In his Hydropathic Encyclopedia, 1851, Dr. Trall declared to the world that all fresh fruits and green vegetables are antiscorbutic (opposed to the development of scurvy). Trall soon joined Graham in his crusade for vegetables and fruits and whole grain bread and against meat, eggs, milk, white bread, wines, narcotics, etc. Graham died in 1851. Trall carried on until his death in 1879. By this time the workers were many. Dr. Jennings joined them early in Graham's crusade. After Dr. Trall's death, Drs. Page and Densmore added to our fund of knowledge about trophology.

The next great advance in our trophologic knowledge came in 1891 when Dr. H. Lahmann, of Germany published his Dietetsche Blutentmischung, in which he presented the results of his investigations of the "ash" (minerals) of food. Lahmann was a German "regular" practitioner who had forsaken the pill bags and poison bottles and joined Louis Kuhne in his establishment. Lahmann gave us our first real knowledge of the value of food minerals. His work was rejected by the medical profession, though eagerly accepted by Hygienists and "faddists," with whom he had associated himself. Forty years ago Dr. H. Lindlahr brought Lahmann's discoveries back to America with him. Otto Carque and Alfred W. McCann quickly seized upon this new advance and began the work of acquainting the American public with it.

Ragnar Berg, a Swedish chemist, associated himself with Lahmann and began the development of the world's greatest food scientist. Lahmann died, but Berg still carries on. Lahmann's sanitarium fell into the hands of others. Lahmann's work was declared obsolete, the institution was given over to "experiments a la Steinach" and Berg was discharged.

It should be borne in mind that "with the exception of certain investigations made by Ragnar Berg, absolutely no research of any kind has been undertaken on the complete metabolism of the mineral salts, either in man or animal."--The Physiology of Nutrition, London, 1927.

Within recent years laboratory workers have attacked the subject of diet and these have added to our detailed knowledge of foods if not to our practical knowledge. These experiments have now been carried on long enough that we feel safe in asserting, on the strength of their results, that foods are really good to eat and that they do actually nourish the body. We feel safe in going even further and asserting that we must have foods to grow.

These "biochemists" discovered that cabbage, lettuce, celery, tomatoes, apples, oranges, etc., are really valuable foods. Their discovery so shocked and surprised the medical world that it completely forgot that the "faddists" had been eating these foods for a long time and had declared them to be superior to white flour, salt bacon, pigs knuckles, sausage, lard pies and coffee. It was really a remarkable discovery--all they now need to do is to become "faddists" with the rest of us and make use of the things Graham, Trall, Alcott, Densmore, Page, Oswald, Kuhne, Lahmann, Berg, etc., had long taught.

Much of the experimental "findings" is sheer nonsense. Many of the experimenters are subsidized by interested commercial firms. There are many green vegetables that are as valuable as spinach, but none that have "growers" organizations back of them to subsidize research. The manufacturers of yeast, of cod-liver oil and halibut-liver oil have subsidized research workers. So have the big milk producing companies. The same is true of the citrus industry. The gatherers and sellers of sea weeds have their scientific prostitutes also. When we see some special food heralded as an apple from the "Tree of Life" and see its value over-emphasized in books, magazines, newspapers and in physicians and "research" workers' reports we may be sure that there is money behind it.

The work of the biochemist tends to center around the vitamins and is confined largely to animal experimentation. It lacks the importance possessed by the work of those who feed human beings and who do not confine their attention to one food factor, but attend to the whole diet and to the whole program of eating.

I do not desire to minimize the serious work of the laboratory experimenters, but I would call attention to the fact that the "faddists" have preceded them with a whole series of much more important experiments. The "faddists" are of all varieties and kinds and they have many different notions and practices. They have, in other words, carried out, in human beings, many dietetic experiments. Some of these experiments have involved thousands of individuals and three or four generations. These experiments and their results are not to be lightly cast aside because those who make them lack training in the diploma mills of medicine, or because they were not "controlled." Hail to the faddists! They have performed a necessary work.

In this work we do not intend to ignore the work of the "faddists" but shall make use of it just as we shall draw upon the work of the laboratory men to confirm the findings of the "faddists." For it was the "faddists" and not the "bio-chemists" who initiated the movement for dietary study and reform and, who, by their results, compelled the medical world to take notice. Except for the "faddists" the "biochemists" may not have been born.

The medical profession showed no interest in dietetics until an awakened public demanded to know how to feed itself. Trophologists were ridiculed as faddists, fanatics, extremists and unqualified practitioners, or quacks by the medical fraternity.

Dr. Trall's words in his Hydropathic Cook-Book (1853) are still true: "However strange may seem the assertion, it is nevertheless true, that the philosophy of diet has never been taught in medical schools! Physicians generally are as profoundly ignorant of the whole subject as are the great masses of people."

Back in 1916 Dr. Richard C. Cabot, one of the outstanding physicians of the world, wrote: "Almost nothing is known about diet. There are numerous books on the subject which are useful for pressing leaves, but not for much that they contain." I believe that Dr. Cabot's evaluation of medical literature on diet was correct at the time he first published his statement and that the condition has not greatly improved since.

In Nov. 1926, R. G. Jackson, M.D., Toronto, Canada, declared that although diet had "long been ignored and its few advocates been relegated to the category of 'cranks,' proper feeding is beginning to be recognized by the medical profession as a most important adjunct to our therapeutic armamentarium." He adds: "Diet was not 'scientific medicine,' therefore it was not anything. And besides, diet was a measure advocated by 'cults' outside the profession; therefore it ought to be frowned upon."

Note that Dr. Jackson recognizes that his profession are accepting diet merely as an adjunct to their "therapeutic armamentarium," and not as a very foundation stone of life and health. He adds: "Moreover, modern dietetics is not the creation of our profession. It has been developed in its scientific aspects largely by our friends, the biochemists, and through them almost forced upon us. But now our authorities are beginning to put their O.K. upon it and marking it as their own; so it becomes respectable and will soon belong to 'scientific medicine'."