance to the unprofessional mind. In the choice of our food we have not only to ask our doctors what are the latest conclusions of scientific inquiry; but we have also to consider what are the promptings of economy, humanity, and good taste. All this is naively passed over by Sir Henry Thompson; but I hardly think the question will be allowed to rest in the position where he seems to wish to leave it. “Unnecessary, but sometimes desirable,” is hardly the last word to be said on the subject of butchers’ meat. Unnecessary it certainly is. But is it desirable? There is a good deal to be said on that point, too!
The question of economy in diet is just hinted at, and no more, in Sir Henry Thompson’s article. Yet surely, at the present time, when a social crisis seems to be impending at no distant date, owing to the terrible destitution of the lower classes, it is a question worthy of the most earnest consideration of every thoughtful man. Every housekeeper knows to her cost that butcher’s bills form the most serious item of the weekly account, and the sum total spent by the nation on this form of food is something enormous. On the other hand, it is equally indisputable that there are many cheap kinds of vegetable food which are as nutritive or more nutritive than flesh meat ; and it has repeatedly been shown that every shilling spent on beef or mutton might have purchased five or six times the amount of nutriment if expended on peas, beans, lentils, wholemeal bread, or oatmeal. Mr. Hoyle has calculated that, if every family in the kingdom were to reduce its consumption of butcher's meat by one pound’s weight only, there would be an annual saving of at least ten millions of money. Statistics are proverbially an unsatisfactory method of argument ; but, even at the lowest computation, it cannot be denied that our food supply would be enormously increased if the use of flesh meat were entirely discontinued.[2] Nor would this direct saving be by any means the only benefit resulting from the change. If the towns renounced flesh eating. it would no longer be worth a landlord’s while to keep arable land in pasture, and the result would be an immense development of rustic industry; for, instead of a few men tending oxen, there would be large numbers employed in growing crops. Thus the stream of migration from country to town, which is at present so much deplored by all who are interested in the welfare of the poor, would be checked and turned backwards to the country. From whatever point of View we regard this question—the interest of the individual, or the interest of the community—it appears to be equally undeniable that an immense saving may be effected by the substitution of vegetable for animal food ; and, therefore, this question of economy cannot possibly be overlooked by anyone who wishes to arrive at a sound and trustworthy conclusion as regards the choice of diet. Nothing can be more emphatic than the opinion of Dr. B. W. Richardson (and it would be difficult to name a more competent authority) on this necessity for thrift. "We have also to learn," he says, "as a first truth, that the oftener we go to the vegetable world for our food the oftener we go to the first, and, therefore, to the cheapest, source of supply. The commonly accepted notion that, when we eat animal flesh, we are eating food at its prime source, cannot be too speedily dissipated, or too speedily replaced by the knowledge that there is no primitive form of food—albuminous. starchy, osseous—in the animal world itself ; and that all the processes of catching an inferior animal, of breeding it, rearing it, keeping it, killing it, dressing it, and selling it, mean no more and no less than entirely additional expenditure throughout for bringing into what we have been taught to consider an acceptable form of food the veritable food which the animal itself found, without any such preparation, in the vegetable world.” This being so, let us recur to the point to which Sir Henry Thompson brought us. If flesh-food be, as he admits, entirely unnecessary, will not this additional consideration of economy turn the balance when we make our choice of diet? Will a nation whose food supply is becoming a matter of more and more anxiety persist in spending six times as much money as it is obliged to spend. in order that it may not interfere with “the present generally recognised sources and varieties of food ?” Are we to renounce the full economic advantages of a vegetarian diet system, because we are reminded that an infant is nourished on milk and Esquimaux on blubber?
Then, again, there is the plea of humanity—unmentioned throughout Sir Henry Thompson’s article. If the purse is worthy of consideration in the settlement of this question, the heart can hardly be disregarded. And in spite of all the sneers that are often levelled at “humanitarians and “sentimentalists,” I believe that there is a very real and very strong feeling among most people about this institution of the slaughter-house, though if ever they manifest any qualm of an awakening conscience they are speedily reassured by the family physician, who informs them that he has specially studied these matters, and that it is madness to attempt to live without butcher's meat. Well, indeed, would it be if all kindly people who say a “grace” over their food would think of the history of such a meal! If they would reflect on the agony of terror endured by imported cattle during the journey by sea or land ; the disease too often engendered by the filth and misery of the voyage ; the thirst, the hunger, the despair, and, finally, the horrors of the slaughter-house; and, then, if they would recollect Sir Henry Thompson’s words, “It is a vulgar error to regard meat in any form as necessary to life,” I fancy they would hardly care to continue their flesh-eating habits, merely in order to avoid adopting an “ism,” or limiting “the present varieties of food.”
We started with the admission that everybody must consult his own experience and taste in the matter of food, and l have now stated what seem to me to be the chief considerations worthy of notice in this choice of diet. On the one hand, we have Sir Henry Thompson’s assertion that flesh meat, though confessedly unnecessary, may at times, and in smaller measure, be desirable ; on the other hand, we have to weigh well the fact (unnoticed by Sir Henry Thompson) that flesh-food is five or six times as expensive as vegetable substance; that the institution of the slaughter-house entails cruel sufferings on millions upon millions of innocent animals ; and that our tables are thereby supplied with a far less appetising and agreeable form of food than that which good taste would bid us desire. Surely, under these conditions of choice, “Vegetarianism,” “Food Reform,” “Akreophagy”—whatever we like to call it—is worthy of a far more earnest trial than even the most advanced member of the medical profession seems at present willing to allow it.
- ↑ Sir Henry Thompson makes a possible exception in the case of hard-Working cut-dour labourers; but this seems hardly justified by experience, as the labouring classes are precisely those who successfully perform a maximum of labour with a minimum of flesh-food. Contrast Dr. W. B. Carpenter's remark: “We freely concede to the advocates of Vegetarianism that, as regards the endurance of physical labour, there is ample proof of the capacity of their diet to afford the requisite sustenance.”
- ↑ It is worth remarking that, though Sir Henry Thompson scarcely mentions the question of economy in his latest article on “Diet,” be dealt rather more fully with it in the June number of the Nineteenth Century for 1879. He there wrote: “These things being so, a consideration at no small concern arises in relation to the economical management of the national resources. For it is a fair computation that every acre of land devoted to the production of meat is capable of becoming the source at three or four times the amount of produce of equivalent value of food, if devoted to the production of grain. In other words, a given area of land cropped with cereals and legumes will support a population more than three times as numerous as that which can be sustained on the same land devoted to the growth of cattle.” Of late Sir Henry Thompson seems to have overlooked this very important consideration.