OUR MEAT SUPPLY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH.

In the earliest records of civilization, there is evidence of legislation with regard to the different kinds of food suitable to be eaten by man. These were prescribed minutely, in part, probably, as sanitary regulations, in the laws of Moses, and also in those of Egypt. Hippocrates, the founder of medicine, who flourished at the time of the highest glory of Greece, gave very minute directions with regard to diet, both for health and for disease; and in later times the subject receives more attention in proportion as science advances and communities become more intelligent. In fact, with our present knowledge of food, although we are as yet only on the threshold of inquiry, we can often prescribe it with as much precision as we can use digitalis and opium.

Although physiologists are not agreed that animal food is absolutely essential to a high degree of civilization, there are certainly many facts which seem to indicate that it is resolvable into a greater amount of force than the other nitrogenous foods.

It is true that many tribes of North American Indians have attained a very high physical development upon a vegetable diet; that many healthy Scotch farmers live chiefly on oatmeal; that the laboring classes in Europe rarely eat meat; that a large proportion of the inhabitants of Great Britain formerly lived on bread, cheese and beer; that the former slaves in our Southern States received meat only exceptionally; that the Roman legionary soldier carried a weight of sixty pounds, and performed feats of strength and endurance that have astonished the world, without eating flesh; and that a few modern vegetarians have substituted milk and eggs (which, however, contain the elements of animal food) for butcher's meat in their diet, without suffering from it;

while the Brahmins of India eat nothing which breathes or contains the germ of animal life, although they can hardly be said to have attained a vigorous physical or mental culture. Nevertheless, as a rule, when hard-working people have not eaten meat, it has been because they could not get it.

As far back as the time of Homer, the poorer classes in Greece ate blood-sausages, because they could not afford meat; and at Rome, in the time of the empire, it had even become necessary to issue pork in addition to corn to the destitute, the forests of Lucania furnishing thousands of pigs yearly to the imperial city, while the neighboring plains were dotted with sheep and cattle for the wealthy classes. In recent years it has been found in India that the Hindoo workmen on the railroads could not work steadily till they had meat added to their diet,-their usual food, consisting almost exclusively of rice, having proved insufficient. Dr. Kane, in his "Arctic Explorations," has expressed his belief that the timely arrival of fresh meat had saved the lives of some of his men; and Dr. Livingstone says that in South Africa both the members of his expedition and the natives would eat anything to get animal food." Liebig ascribes the greater endurance and efficiency of American workmen, as compared with those of Europe, to their meat diet; while Dr. Ray attributes some of the transient illnesses in New England to a too free use of meat.*

In the last edition of his "Principles of Human Physiology," Carpenter says:—

"Whilst, on the one hand, it may freely be conceded to the advocates of vegetarianism that a well-selected vegetable diet is capable of producing (in the greater number of individuals) the highest physical development of which they are capable, it may, on the other hand, be affirmed with equal certainty that the substitution of a moderate proportion of animal flesh is in no way injurious; whilst, so far as our evidence at present extends, this seems rather to favor the highest mental development."

The experiments of Haughton and others have certainly proved that more food is necessary for hard intellectual labor

Mental Hygiene, p. 82. The question has been suggested whether some of our superfluous energy or nervousness might not be explained in this way. The average daily consumption of meat in London is about four ounces to each individual; in the places supplied by the Boston markets it is estimated to be not far from twelve

ounces.

than for a corresponding amount of physical exertion; and M. Metz testifies to the value of a liberal diet in making his boys in the reformatory school at Mettray more manly.

But whatever physiological theories may prove correct, it is certain that meat contains nitrogenous, fatty and inorganic elements of food in a palatable and easily assimilable form; and the nearly universal experience of mankind has shown that its place cannot be fully supplied by any substitute. It becomes, therefore, a matter of vital importance to every state, that its meat markets should be under the most careful supervision.

Since the time of Moses, the Jews have carefully inspected all meat sold in their markets; although their rules, based, probably, on the best sanitary knowledge of some thirty centuries ago, are not sufficient to keep diseased meat from their tables, and their method of slaughtering is unnecessarily cruel. And now most of the large cities in Europe, as well as some in America, have followed the leadership of Paris in having rigid examinations, both before and after slaughter, of all animals intended for human food.

A wider attention to matters of this nature, and a deeper interest in them, leading to vigorous action, would be justified by their intimate connection with human welfare. In fact food, through its effect on the health, and through the necessary operation of physical laws, determines, in no small degree, individual and national character, and consequently shapes, to some extent, national policy. But, not pausing to dwell on these considerations, the present article will be devoted to a consideration of the conditions under which the quality of meat is injured for human food, and, of course, deals with only a very small branch of the general subject. The various changes in the tissues of animals, both before and after slaughter, will be considered with reference to their influence upon the health of consumers, beginning with the commonest form,-putrescent meat.

PUTRID MEAT.

The testimony is very conflicting with regard to the precise amount of injury arising from the consumption of meat which has become more or less decomposed.

On the one hand, it must be acknowledged that enormous quantities of putrid meat are daily eaten without very immediate or striking ill-results. On the other hand, slight illness, and even dangerous symptoms, have been so often reported as to leave no doubt that the inspectors of nearly the whole civilized world are at least partly right in condemning putrid meat when offered in the markets as human food.

The inhabitants of the Faroe Islands habitually eat their meat in a high state of putrefaction, and enjoy from its fermented condition a sense of stimulation similar to that which the Sandwich Islander gets from his fermented potato; and the plantation negroes of the United States, for want of animal food, have not infrequently been known to eat condemned and even rotten bacon, and, in most cases, without evident injury. In some parts of Russia, and in the polar regions, rancid blubber and offal and meat constitute at times the chief articles of diet; and in modern cities decaying meat is sold and eaten by tons without any marked evil results being noticed, while the "high" condition of game necessary to suit the tastes of many epicures is well known. Dr. T. K. Chambers of London states that "tons and tons of decayed and purulent meat, which, if seen by the inspector would properly be condemned as unfitted to the dignity of the human table, are yet surreptitiously made into sausages in London, and hitherto no case of sickness has been traced to this cause. Decroix states that putrid meat was eaten to a great extent during the siege of Paris, without producing any serious results; but it must be remembered that illness, unless very severe, would have passed unnoticed at such a time; that disease and death were making frightful ravages in the city; and that, just as during the siege of Rome by Alaric, it is impossible to say to precisely what extent unwholesome food contributed to the sum-total of disease. During the siege of Mantua, a diet of putrescent meat was considered by Foderé to have caused gangrene and scurvy. The epicure who eats putrid meat is especially liable to attacks of gout; the game suiting his palate often gives rise

But the lower classes in London live under circumstances most of which are positively known to be prejudicial to health; and we must have a more delicate balance if we would weigh all evidence exactly.