THE MANURE ARGUMENT
SIR,—In his article on this subject Mr. Walston stresses in rather ex- travagant terms the views of extreme exponents on both sides, but makes no attempt seriously to assess the value of the arguments advanced, both from the economic and nutritional aspects. He lends his support to the use of chemical foods from the standpoint of cheapness, but he does not explain why it should cost less to manufacture nitrates from the air, or import them from abroad, rather than utilise the organic wastes of cities ready to hand instead of casting them into the sea.
He dismisses the experiments carried out in India and in this country which at least suggest the nutritional advantages of naturally grown foods, as irrelevant. Those who have studied the work of McCarrison, Howard and others, ably and impartially described in Lady Eve Balfour's book on The Living Soul, and are impressed by them, include many whose knowledge and judgement should be respected, and who should not be cavalierly set aside as mere "enthusiasts."
But Mr. Walston lays himself open to criticism on a fundamental issue when he endeavours to place upon the exponents of natural diet the onus of proving that its general adoption would make civilised man healthier. The obvious fact is that disease and disability are rampant. Medical, surgical, and sanitary science have done much' to protect the individual from the onset of infection, and to cure disease in its early stages, and minimise the evil results ; by these means vital statistics have been :mproved, and the average expectation of life increased. But these :esults are deceptive. Most medical authorities are agreed that little or nothing has been done to promote positive health, or to enable man by his own inherent qualities to become resistant to the onset of disease of all kinds and as nearly as possible immune to it. The solution is clearly to be found in environment in its widest meaning. This includes such factors as housing, sanitation, the strain and stress of modem life, and social habits ; but surely diet is man's most intimate concern, and must transcend in value all the other factors put together.
One example must suffice. Dental decay is perhaps the most prevalent disease to which civilised man is subject. Its incidence reaches its highest level, for the most part, in countries where the so-called standard of living is high, such as Britain, the United States and New Zealand. There is ample evidence to prove that the incidence of dental decay in primitive races is in direct ratio with their adoption of white man's food. Whatever the cause may be, and considerations of space preclude dis- cussion of that technical problem, it is essentially a disease of so-called civilised diet. Moreover there is direct and definite evidence provided by Brodie Carpenter of striking improvement in oral conditions imme- diately consequent on a change of diet involving a large measure of natural feeding in a large residential boys' school. Confirmatory evidence is desirable, and will doubtless be forthcoming in due course, but it is not necessarily the duty of those who uphold natural diet to prove their case up to the hilt before it is considered and appreciated on its merits. If it be admitted that what is true of dental disease is likely to be true of other diseases, and that diet is the main factor in relation to the wide-spread prevalence of disease of all kinds in civilised communities, then surely it is the duty of those who support existing methods of agriculture, sewage disposal, and feeding, to offer some proof that these could not be bettered, and to indicate by what means the very desirable object of attainment of a greater measure of positive health can be achieved, rather than throw the onus on those who have advanced an at least more than plausible method.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
