The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1899-08-30
Alcohol Not q Food.


water are of great interest to psychologists
and chemists since they throw much light
upon one OF the doubtful questions OF
physiological chemistry or pharuachol-
ogy, that Of the metabolisn Of alcohol In
the body, writes II. F. Hewes, NJ. D., to
the New York Times.
It Is 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 beverage is not iustt-
fable under the laws Of hygiene. The re-
suits of Professor 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 the people
in general use the term food. II 1t did,
such Il 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 OH
di1ed in the body with liberation OF Its con-
tuined energy.
To class substance among the foods We
must know that the sum total effects OF It's
use are beneficial to the body. Muscarine
Is not food because its poisonous effects
Offset the benefit OF the energy which 1t
Ilberates. Alcohol has poisonous effects,
as Professor Atwater himself admits. The
question as to whether 1t can be considered
us food depends upon whether its beneficial
effects are greater than its poisonous ef-
fects. 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 30
fur, experiments upon large bodies OF men
IN the ordinary conditions and victssitudes
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 rs food IN the same sense as sugar.
For people generally will interpret this to
mean that It Is food equally to be recon-
mended with sugar and hygienie foods.
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 as would be necessary to sup
port life In ordinary conditions, we must
take enough alcohol to poison ourselves
| seriously. (By poisoning Is meant some
harmful effect upon the functions OF the
body. i
The above dangers In the use OF alcohol,
also the possibility Of the formation OF the
alcohol habit, make Its use rs beverage
unjustihabe even II there we're no other
! arguments againstit. ,
It 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 food and Of a 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 expert
ence and Of scientific investigation, the
school books must continue to exclude al
cohol from the list of substances desirable
as fuods, and to teach the avoidance OF this
substance as good hyglenic rule.