OUR NEXT ANNUAL MEETING. ARRANGEMENTS are in progress for holding the next Annual Meeting of the VEGETARIAN SOCIETY, in the Salford Town Hall, on Monday, October 26th. The Committee earnestly hope that there will be a goodly assemblage of members and friends on the occasion. There will be a meeting for the adoption of the Annual Report and transaction of other important business, to be held in the Library Room, 12, King-street, Salford, at two o'clock in the afternoon. In the evening a Tea and Soiree will be held in the Town Hall, Salford; the tickets, including tea and other refreshments, price one shilling. The Secretaries will be glad to receive intimations from friends intending to be present; and also to receive early payment of all subscriptions for the year now about to close. THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROMOTION OF SCIENCE. WE had intended giving our readers a summary of the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of this important Association, so far as its topics of discussion have a bearing upon those social and sanitary questions that are more or less included in the range of advocacy in the DIETETIC REFORMER. But we find that our space is preoccupied by other articles already in type. We must, therefore, defer this subject till our next. We hope another year to be able to get our Dietetic question more directly ventilated before the British Association than has hitherto been our good fortune. FOOD: ITS NATURE AND ADAPTABILITY TO THE HUMAN ORGANISM. AN ARGUMENT FOR A VEGETARIAN DIET. NO. III. In my former paper I briefly touched upon this, and quoted the opinions of some of our greatest men, to show that the nutritive elements in both were identical; however, as facts are more stubborn than opinions, I will here give the facts, and put to silence the most sceptical. Composition of animal albumen, fibrine, and caseine; also of vegetable albumen, fibrine, and caseine, taken from Liebig's "Annual Chemistry" (Appendix): Did space allow, and were it necessary, I might give analyses of other vegetables—yes, even turnips, carrots, &c.-to show that the nutrition is the same as in flesh. If, therefore, in vegetables we find the nutritious element in proportions higher than is needed, and that those elements are the same in composition as can be procured from flesh, we must come to the conclusion that vegetables are perfectly adapted to nourish and support the strength of the body. Considering that the relative proportions in the elements of our food are found to be so variable, and remembering that there is so much uncertainty as to the proportions of which our food should consist, the question naturally arises,—and it is one of deep importance, if the relative proportions cannot be fixed,-on which side is it safest to err? Will an excess of proteine hurt us most, or shall we receive most injury from an overplus of the respiratory element? An answer to this question will be of great use in our conclusions. Let us turn our attention to its investigation. Dr. Carpenter says: When a larger quantity of azotized food is habitually consumed than the wants of the system require, it is not converted into solid flesh, but is got rid of by the various processes of excretion. The increased production of muscular fibre depends upon nothing so much as the exercise of the muscle. It cannot take place unless the blood supply it with materials, but no degree of richness of the blood can alone produce it, consequently the accumulation of nutritive matter in the blood is so far from being a condition of health, that it powerfully tends to produce disease.* No wonder that there should be so many inflammations, apoplexies, liver complaints, &c., the body becomes soon charged with nutritious and noxious matter, this either inflames the system, or, in consequence of the effort necessary to throw out this excess of material, the liver becomes diseased, or may be apoplexy supervenes, and in death man pays the penalty for his transgression of nature's law. Dr. Brinton is equally or perhaps still more explicit. He says: It may be further conjectured that there is a wide difference between the digestive risks which attach to those superfluities of proteine or of starch respectively, which are ordinarily associated with the use of a predominantly animal or vegetable food. The excessive ingestion of proteine in a warm climate seems to be sometimes injurious, by the unchecked continuance or progress of that decomposition which the gastric juice in larger quantities would specifically arrest. Compared with this an excess of the ordinary hydrates of carbon seems of little importance. Indeed it may be surmised that, to a healthy digestion, any moderate surplus of starch is almost indifferent, if not absolutely useful by the stimulus it affords.t It is not wise to build one's faith upon the statement of any one, but the above statements are so much in unison with universal fact as to be indisputable. The universal suffering which society in our country endures, proves there is something radically wrong. Indigestion, costiveness, headaches, liver complaint, and a host of other diseases unknown in primitive states of society, and in our own country by those who content themselves with simple fare. The poor Irish eat such enormous quantities of potatoes that our opponents actually deride us by styling them "pot bellied;" and among the Hindoos, travellers tell us they will eat enormous quantities of rice, and yet for all that they never suffer from depletion as we do in this country. How is it? The fact appears conclusive, that the saccharine or starchy elements in our food, though taken in excess, appear to do little harm compared with what results from excess in the proteine elements. The fact that the staple articles of food in tropical countries contain so much of the respiratory element abundantly demonstrates this point. It cannot be for purposes of combustion, because the heat of the climate dispenses with such necessity. People there need cooling if anything; what then can be its use? If an excess of respiratory food were pernicious here, it would be doubly so in those climates; but there Providence has supplied them in almost twofold quantities— plainly demonstrating that they not only act the part of combustibles but also of dilutents; and that inasmuch as hard labour in such hot climes would be irksome, if not impossible, and as from want of exertion there is little waste of tissue, and therefore no necessity to provide much nutritive material to replace the same, the food does not contain it; but, on the contrary, contains a large proportion of respiratory element: this, however, though found in such quantities is less needed to give out heat than in colder climes, and consequently must have some other use. The fact therefore appears certain, that they serve the purpose of dilutents, to give the requisite bulk to the food which we shall hereafter see is highly necessary, and to preserve its composition in harmony with the necessities of man's nature-the unused elements of the food being easily evacuated by the bowels. The considerations I have adduced will abundantly prove the utter falsity of the prevailing idea as to the inefficiency of a vegetable diet to afford the requisite amount "Food and its Digestion," p. 299. "Manual of Physiology," p. 253. of nutriment necessary to maintain the strength-it is provided in overwhelming abundance; but even if there were not the requisite proportions found in vegetable food as are supposed to be needed, it would be a matter of little consequence; for if vegetables were so devoid of the plastic element of food, that to get a proper quantity of nutriment, an overplus of the respiratory element had to be taken, it would, if anything, be rather beneficial than otherwise; but at all events there would be none of those dangers of repletion which arise from a diet too rich in the proteine elements. This, however, is not necessary; for in the vegetable creation there is food not only rich enough, but abundantly too rich for any of the necessities of life; and if people are determined to be foolish,-they may not only get food rich enough, but they may surfeit themselves with nourishment without ever wandering from the vegetable kingdom. Whilst upon this subject it will be wise to remember that the relative effects of the starchy and saccharine elements of our food upon the constitution are only about one-third of that of fat, the respiratory element in flesh: that is, whilst the organs of respiration will burn up 1lb. of fat, they would, for the same consumption of oxygen, burn up nearly 3 lbs. of starch or sugar. To burn 1 lb. of sugar of milk it takes 187 volumes oxygen gas. Ditto 1 lb. of cane sugar Ditto 1 lb. of starch Ditto 1 lb. of fat From the above table it will be manifest that in bulk and measure there appears much more of the respiratory element in vegetable food; yet, in reality, it is to a large extent apparent only. For instance, in wheat flour there is about one of plastic to four of respiratory, consisting of starch; if this were calculated to the value of fat, it would be one of plastic to one and a half of respiratory, consisting of fat: this to the eye would look much richer than the other, but in reality it would not be so, it would be only more condensed, whilst that very condensation would render it more indigestible, and less adapted to the nature of the organism. The reader, if not careful, will here run away with a very wrong impression; he will be apt to conclude that fat is much better adapted for giving heat, nearly three to one-this is not the case. It is true that a pound of fat will give out nearly as much heat as 3 lbs. of sugar or starch; but then it takes three times as much oxygen to burn the 11b. of fat. For the same consumption of oxygen fat gives out less heat than sugar or starch. The following table+ will illustrate this point: 100 measures of oxygen, when burning sugar of milk, will raise 28,996. lbs. 100 measures of oxygen, when burning cane sugar, will raise 28,704 lbs. 100 measures of oxygen, when burning starch, will raise 28,356 lbs. 100 measures of oxygen gas, when burning fat, will raise 27,674 lbs. The above table shows that for the same consumption of oxygen there is about one-thirtieth more heat given out by starch and sugar than when fat is used, and consequently vegetable food is superior as a heat giver than flesh; and as we have seen that the nutritive element is equal to that in flesh, it follows that both in heatforming and nutritive value vegetable diet is superior to flesh. Indeed, I do not think the case is fairly stated in saying that the nutritive element in vegetable food is only equal to flesh. In the living animal there is a continual waste of tissue going on, and no matter at what period of life the animal is slaughtered, there must be a considerable portion of tissue partially decayed, and partly or wholly deprived of its vitality; and it does appear to me that this partially decayed flesh must be of inferior value as a nutritive agent. In all animal food there must be this; but not so in vegetable aliment, that is in its pure state, and therefore, weight for weight, nutrition in vegetables will be of more value than in flesh. There is another point which should not be overlooked; viz., vegetable food is richer in its mineral elements than flesh, the table already given will illustrate this; the absence of these elements often produces disease, as scurvy, &c., which is seen in those who use much salt meat. In all these respects a vegetable diet is much superior to a diet of flesh. There is one argument for flesh-eating that I have often met with, and which looks very plausible. Dr. Brinton gives it as follows:— The tissues of one animal necessarily contain most if not all of those organic and inorganic substances, which are required for the maintenance and construction of another, and that, too, in something like the fitting proportions.* Granting all this, it proves nothing. It is, however, generally given in such a style, as to look plausible and throw a slur upon vegetable food; as if that did not contain all the elements of the animal organism. Such a supposition would be pure nonsense, for if it did not, where do those animals that men eat get their organisms. They live exclusively upon vegetables, and if such an inferior vegetable aliment as grass, &c., which these animals live upon will form such perfect organism as they possess, how much more capable will the food man lives upon be adapted for that purpose? There is, however, a piece of sophistry in Dr. Brinton's argument. He says:— "The tissues of one animal necessarily contain," &c. Now, here he assumes that flesh-eaters consume all the parts of an animal; if not, of what value is his assertion But do they? Where is the man that eats the bones, the nails, the hair, the intestines, or the skin; and other tissues which might be mentioned? The fact is, there is a large portion of the animals slaughtered that we never dream of swallowing, and therefore the portions that we do eat are deficient in the elements found in the tissues we do not eat. Dr. Brinton's argument is therefore a sophistical absurdity. In my next I will show that the bulkier nature of vegetable food increases its nutritive value as compared with flesh, and also point out some of the evils that arise from the irregular composition and condensed nature of animal food. "Food and its Digestion." p. 250. VEGETARIANISM: ITS RECRUITS, ITS DESERTERS, AND ITS DEFENDERS. VEGETARIANS are frequently taunted with, or reminded of, the fewness of their numbers; and, in fact, considering the general intelligence of the public and the merits of the cause, the number of its supporters does, at first sight, appear surprisingly small. Our recruits come in very slowly, and too many of these lose faith or courage |