There is almost a concurrence of medical experience against vegetarianism, and in favour of the opinion that man, as regards all his powers and faculties, thrives best, and that — if a difference c^n be made out — he also lives longest, upon a nuxed diet. It has been found in making railways that differences between workmen in respect of bodily strength and energy were cliiefiy due to a difference of diet : that, for example, a beef-eating Englishman would almost do the work of three vegetable- fed Frenchmen, and that this difference of working power disappeared when the French- men took to eating beef. Upon the alleged beneficent moral influence of vegetable food, it may be observed that there is no proof whatever of its reality; moreover, that since the majority of mankind live either almost or entirely upon vegetables, vegetables must bear a large share of the responsibility which may fall upon diet for the evil tendencies of man ; and that, in fact, the most cruel and the most debased of human races live entirely upon VEG ( 1076 ) VEL vegetables. To the charge of cruelty brought against the practice of killing animals for food, it has been answered, that the plan of Nature contemplates such cruelty — if cruelty it be — and makes it impossible to avoid it; that the microscope has shown us that even in taking a draught of water we may deprive a multitude of beings of life ; and that, on the other hand, the system of rearing cattle for the butcher — since the cattle would otherwise not be reared at all — really adds very largely to the sum of happy animal existence. It is not disputed that there is a liability to disease from the use of unwholesome meat; but then vegetables as well as animals are subject to disease ; and the reasoning which would drive us from the use of animal food because it is diseased would really cut us off from food altogether. — Chambers. The following remarks on this subject are from the pen of the late Dr. Lankester : — "I am," he says, "an advocate for a mixed diet for man, and I would particularly draw your attention to a statement that is often made, that it is not necessary to partake of animal food at all. Persons who argue thus put forth as a iirst ground the immonihty of the act, and the impropriet}'' and wickedness of taking away life at all. This is surely an absurd assumption ; for the Greater has made a certain number of creatures that could not live upon vegetable food, and they naturally prey upon the lower animals which feed on the grass and the herbs of the field. The lion and tiger exist by prey : and it appears to me that man has a perfect right, without being charged with immorality or impropriety, to take the lives of the lower animals for his food. Then anatomical argu- ments are adduced against animal food. It is said that man in his structure is better adapted for vegetable than animal food. I must here again join issue, for I believe I can show from his structure that man is more adapted for a mixed diet than for either vegetable or animal food alone. Look at the jaws and teeth of a carnivorous creature — a tiger, for example. The jaws are so constructed that they will only move up and down like a pair of scissors. Ob- serve also his sharp-pointed carnivorous teeth, especially his great canine teeth. They are in- tended for holding and cutting up li\'ing food.

AI-modernized reading of the original text

There is almost a concurrence of medical experience against vegetarianism, and in favour of the opinion that man, as regards all his powers and faculties, thrives best, and that — if a difference c^n be made out — he also lives longest, upon a nuxed diet. It has been found in making railways that differences between workmen in respect of bodily strength and energy were chiefly due to a difference of diet : that, for example, a beef-eating Englishman would almost do the work of three vegetablefed Frenchmen, and that this difference of working power disappeared when the Frenchmen took to eating beef. Upon the alleged beneficent moral influence of vegetable food, it may be observed that there is no proof whatever of its reality; moreover, that since the majority of mankind live either almost or entirely upon vegetables, vegetables must bear a large share of the responsibility which may fall upon diet for the evil tendencies of man ; and that, in fact, the most cruel and the most debased of human races live entirely upon VEG ( 1076 ) VEL vegetables. To the charge of cruelty brought against the practice of killing animals for food, it has been answered, that the plan of Nature contemplates such cruelty — if cruelty it be — and makes it impossible to avoid it; that the microscope has shown us that even in taking a draught of water we may deprive a multitude of beings of life ; and that, on the other hand, the system of rearing cattle for the butcher — since the cattle would otherwise not be reared at all — really adds very largely to the sum of happy animal existence. It is not disputed that there is a liability to disease from the use of unwholesome meat; but then vegetables as well as animals are subject to disease ; and the reasoning which would drive us from the use of animal food because it is diseased would really cut us off from food altogether. — Chambers. The following remarks on this subject are from the pen of the late Dr. Lankester : — "I am," he says, "an advocate for a mixed diet for man, and I would particularly draw your attention to a statement that is often made, that it is not necessary to partake of animal food at all. Persons who argue thus put forth as a first ground the immorality of the act, and the impropriet}'' and wickedness of taking away life at all. This is surely an absurd assumption ; for the Greater has made a certain number of creatures that could not live upon vegetable food, and they naturally prey upon the lower animals which feed on the grass and the herbs of the field. The lion and tiger exist by prey : and it appears to me that man has a perfect right, without being charged with immorality or impropriety, to take the lives of the lower animals for his food. Then anatomical arguments are adduced against animal food. It is said that man in his structure is better adapted for vegetable than animal food. I must here again join issue, for I believe I can show from his structure that man is more adapted for a mixed diet than for either vegetable or animal food alone. Look at the jaws and teeth of a carnivorous creature — a tiger, for example. The jaws are so constructed that they will only move up and down like a pair of scissors. Observe also his sharp-pointed carnivorous teeth, especially his great canine teeth. They are intended for holding and cutting up living food.

Cassell's dictionary of cookery