The amount of energy shown in pushing among the people a knowledge of vegetarian tenets ought certainly to be followed by widespread results. Mr. H. S. Salt, in “Flesh or Fruit”, makes a very thoughtful and very careful plea for the rejection of meat from our tables.1 He pleads that only by such rejection can we “be truly and consistently humane”. That it is “impossible to reconcile the present system of diet with the most unmistakable promptings of good taste”. That vegetarianism is hygienically advisable: “The effect of flesh-food is similar to that of alcohol, supplying a temporary stimulant rather than a permanent and equable strength; and for this reason vegetarians justly claim an advantage for the reformed diet. The experience of those who have made trial of vegetarianism shows that the moderate use of fruits, cereals, and vegetables, with the addition, if desired, of such animal products as milk, cheese, and eggs, tends to produce a sound and healthy habit of body, together with increased clearness and calmness of mind. A striking instance of the beneficial effect of a vegetable diet is seen in the fact that vegetarians are almost invariably total abstainers from wine and all alcoholic drinks, the craving for which dies a natural death together with the disuse of flesh-meat and the adoption of a nourishing but non-stimulating diet; the simplest and most efficacious cure for the drink-crave is to be found in food reform.” That it is more economical. In the second half of the book objections are met and answered.
1 Reeves; 185 Fleet Street
Our Corner, Vol. 11 No. 6, June 1, 1888, p. 390
Book Reviewed: Flesh or Fruit? An Essay on Food Reform