Vegetarians are those persons who, while in some instances admitting and defending the use of eggs and milk, hold, in theory at least, that the eating of meats is deleterious to the physical welfare of the human family. Their position is based on the following grounds:

1. Man is anatomically not a carnivorous animal.

2. Meat is an unnecessary article of diet.

3. The use of meat is a menace to the health of man mainly for the following reasons: a It causes an overconsumption of protein, which promotes certain diseases.

6 It greatly promotes the growth of bacteria in the intestinal tract.

c It is a fruitful source of toxins that are dangerous to health or even life.

d Vegetarians are healthier and have greater physical endurance than meat eaters.

233. Anatomical Considerations

Does the structure of the human animal indicate that he should not eat flesh? This question seems somewhat absurd in view of the fact that man has been eating flesh for centuries, and that on a partially flesh diet men of great vigor and endurance have been grown. Facts overshadow theories. The earliest recorded history tells us of flesh eating. In a savage state man eats flesh freely. The Norsemen, the mighty men of the north, were flesh eaters. To be sure, man has not now prehensile teeth, but he succeeds fairly well in masticating cooked flesh. It is not surprising that in view of his intelligent methods of securing food, other means than teeth are used for capturing and holding his prey. So far as internal structure is concerned, the length of man's intestines is shorter than that of animals eating no meat, and longer than that of carnivorous animals, - a fact that may have little significance, however. Anyway, man successfully digests meat.

Vegetarians can find little in man's structure to support their position, so far as we can discover. Man has always eaten flesh, and to say that he should not, because of his anatomical structure, is not a convincing reason for declaring that, through countless generations, man has failed to discover the food that best serves his bodily needs, and for so long has followed abnormal eating habits. This would be about as rational as to declare that a squirrel should not eat nuts.

234. Is Flesh Protein Necessary?

One of the main arguments of the advocates of a fleshless diet is that the physical welfare of man does not demand meat as a part of his food. It is asserted, and with truth, that human beings have been grown and maintained in activity on a vegetable diet. Surely this- can be done if milk and eggs are admitted to be "vegetarian."

Apart from practical experience, it is now very evident from our knowledge of the compounds of plants and from our studies of metabolism, that a vegetable diet can and does perform the complete round of nutritive functions. The larger part of food is used for energy production, and no source of energy is physiologically more efficient than starch and its allies. The proteins of plants and animals are closely alike in constitution, if we may judge from their cleavage products, and certainly perform similar functions. It is true, however, that the meat proteins correspond more closely to the constructive demands of the human body than do the plant proteins, and, consequently, in rearranging the " building stones " for the construction of animal tissue, it seems almost certain that there would be less waste from flesh proteins than from those having a vegetable source. But, after all, the protein tissue of many forms of brute life is constructed wholly from vegetable protein, and we may safely reason that the same may occur with the human species.

But while plant and flesh proteins are on a par as to kind of functions, is a purely vegetable diet likely to supply protein in a quantity essential to the most effective nutritive results, unless vegetable foods are reenforced by milk and eggs, - a practice which some vegetarians (?) admit to be good? The quantity of ingested protein that a vegetarian diet supplies is generally below the accepted dietary standards. Whether or not this minimum protein diet is desirable, is discussed elsewhere in this volume (pp. 195-199).

The real question is not whether flesh proteins are a necessary part of the human diet, but whether meat eating in a reasonable way is harmful, or may not have its advantages.