Diet and Health

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 148, 8 June 1936, Page 8

Diet and Health

(To the Editor.) Sir, —My denunciation of institutional dietetics has produced a gratifying reaction; negative, of course, at this stage, on the part of those responsible; but the public would hardly expect them to plead guilty. They couldn’t. They have the same confidence in their beliefs as the sponsors of orthodox religion or economics. To read the indignant replies, one would suppose that the public had never lived in board-ing-houses, schools or hotels, or existed upon hospital diet; or that they were all ignorant of the essentials of right feeding. Perusal of some of ray mail might prove a shock to complacency. The actual quality of goods supplied, or of standard of preparation, defective as these often are, arc not the main points at issue. The danger lies in the almost denatured, acid-forming goods, such as meat, starch, and sugar; and tho grave deficiency of vitamins and mineral salts. Destructive sooner or later as is the conventional diet for those still comparatively healthy, it may become fatal to the sick, large numbers of whom can be cured by fasting and the right use of goods. One doctor is reported as saying “modern medical opinion is that the ordinary mixed diet as served in hospitals, hotels, and homes, is quite satisfactory.” He has committed himself, anyway; and so have tho matrons and schoolmasters who agree with him. The same doctor says that “as far as fastings is concerned the body needs more food than the normal amount in prolonged fevers.” This is an astonishing admission of ignorance of the significance of nature’s cleansing efforts that may be countered by a reminder that the usual reason for fevers being prolonged is that man is the only animal who hasn’t enough sense to stop eating when he is sick. Moreover, if he fed as he should there wouldn’t be any fevers. One schoolboy, knowing as little of dietetics as those who approached him for an opinion, claims that “the value of the meals we receive is borne out by the general splendid physique of the boys.” It is. Even school doctors, though they do not yet recognise that the majority of unhealthy conditions in the boys are dietetic in origin, have furnished disquieting reports of the extent of the evidence of malnutrition in schools.

Much disease is in the nature of a degenerative process; and one of the most prolific causes is faulty employment of food. So many people are becoming conscious of this truth that the indignant official disclaimers are likely to bo completely unconvincing. They are, in fact, strangely reminiscent of the pitiful wail raised by orthodox finance (without avail) on the eve of the last election. It may be convenient to ignore me; and still prove embarrassing and impossible to hold back the truth. With which are my detractors concerned—with discrediting me, or with making certain of the truth? Is there a conspiracy to prevent the truth from becoming generally realised, that a tremendous amount of disease is dietetic in origin, and that the conventional diet is to blame? No. Those responsible simply aren’t aware of it. That’s all. And that is why I speak.— Yours, etc., ULRIC WILLIAMS. Wanganui, June 5, 1936,