"Flesh or Fruit? An Essay on Food Reform" is an 1888 essay on vegetarianism by the British writer and social reformer Henry S. Salt. First published in The Westminster Review, it was later issued in London by William Reeves as a 48-page pamphlet. It surveys earlier arguments for vegetarianism, citing writers including Seneca, Plutarch, Porphyry, John Wesley, Michel de Montaigne, Sylvester Graham, and Anna Kingsford. Salt presents vegetarianism as a requirement for consistent humane conduct and argues for it on grounds of taste, health and economy, while also replying to common objections, including appeals to human anatomy and to predator-prey relations in nature. Contemporary notices in The Morning Post and Our Corner described the essay as a thoughtful plea for vegetarianism and summarised its case in terms of humanitarian, dietary, hygienic and economic arguments.
In the late 1880s and 1890s he published pamphlets and books on vegetarianism and animal protection, including Flesh or Fruit? An Essay on Food Reform (1888) and Animals' Rights Considered in Relation to Social Progress (1892). He later published works opposing corporal punishment and wrote on a range of literary and political subjects.[1]
The essay surveys earlier writings on vegetarianism, discussing authors including Seneca, Plutarch, Porphyry, John Wesley, Michel de Montaigne, Sylvester Graham, and Anna Kingsford. It argues that a vegetarian diet is necessary for consistent humane conduct, and presents it as aesthetically preferable, healthful, and economical. It also responds to common objections to vegetarianism, including appeals to human physiology (for example, canine teeth), appeals to nature (predator and prey), claims that people cannot adhere to the diet, practical concerns about substitutes for animal products such as leather, soap and candles, and the argument that eating animals is in the animals' interests.[4]
Reception
A notice in The Morning Post in June 1888 said the essay set out the advantages of a vegetable diet and summarised Salt's four chief grounds for adopting vegetarian principles as humanitarian, dietary, hygienic, and economic; it added that these arguments were sufficient to warrant a "fair trial".[5]
A review in Our Corner described the book as a "thoughtful" and "careful" plea for the rejection of meat, and said Salt argued that only by doing so could people be "truly and consistently humane"; it also reported that he presented vegetarianism as a matter of taste, hygiene and economy, and that the second half answered objections.[6]
Legacy
Charles R. Magel listed the book in his 1989 reference work, Keyguide to Information Sources in Animal Rights.[4]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
