Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1899-08-31
Alcohol Not n Food.

The recent experiments of Professor At.
water are of great interest to psychologists
and chemists since they throw much light
upon one Of the doubtful questions of
physiological chemistry or pharmachol-
ogy, that of the metabolism Of alcohol in
the body, writes H. F. Hewes, NJ. d e, to
the New York Times.
1t is a mistake, however, to think, as
some people apparently do, that the re-
suit OF these experiments should change
the teaching In the schools in regard to the
use of alcohol from a hygienic point of
view. The schools teach that the use Of
alcoholic liquors as a beverage is not justi-
fable under the laws of hygiene. The re-
suits of Professor At waters 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 the people
In general use the term food. If it did,
such violent poison as muscarine, the ac
tive principal of the poisonous plants of
the mushroom family, would have to be
classed with the foods, since 1t also is oxi-
dixed in the body with liberation of its con-
tained energy.
To class substance among the foods we
must know that the sum total effects of its
use are beneficial to the body. Musearine
Is not food because its poisonous effects
offset the benefit of the energy which it
Iiberates. Alcohol has poisonous effects,
as Professor Atwater himself admits. The
question as to whether it can be considered
rs food depends upon whether Its beneficial
effects are greater than its poisonous ef-
tects. Professor Atwater's experiments do
not prove this. Until this is proved the bur-
den of the proof Is against those who
would include alcohol in the list of food
substances. For scientific experiment so
far, experiments upon large bodies OF men
I'm he nr6 linz vi
OF life, in the armies, and in exploring ex-
peditions where labor and exposure have
to be endured, indicate that when the reg
ular "moderation" quantity Of alcohol is
taken the harmful effects offset the benef-
cial ones, and that the drinker Is made less
fit rather than more fit to work.
And stronger still Is the reason against
speaking as Professor Atwater does of al
cohol AS food In the same sense us sugar.
For people generally will interpret this to
mean that it is a food equally to be recon-
mended with sugar and hygienic foods.
And this, as Professor Atwater will agree,
is an entirely false idea and one calculated
to do much harm. For while we get our
energy from sugar without risk OF poison
ing, to get energy from alcohol we run
great risk OF poisoning, and to get any
amount such rs would be necessary to sup
port life in ordinary conditions, we must
take enough alcohol to poison ourselves
seriously. (By poisoning is meant some
uurmIul eHcct upon tue luuctlouS VI Inc
bodv).
The above dangers in the use of alcohol,
also the possibility of the formation OF the
alcohol habit, make its use as beverage
unjustifable even il there were no other
arguments against it.
1t is unfortunate that the alcohol ques-
tion has been brought up on this technical
ground. The question Of the hygienic
status of the use of alcohol does not de-
pend upon the technical question of the
definitions of a food and of Il poison. The
controversy upon this point has produced
statements upon both sides which have
given rise in the public mind to great mis-
conception of the truth.
Both sides in this technical controversy
will agree in regard to the main question,
that children should be taught to look up
on alcoholic liquors as dangerous SUBJ
stances. to be avoided from considerations
OF health and general welfare.
And in the present light of our exreri-
ence and of scientific investigation, the
school books must continue to exclude al
cohoi from the list of substances desirable
as foods, and to teach the avoidance of this
substance as good hygienic rule.