Part 3

Unfortunately for the nut-growing industry, and still more unfortunately for the American people, the claims of nuts to consideration in this re-adjustment of the bill of fare have been generally overlooked, and it seems evident that the only hope for the nut industry lies in the creation of a larger demand for these nutrients from the plant world by acquainting the public with their superlative merits. Of course, room must be made for the increased intake of nuts by lessened consumption of something which nuts may advantageously replace in the bill of fare. Most nuts consist almost exclusively of proteins and fat. Proteins and fats likewise are almost the sole constituents of meat. Nuts are thus the vegetable analogues of meat and are competitors for a place on the bill of fare.

Physiologists are agreed that the American people are eating too much meat, and it is the general spread of this conviction that has lessened the consumption of flesh foods in this country and has crippled the packing industry.

A few years ago, the meat packers, finding that the consumption of meat had fallen off nearly one-fourth since the beginning of the century, began a vigorous campaign of publicity to increase the demand for their products. A special board was established for the purpose and through the activities of this board an enormous amount of misinformation has been broadcasted which has influenced a number of people to "eat more meat to save the live stock industry," to use the packers' appealing slogan and incidentally to help the packing industry, and there has been some increase in the use of pork, although the falling off in the consumption of beef has continued in spite of unscrupulous efforts to deceive and mislead the people, to their injury.

The two greatest obstacles in the way of the nut growing industry are the ignorance of the people with respect to the value of nuts as staple foods and the frantic efforts being made by those interested in the meat industry to increase the demand for their products.

A counter campaign of education is needed to set before the people the true facts as revealed by modern chemical and bacteriological research, by the discoveries of nutrition laboratories and by the clinical observations of thousands of eminent clinicians.

The false claims for meat must be met, for it is only by lessening the consumption of meat that room can be made for the dietetic use of nuts. Here are some of the errors that should be corrected.

Claim 1

That meat is an essential food staple, and that without it there would result loss of vitality and of individual and racial stamina.

No respectable physiologist will support this claim today, although half a century ago all physiologists held these now obsolete views.

Claim 2

That flesh foods are necessary for blood building, especially red meats, because of their iron content.

This claim is wholly without scientific support. Modern experiments have shown that anemic animals recover most quickly on a diet rich in plant iron. Green foods have been proven to be sources of the best iron, which is associated with chlorophyl.

The iron of meat has been once used and is of the same sort as that which the body throws away. It is inferior to the iron of green plants, from which the ox makes his red blood.

Nuts contain a rich store of this precious plant iron, as do also beans.

Claim 3

That beef and other flesh meats are muscle and strength builders par excellence.

This claim no longer has scientific support. Sugar is fuel of the body engine. When the butcher's daughter, Gertrude Ederle, failed in her first attempt to swim the English Channel, she very justly charged her collapse before reaching the English shore to the mutton stew her trainer gave her before starting. When in a second attempt, she adopted my suggestion through a mutual acquaintance, to eat sugar instead of meat, she made a world record. This practice is, I believe, now adopted by all successful channel swimmers.

Non-flesh eaters are far superior to meat-eaters in endurance under special strains.

When Dempsey defeated the Argentinean giant, he had trained on modest allowances of meat and his last meal had consisted of vitamin-rich fresh vegetables, while Firpo loaded himself up with steaks and chops.

When Battling Nelson lost his championship, he explained to a newspaper reporter, "'Twas the beefsteak that done it. I swiped an extra beefsteak when my trainer was not looking, and it made me tired."

De Lesseps, the famous French engineer, became a confirmed and enthusiastic flesh abstainer when he found his sturdy beef-fed Englishmen could not compete in work on the Suez Canal with the Arab laborers, who subsisted on wheat bread and onions, as did the builders of the pyramids, according to Herodotus, 5,000 years before. He declared, in fact, that without the hardy Arabs, he could not have done the work.

Theodore Roosevelt, in his story of his East Africa hunting expedition, said in Scribners Magazine that a horse with a heavy man on his back could always run down a lion fleeing for his life in a mile and a half.

Claim 4

That a man can live on a flesh or muscle meat diet such as chops and steaks.

The famous pedestrian, Weston, informed me that on his long walks, he never ate meat and on his walk across the continent lived on corn flakes and milk.

Carl Mann, a grocer's clerk not professionally trained, competing in a government supervised walking race from Dresden to Berlin, 123 miles, against the picked pedestrians of the German army and several professionals, won easily on a fleshless diet consisting of nuts and fresh vegetables which he pulled out of the vegetable gardens as he hurried by. The only protein he ate was derived from nuts.

The Tarahumari Indians of Mexico are the most tireless runners in the world. Their ancestors were the dispatch runners of Montezuma in pre-Colombian days, and they still adhere to the simple plant regimen of their forbears.

At the time of the Boxer uprising in China some years ago, the rice-fed Japanese were the first to arrive of the military representatives of numerous nations who raced to the rescue of the foreign embassies besieged by the fanatical and bloodthirsty Boxers.

Claim 5

That a man can live and enjoy good health for a year or many years on a purely flesh or muscle-meat diet.

The packers' much heralded Stefansson stunt of living a year on an exclusive meat diet was a discreditable fake. Stefansson did not live on a meat diet, but on a diet consisting of one-fifth protein and four-fifths fat (caloric intake). When compelled against his protest to eat steaks and chops, he was made very ill with acidosis within two days, vomiting and purging so violently that he was compelled to make a complete and immediate change. Prof. Newburgh of our State University stated that Stefansson ate no more real muscle meat than the average man usually eats. The Stefansson experiment proved but one thing, namely, that a man even when accustomed to a meat diet, cannot live on lean meat alone for more than two days without becoming ill.

Dr. Newburgh produced nephritis, or acute inflammation of the kidneys, in rats by feeding them exclusively on meat for a few weeks.

Claim 6

That Eskimos thrive on a meat diet.

Captain McMillan who accompanied Peary on his discovery of the North Pole, a year or two ago informed me that the Eskimo is short lived. That he becomes at 50 years very old and useless and at 55 infirm and helpless, and rarely lives to the age of 60 years.

The Arctic traveler Stefansson said to me, "I do not claim to have proven that a man can live better or longer on a flesh diet, but only that he can live. Of course the scientific argument is against such a diet."

Prof. Irving Fisher of Yale University some years ago made a series of endurance tests in which the endurance of the athletes of the Yale gymnasium was compared with that of physicians and men nurses of the Battle Creek Sanitarium. As Prof. Fisher said in his report, which was published in the Yale Scientific Review, the endurance of the Battle Creek flesh-abstainers was found to be not only "greater" in all the tests, but far greater. In the arm holding (arms extended sidewise) tests, the Battle Creek men held their arms out longer than any Yale man and nine times as long as the same number of Yale men.

Vegetarian bicyclists have for many years held all the championships in endurance riding tests from Land's End to John O'Groats.

Through Finland's minister to the United States I have learned that Nurmi, the Finnish runner whose record stands unequalled, was trained on a non-flesh dietary.

The Great War taught the world among many other important lessons, the fact that meat may be dispensed with not only without injury, but with great and very definite benefits.

During the World War, Denmark sold her cattle to Germany and reduced her meat ration to a very low minimum, with the result that her death rate was reduced one-third.

In Germany, where at the beginning of the war the cattle were killed to save food and a practically meatless ration was maintained for more than three years, diabetes, Bright's disease, and many other chronic maladies were reduced in frequency to an extraordinary degree. After the war, as I was informed by the medical director of one of the largest life insurance companies in this country, it was discovered that the death losses among the company's German policy holders, not excepting war casualties, were far below the prewar average.

The Chittenden standard now universally accepted, fixes the protein intake at 10 per cent of the total ration. This leaves little room for meat, and not a few authorities reduce the protein to a still lower level.

For some years, McCollum of Johns Hopkins has been calling attention to the evils of the "meat and bread" diet, which he declares to be about the worst diet one can adopt, and adds, "We could entirely dispense with meats without suffering any ill effects whatever."

Chalmers Watson of Edinburgh found that rats on a lean meat diet deteriorated so rapidly that after two or three generations they became deformed and dwarfed and ceased to reproduce.

The International Scientific Food Commission appointed by the Allies at the time of the Great War and charged with the duty of fixing the minimum ration of different food essentials, declared it to be unnecessary to fix a minimum meat ration, "in view of the fact that no absolute physiological need exists for meat, since the proteins of meat can be replaced by other proteins of animal origin, such as those contained in milk, cheese and eggs, as well as by proteins of vegetable origin."

It is evident from the above facts that an effort to induce the American people to eat less meat and more nuts would do no harm and should prove substantially beneficial.

A leading textbook on "Nutrition and Clinical Dietetics" by Carter, Howe and Mason of Columbia University, calls attention to the encouraging fact that "Of late there has been a distinct reaction in the meat-eating of the wealthier classes, and one sees less meat and more vegetable habits as they progress upward in the scale of civilization. Also, on account of their sedentary habits, people find that the ingestion of considerable quantities of animal protein, with the consequent increase in intestinal putrefaction, gives rise to symptoms of toxemia, which have assumed a very definite place in the pathology of disease."

That meat enormously increases intestinal putrefaction cannot be questioned. It is this fact which makes the difference between the excreta of a dog or lion and that of a cow or horse. All carnivorous animals suffer from autointoxication.

The eminent pathologist of the Philadelphia Zoo states that all dogs over three years of age have hardened arteries, while horses practically never show arterial changes even when very old.

Dr. Charles Mayo states that three out of four dogs over 12 years have cancer.

I quote the following paragraphs from a poster prepared some years ago as a reply to "Meat Is Wholesome" poster distributed by the packers through the post office department which presents ample evidence that meat is by no means always wholesome:

A bacteriological examination made in the laboratory of the Battle Creek Sanitarium of fresh meats purchased at seven different markets, all in apparently fresh condition, showed the following number of bacteria per ounce:

Bacteria Per Ounce Beefsteak 37,500,000- 45,000,000 Pork Chops 5,100,000- 87,000,000 Beef Liver 3,000,000- 945,000,000 Corned Beef 300,000- 910,000,000 Hamburger Steak 5,100,000-2,250,000,000 Pork Liver 3,000,000-2,862,000,000

The above figures agree with the findings of Tissier, Distaso, Weinzirl, Farger, Walpole, and other bacteriological authorities.

The Fresh Droppings of Animals

Bacteria Per Ounce Calf 450,000,000 Horse 750,000,000 Goat 2,070,000,000 Cow 2,400,000,000 Oyster Juice 102,000,000

The bacteria in meats are identical in character with those of manure, and are more numerous in some meats than in fresh manure. All meats become infected with manure germs in the process of slaughtering, and the number increases the longer the meat is kept in storage.

Ordinary cooking does not destroy all of the germs of meat.

The importance of suppressing this intestinal putrefaction is becoming more and more evident as medical investigation and discoveries are continually bringing out new facts which show an intimate relation between intestinal poisons and many chronic maladies, including gall bladder disease, high blood pressure, heart disease which kills 300,000 Americans annually, Bright's disease, insanity and premature senility. Many physicians are on this account saying daily to patients, "Eat less meat." "Cut out beefsteak and chops," and "Change your intestinal flora so as to clear your coated tongue and eliminate the poison that taints your breath."

Nuts have the great advantage that although richer in protein than is meat, they are much less putrescible. Fresh meats are practically always in a state of putrefaction when eaten while nuts are delivered to us by the generous hand of Nature in aseptic packages, ready to eat, and presenting pure nutriment in the most condensed and refined form known to science. Fresh meats are always contaminated with colon and putrefactive germs with which they become contaminated in the slaughtering process. If flesh is to be used as food, animals should be killed with the same antiseptic precautions which are employed in modern surgery. This is never done, and within a few days after killing, the flesh of a slaughtered animal is swarming with colon germs, and when long kept for use of hotels and many restaurants, is covered with a beard of green mold. Such food is fit only for scavengers. Hamburger steak and pork liver often contain more manure germs than the fresh droppings of animals.

The liberal substitution of nuts for meats would save billions annually.

According to Prof. Baker, of the Department of Agriculture, fully 80 per cent of the total feed and food products in the United States is consumed by live stock. Most of these animals are consumed as food.

The enormous loss involved is shown by the fact that 100 pounds of digestible foodstuffs are required to produce 3 pounds of beef.

According to an announcement by the United States Bureau of Statistics, the per capita annual cost of meat in the United States is more than $80.00, which totals for the whole population nearly $10,000,000,000 per annum.

Prof. Baker suggests that the annual per capita consumption of meat might without injury be reduced from the present 170 pounds to fifty pounds, which would make a saving of $6,000,000,000 at least, for $1,000,000,000 would easily supply from nuts and other plant sources more than enough food to replace the discarded meats.

The general belief that nuts are an expensive food is an error. When a man pays a dollar for three pounds of steak, he is probably not aware of the fact that three-fourths of what he buys is simply water, so that the actual solid nutriment purchased amounts to not more than three-quarters of a pound, making the actual cost of the water-free food $1.33 per pound.

Two pounds of almonds or other nut meats which might be purchased at the same cost, would yield twice as much and better food.

If the whole beef industry were wiped out, the country would be the gainer.

What the nut industry needs most is a campaign of education to tell the American public about the superior values of nuts and to correct the errors broadcasted by the Meat Board. The public must not only be taught the value of nuts as set forth in Mr. Russell's admirable book, but should be encouraged by government aid to plant nut trees on barren mountain sides and areas devastated by lumbering operations. If every lumberman had been required by law to plant a nut tree for every ten timber trees cut down during the last 50 years, a food source would have been provided which would insure more than an ample supply of precious protein and satisfying fat to feed 120,000,000 of Americans if the cereal food crops were destroyed by a drouth or predatory insects.

If nut trees were planted along all our highways and railway thoroughfares, a food crop would be produced of greater nutrient value than that yielded at the present time by the entire live stock industry.

That an educational campaign may be made to succeed was shown by the experience of the raisin producers of California.

Some years ago, when the raisin industry was prostrate, I received a letter from the secretary of an association organized for the purpose of trying to revive the industry, asking for information concerning the food value of raisins. I called attention to the fact that the raisin is rich in food iron and a good source for this food mineral and suggested that if the people were made acquainted with this fact through a broad advertising campaign, the demand for this delectable fruit might be greatly increased. "Have you eaten your iron?" soon appeared in the newspapers throughout the land, and the raisin farmers of California found it necessary to enlarge their vineyards.

A discouraging feature of the nut industry to beginners is the long time required to bring trees to bearing. On this account, it seems to me that state and federal governments should lend the industry a helping hand. I would suggest that this association should instruct its president and secretary to make an earnest effort to persuade state and federal governments to give more attention to the planting of nut trees in their reforesting operations.

A broad belt of nut trees running the length of the great timberline which is to be created for the protection of the western states from a recurrence of drouth, might prove a more dependable protection to our food supply than the possible effect of a narrow strip of woodland upon the country's climate.

I append a table which shows the high food value of nuts as compared with other common foods. One pound of walnut meats equals in food value each of the following:

Pounds Beef loin, lean 4.00 Beef ribs, lean 6.50 Beef neck, lean 9.50 Veal 5.50 Mutton leg, lean 4.20 Ham, lean 3.00 Fowls 4.00 Chicken, broilers 10.00 Red Bass 25.00 Trout 4.80 Frog's legs 15.00 Oysters 13.50 Lobsters 22.00 Eggs 5.00 Milk 9.50 Evaporated cream 4.00

DR. DEMING:

I am sure everyone feels that the trip here would be worth while if we didn't receive another bit of information but your paper, and they would really like to develop some kind of an ailment so that they could place themselves under your care.

MR. REED:

About five years ago I spent a few hours here in Battle Creek, largely as a guest of Dr. Kellogg over at his home. While I was there he introduced me to quite a variety of soy bean products and he rather disturbed me by telling me that beans had much the same food values as nuts. He reminded me that you could grow a crop of beans every year. You can't be sure of doing that with nut trees. He gave me an economic idea to think about. I wonder if he has anything to say about beans now. Are beans going to supplant nuts?

DR. KELLOGG:

I confess that it seems to me, from a practical and economic standpoint, that the soy bean is a very strong rival of the nut industry. I would like to inquire how many acres are at the present time planted in nuts. How many acres have been added in the last twenty years? There are, at the present time, more than 3,000,000 acres of soy beans being planted every year. It has only been a short time since they were first introduced and there are more being planted every year.

I believe that the government ought to take an interest in this matter of nut tree planting, for I believe that is the best way in which it can be promoted. I have for several years been trying to find someone who has made a fortune out of raising nuts but I have not yet found such a man. I believe, however, that it is a veritable gold mine of value but will have to have governmental aid. I think the government should require all of these slaughtering lumbermen to plant nut trees in the place of the trees they are cutting down.

MR. CORSAN:

The nut tree is one of the things that will make the boys and girls of the farm love their homes. In a few years boys and girls will be going back to a beautiful farm, not to pig pens, but where there are beautiful trees.

Nut Culture Work of the Living Tree Guild

_By_ MISS DOROTHY C. SAWYER, _New York_

The Living Tree Guild appreciates the privilege of presenting a paper at the silver anniversary convention of the Northern Nut Growers' Association. We feel in a humble mood when talking to you. We are new comers in the field and the work we have done in furthering interest in the subject of northern nut culture is only taking what you have created and endeavoring to make it intelligible and useful to the public. It is something which arouses our enthusiasm. We have great faith in the value of planting grafted nut trees in the North. This new resource for beautifying and making idle land productive is no longer restricted to this small group of nut culturists, but it is now practical, for anyone with a little land and the urge to grow things, to enjoy the planting of nut trees.