Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-08-10
ATWATER'S EXPERIMENTS.

Editor The Gazette. The recent
experiments Of Prof. Atwater are of
great interest to psychologists and
chemists, since they throw much light
upon one of tho doubtful questions of
physiological chemistry or pharma-
cology, that of the metabolism OF
alcohol in the body.
1t is a mistake, however, to think,
as some people apparently do. that the
result of these experiments should
change the teaching in the schools in
regard to the use of alcohol from u
hygienic point of view. The schools
teach that the use of alcoholic liquors
as beverage is not justifiable under
the laws of hygiene. The results of
Prof. Atwater's experiments do not
contradict this teaching.
These experiments merely show that
the body can derive some energy from
alcohol. This does not in itself entitle
alcohol to be placed among the food
substances in the hygienic sense of
the term, which is the sense in which
the schools and people in general use
the term food. If it did, such violent
poison as muscarine, the active prin-
ciple of the poisonous plants of the
mushroom family would have to be
classed with the foods, since it also is
oxidized in the body with liberation
of it's contained energy.
To class substance among the foods
we must know that the sum total
effects of its use are beneficial to the
body. Muscarine is not food, because
its poisonous effects offset the benefit
of the energy which it liberates. Alcohol
has poisonous effects, as Prof. Atwater
himself admits. The question as to
whether it can be considered as food
depends entirely upon whether its bene-
fetal effects are greater than its poison
Gus effects. Prof. Atwater's expert
ments do not prove this. Until this is
proven the burden of the proof is
against those who would include alcohol
in the list of food substances. For
scientific experiment so far, experi-
ments upon large bodies of men in the
ordinary conditions and vicissitudes of
life, in the armies and in exploring ex-
petitions where labor and exposure
have to be endured, indicate that when
the regular moderation" quantity of
alcohol is taken, the harmful effects
offset the beneficial ones and that the
drinker is made less fit rather than
more fit to work.
And stronger still is the reason
against speaking as Prof. Atwater
does, of alcohol as food in the same
sense as sugar. For people generally,
will interpret this to mean that it is a
food equally to be recommended with
sugar and ordinary hygienic foods.
And this, as Prof Atwater will agree,
is an entirely false idea and one calcu-
lated to do much harm. For while we
tx,ith
risk Of poisoning, to get energy from
alcohol we run great risk of poisoning.
and to get any amount, such as would
be necessary to supportlife in ordinary
conditions, we must take enough alco-
mol to poison ourselves seriously. tBy
poisoning is meant some harmful effect
upon the functions of the body.
The above dangers in the use of alco-
hol, also the possibility of the forma-
tion of the alcohol habit, make its use as
beverage unjustifiable, even if there
were no other arguments against it.
1t is unfortunate that the alcohol
question has been brought upon this
technical ground. The question of the
hYgienic status of the use of alcohol
does not depend upon the technical
question Of the definitions of food
and of POISON. The controversy upon
this point has produced statements
upon both sides which have given rise
in the public mind to great misconcep-
tion of the truth.
Both sides in this technical contro.
versy will agree in regard to the main
question, that children should be
taught to look upon alcoholic liquors Us
dangerous substances, to be avoided
from considerations of health and gen.
eral welfare.
And in the present light Of our ex
perience and of scientific investigation,
the school books must continue to ex
clude alcohol from the list OF substance:
desirable as foods, and to teach tn,
avoidance of this substance as a goot
hygienic rule. II. F. Hewes, NJ. ID.
Boston, Mass, Aug. I'd, 1899.