2.—Changes in the Methods of Nutrition.Food and drink are prime necessities of life. People who believe in the so-called “natural manner of living” frequently ask why Socialists remain indifferent to vegetarianism. Everyone lives as best he may. Vegetarianism, that is, the doctrine of an exclusive vegetable diet, found its chief supporters among the persons who are so comfortably situated that they are able to choose between a vegetable and an animal diet. But the great majority of persons have no choice. They must live according to their means, and the scantiness of their means compels them to live on a vegetable diet almost exclusively and often on one of the poorest quality. For the German laboring population in Silesia, Saxony, Thuringia,etc., the potato is the principal article of food; even bread comes only second. Meat only rarely appears on their tables, and then it is meat of the poorest quality. The greater part of the rural population, although they raise cattle, also rarely eat meat; for they must sell thecattle, and, with the money obtained, must satisfy other needs. To these numerous people who are obliged to live as vegetarians, a solid beefsteak or a good leg of mutton would mean a decided improvement in their nourishment.[265]If vegetarianism opposes theovereatingof an animal diet, it is right. If it combats the partaking of meat as harmful and detrimental, mainly for sentimental reasons, it is wrong; when it is claimed, for instance, that natural feelings forbid to kill an animal and to partake of a “corpse.” The desire to live in peace compels us to wage war upon and destroy a great many living creatures, such as vermin, and, in order not to be devoured ourselves, we must kill and exterminate wild beasts. If we could allow “the good friends of man,” the domestic animals, to live undisturbed, these “good friends” would multiply to such a degree that they would “eat” us by robbing us of nourishment. The assertion that vegetable diet creates a gentle disposition is false, too. Even in the gentle, vegetarian Hindoos the “beast” was aroused, when the severity of the English drove them to rebellion. The nutritive value of an article of food cannot be estimated only by the amount of albumen that it contains. It must be taken into consideration how large a quantity of the albumen consumed remainsundigested. Considered from this view-point, we find, for instance, meat and rice, or potatoes, as 2.5 to 20 or 22. In other words, of 100 grammes of albumen consumed with meat, 2.5 grammes will pass out of the system undigested. Of 100 grammes consumed with rice or potatoes, respectively, 20 and 22 grammes will pass out. The famous Russian physiologist, Pawlow, and his scholars have shown that, with the digestion of bread, there is much more ferment than with the digestion of meat. Pawlow has furthermore shown that the gastric juices produced by the pancreas glands are of two kinds. They are produced through stimulation of the mucous membrane by the food itself, and are also produced as “appetite juices” by stimulation of the senses. The quantity of our appetite juice depends upon our psychic condition for the time being; for instance, on hunger, grief, annoyance, joy,etc., and it also depends upon the nature of the food. But the importance of the appetite juice differs with different articles of food. Some foods, as, for instance, bread, boiled albumen, as contained in eggs, or pure starch, cannot be digested at all, unless the digestion is introduced by the appetite juice, as has been directly proved by experiments. They can only be digested when they are eaten with an appetite, or together with other food. But meat, as Pawlow has shown, can be partly digested without appetite juice, although, with the aid of appetite juice, meat is digested much more rapidly (five times as fast). “We must therefore take factors into consideration that depend upon the psychology of man. Here a connection has been established between facts of the physiology of nutrition and social conditions. The modern residents of large cities, especially the masses of the working class, live under social conditions that are bound to destroy their normal appetite. Work in the squalid factory, the constant worry over their daily bread, absence of mental repose and pleasant impressions, complete physical exhaustion, all these are factors that are destructive of appetite.In this psychological condition we are unable to furnish the appetite juice required for the digestion of vegetable food. But in meat we possess an article of food that—if we may thus express it—provides for its own digestion. Aconsiderable quantity of meat can be digested without appetite; it also acts as a stimulant and a creator of appetite. So meat aids the digestion of vegetables consumed at the same time, and thereby insures a better assimilation of the consumed matter. This appears to be the great advantage of an animal diet to modernman.”[266]Sonderegger hits the nail on the head when he says: “There is no order of rank among articles of food, but there is an immutable law regarding the combination of their nutritive qualities.” It is true that no one can live on an animal diet exclusively, while one can live on a vegetable diet, provided that the diet can be properly selected. On the other hand, no one would care to content himself with one specific kind of vegetable food, no matter how nutritive it might be. Thus, beans, peas, lentils, in one word, the leguminosæ, are the most nutritive of all articles of food. But to live on them exclusively—which is said to be possible—would be a torture. Karl Marx mentions, in his first volume of “Capital,” that the mine-owners in Chili compel their workingmen to eat beans all the year round, because this nourishment gives them an unusual amount of strength and enables them to carry loads as no other nourishment will. The workingmen refuse the beans, notwithstanding their nutritive value, but are compelled to content themselves with this diet. Under no circumstances does the happiness and welfare of man depend upon a definite kind of food, as the fanatics among vegetarians claim. Climate, social conditions, custom and personal taste are the determiningfactors.[267]In the measure in which civilization advances, exclusive meat diet, as is met with among hunting and pastoral tribes, is partly replaced by vegetable diet. The variety of cultivated plants is a proof of higher civilization. On a given area, moreover, much more nourishment can be obtained by the cultivation of plants than by the breeding of cattle. This development gradually causes the vegetable diet to predominate. The supply of meat from distant countries, especially South America and Australia, will be exhausted in a few decades. On the other hand, animals are raised not only for their flesh, but also for wool, hair, bristles, hides, milk, eggs,etc.Many industries and a number of human needs depend upon it. Much offal in industry and housekeeping could not be more usefully employed than by cattle raising. In the future the ocean, too, will have to yield to man its wealth of animal food in a larger measure. Then it will not occur that loads of fish will be used as manure, owing to the high cost of transportation, or canning, that prevent their sale, as is frequently the case at present. It is quite probable that the abolition of the extremes between city and country, when work in closed shops will be combined with work in the open fields, will again lead to a preponderance of the vegetable diet. Of course the absence of stimulants in a vegetable diet can be equalized by a proper and rational preparation of the food with the aid of spice. But that future society should live on vegetables exclusively is neither probable nor necessary.[265]That this is the fact has been proven by experiments in nutrition, recently reported by two Italian scientists. The metabolic assimilation of a population that has long since lived on a vegetable diet exclusively, was examined. Such an agricultural population, living in wretched economic conditions, is met with in southern Italy in the Abruzzi. Their nourishment consists of corn, vegetables and olive oil. They do not partake of milk, cheese or eggs. Meat is brought to their tables only three or four times a year. By way of experiment meat was added to their diet. During 15 days every person was given 100 grammes of meat and during the following 15 days 200 grammes. It was found that the process of assimilation became much more favorable. The formerly great loss of nutritious matter was considerably diminished. Not only was the newly added animal albumen perfectly assimilated, but also the vegetable food that was consumed together with the meat had been assimilated far better. This was all the more remarkable because this particular kind of vegetable diet, which consisted almost exclusively of corn, was hard to digest, as it contains much cellular tissue.Dr.A. Lipschuetz,M. D.—“A Reform in our Nutrition?”[266]A. Lipschuetz.[267]“The popular nutrition is almost exclusively a vegetable diet with a slight addition of animal substances. Peasants eat generally very little meat. No one will deny that one can live in this manner. As a matter of fact, an exclusive vegetable diet, which can also be given greater diversity by proper selection, is quite compatible with good health. But far different needs are becoming manifest in every continent. The popular simple manner of nutrition is being forsaken for more tasty foods and combinations, and for this meat is essential, because it can be employed in many different ways. Everywhere we perceive this tendency. Like the old, simple customs and national customs disappear, so also are the old forms of nutrition being set aside. This transformation can be observed in all countries. Even in Japan where a peculiar national diet prevailed until recently, European fare has displaced the old regime. In the Japanese navy the new diet was introduced because it proved to be more beneficial to the men in service. The endeavor to establish this concentrated, rich and tasty fare is a general one.” M. Rubner—The Question of Public Nutrition.
2.—Changes in the Methods of Nutrition.Food and drink are prime necessities of life. People who believe in the so-called “natural manner of living” frequently ask why Socialists remain indifferent to vegetarianism. Everyone lives as best he may. Vegetarianism, that is, the doctrine of an exclusive vegetable diet, found its chief supporters among the persons who are so comfortably situated that they are able to choose between a vegetable and an animal diet. But the great majority of persons have no choice. They must live according to their means, and the scantiness of their means compels them to live on a vegetable diet almost exclusively and often on one of the poorest quality. For the German laboring population in Silesia, Saxony, Thuringia,etc., the potato is the principal article of food; even bread comes only second. Meat only rarely appears on their tables, and then it is meat of the poorest quality. The greater part of the rural population, although they raise cattle, also rarely eat meat; for they must sell thecattle, and, with the money obtained, must satisfy other needs. To these numerous people who are obliged to live as vegetarians, a solid beefsteak or a good leg of mutton would mean a decided improvement in their nourishment.[265]If vegetarianism opposes theovereatingof an animal diet, it is right. If it combats the partaking of meat as harmful and detrimental, mainly for sentimental reasons, it is wrong; when it is claimed, for instance, that natural feelings forbid to kill an animal and to partake of a “corpse.” The desire to live in peace compels us to wage war upon and destroy a great many living creatures, such as vermin, and, in order not to be devoured ourselves, we must kill and exterminate wild beasts. If we could allow “the good friends of man,” the domestic animals, to live undisturbed, these “good friends” would multiply to such a degree that they would “eat” us by robbing us of nourishment. The assertion that vegetable diet creates a gentle disposition is false, too. Even in the gentle, vegetarian Hindoos the “beast” was aroused, when the severity of the English drove them to rebellion. The nutritive value of an article of food cannot be estimated only by the amount of albumen that it contains. It must be taken into consideration how large a quantity of the albumen consumed remainsundigested. Considered from this view-point, we find, for instance, meat and rice, or potatoes, as 2.5 to 20 or 22. In other words, of 100 grammes of albumen consumed with meat, 2.5 grammes will pass out of the system undigested. Of 100 grammes consumed with rice or potatoes, respectively, 20 and 22 grammes will pass out. The famous Russian physiologist, Pawlow, and his scholars have shown that, with the digestion of bread, there is much more ferment than with the digestion of meat. Pawlow has furthermore shown that the gastric juices produced by the pancreas glands are of two kinds. They are produced through stimulation of the mucous membrane by the food itself, and are also produced as “appetite juices” by stimulation of the senses. The quantity of our appetite juice depends upon our psychic condition for the time being; for instance, on hunger, grief, annoyance, joy,etc., and it also depends upon the nature of the food. But the importance of the appetite juice differs with different articles of food. Some foods, as, for instance, bread, boiled albumen, as contained in eggs, or pure starch, cannot be digested at all, unless the digestion is introduced by the appetite juice, as has been directly proved by experiments. They can only be digested when they are eaten with an appetite, or together with other food. But meat, as Pawlow has shown, can be partly digested without appetite juice, although, with the aid of appetite juice, meat is digested much more rapidly (five times as fast). “We must therefore take factors into consideration that depend upon the psychology of man. Here a connection has been established between facts of the physiology of nutrition and social conditions. The modern residents of large cities, especially the masses of the working class, live under social conditions that are bound to destroy their normal appetite. Work in the squalid factory, the constant worry over their daily bread, absence of mental repose and pleasant impressions, complete physical exhaustion, all these are factors that are destructive of appetite.In this psychological condition we are unable to furnish the appetite juice required for the digestion of vegetable food. But in meat we possess an article of food that—if we may thus express it—provides for its own digestion. Aconsiderable quantity of meat can be digested without appetite; it also acts as a stimulant and a creator of appetite. So meat aids the digestion of vegetables consumed at the same time, and thereby insures a better assimilation of the consumed matter. This appears to be the great advantage of an animal diet to modernman.”[266]Sonderegger hits the nail on the head when he says: “There is no order of rank among articles of food, but there is an immutable law regarding the combination of their nutritive qualities.” It is true that no one can live on an animal diet exclusively, while one can live on a vegetable diet, provided that the diet can be properly selected. On the other hand, no one would care to content himself with one specific kind of vegetable food, no matter how nutritive it might be. Thus, beans, peas, lentils, in one word, the leguminosæ, are the most nutritive of all articles of food. But to live on them exclusively—which is said to be possible—would be a torture. Karl Marx mentions, in his first volume of “Capital,” that the mine-owners in Chili compel their workingmen to eat beans all the year round, because this nourishment gives them an unusual amount of strength and enables them to carry loads as no other nourishment will. The workingmen refuse the beans, notwithstanding their nutritive value, but are compelled to content themselves with this diet. Under no circumstances does the happiness and welfare of man depend upon a definite kind of food, as the fanatics among vegetarians claim. Climate, social conditions, custom and personal taste are the determiningfactors.[267]In the measure in which civilization advances, exclusive meat diet, as is met with among hunting and pastoral tribes, is partly replaced by vegetable diet. The variety of cultivated plants is a proof of higher civilization. On a given area, moreover, much more nourishment can be obtained by the cultivation of plants than by the breeding of cattle. This development gradually causes the vegetable diet to predominate. The supply of meat from distant countries, especially South America and Australia, will be exhausted in a few decades. On the other hand, animals are raised not only for their flesh, but also for wool, hair, bristles, hides, milk, eggs,etc.Many industries and a number of human needs depend upon it. Much offal in industry and housekeeping could not be more usefully employed than by cattle raising. In the future the ocean, too, will have to yield to man its wealth of animal food in a larger measure. Then it will not occur that loads of fish will be used as manure, owing to the high cost of transportation, or canning, that prevent their sale, as is frequently the case at present. It is quite probable that the abolition of the extremes between city and country, when work in closed shops will be combined with work in the open fields, will again lead to a preponderance of the vegetable diet. Of course the absence of stimulants in a vegetable diet can be equalized by a proper and rational preparation of the food with the aid of spice. But that future society should live on vegetables exclusively is neither probable nor necessary.[265]That this is the fact has been proven by experiments in nutrition, recently reported by two Italian scientists. The metabolic assimilation of a population that has long since lived on a vegetable diet exclusively, was examined. Such an agricultural population, living in wretched economic conditions, is met with in southern Italy in the Abruzzi. Their nourishment consists of corn, vegetables and olive oil. They do not partake of milk, cheese or eggs. Meat is brought to their tables only three or four times a year. By way of experiment meat was added to their diet. During 15 days every person was given 100 grammes of meat and during the following 15 days 200 grammes. It was found that the process of assimilation became much more favorable. The formerly great loss of nutritious matter was considerably diminished. Not only was the newly added animal albumen perfectly assimilated, but also the vegetable food that was consumed together with the meat had been assimilated far better. This was all the more remarkable because this particular kind of vegetable diet, which consisted almost exclusively of corn, was hard to digest, as it contains much cellular tissue.Dr.A. Lipschuetz,M. D.—“A Reform in our Nutrition?”[266]A. Lipschuetz.[267]“The popular nutrition is almost exclusively a vegetable diet with a slight addition of animal substances. Peasants eat generally very little meat. No one will deny that one can live in this manner. As a matter of fact, an exclusive vegetable diet, which can also be given greater diversity by proper selection, is quite compatible with good health. But far different needs are becoming manifest in every continent. The popular simple manner of nutrition is being forsaken for more tasty foods and combinations, and for this meat is essential, because it can be employed in many different ways. Everywhere we perceive this tendency. Like the old, simple customs and national customs disappear, so also are the old forms of nutrition being set aside. This transformation can be observed in all countries. Even in Japan where a peculiar national diet prevailed until recently, European fare has displaced the old regime. In the Japanese navy the new diet was introduced because it proved to be more beneficial to the men in service. The endeavor to establish this concentrated, rich and tasty fare is a general one.” M. Rubner—The Question of Public Nutrition.
Food and drink are prime necessities of life. People who believe in the so-called “natural manner of living” frequently ask why Socialists remain indifferent to vegetarianism. Everyone lives as best he may. Vegetarianism, that is, the doctrine of an exclusive vegetable diet, found its chief supporters among the persons who are so comfortably situated that they are able to choose between a vegetable and an animal diet. But the great majority of persons have no choice. They must live according to their means, and the scantiness of their means compels them to live on a vegetable diet almost exclusively and often on one of the poorest quality. For the German laboring population in Silesia, Saxony, Thuringia,etc., the potato is the principal article of food; even bread comes only second. Meat only rarely appears on their tables, and then it is meat of the poorest quality. The greater part of the rural population, although they raise cattle, also rarely eat meat; for they must sell thecattle, and, with the money obtained, must satisfy other needs. To these numerous people who are obliged to live as vegetarians, a solid beefsteak or a good leg of mutton would mean a decided improvement in their nourishment.[265]If vegetarianism opposes theovereatingof an animal diet, it is right. If it combats the partaking of meat as harmful and detrimental, mainly for sentimental reasons, it is wrong; when it is claimed, for instance, that natural feelings forbid to kill an animal and to partake of a “corpse.” The desire to live in peace compels us to wage war upon and destroy a great many living creatures, such as vermin, and, in order not to be devoured ourselves, we must kill and exterminate wild beasts. If we could allow “the good friends of man,” the domestic animals, to live undisturbed, these “good friends” would multiply to such a degree that they would “eat” us by robbing us of nourishment. The assertion that vegetable diet creates a gentle disposition is false, too. Even in the gentle, vegetarian Hindoos the “beast” was aroused, when the severity of the English drove them to rebellion. The nutritive value of an article of food cannot be estimated only by the amount of albumen that it contains. It must be taken into consideration how large a quantity of the albumen consumed remainsundigested. Considered from this view-point, we find, for instance, meat and rice, or potatoes, as 2.5 to 20 or 22. In other words, of 100 grammes of albumen consumed with meat, 2.5 grammes will pass out of the system undigested. Of 100 grammes consumed with rice or potatoes, respectively, 20 and 22 grammes will pass out. The famous Russian physiologist, Pawlow, and his scholars have shown that, with the digestion of bread, there is much more ferment than with the digestion of meat. Pawlow has furthermore shown that the gastric juices produced by the pancreas glands are of two kinds. They are produced through stimulation of the mucous membrane by the food itself, and are also produced as “appetite juices” by stimulation of the senses. The quantity of our appetite juice depends upon our psychic condition for the time being; for instance, on hunger, grief, annoyance, joy,etc., and it also depends upon the nature of the food. But the importance of the appetite juice differs with different articles of food. Some foods, as, for instance, bread, boiled albumen, as contained in eggs, or pure starch, cannot be digested at all, unless the digestion is introduced by the appetite juice, as has been directly proved by experiments. They can only be digested when they are eaten with an appetite, or together with other food. But meat, as Pawlow has shown, can be partly digested without appetite juice, although, with the aid of appetite juice, meat is digested much more rapidly (five times as fast). “We must therefore take factors into consideration that depend upon the psychology of man. Here a connection has been established between facts of the physiology of nutrition and social conditions. The modern residents of large cities, especially the masses of the working class, live under social conditions that are bound to destroy their normal appetite. Work in the squalid factory, the constant worry over their daily bread, absence of mental repose and pleasant impressions, complete physical exhaustion, all these are factors that are destructive of appetite.In this psychological condition we are unable to furnish the appetite juice required for the digestion of vegetable food. But in meat we possess an article of food that—if we may thus express it—provides for its own digestion. Aconsiderable quantity of meat can be digested without appetite; it also acts as a stimulant and a creator of appetite. So meat aids the digestion of vegetables consumed at the same time, and thereby insures a better assimilation of the consumed matter. This appears to be the great advantage of an animal diet to modernman.”[266]
Sonderegger hits the nail on the head when he says: “There is no order of rank among articles of food, but there is an immutable law regarding the combination of their nutritive qualities.” It is true that no one can live on an animal diet exclusively, while one can live on a vegetable diet, provided that the diet can be properly selected. On the other hand, no one would care to content himself with one specific kind of vegetable food, no matter how nutritive it might be. Thus, beans, peas, lentils, in one word, the leguminosæ, are the most nutritive of all articles of food. But to live on them exclusively—which is said to be possible—would be a torture. Karl Marx mentions, in his first volume of “Capital,” that the mine-owners in Chili compel their workingmen to eat beans all the year round, because this nourishment gives them an unusual amount of strength and enables them to carry loads as no other nourishment will. The workingmen refuse the beans, notwithstanding their nutritive value, but are compelled to content themselves with this diet. Under no circumstances does the happiness and welfare of man depend upon a definite kind of food, as the fanatics among vegetarians claim. Climate, social conditions, custom and personal taste are the determiningfactors.[267]
In the measure in which civilization advances, exclusive meat diet, as is met with among hunting and pastoral tribes, is partly replaced by vegetable diet. The variety of cultivated plants is a proof of higher civilization. On a given area, moreover, much more nourishment can be obtained by the cultivation of plants than by the breeding of cattle. This development gradually causes the vegetable diet to predominate. The supply of meat from distant countries, especially South America and Australia, will be exhausted in a few decades. On the other hand, animals are raised not only for their flesh, but also for wool, hair, bristles, hides, milk, eggs,etc.Many industries and a number of human needs depend upon it. Much offal in industry and housekeeping could not be more usefully employed than by cattle raising. In the future the ocean, too, will have to yield to man its wealth of animal food in a larger measure. Then it will not occur that loads of fish will be used as manure, owing to the high cost of transportation, or canning, that prevent their sale, as is frequently the case at present. It is quite probable that the abolition of the extremes between city and country, when work in closed shops will be combined with work in the open fields, will again lead to a preponderance of the vegetable diet. Of course the absence of stimulants in a vegetable diet can be equalized by a proper and rational preparation of the food with the aid of spice. But that future society should live on vegetables exclusively is neither probable nor necessary.
[265]That this is the fact has been proven by experiments in nutrition, recently reported by two Italian scientists. The metabolic assimilation of a population that has long since lived on a vegetable diet exclusively, was examined. Such an agricultural population, living in wretched economic conditions, is met with in southern Italy in the Abruzzi. Their nourishment consists of corn, vegetables and olive oil. They do not partake of milk, cheese or eggs. Meat is brought to their tables only three or four times a year. By way of experiment meat was added to their diet. During 15 days every person was given 100 grammes of meat and during the following 15 days 200 grammes. It was found that the process of assimilation became much more favorable. The formerly great loss of nutritious matter was considerably diminished. Not only was the newly added animal albumen perfectly assimilated, but also the vegetable food that was consumed together with the meat had been assimilated far better. This was all the more remarkable because this particular kind of vegetable diet, which consisted almost exclusively of corn, was hard to digest, as it contains much cellular tissue.Dr.A. Lipschuetz,M. D.—“A Reform in our Nutrition?”[266]A. Lipschuetz.[267]“The popular nutrition is almost exclusively a vegetable diet with a slight addition of animal substances. Peasants eat generally very little meat. No one will deny that one can live in this manner. As a matter of fact, an exclusive vegetable diet, which can also be given greater diversity by proper selection, is quite compatible with good health. But far different needs are becoming manifest in every continent. The popular simple manner of nutrition is being forsaken for more tasty foods and combinations, and for this meat is essential, because it can be employed in many different ways. Everywhere we perceive this tendency. Like the old, simple customs and national customs disappear, so also are the old forms of nutrition being set aside. This transformation can be observed in all countries. Even in Japan where a peculiar national diet prevailed until recently, European fare has displaced the old regime. In the Japanese navy the new diet was introduced because it proved to be more beneficial to the men in service. The endeavor to establish this concentrated, rich and tasty fare is a general one.” M. Rubner—The Question of Public Nutrition.
[265]That this is the fact has been proven by experiments in nutrition, recently reported by two Italian scientists. The metabolic assimilation of a population that has long since lived on a vegetable diet exclusively, was examined. Such an agricultural population, living in wretched economic conditions, is met with in southern Italy in the Abruzzi. Their nourishment consists of corn, vegetables and olive oil. They do not partake of milk, cheese or eggs. Meat is brought to their tables only three or four times a year. By way of experiment meat was added to their diet. During 15 days every person was given 100 grammes of meat and during the following 15 days 200 grammes. It was found that the process of assimilation became much more favorable. The formerly great loss of nutritious matter was considerably diminished. Not only was the newly added animal albumen perfectly assimilated, but also the vegetable food that was consumed together with the meat had been assimilated far better. This was all the more remarkable because this particular kind of vegetable diet, which consisted almost exclusively of corn, was hard to digest, as it contains much cellular tissue.Dr.A. Lipschuetz,M. D.—“A Reform in our Nutrition?”
[266]A. Lipschuetz.
[267]“The popular nutrition is almost exclusively a vegetable diet with a slight addition of animal substances. Peasants eat generally very little meat. No one will deny that one can live in this manner. As a matter of fact, an exclusive vegetable diet, which can also be given greater diversity by proper selection, is quite compatible with good health. But far different needs are becoming manifest in every continent. The popular simple manner of nutrition is being forsaken for more tasty foods and combinations, and for this meat is essential, because it can be employed in many different ways. Everywhere we perceive this tendency. Like the old, simple customs and national customs disappear, so also are the old forms of nutrition being set aside. This transformation can be observed in all countries. Even in Japan where a peculiar national diet prevailed until recently, European fare has displaced the old regime. In the Japanese navy the new diet was introduced because it proved to be more beneficial to the men in service. The endeavor to establish this concentrated, rich and tasty fare is a general one.” M. Rubner—The Question of Public Nutrition.