THE CHEMISTRY OF COOKERY. 



83 



All human beings became cooks as soon as they learned how to 

 make a fire, and have all continued to be cooks ever since. 



We should, therefore, look at this vegetarian question from the 

 point of view of prepared food, which excludes nearly all comparison 

 with the food of the brute creation. I say "nearly all," because there 

 is one case in which all the animals that approach the nearest to our- 

 selves the mammalia are provided naturally with a specially pre- 

 pared food, viz., the mother's milk. The composition of this prepara- 

 tion appears to me to throw more light than anything else upon this 

 vegetarian controversy, and yet it seems to have been entirely over- 

 looked. 



The milk prepared for the young of the different animals in the 

 laboratory or kitchen of Natui'e is surely adapted to their structure as 

 regards natural food requirements. Without assuming that the human 

 dietetic requirements are identical with either of the other mammals, 

 we may learn something concerning our approximation to one class or 

 another by comparing the composition of human milk with that of 

 the animals in question. 



I find ready to hand in Dr. Miller's " Chemistry," Vol. III., a com- 

 parative statement of the mean of several analyses of the milk of 

 woman, cow, goat, ass, sheep, and bitch. The latter is a moderately 

 carnivorous animal, nearly approaching the omnivorous character com- 

 monly ascribed to man. The following is the statement : 



Bitch. 



Water 



Fat 



Sugar and soluble salts 



.Nitrogenous compounds and insolu- 

 ble salts 



60-3 



148 



2-9 



16-0 



According to this it is quite evident that Nature regards our food 

 requirements as approaching much nearer to the herbivora than to the 

 carnivora, and has provided for us accordingly. 



If we are to begin the building-up of our bodies on a food more 

 nearly resembling the herbivora than the carnivora, it is only reason- 

 able to assume that we should continue on the same principle. 



The particulars of the difference are instructive. The food which 

 Nature provides for the human infant differs from that provided for 

 the young carnivorous animal, just in the same way as flesh-food dif- 

 fers from the cultivated and cooked vegetables and fruit within easy 

 reach of man. 



These contain less fat, less nitrogenous matter, more water, and 

 more sugar (or starch, which becomes sugar during digestion) than 

 animal food. 



Those who advocate the use of flesh-food usually do so on the ground 

 that it it is more nutritious, contains more nitrogenous material and 



