MEAT AND CANCER

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1626, 29 April 1903, Page 13

MEAT AND CANCER

DANGERS OF CONTAGION. (From Our Special Correspondent.) LONDON, March 6. A discussion has been in. progress in a contemporary on the subject of "Sunlight and Meat Eating in Australia.” In one article aDr Gres swell argued that sunlight increases Clio heart heats, and causes an increase in the day’s work, thus necessitating an additional supply of nitrogenous' food, which accounted for the greater consumption of meat in Australia. This the <ry is earn bat«Ji by a Dr. C. P- Newcome. who claims that "the real reasons for the greater consumpof meat in Australia are its cheapness and stimulating character.” He points out-that in India "where the heat is at its greatest, the people maintain their health on farinaceous food, and where this is varied and abundant they are strong and energetic. Sunlight in countries like Italy and Spain induces indolence.” Certainly, he says, a meat diet is not productive of energy, combined with ‘‘hi srlier physical and mental qualities.” in the ease of the Laplanders or the Patagonians. Dr. Gresswc'll claimed that meat-eating gave its votaries "a greater capacity lor resisting epiuemic diseases.” Dr. Newcome demands proof of that assertion, but himself asserts that there are two uiseases increased by eating meat, to wit cancer and influenza. Of Die former, he says, ”2771 cases in 9 years, and others registered as bronchitis, pneumonia, and outer diseases of the respiratory system, which originated in attacks of influenza;, are many more than wei may be led to expect from the climate of Victoria.” As regards deaths from cancer in Victoria he quotes the Victorian Year Book to show that in 1897 774 died from this dread disease, being at the rate of 6.G0 for 10,000 living. In New Zealand in. the same year tlie proportion was 5.47. Air Newcome concludes: —"The contrast between the mortality from cancer in England and the Australian colonies, as compared with India., where meat is but little used is very remarkable, and if the comparison be continued to other countries it will be seen, that the prevalence of cancer is in. regular proportion to the amount of meat eating.” We aret evidently in for a. battle of cancer statistics, but even if it be shown that in meat eating countries cancer is more frequently met with than in lands where cereals form the backbone of the people’s daily food, that would scarce be positive proof that the consumption oi meat induces cancer, though it would certainly be rather suggestive of a connection between tlie food and the disease. But, oli! these men of science ! They are evidently bent on* making us live in an atmosphere of perpetual fear. First they ban the innocent tomato as productive of cancer, then they try to scare us into vegetarianism, but prove to us meanwhile that the whole world swarms with evil bacilli of every terrifying description. The apple’s rosy cheek may be teeming with noxious germs, the lucious pear full of incipent agony for the eater, and the coveted five pound note the harbourage of a dozen kinds) of deadly disease. We may not even kiss with safety on the lips of our loved ones lest we give, take, or exchange baneful microbes.