Modern Medicine Proves White Wrong:
Ellen White's Top Health Teachings that Defy Science

By Dirk Anderson, 2009, last updated Jul. 2025

Many years ago, Seventh-day Adventist [SDA] leaders claimed Mrs. White received her health teachings directly from heaven. In more recent times, after Ronald Numbers and Walter Rea exposed the extent of Mrs. White's plagiarism of other health reformers, many SDAs are beginning to admit, at least privately, that she copied most of her health ideas from other health reformers of her day. However, they now insist that God guided her as to what material to copy into her books and what to leave out. Is this true? Do her health writings really give evidence of supernatural guidance? The evidence below will demonstrate that her health writings were no more inspired than the nineteenth-century reformers she copied from. Following are Ellen White's top health recommendations that defy medical science.

1. Is the Vegan Diet Superior?

In her writings, Mrs. White repeatedly advocated a vegan diet as the ideal diet for her followers. In spite of the fact that Mrs. White ate meat most of her life, she forbade her followers from eating meat and urged them to go vegan:

Meat should not be placed before our children. Its influence is to excite and strengthen the lower passions, and has a tendency to deaden the moral powers. Grains and fruits prepared free from grease, and in as natural a condition as possible, should be the food for the tables of all who claim to be preparing for translation to heaven.¹

Above, Mrs. White repeats the unscientific myth that eating meat animalizes a person by strengthening their animal passions and lessening their moral powers.

In her testimonies, Mrs. White falsified the dangers of eating meat and warned Seventh-day Adventists that "to attain to Christian perfection" they needed to make certain that meat, eggs, and butter were not provided to their children:²

The liability to take disease is increased tenfold by meat eating.

You should study to prepare a simple yet nutritious diet. Flesh meats, and rich cakes and pies prepared with spices of any kind, are not the most healthful and nourishing diet. Eggs should not be placed upon your table. They are an injury to your children. Fruits and grains, prepared in the most simple form, are the most healthful, and will impart the greatest amount of nourishment to the body, and, at the same time, not impair the intellect.

Mrs. White's spirit guides failed to inform her of the following scientific fact about vegan diets:

Children on low-fat and/or vegan diets can suffer from growth problems, failure to thrive, and learning disabilities.³

Here is a another quote where Mrs. White advocates a vegan diet to her followers:

Among those who are waiting for the coming of the Lord, meat eating will eventually be done away; flesh will cease to form a part of their diet. We should ever keep this end in view, and endeavor to work steadily toward it. I cannot think that in the practice of flesh eating we are in harmony with the light which God has been pleased to give us. All who are connected with our health institutions especially should be educating themselves to subsist on fruits, grains, and vegetables.⁴

In addition to restricting meat from the diet, Mrs. White took a dim view of dairy foods and eggs. She instructed that "cheese should never be introduced into the stomach."⁵ Mrs. White warned against the use of eggs and milk in baked goods although she did allow for vegetables to be cooked with milk or cream.⁶ She also permitted use of milk and eggs by the ill and for those too poor to obtain alternative foods.⁷ When it came to butter, she said it was "better to dispense with it altogether."⁸

So, while allowing for a very limited usage of milk, cream, and eggs, Mrs. White made it clear that SDAs were to progress toward a purely vegan diet:

Let the diet reform be progressive. Let the people be taught how to prepare food without the use of milk or butter. Tell them that the time will soon come when there will be no safety in using eggs, milk, cream, or butter, because disease in animals is increasing in proportion to the increase of wickedness among men. The time is near when, because of the iniquity of the fallen race, the whole animal creation will groan under the diseases that curse our earth.⁹

In 1901, she instructed an SDA physician that in the near future, SDAs would discard the use of dairy and eggs:

Soon butter will never be recommended, and after a time milk will be entirely discarded; for disease in animals is increasing in proportion to the increase of wickedness among men. The time will come when there will be no safety in using eggs, milk, cream, or butter.¹⁰

Even though few SDAs have progressed to the vegan diet advocated by the divine revelations of Ellen White, her followers today are making fantastic claims about their vegetarian diet. Some say that this diet, falsely attributed to a health reform vision given to Ellen White by God, has resulted in the SDA people living longer, healthier lives than those less-enlightened flesh eaters. Is this the truth? Do scientific studies, such as the Adventist Lifestyle Study, confirm this? Is a diet of "fruits, grains, and vegetables" indeed the healthiest for Christians? Will it reduce disease and lead to a healthier, longer life?

Scientific Evaluation of Ellen White's Vegan Diet

Pros and Cons of a Vegan or Vegetarian Diet

In recent decades, due to environmental reasons, millions of people have adopted a vegan or vegetarian diet. Some scientific studies have reported some benefits from this diet. There is some evidence a carefully planned vegan diet with proper supplementation can benefit one's health in the following ways:¹¹

• Lowers the risk of developing heart disease
• Reduces the risk of developing diabetes
• Reduces the risk of colon cancer
• Lowers weight
• Lowers blood pressure
• Reduces bad cholesterol
• Reduces risk of diverticular disease
• Reduces the risk of eye cataracts
• Reduces the risk of kidney stones

While this may appear as vindication for the vegan diet, the truth is not so simple. Many of the health differences between vegans and meat-eaters are most pronounced in people who eat large volumes of meat. Studies have shown that there are much smaller differences between vegans and meat-eaters who eat smaller volumes of meat. The many nuances about eating meat that must be considered are as follows:¹¹

• Colon cancer is related to eating red meat. Processed red meat often contains preservatives and other chemicals that are believed to be carcinogenic. Therefore, it may not be the meat itself, but the chemicals added to processed meat that are causing cancers in the colon. Other than colon cancer, research on 20 types of cancer in the U.K. on 474,996 participant has found no significant increase in the risk of cancer by eating meat. For example, researchers found that poultry intake was not associated with increased cancer risk, even colon cancer.¹²
• While a vegan diet can reduce the risk of developing heart disease by 22%, it can increase the risk of stroke by 20%. Fish eaters had a 13% reduced risk of heart disease without the corresponding increase in risk of stroke.
• Vegetarians and those who ate low amounts of meat both had a 37% reduction in developing diabetes. However, those who ate fish regularly had an even larger 53% reduction in risk.

Mrs. White wildly exaggerated the dangers of meat-eating when she claimed in her testimonies that it increased the risk of disease tenfold (1000%). There is no modern peer-reviewed evidence showing that meat consumption increases the general risk of all diseases by a factor of 10. While heavy consumption of processed meats have been linked to higher incidences of heart disease (20%-30%), colorectal cancer (17%-18%), and type 2 diabetes (30%-50%), it does not increase general disease susceptibility by a tenfold factor. Nor is there any significant evidence proving that unprocessed meats cause any increase in disease.

To conclude, while there are some health benefits from a Vegan or Vegetarian diet, many of those benefits can be gained by eating less red meat, and less processed meat, rather than abstaining from meat. Adding fish to the diet can also reduce the risk of some diseases.

In addition, the vegan diet has some serious and well-known issues:¹¹

• Vegans are more likely to be deficient in vitamins and micro-nutrients. Vitamin B12 is difficult to obtain from a vegan diet. Iron, folate, creatine, omega-3 fatty acids, carnitine, and taurine are all more difficult to obtain and/or assimilate on a vegan diet.
• Vegans have a significantly (2.3X) higher risk of hip fractures.
• Vegan women are more likely to develop anaemia.

Vegan Diet Does NOT Reduce Mortality

A 2019 meta-study at Cambridge University analyzed over 280,000 participants in eight different studies, including the SDA Lifestyle studies. Great care was taken to reduce non-dietary factors from the study. The researches concluded there is no significant difference in mortality between vegans/vegetarians and meat-eaters:

Overall mortality is similar for vegetarians and comparable non-vegetarians.¹³

A 2025 analysis of 16,000 people found that consumption of animal protein did not increase the risk of death and possibly offered some protective benefits against cancer. A 2021 meta-survey involving 131,869 participants compared a vegetarian diet to a non-vegetarian diet. The researchers concluded there was no difference in "all-cause and cerebrovascular mortality." Massive population studies such as the "45 and Up Study" (Australia) and the "United Kingdom Cohort Analysis" have concluded that there is no significant difference in overall mortality between vegetarians and comparable non-vegetarians.¹⁴

While some evidence exists a vegan diet can reduce certain chronic problems, the best scientific evidence shows that vegans or vegetarians do not have any lower overall mortality than meat eaters.

Does Low-Fat = Less Disease?

In 2006, one of the largest scientific studies ever conducted studied the effects of a low-fat diet. The study involved 48,000 women, of whom 40% cut their fat intake in half by increasing "their consumption of fruit, vegetables and grains," much akin to Mrs. White's recommendations. After eight years, the results were in:

Those women told to follow a low-fat diet had more or less the same rates of these diseases as those who continued to eat whatever they fancied.

Not only did they have just as much breast, colon cancer and heart disease as the other women, they didn't lose weight either.¹⁵

Cancer

Some SDAs have claimed that studies on Seventh-day Adventists prove that eating meat causes cancer. However, there are many other factors involved besides diet. For example, SDAs do not smoke. Because of the sect's emphasis on healthy living, they tend to pay closer attention to living a healthy lifestyle. Dr. Stephen Byrnes writes:

It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than meat-eaters, but a 1994 study of vegetarian California Seventh Day Adventists showed that, while they did have lower rates for some cancers (e.g., breast and lung), they had higher rates for several others (Hodgkin's disease, malignant melanoma, brain, skin, uterine, prostate, endometrial, cervical and ovarian), some quite significantly. In that study, the authors actually admitted that 'Meat consumption, however, was not associated with a higher [cancer] risk' and that 'No significant association between breast cancer and a high consumption of animal fats or animal products in general was noted'.¹⁶

Heart Disease

The relationship between meat eating and heart disease is also questionable. Dr. Byrnes writes:

It also does not appear that vegetarian diets protect against heart disease. A study on vegans in 1970 showed that female vegans had higher rates of death from heart disease than non-vegan females. A recent study showed that Indians, despite being vegetarians, have very high rates of coronary artery disease. High-carbohydrate/low-fat diets (which is what vegetarian diets are) can also place one at a greater risk for heart disease, diabetes and cancer due to their hyperinsulemic effects on the body. Recent studies have also shown that vegetarians have higher homocysteine levels in their blood. Homocysteine is a known cause of heart disease. ...

Trans fatty acids, as opposed to saturated fats, have been shown by researchers such as Enig, Mann and Fred Kummerow to be causative factors in accelerated atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cancer and other ailments. Trans fatty acids are found in such modern foods as margarine and vegetable shortening and foods made with them. Dr Enig and her colleagues have also shown that excessive omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid intake from refined vegetable oils is also a major culprit behind cancer and heart disease, not animal fats.

... The French have one of the highest per-capita consumptions of meat, yet have low rates of heart disease; in Greece, meat consumption is higher than average, but rates of heart disease are low there as well; and in Spain, an increase in meat-eating (in conjunction with a reduction in sugar and high-carbohydrate intake) was found to lead to a decrease in heart disease.

... The body needs saturated fats in order to properly utilize essential fatty acids. Saturated fats also lower the blood levels of the artery-damaging lipoprotein (a); are needed for proper calcium utilization in the bones; stimulate the immune system; are the preferred food for the heart and other vital organs; and, along with cholesterol, add structural stability to the cell and intestinal wall. They are excellent for cooking, as they are chemically stable and do not break down under heat, unlike polyunsaturated vegetable oils. Omitting them from one's diet, then, is ill-advised.¹⁷

Life Span

Do vegetarians actually live longer than meat eaters? The Adventist Lifestyle Study claims that SDAs out-live non-SDAs by at least nine years, but is that due to their vegetarianism or to other factors, such as not smoking and living a healthy lifestyle?

It is a great selling point for the sect: Become a Seventh-day Adventist and live a decade longer! But are the health teachings of Ellen White really unique in some way that makes SDAs live longer than everyone else?

It has been discovered that the bulk of SDA longevity is due to factors that many other Christians are also practicing. For example, recent studies have suggested that having a religious belief and praying could increase the life span:

• "20-year old Americans can expect to live 6.6 years longer if they attend religious services at least once a week."¹⁹

• A study from the Duke University Medical Center "concluded that even occasional private prayer and Bible study helped people live healthier and longer lives."²⁰

• A University of Texas study found that life expectancy rose when the number of church services attended increased. Those who attended every week had a life expectancy of 82 years. This dropped to 79 years for those who attended less than once a week, and for non-attenders it dropped to about 75 years.²¹

• Abstinence from smoking (which most Christian churches advocate) will add three years to one's life span.²²

If one were to add up all these years saved by living a Christian lifestyle, that equates to ten years, which is approximately how much longer SDAs outlive the general population. If that is combined with moderation in drinking alcohol, as nearly all Christian denominations advise, then there is virtually no gap between Seventh-day Adventists and Christians of other denominations. If you are a practicing Christian who abstains from tobacco, drinks in moderation, and exercises regularly, then do not expect to live any longer by adopting the Seventh-day Adventist lifestyle!

Dr. Byrnes writes:

There is no proof that a healthy vegetarian diet, when compared to a healthy omnivorous diet, will result in a longer life. Additionally, people who choose a vegetarian lifestyle typically also choose not to smoke; they choose to exercise; in short, they choose to live a healthier lifestyle. These things also are factors in one's longevity. ... Russell Smith, PhD, in his massive review study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates actually decreased! Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (0.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much higher for vegetarians.

... It is usually claimed that meat-eating peoples have a short lifespan, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonization by Europeans). ... In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world. Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Innuit (again, before colonization). Similarly, the people of the Caucasus Mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole raw milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, drink substantial portions of goat's milk, which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk. In contrast, the largely vegetarian Hindus of southern India have the shortest life spans in the world, partly because of a lack of food but also because of a distinct lack of animal protein in their diets.

H. Leon Abrams's comments are instructive here:

Vegetarians often maintain that a diet of meat and animal fat leads to a premature death. Anthropological data from primitive societies do not support such contentions.

Dr Price traveled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets with regard to endurance and energy levels. Without exception, he found a strong correlation between diets rich in animal fats and robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream. In Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty meats and fish, and organ meats like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated tribes whose diets were largely vegetarian.²³

One example that refutes the idea that a vegetarian diet increases longevity is the Icelandic diet. Since Iceland has such a short growing season (40 days), they do not grow many fruits or vegetables. Their diet consist primarily of Skyr (cultured milk), lamb, bread, fish, and beef. The typical Icelandic person drinks alcohol and eats virtually no vegetables. In nearly every regard, this is the exact opposite of the diet recommended by Ellen White. If Mrs. White was correct, one would expect the Icelanders to have short life spans. However, as a nation, their life spans are among the highest in the world. Compare the life expectancy between Iceland and the United States in 2024:²⁴

This illustrates that people can eat plenty of meat, drink milk and alcohol, and still live a long, healthy life.

Digestive Track Designed for Vegetarian Eating?

The claim is often put forward by SDAs that the human digestive track is not designed for meat eating. Dr. Bryce rejects that idea:

Some vegetarian groups claim that since humans possess grinding teeth, like herbivorous animals, and longer intestines than carnivorous animals, this proves the human body is better suited for vegetarianism. This argument fails to note several human physiological features which clearly indicate a design for animal product consumption.

First and foremost is our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. Hydrochloric acid activates protein-splitting enzymes. Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable.

Dr Walter Voegtlin's in-depth comparison of the human digestive system with that of the dog (a carnivore) and the sheep (a herbivore) clearly shows that we are closer in anatomy to the carnivorous dog than the herbivorous sheep. While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are not as long as herbivores; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many herbivores; nor do we chew cud. Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed feeder or an omnivore—much the same as our relatives the mountain gorilla and chimpanzee, who have all been observed eating small animals and in some cases other primates.²⁵

Vitamin Deficiencies

Dr. Byrnes warns of the dangers to Vegans from a lack of vitamin B12:

While lacto and lacto-ovo vegetarians have sources of vitamin B12 in their diets (from dairy products and eggs), vegans (total vegetarians) do not. Vegans who do not supplement their diet with vitamin B12 will eventually get anaemia (a fatal condition) as well as severe nervous and digestive system damage. Most, if not all, vegans have impaired B12 metabolism, and every study of vegan groups has demonstrated low vitamin B12 concentrations in the majority of individuals. Several studies have been done, documenting B12 deficiencies in vegan children—deficiencies which often have had dire consequences. Additionally, claims are made in vegan and vegetarian literature that B12 is present in certain algae, in tempeh (a fermented soy product) and in brewer's yeast. All of them are false, as vitamin B12 is only found in animal foods. Brewer's and nutritional yeasts do not contain B12 naturally; they are always fortified from an outside source.²⁶

Mineral Deficiencies

Dr. Abrams highlights other deficiencies in the vegetarian diet:

In addition to lacking vitamin B12, extreme vegetarian diets are often deficient in adequate proteins and even calories. Moreover, total vegetarian diets tend to be low in calcium and riboflavin (Raper and Hill 1973). Certain coarse, green leafy vegetables may be high in calcium, but the calcium is not well absorbed because of the high fiber content of the diet, and other minerals, including zinc, phosphorus, and iron, may also be poorly absorbed (Haviland 1967: 316-25; Reinhold et al. 1976: 163-80; Bodzy et al.1977: 1139; Freeland, Ebangit, and Johnson 1978: 253).

Calcium absorption is also impaired by certain green leafy vegetables, such as spinach and Swiss chard, that contain oxalates. These compounds bind with calcium during digestion to form insoluble calcium oxalate, which is not utilized, and the calcium is excreted in the feces (Albanese 1980). Moreover, whole grains, frequently consumed in large quantities by many vegetarians, are high in phytates, and these substances, like the oxalates, interfere with calcium absorption (Hegsted 1976: 509). Similarly vegetarians may have low zinc levels due to phytates and oxalates in their diets. In contrast, foods from animal sources provide dietary zinc, but they do not contain the inhibiting phytate and oxalate compounds (Prasad 1966: 225-38).

Zinc insufficiency is one of the greatest but least-known dangers of vegetarianism... Among other things, low zinc levels are related to male infertility...(Prasad 1982).

Obtaining sufficient iron can also be a problem for vegetarians, and women on strict vegetarian diets, especially during child-bearing years, may have real difficulties in this regard (Mayer 1973: 32). As with zinc, foods of animal origin are reliable iron sources, whereas foods of plant origin are not. Moreover, heme iron from foods of animal origin is absorbed and utilized far more efficiently than nonheme iron from plant foods: 10 to 30 percent can be absorbed from animal foods, compared with only 2 to 10 percent from plant foods; and finally phytates and oxalates interfere with iron absorption (Finch 1969: 3).

Normal plasma estrogen levels are necessary for women's menstrual regularity...pre-menopausal vegetarian women have circulating estrogen concentrations (Lloyd, Schaeffer, and Walter 1991; 1005-10) and that these women may also have decreased reproductive capacity (Pedersen et al. 1991: 879-85). Another study at the Hershey Medical Center reveals that the frequency of menstrual irregularity was significantly higher in a lacto-ovo vegetarian group of women than in a matched group of non-vegetarian women (Lloyd et al. 1991: 1005-10).²⁷

In addition, it is well documented that the vegan diet lacks other essential nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids, creatine, carnitine, and taurine.

Cholesterol

Dr. Abrams examined native diets of various native meat-eating peoples and found the following:

The Eskimos constitute a classic example. They lived almost entirely on a traditional diet of raw sea and land mammals, fish, and birds, and so long as the traditional diet was followed, Eskimos remained in excellent health. ... The Eskimo diet, then, also tends to confound the notion that meat and fats undermine human health. Paul Martin, for example, who spent years in the Arctic, discovered that although Eskimos consumed large amounts of animal fats, whale blubber, and seal oil, they did not have problems with cholesterol and, in fact, were remarkably free of degenerative diseases, especially those related to heart and to blood pressure (Martin 1977: 25-8).

[George] Mann first studied the Pygmies in the African rain forest. Almost untouched by civilization, these people have continued on a traditional diet of large amounts of meat, supplemented with plant foods. But Mann discovered that despite a high level of meat consumption, adult male Pygmies had the lowest cholesterol levels yet recorded (Mann et al. 1961).

Next, Mann observed the Masai of Tanganyika, a nomadic pastoral people living almost exclusively on meat, cow's blood, and milk. His examination of 400 Masai adult males revealed very little cardiovascular disease and no signs of arteriosclerotic disease. As a result of his investigation, Mann concluded that the widely held notion that meat and milk cause coronary heart disease is unsupported by the evidence (Mann 1963. 104).²⁸

Dangerous for Children

Dr. Abrams explains the dangers of a vegetarian diet for children:

Infants and children may suffer the most from extreme vegetarian diets. ... Infants breast-fed by women who are strict vegetarians have been found to be deficient in vitamin B12, and such lactating women are advised both to take a vitamin B12 supplement and to include soybean milk or fermented soybean foods in their diets (Dwyer 1979: 1-2). Vegetarian infants and children tend to be smaller and to grow at a slower rate than do children from the general meat-eating population. One factor may be the high-bulk/low-calorie content characteristic of vegetarian diets (Erhard 1973: 11).

Pediatricians have expressed concerns about the vulnerability of infants and growing children who are especially at risk from extreme vegetarianism. ... Other research and clinical observations have also shown that infants fed no animal protein fail to grow at a normal rate and may develop kwashiorkor. Infants who are breast-fed and then placed on vegan diets do not grow or develop as normal infants, nor do they do as well as infants fed vegetarian diets supplemented with cow's milk (Erhard 197$: 10-I2).²⁹

Conclusion on Ellen White's Vegan Diet

It is questionable whether Mrs. White's admonitions about vegetarianism have benefited SDAs to any large degree. In fact, a pure vegan diet can be harmful to the growth and development of children if proper steps are not taken to insure the correct balance of proteins and vitamins. Dr. Barry Groves sums up the situation:

Many people become vegetarians because they believe that such a lifestyle is healthier, particularly in terms of heart disease and cancer. They believe that an intake of meat, and particularly animal fat, will shorten their lives. As evidence of this, a study of largely vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists is usually quoted despite the fact that its authors conclude: 'We hope that no-one will take data from this report and use it to say Food A lowers or food B raises mortality risk.' It is certainly true that this religious sect suffers less from heart disease than the general population. However, the use of this argument to show that vegetarianism is healthier is flawed. A similar study of Mormons in Utah, who eat a considerable amount of meat, found similar low levels of the disease. In fact, the diet of both communities had little or no impact on their incidences of heart disease; the incidences of the disease is low because they are both close-knit and supportive communities, a situation which is known to be protective as far as such diseases are concerned.

Comparisons of the health and longevity of cultures with different dietary habits confirms that meat eaters, such as Eskimos, Nagas and Maasai, can expect to live twice as long as primitive vegetarians. It may be said that such a comparison is flawed because the situations in which these peoples live is very different but there are cases throughout the world where meaningful comparisons can be made.

In Kenya two tribes, the Maasai and the Kikuyu, live in the same country, the same climate, the same political system and the same environment. The Maasai, when wholly carnivorous, drinking only the blood and milk of their cattle, were tall, healthy, long-lived and slim. The Kikuyu, when wholly vegetarian, were stunted, diseased, short-lived and pot-bellied. Over the last few decades, the Kikuyu have started to eat meat — and their health has improved. Since 1960 the Maasai diet has also changed, but in the opposite direction. They are now eating less blood, milk and meat, replacing it with maize and beans. Their health has deteriorated.³⁰

Health Benefits of Meat

Here are seven scientifically supported benefits of consuming healthy meat (e.g., lean cuts, grass-fed, minimally processed):

1. High-Quality Protein - Meat is a complete protein, containing all nine essential amino acids. This supports muscle repair, immune function, and overall cell health.

2. Rich Source of Iron - Red meats, especially beef and lamb, contain heme iron, which is more easily absorbed than plant-based (non-heme) iron. This helps prevent iron-deficiency anemia.

3. Provides Vitamin B12 - Meat is one of the best natural sources of vitamin B12, essential for nerve function, red blood cell production, and DNA synthesis—nutrients hard to obtain from plants alone.

4. Zinc for Immune Health - Beef and lamb are rich in zinc, which boosts immune response, wound healing, and cellular metabolism.

5. Source of Creatine - Creatine, found naturally in meat, enhances muscle energy, physical performance, and brain function, especially in physically active individuals.

6. Healthy Fats (in Grass-Fed Meat) - Grass-fed meats, as were common in the nineteenth century, tend to have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and CLA (conjugated linoleic acid), which may help reduce inflammation and support heart health.

7. Supports Satiety and Weight Management - Protein- and fat-rich meats increase satiety, helping people feel fuller longer and potentially reducing overeating and snacking between meals.

Scientific Verdict: Vegan Diet is NOT Superior for Most Humans

As Nina Teicholz famously observed, "No human population in the history of civilization has ever been recorded surviving on a vegan diet." The only way to implement a healthy vegan diet is to supplement it with vitamins, minerals, omega-3s, and amino acids that cannot be obtained from a vegan diet. This in itself should prove to any thinking person that the vegan diet is not God's intended diet for mankind. Why would God propose a diet devoid of key nutrients essential for human life?

2. Is Tea Really Bad for You?

Mrs. White wrote hundreds of negative statements about tea. She called it a poison, told Christians to abstain from it, and compared tea to alcohol in its ability to destroy health:³¹

Tea is poisonous to the system. Christians should let it alone.

Tea, coffee, tobacco, beer, wine, and all spirituous liquors—are not to be taken moderately, but discarded.

Indulgence in meat-eating, and tea-drinking, and other forms of self-pleasing, is injurious to the health of the body and the soul.

The drunkard sells his reason for a cup of poison. Satan takes control of his reason, affections, conscience. Such a man is destroying the temple of God. Tea drinking helps to do this same work. Yet how many there are who place these destroying agencies on their tables, thereby quenching the divine attributes.

Stimulating drinks, as tea and coffee, create unnatural appetites. The system becomes fevered, the organs of digestion become injured, the mental faculties are beclouded, while the baser passions are excited, and predominate. The appetite becomes more unnatural, and more difficult of restraint. The circulation is not equalized, and the blood becomes impure. The whole system is deranged, and the demands of appetite become more unreasonable, craving exciting, hurtful things, until it is thoroughly depraved.

Presumably, Mrs. White was opposed to caffeinated teas, such as black, green, and Oolong teas. In one letter she wrote that she used neither "green or black" tea unless she was ill.³²

Scientific Evaluation of Ellen White's Tea Statements

"Tea is poisonous to the system."

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

In normal and moderate consumption, tea is not poisonous. It contains caffeine, tannins, antioxidants (like catechins and flavonoids), and various other compounds. While excessive caffeine intake can have negative effects (e.g., caffeine-related issues like anxiety, insomnia, rapid heartbeat in sensitive individuals), the levels in typical tea consumption are generally not toxic. The statement makes a sweeping generalization that does not align with the chemical composition and physiological effects of tea.

"Indulgence in...tea-drinking...is injurious to the health of the body..."

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

While excessive consumption of any substance, including tea, can potentially have negative health effects, the statement paints all tea drinking as inherently injurious. This is not supported by the vast body of scientific research on tea. Modern science has actually highlighted numerous potential health benefits associated with moderate tea consumption

"The system becomes fevered, the organs of digestion become injured…"

Scientific Verdict: Mostly Inaccurate

Caffeine raises metabolism slightly, but does not cause fever or a pathological "fevered" state. Tea and coffee do not injure the digestive organs in healthy individuals. In some sensitive people, excessive caffeine may lead to acid reflux or gastric irritation, but moderate consumption is generally safe and may even offer digestive benefits due to polyphenols.

"The mental faculties are beclouded…"

Scientific Verdict: Contradicted by Evidence

Caffeine is well-documented to enhance alertness, attention, and cognitive function, especially in sleep-deprived individuals. In excessive amounts or in sensitive individuals, caffeine can cause anxiety, restlessness, or insomnia, which might impair mental clarity—but this is not typical with moderate use.

"…the baser passions are excited and predominate."

Scientific Verdict: Not Biologically Supported

This claim reflects moralistic language, not medical evidence. There is no scientific basis that caffeine consumption incites "baser passions" or immoral behavior. It may cause mild stimulation (e.g., increased heart rate or alertness), but no clear connection to behavior of a sexual or moral nature.

"The circulation is not equalized…"

Scientific Verdict: Largely Inaccurate

Caffeine does have vasoconstrictive effects (especially in the brain), but it doesn't cause systemic "unequal circulation." The cardiovascular response to caffeine is mild in most people, and moderate intake is not associated with significant circulatory imbalance.

"The blood becomes impure."

Scientific Verdict: Non-scientific

"Impure blood" was a common 19th-century phrase with no clear physiological definition. Tea and coffee do not cause blood impurities. In fact, coffee and tea contain antioxidants (like chlorogenic acid and catechins) that may benefit vascular health.

"The whole system is deranged, and the demands of appetite become more unreasonable…"

Scientific Verdict: Overstated

Caffeine may contribute to mild dependence and tolerance, especially with heavy use. However, it does not cause systemic derangement in healthy individuals. In fact, modern science links moderate coffee/tea consumption to reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, liver disease, and some cancers.

Health Benefits of Tea

Extensive scientific research has explored the health benefits of tea, identifying it as a rich source of polyphenols, a diverse group of bioactive compounds including flavonoids. These potent antioxidants, such as the prominent flavanol EGCG in green tea and various catechins and theaflavins in black tea, are understood to combat cellular damage caused by free radicals. Over the past decades, numerous studies have investigated these tea antioxidants, yielding promising results for supporting cardiovascular health by potentially reducing the risk of heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. Furthermore, research suggests that tea consumption may contribute to cancer prevention, oral health by inhibiting tooth decay, and even offer some photoprotective effects against sunburn, although further investigation is needed.

Following are some research findings on black tea:³³

• Participants in a study at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who drank a cup or more of black tea each day had a 44 percent lower chance of heart attack than those who did not.

• In the Netherlands, researchers found that people who drank two or more cups a day were less likely to have severe atherosclerosis, a buildup of cholesterol in the arteries.

• In England a comparison was made of women ages 65 to 76 who drink tea with those who do not. Researchers found the tea drinkers had significantly greater bone density (less osteoporosis).

• Numerous studies have shown that the antioxidants in both black and green teas may inhibit the growth of cancer and destroy cancerous cells. This includes cancers of the digestive and urinary tracts, prostate, and pancreas.

• A Harvard Study found "people who drank 5 cups a day of black tea had 10 times more virus-fighting interferon in their blood.

Green Tea Benefits³⁴

Life Extension for Heart Attack Victims – Research at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, MA discovered that drinking Green Tea can extend victims’ lives after a heart attack. 1900 individuals who suffered from heart attacks were studied. Scientists discovered that heavy tea drinkers reduced their risk of mortality over the subsequent three to four years by 44% compared to non-tea drinkers. Even moderate tea drinkers had risk reduced by 28% compared to non-tea drinkers.

Prevention of Cancer – The U.S. National Cancer Institute reports that individuals who drink Green Tea at least once a week for up to six months or more exhibit a significantly reduced risk for colon, rectal, and pancreatic cancers. Green Tea contains powerful antioxidants that destroy cancer cells and inhibit the growth of cancer. In one study, oral cancer patients who drank three cups of Green Tea per day and applied a mixture of glycerin and Green Tea to their lesions demonstrated dramatic inhibition of cancerous growths. Almost 40% of the patients in the study exhibited reduction rates of 30% or greater. In addition the rate of cancerous cell formation diminished significantly as well.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention and Reduction - At Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, medical researchers published a study demonstrating that drinking 4 cups of Green Tea per day prevents rheumatoid arthritis and even reduces the intensity of the crippling disease in those who currently battle the disease.

Strengthen Bones – At National Cheng Kung University Hospital in Taiwan researchers discovered that drinking Green Tea strengthens the skeletal system. Green Tea contains a whole spectrum of polyphenols and flavonoids, both of which can enhance bone strength. In the National Cheng Kung University Hospital study of on 1,037 men and women, people who consumed Green Tea for more than a decade exhibited significant bone density increases.

Weight Loss - Several studies in Europe demonstrated that the catechins in Green Tea enhance metabolic rate which supports weight loss.

Strengthens the Immune System – Several prestigious studies included one documented by the National Academy of Sciences confirmed found that components in tea prepare the immune system to attack invading fungi, viruses, and bacteria. In several studies, even non-tea drinkers who consumed half a dozen cups of tea per day for several weeks exhibited dramatically improved immune response.

More Benefits...

Here are some additional research findings about the benefits from green tea:

• Columbia University and Shanghai Cancer Institute with participation of the U.S. National Cancer Institute: The "Shanghai study" shows that "people who drink green tea once a week for six months or more have a reduced risk for rectal, colon and pancreative cancers, and that this reduced risk may be stronger for women than men."

• Monash University, Australia: Study reported that Chinese and Japanese green tea "prevents the oxidation of low density lipoprotein (LDL) better than Vitamin C. Oxidation of LDL plays a critical role in the development of arteriosclerosis and heart disease."

• Japan: Research indicated that green tea may protect against cardiovascular disease and liver disorders, based on daily consumption of green tea by 1,371 men.

• University of Kansas: Reports assert that "green tea is 100 times more effective than vitamin C and 25 times better than vitamin E at protecting cells from damage linked to cancer, heart disease and other illnesses. They also found that EGCg is twice as powerful as resveratrol, another powerful antioxidant, which is found in red wine, grapes and other foods."

• London: Study reported that both black and green tea "killed a wide range of bacteria, including the antibiotic-resistant and potentially deadly Staphlyococcus aureus, at 'well below cup of tea' concentrations." Green tea properties were also shown to "possess antimicrobial activity, including defense against a bacteria (Bacterium acne) that can lead to acne."

• United States: Study shows green tea extract may help dieters shed fat, according to researchers reporting in the December, 1999, issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

• Rutgers University, United States: Found that green tea blocked up to 87% of skin cancers, 58% of stomach cancers, and 56% of lung cancers in mice.

• Numerous Studies show green tea inhibits the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines.

The scientific evidence is overwhelming that tea—particularly green tea—is one of the most beneficial, health-restoring natural substances on earth. How unfortunate that the inspired prophet commanded SDA physicians not to prescribe this natural remedy to their patients:

You will not prescribe flesh, tea, or coffee for your patients...³⁵

Scientific Verdict: Not Accurate

There is no credible scientific evidence that tea-drinking (black or green) impairs health, reason, conscience, or spiritual faculties.

Ellen White's statements are largely unscientific and driven by moral or religious convictions rather than accurate biological understanding. While excessive intake of any stimulant might have downsides, the claim that tea is inherently "poisonous" and "injurious" to both body and soul, without considering moderation, type of tea, or individual differences, is not supported by scientific evidence. In fact, current research often points to potential health benefits associated with regular, moderate tea consumption. The condemnation of tea drinking as a moral or spiritual failing is false belief, not a scientific fact.

By denying her followers the opportunity to drink tea, she not only denied them the pleasurable experience of drinking tea, but she robbed them of potential health benefits.

3. Is Coffee Really Bad for You?

Ellen White placed coffee in the same category as tea, believing it to be a dangerous substance that would destroy the physical and spiritual life of SDAs.

Satan is taking the world captive through the use of tea and coffee, liquor and tobacco.³⁶

Diseases of every stripe and type have been brought upon human beings by the use of tea and coffee and the narcotics, opium and tobacco. These hurtful indulgences must be given up, not only one, but all; for all are hurtful, and ruinous to the physical, mental, and moral powers, and should be discontinued from a health standpoint.³⁷

Does coffee really ruin the physical, mental, and moral powers? Should it be discontinued to preserve health and prevent disease?

Scientific Evaluation of Ellen White's Coffee Statement

"Diseases of every stripe and type have been brought upon human beings by the use of...coffee."

Scientific Verdict: Grossly Exaggerated and Unsupported

No modern medical evidence supports the idea that coffee causes "diseases of every stripe and type." In fact, most large-scale epidemiological studies show:

• Decreased risk of type 2 diabetes
• Lower risk of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's
• Lower liver cancer risk
• Improved cardiovascular markers in moderate intake
• Coffee consumption is generally associated with reduced all-cause mortality in observational studies.

"It is ruinous to the physical, mental, and moral powers…"

Scientific Verdict: Partially Inaccurate

Extraordinarily high intake (e.g., >5 cups/day) can cause insomnia, jitteriness, increased heart rate, and in rare cases, arrhythmias or digestive upset. However, moderate use (1–3 cups/day) is associated with better physical performance, alertness, and metabolic benefits. Caffeine can enhance cognitive function, alertness, and reaction time, especially in tired individuals. Excessive use may cause anxiety or dependence, but no evidence exists of mental ruin from moderate use. No scientific studies support a link between coffee and moral degradation.

"Should be discontinued from a health standpoint."

Scientific Verdict: Not Supported

The modern consensus among medical professionals and organizations like the American Heart Association, Harvard School of Public Health, and World Health Organization is that moderate coffee consumption is safe and may be beneficial for many. Exceptions include people with caffeine sensitivity, insomnia, pregnancy (high doses), or certain heart arrhythmias. For these groups, limiting or avoiding caffeine may be wise.

Summary

This statement is scientifically inaccurate by today’s standards and heavily influenced by the 19th-century moral and temperance movement, where health reform was seen not only as physical but also spiritual purification. While moderation is wise in all things, the idea that coffee is universally “ruinous” has no basis in modern medicine.

Health Benefits of Coffee

According to Harvard Medical School, when coffee is used in moderation, it provides a whole range of health benefits. Following are verbatim excerpts from Harvard:³⁸

• Blood pressure: Results from long-term studies are showing that coffee may not increase the risk for high blood pressure over time, as previously thought.
• Cancer: Evidence from the American Institute for Cancer Research concludes that drinking coffee may reduce risk for endometrial and liver cancer. A few studies have found ties to lower rates of colon, breast, and rectal cancers.
• Cholesterol: Two substances in coffee — kahweol and cafestol — raise cholesterol levels. Paper filters capture these substances, but that does not help the many people who now drink non-filtered coffee drinks, such as lattes. Researchers have also found a link between cholesterol increases and decaffeinated coffee, possibly because of the type of bean used to make certain decaffeinated coffees.
• Depression: In a meta-analysis of observational studies including 330,677 participants, the authors found a 24% reduced risk of depression when comparing the highest (4.5 cups/day) to lowest (less than 1 cup) intakes of coffee. They found an 8% decreased risk of depression with each additional cup of coffee consumed. There was also a 28% reduced risk of depression comparing the highest to lowest intakes of caffeine, with the greatest benefit occurring with caffeine intakes between 68 and 509 mg a day (about 6 oz. to 2 cups of coffee). A review looking at three large prospective cohorts of men and women in the U.S. found a decreasing risk of suicide with increasing coffee consumption. When compared with no-coffee drinkers, the pooled risk of suicide was 45% lower among those who drank 2-3 cups daily and 53% lower among those who drank 4 or more cups daily.
• Diabetes: Heavy coffee drinkers may be half as likely to get diabetes as light drinkers or nondrinkers. In a meta-analysis of 45,335 people with type 2 diabetes, an association was found with increasing cups of coffee and a lower risk of developing diabetes.
• Gallstones: A study of 46,008 men concluded that men who consistently drank coffee were significantly less likely to develop gallstones compared to men who did not. A similar large study found the same result in women.
• Heart Health: Analysis of 83,076 women in the Nurses’ Health Study found drinking 4+ cups of coffee each day was associated with a 20% lower risk of stroke compared with non-drinkers. A large cohort of 37,514 women concluded that moderate coffee drinking of 2-3 cups a day was associated with a 21% reduced risk of heart disease. In addition, a meta-analysis of 21 prospective studies of men and women looking at coffee consumption and death from chronic diseases found a link between moderate coffee consumption (3 cups per day) and a 21% lower risk of cardiovascular disease deaths compared with non-drinkers.
• Mortality: A study following 200,000 participants for up to 30 years found an association between drinking moderate amounts of coffee and lower risk of early death. Compared with non-drinkers, those who drank 3-5 cups of coffee daily were 15% less likely to die early from all causes, including cardiovascular disease, suicide, and Parkinson’s disease. In another study involving more than 500,000 people followed for 10 years, an association was found between drinking higher amounts of coffee and lower rates of death from all causes. Compared with non-drinkers, those drinking 6-7 cups daily had a 16% lower risk of early death.
• Parkinson’s Disease: A systematic review of 26 studies including cohort and case-control studies found a 25% lower risk of developing Parkinson's with higher intakes of caffeinated coffee.

SDA apologists cherry-pick a few negative studies on coffee in an attempt to prove Mrs. White was correct. However, the vast majority of the evidence is weighted against them. According to WebMD, coffee has been the subject of 19,000 health studies in recent decades, making it the most closely studied substance in human history. In addition to cutting the risk of diabetes by 54% for men and 30% for women, reducing the risk of Parkinson's disease by 80%, colon cancer by 25%, and liver cirrhosis by 80%, gallstones by 50%, "there's also some evidence that coffee may help manage asthma and even control attacks when medication is unavailable, stop a headache, boost mood, and even prevent cavities."⁴⁰

Tomas DePaulis, PhD research scientist at Vanderbilt University's Institute for Coffee Studies, which conducts its own medical research and tracks coffee studies from around the world, writes:

Overall, the research shows that coffee is far more healthful than it is harmful. For most people, very little bad comes from drinking it, but a lot of good.⁴¹

Recent research has shown that drinking two to three cups of coffee a day is associated with a lower risk of heart disease and increased longevity.⁴² Perhaps that is yet another reason that Icelanders outlive SDAs. Icelanders have one of the highest rates of coffee-consumption in the entire world, and yet in 2024, they outlived Californian SDAs by over two years. The mass of scientific evidence demonstrates that moderate coffee consumption has far more health benefits than negatives.

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

While excessive consumption of coffee (primarily due to caffeine) can lead to issues like insomnia, anxiety, or high blood pressure in sensitive individuals, moderate use is widely associated with health benefits, including reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, Parkinson's, and certain cancers. There is no evidence linking coffee to "diseases of every stripe," nor that it is "ruinous" to mental or moral powers.

4. Moderate Alcohol Consumption

Although Mrs. White used alcohol in private, she publicly crusaded against its use. Mrs. White was a noted temperance speaker of her era and she warned people to abstain from all alcohol use. At some point in her lifelong crusade against alcohol, someone must have pointed out to her that some people drinking alcohol were living to ripe old ages. Her admonition was:

Those who use tea, coffee, opium, and alcohol, may sometimes live to old age, but this fact is no argument in favor of the use of these stimulants.⁴³

While it is true that longevity is not a valid reason to use a mind-altering drug, it would certainly lead one to question just how dangerous moderate alcohol consumption is for adults. Mrs. White was probably unaware of the fact that when all other factors are equal, moderate drinkers of alcohol actually out-live both abstainers and heavy drinkers!

Two thousand years ago the apostle Paul advised Timothy to use a "little wine" for his infirmities.⁴⁴ Paul was probably not aware that twentieth century scientists would be giving out the same advice for a "little wine." In recent years researchers were surprised to discover that wine drinkers in France had much lower cardiovascular disease than those who did not drink. Further research showed that all alcoholic beverages have this same positive effect on the cardiovascular system when used in limited quantities. Researchers discovered that alcohol retards arterial aging and promotes the health of the endothelium, the layer of cells lining your arteries that promotes proper blood flow. More than two dozen studies have shown that drinking one or two drinks a day discourages heart disease.

Wine appears to be especially beneficial. Grapes and other fruits are loaded with phenolic chemical compounds called flavonoids, as well as other antioxidant compounds. These compounds have been shown to reduce the artery-clogging propensities of low-density lipids (LDL), the "bad" form of cholesterol, as well as inhibit the formation of blood clots. The grapes used to create red wine are rich in resveratrol, a component that increases HDL "good" cholesterol and limits the production of LDL cholesterol. Saponins, a plant protective agent found in the grapes’ waxy skin, which dissolves into the wine during its fermentation process, are believed to bind to and prevent the absorption of cholesterol and are also known to settle down inflammation pathways. Researchers think alcohol may make the saponins more soluble and thus more available in wine.⁴⁵

One study also found that fruit consumption itself led to lower cardiovascular disease mortality—just drinking grape or other juice and eating fresh fruits may suffice to improve heart health. But wine presents these flavonoids and antioxidants to the body in a way that juices do not. During the course of processing ordinary juice, the phenolic compounds are largely degraded by their exposure to oxygen, dramatically lowering levels of the heart-helping chemical substances. Wine making, with its anaerobic process (one not exposed to oxygen), preserves these. Juice is still "good for the heart," but perhaps not as good as wine.

Recent Findings on Alcohol Consumption

Cardiovascular Health - In the Nurses Health Study, a study of the health habits of 90,000 nurses, researchers found that those who drank three or more drinks a week had a 40 percent lower rate of nonfatal heart attacks and arterial disease than those who did not. The study further found that women who drank one drink a day and men who drank one to two drinks a day did not have any higher risk of cancer or liver disease. However, those who drank more than this did increase their risk of cancer and liver disease. An Italian study found that women with moderate alcohol consumption cut their risk of heart attack by 30%. However, heavy drinkers increased their risk by 20%. In 2011, a meta-study of 84 studies on alcohol consumption and health determined that moderate drinkers had better heart health than those who abstained.⁴⁶

Liver Damage - An animal study shows that light alcohol consumption seems to speed the recovery of damaged livers in rats. Researcher Dr. Gerald Minuk of the University of Manitoba said, the results "cause us to revisit what we are advising our patients who are interested in having one to two drinks per day but who are concerned about what effects that might have on the liver." In the study, scientists divided 86 rats, who had a portion of their livers surgically removed, into four groups. The group receiving high concentrations of alcohol showed inhibition of liver repair, as expected. The moderate consumption group, and the control group, which got water, showed neither bad nor good effects on the liver. But interestingly, the light consumption group had a more rapid recovery and an increase in liver repair. Researchers speculate that small amounts of alcohol may activate some protective genes.⁴⁷

Sudden Cardiac Death - The Physicians' Health Study used data from 21,537 men over a 12-year period. Researchers found that men who had two to four drinks per week lessened their risk for sudden cardiac death by 60 percent. Those who had five to six drinks per week lowered their risk by 79 percent. Though some alcohol is good, more is not better. Rates of sudden cardiac death increased among people who had more than two drinks per day.⁴⁸

Reduced Stroke Risk - A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association says alcohol consumption appears to protect against ischemic strokes, which occur when blood supply to the brain is blocked by a blood clot. Ischemic strokes account for 80 percent of all strokes. "Our study showed that having a drink a day or perhaps two drinks per day can reduce the risk of stroke perhaps by as much as 50 percent," said Dr. Mitchell Elkind of Columbia University. The study found those who drank up to two drinks a day had a 45 percent lower stroke risk.⁴⁹

Protects Against Lung Cancer - While recent research has suggested that alcohol can increase the overall risk for cancer, researchers from the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain found that each daily glass of red wine reduced the risk of lung cancer by 13 percent. The Spanish researchers attributed the beneficial effects of red wine to its tannins, which have antioxidant properties, and to resveratrol, a substance shown to hamper the development of tumor growth in other research.⁵⁰

Bone Loss in Women - Preliminary data shows that moderate drinking—no more than seven drinks a week—can increase estrogen levels, an effect that may prevent heart disease and stop bone loss in post-menopausal women. Heavier drinking, however, doesn't help and in some cases can be harmful.⁵¹

Hypertension - In persons with high blood pressure, the risk of death from cardiovascular disease is much higher in northern Europe and the United States than in Mediterranean countries. French researchers found that in persons with hypertension, moderate regular wine drinking reduced the risk of death from all causes, not just coronary artery disease.⁵²

Gallstones - Half a glass of wine or beer a day reduced gallstone incidence about 40% in a Harvard study. Theoretically, a little alcohol increases the breakdown of cholesterol, making less of it available to form gallstones.⁵³

Breathing Problems - A review of the medical records of more than 177,000 adults shows "that those who drink one or two glasses of wine, beer or liquor daily are 20% less likely to develop asthma, emphysema and other breathing problems."⁵⁴

Cholesterol - "Any form of alcohol raises HDL [good cholesterol] and reduces clotting. Red wine has additional benefits—if consumed in moderation. It contains clot-inhibiting bioflavonoids and resveratrol, a powerful antioxidant that guards cholesterol from oxidation." "A 2013 randomized controlled trial found a daily glass of red wine (100ml for women and 200ml for men) improved the LDL/HDL ratio by 13% over the course of 20 weeks." "More than 35 studies have shown that people who have one to two drinks a day are 25% to 40% less likely than nondrinkers to have a heart attack." ⁵⁵

Longevity - Perhaps the strongest evidence of the health benefits of moderate use of alcohol is longevity. The 90+ Study, which included over 1,600 people who lived to at least age 90, found that "people who consumed one to two glasses of alcohol (beer, wine or hard liquor) per day had 9-15 percent lower likelihood of dying compared to those who abstain from all alcohol." A huge 2021 meta analysis of 48,423 people found a "J-curve relationships between alcohol consumption and mortality in those with cardiovascular disease, with the greatest risk reduction being observed at 7 g/day for all-cause mortality and 8 g/day for cardiovascular mortality relative to current non-drinkers." A similar massive study of 99,654 older adults in 2018 also found a J-curve with those drinking one drink a day having the lowest all cause mortality. A 2020 study in the Netherlands found that the people who were most likely to reach age 90 were not abstainers but those who drank 5-15 grams of alcohol per day. A 2018 study at Harvard of 123,219 people found that those who drank alcohol moderately had the longest life expectancy. ⁵⁶

Diabetes - A trial of red wine use by people with type-2 diabetes reported: "[I]nitiating moderate wine intake, especially red wine, among well-controlled diabetics as part of a healthy diet is apparently safe and modestly decreases cardiometabolic risk."⁵⁷

Cognitive Decline - A 2018 study found that "moderate and heavy drinkers (up to 3 drinks/day for women and for men 65 years and older, up to 4 drinks/day for men under 65 years) had significantly higher adjusted odds of survival to age 85 without cognitive impairment."⁵⁸

Scientific Verdict: Over-generalization

While all can agree that the abuse of alcohol has serious negative health and social impacts, the scientific evidence demonstrates that a "little wine" may be healthier than none at all.

5. Are Spices Harmful?

Nineteenth century health reformers frowned on the use of spices by anyone, but especially in the case of children. They believed spices and condiments aroused the animal passions which could lead to masturbation or marital excess. For example, Dr. Caleb Jackson, from whom Mrs. White received her "health message," warned in 1862 that boys and girls "eating spices and condiments...cloves, cinnamon , caraway, mace, and the like, are surely habitually associated with this practice [masturbation]."⁵⁹

Following in the footsteps of Jackson, Mrs. White made similar cautions. In 1864, in her book about masturbation, Mrs. White issued dire warnings against spices:

Our food should be prepared free from spices. Mince pies, cakes, preserves, and highly-seasoned meats, with gravies, create a feverish condition in the system, and inflame the animal passions.⁶⁰

In 1870, she wrote:

Parents who have taught their children to eat unhealthful, stimulating food, all their lives, until the taste is perverted, and they crave clay, slate pencils, burned coffee, tea grounds, cinnamon, cloves, and spices, cannot claim that the appetite demands what the system requires.⁶¹

In 1876, she warned that spices could not only harm their children's blood and nervous system, but it could hurt their morals:

Children should not be allowed to eat gross articles of food, such as pork, sausage, spices, rich cakes and pastry; for by so doing their blood becomes fevered, the nervous system unduly excited, and the morals are in danger of being affected.⁶²

In 1890, Mrs. White explained the mechanism by which spices destroy the stomach, pollute the blood, increase the phrenololgical animal "propensities," weaken the brain, and lead to sexual desires:

Spices at first irritate the tender coating of the stomach, but finally destroy the natural sensitiveness of this delicate membrane. The blood becomes fevered, the animal propensities are aroused, while the moral and intellectual powers are weakened, and become servants to the baser passions.⁶³

Scientific Review of Ellen White's 1890 Spice Statement

Statement 1: "Irritate the tender coating of the stomach."

Scientific Verdict: Partially Valid

Some spices, when consumed in large quantities or by individuals with sensitive digestive systems, can cause temporary irritation to the stomach lining. This is due to the presence of bioactive compounds like capsaicin in chili peppers or piperine in black pepper. However, this is not a universal reaction to all spices, and for most people, moderate consumption of spices does not cause significant or lasting irritation. In fact, some spices like ginger and turmeric have been shown to have anti-inflammatory and even protective effects on the digestive system.

Statement 2: "...but finally destroy the natural sensitiveness of this delicate membrane."

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that regular consumption of spices destroys the natural sensitivity of the stomach lining. The stomach lining is a robust and constantly regenerating tissue. While chronic irritation from certain factors (like excessive alcohol or NSAID use) can cause damage over time, moderate spice consumption does not typically lead to a permanent loss of sensitivity.

Statement 3: "The blood becomes fevered..."

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

Spices do not cause the blood to become "fevered" in the medical sense (i.e., raising body temperature due to illness). Some spices can cause a temporary sensation of warmth due to increased blood flow to certain areas (like the mouth and digestive tract), but this is a localized and transient effect, not a systemic "fevering" of the blood.

Statement 4: "...the animal propensities are aroused..."

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

This claim reflects a moralistic view that linked certain foods and sensations to base desires and passions. There is no scientific basis to suggest that spices directly "arouse animal propensities" in a physiological or behavioral sense. This is a flawed moral judgment projected onto the physical effects of spices.

Statement 5: "...while the moral and intellectual powers are weakened, and become servants to the baser passions."

Scientific Verdict: Grossly Inaccurate

This statement is entirely unfounded in scientific reality. There is no biological mechanism by which the consumption of spices would weaken moral or intellectual faculties and make them subservient to "baser passions." This belief stems from outdated ideas about the body influencing the mind and morality in simplistic and often judgmental ways. Intellectual and moral capacities are complex functions of the brain, influenced by genetics, environment, education, and personal choices, not directly by spice consumption.

Modern science has shown that spices, in moderate amounts, can be a healthy and flavorful part of the diet, with some even possessing beneficial properties. The claims linking them to fevered blood and weakened moral/intellectual powers are baseless.

Cinnamon - Exciting new research has shown that Cinnamon can significantly lower the blood sugar levels of people with Type 2 diabetes. It has also been shown to lower "triglycerides (fatty acids in the blood), LDL (or bad) cholesterol, and total cholesterol."⁶⁴

"Cinnamon is one of the most anti-oxidant rich herbs on the planet. ... Cinnamon has been shown to have remarkable medicinal qualities that enhance blood sugar signaling, reduce inflammation, stimulate immunity and promote neurological health."⁶⁵

Cinnamon has long been used by natural health advocates to stimulate the digestive system and relax the stomach, thereby supporting digestion. It is said to be effective in relieving nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Furthermore, cinnamon kills E. Coli bacteria. When added to apple juice contaminated with E. coli, cinnamon eliminated 99.5 percent of the bacteria. The spice is a potent antimicrobial agent.

Used since Biblical times, it may prevent urinary tract infections, reduce candida infestations, and kill bacteria that cause tooth decay.⁶⁶

Scientific Verdict: False

Cinnamon, in small to moderate amounts, is not considered "unhealthful" by nutrition science. In fact, it has some potential health benefits, such as anti-inflammatory properties and blood sugar regulation (particularly in people with type 2 diabetes). The idea that craving cinnamon is a sign of "perverted" taste or an indication of unhealthy stimulation is not supported by evidence.

Cloves - According to WebMD, cloves are "a great source of beta-carotene" and have the following benefits:⁶⁷

• "Lower inflammation. Cloves contain many compounds known for their anti-inflammatory properties, with eugenol being the most important. It's been shown to reduce your body's inflammatory response, which can lower your risk of health issues such as arthritis and help manage symptoms."
• "Fewer free radicals. Cloves are full of antioxidants, including eugenol. Antioxidants help your body fight free radicals, which damage your cells. By removing free radicals from your system, the antioxidants found in cloves can help lower your risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers."
• "Reduced ulcers. Some studies show that cloves may help protect your stomach from ulcers. Most ulcers are caused by thinning of the layers of mucus that protect your stomach lining. Early research shows that eating cloves in large amounts can thicken this mucus, lowering your risk of getting ulcers and helping to heal ulcers that you already have."
• "Improved liver function. Cloves may also help your liver work better. Some studies have shown that eugenol found in cloves can also help reduce signs of liver cirrhosis and fatty liver disease."

Scientific Verdict: False

Contrary to Mrs. White's false teachings on spices, cloves actually benefit the stomach, protecting it from ulcers.

Ginger - Although Mrs. White did not specifically call out ginger as a dangerous spice, ginger was a common spice used as a food flavoring in nineteenth century America. Jackson recommended against it for people with stomach ailments.⁶⁸ Mrs. White's instruction to make food "free from spices" must have included all spices commonly used in the nineteenth century, including: pepper (discussed below under condiments), garlic, ginger, allspice, nutmeg, and mace. According to WebMD, ginger has an amazing list of health benefits:⁶⁹

• Fights germs like E.coli.
• Keeps oral bacteria from growing
• Calms nausea
• Reduces muscle pain
• Eases arthritis symptoms
• Curbs cancer growth
• Lowers blood sugar
• Eases menstrual cramps
• Lowers cholesterol
• Promotes healthy aging
• Relieves indigestion

Scientific Verdict: Highly Inaccurate

Scientific evidence suggests that ginger possesses notable benefits for the stomach due to its active compounds, particularly gingerols and shogaols. Studies have shown that ginger can help to accelerate gastric emptying, potentially alleviating symptoms of indigestion and nausea. Furthermore, its anti-inflammatory properties may help to soothe irritation in the gastrointestinal tract. Research also indicates ginger's potential to protect against stomach ulcers. Mrs. White was completely wrong about this spice harming the stomach.

Garlic - Garlic was commonly used as a spice in cooking in the nineteenth century and would have been prohibited by Mrs. White's instruction to make food "free from spices." According to WebMD, Garlic has a wide range of health benefits:⁷⁰

• Improved cardiac health - "Researchers at Emory University School of Medicine found that a component of garlic oil, diallyl trisulfide, helps protect the heart after a heart attack...also been shown to reduce blood pressure..."
• Reduced risk of infection - "Recognized for its ability to fight bacteria, viruses, fungi, and even parasites."
• Reduced risk of cancer - "A 30-year study of 125,000 people found that garlic consumption was associated with a reduction in gastric cancer risk."

Scientific Verdict: Entirely Inaccurate

Rather than cause stomach problems, garlic has been shown to reduce the risk of gastric cancer.

Allspice - Commonly used in cakes during the nineteenth century when Mrs. White warned against spices in cakes, this spice has an astounding number of health benefits, as described by WebMD:⁷¹

• Reduces inflammation
• Treats nausea
• Prevents infection
• Relieves pain
• Eases menopause symptoms
• Slows cancer growth

Scientific Verdict: Entirely Inaccurate

Allspice does not cause stomach problems, but it has been used effectively to settle upset stomachs.

Nutmeg - Since Mrs. White warned against spices used in cakes and pies, nutmeg was no doubt included in her prohibitions. According to WebMD, this spice has some interesting health benefits:⁷²

• Improved dental health
• Improved mood
• Better sleep

Scientific Verdict: Wrong Again

Nutmeg is not harmful the way Ellen White described spices as being harmful.

Conclusion

God provided spices as a treasure trove to bless human with both health and culinary pleasure. Science reveals that spices are more than mere flavor enhancers. They are packed with potent antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds, contributing to everything from improved digestion and heart health to potential protection against chronic diseases. But beyond the scientific data, spices ignite the senses and elevate the everyday act of eating into a joyful experience. To embrace spices in cooking is to enrich one's life by nourishing the body and delighting the soul. Ellen White's blanket prohibition against using spices in food robbed her followers of the culinary delight those spices would have brought, and it robbed them of the health benefits provided by spices. This proves her medical knowledge was not "years ahead" of science but "years behind" it. In this regard, she did not benefit her followers with her advice against spices but cursed them. This is the bitter fruit of Ellen White.

6. Will I Murder My Body by Eating Condiments?

In the nineteenth century, common condiments included mustard, black pepper, vinegar, and pickles. She described those who ate "meat and food seasoned with pepper, mustard, and fiery spices" as "self-murderers."⁷³ While admitting having "used pepper and mustard in my diet," she warned others "these should not be put into the human stomach."⁷⁴ In another testimony she wrote that "pickles...should never find a place in any human stomach" because they "give a miserable quality of blood."⁷⁵ in 1905, she wrote called out condiments as "injurious":

Condiments are injurious in their nature. Mustard, pepper, spices, pickles, and other things of a like character, irritate the stomach and make the blood feverish and impure.⁷⁶

The mince pies and the pickles, which should never find a place in any human stomach, will give a miserable quality of blood.⁷⁷

Many SDAs are no doubt shocked to learn that according to Ellen White, vinegar causes "many evils," not just physical, but also moral!

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Condiment Statements

"Condiments are injurious in their nature."

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

This is a broad generalization. Condiments are a diverse group, and their effects vary greatly. While some, consumed in excess, might cause discomfort for certain individuals, many are harmless in moderate amounts and some even offer potential health benefits. For example, vinegar (in moderation) has been linked to blood sugar control, and some spices are rich in antioxidants.

"Mustard, pepper, spices... irritate the stomach..."

Scientific Verdict: Partially True

Some condiments (like pepper and mustard) can irritate the stomach lining, especially if consumed in large quantities or by individuals with pre-existing sensitivities like gastritis or ulcers. Pepper, particularly black pepper due to its piperine content, can also be irritating for some. However, this is not a universal effect for all individuals or all spices. Moderate use of most condiments is generally well-tolerated.

"...and make the blood feverish and impure"

Scientific Verdict: Grossly Inaccurate

Condiments do not cause a systemic increase in body temperature (fever) in the medical sense. Some might create a sensation of warmth due to vasodilation in the mouth and digestive tract, but this is a localized effect, not a "feverish" state of the blood. The concept of "impure" blood is a vague and outdated notion not recognized in modern physiology. Blood composition is influenced by various metabolic processes, diet, and organ function (like the liver and kidneys), but there's no scientific mechanism by which moderate condiment consumption "impurifies" the blood.

"Pickles, and other things of a like character..."

Scientific Verdict: Partially True

Pickles, due to their high salt and vinegar content, can be irritating to the stomach, especially for individuals prone to acid reflux or stomach upset. For most people, however, they do not cause any health issues at all.

"Pickles...will give a miserable quality of blood"

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

Modern science does not support the idea that eating pickles causes changes in blood "quality" in any meaningful way. No clinical evidence shows that pickles cause toxicity, nutrient deficiency, or blood dysfunction in healthy people.

Ellen White's statement are scientifically inaccurate or oversimplified. While some individuals may experience digestive discomfort from certain condiments consumed in excess, the broad claim that they are inherently injurious and cause "feverish and impure" blood is not supported by modern scientific evidence. Condiments, when used in moderation, can be a healthy and beneficial part of the diet.

Health Benefits of Condiments Mrs. White Forbid

Mustard, vinegar, and pickles have both been used since Biblical times and modern scientific research has shown that these and other condiments are not nearly as harmful as once imagined.

Mustard - Mustard seeds are being researched for a variety of potential benefits according to WebMD:⁷⁸

• Have antimicrobial capabilities
• Contain antioxidants
• Contains sinigrin, which causes cancer cell death
• May Enhance Healing Activity
• Lowers blood sugar levels

Pickles - Have good bacteria that inhibit the growth of harmful microbes in the intestines while supporting the growth of essential intestinal flora. According to a 1999 Lancet study, "Regular consumption of naturally fermented vegetables positively correlated with low rates of asthma, skin problems, and autoimmune disorders."⁷⁹ According to WebMD, pickles have the following benefits:⁸⁰

• "Help in digestion: Fermented pickles are full of good bacteria called probiotics, which are important for gut health."
• "Fight diseases" Cucumbers are high in an antioxidant called beta-carotene, which your body turns into vitamin A. Carotene is a powerful compound that's been shown to help lower your chances of dying of heart disease, stroke, cancer, respiratory diseases, and other conditions."
• "Reduce cell damage: Antioxidants in pickles have a number of benefits. The way they reduce damage-causing free radicals appears to have minor effects on general health. Studies show that regularly eating foods with beta-carotene may help improve thinking in people over age 65."
• "Aid weight loss: Cucumber pickles are a low-calorie food. Because of their high water content, they may help you feel fuller longer."

Vinegar - Many types of vinegar have been used in foods, including balsamic, red wine, rice, and apple cider. According to WebMD, there are numerous health benefits to using vinegar in moderation:⁸¹

• Diabetes management: One study found that vinegar can help people with type 2 diabetes manage their blood sugar levels.
• Eliminates bacteria: Vinegar is well-known for his antimicrobial effects, minimizing the bacteria on lettuce and other vegetables.
• Antitumor effects: "Lab studies of vinegar on leukemia (blood cancer) cells and other cancer cells have indicated that vinegar may have antitumor properties for certain types of cancer."
• Heart health: "A 10-year study of 76,283 women found an association between a high intake of oil and vinegar salad dressing (five or more times per week) and reduced risk of coronary artery disease."
• Lower cholesterol: "Trials suggest that consuming small amounts of vinegar on a regular basis can lower cholesterol and triglyceride levels. This can reduce your risk of heart disease, liver disease, and coronary events."
• Weight loss: "Some studies suggest that adding a small amount of vinegar to your daily diet may also aid in weight loss efforts."
• Lowers blood sugar: "Several smaller studies have reported that taking a tablespoon or two could lower your blood sugar after meals."

Peppers - These have long been considered the foremost detoxifier and anti-aging herb in Asia. According to WebMD, pepper has the following health benefits:⁸²

• Digestion: "Black pepper helps to stimulate hydrochloric acid in your stomach so you can better digest and absorb the foods you eat. It has carminative properties too, which help to reduce discomfort and gas buildup in your intestines." "The capsaicin in cayenne pepper actually stimulates the nerves in your stomach that produce digestive fluids, which helps your digestion. Research shows it may even help prevent the most common type of stomach ulcers, which are caused by the H. pylori bacteria."
• Immune support: Black pepper's "active compounds have a role in boosting white blood cells, which your body uses to fight off invading bacteria and viruses."
• Weight loss: "Studies show that the capsaicin in chili peppers can reduce appetite."
• Anticancer: "Some studies show that capsaicin has strong anticancer abilities. It's been shown to target tumors and slow the growth and spread of cancer cells. It may even be able to kill certain types of cancer cells, including prostate, skin, and pancreatic." In studies on cayenne pepper, scientists have demonstrated an 80% reduction with prostate cancers in mice and in human prostate cancer cells in cultures. The capsaicin in cayenne actually creates accelerated cancer cell apoptosis, or cellular self destruction.⁸³

Conclusion

While certain condiments, such as peppers or mustard, can irritate the stomach lining in sensitive individuals, most healthy people are not affected. Eating condiments does not "pollute" the blood. The claim that these foods make the blood impure is scientifically inaccurate. Many condiments actually aid the stomach by killing bacteria and improving digestive processes. When used in moderation, condiments can elevate the flavor and enjoyment of nutritious meals, adding variety and satisfaction without compromising overall health. A dash of pepper, a drizzle of vinegar, or a tasty relish can make healthy foods more appealing and contribute to a delightful approach to eating.

7. Sleep Better Before Midnight?

Once it was believed that the moon and stars favored pre-midnight sleep. "An hour of sleep before midnight is worth two hours thereafter" goes an English proverb published in 1670. Health reformer Sylvester Graham taught that sleep was better before midnight:

And all experience in civilized life has proved also, that, other things being equal, those who get a considerable portion of their sleep before midnight, are, as a general fact, the most healthy and long-lived.⁸⁴

Ellen White apparently believed the myth about sleep before midnight to be a revelation of truth because she wrote the following:

I know from the testimonies given me from time to time for brain workers, that sleep is worth far more before than after midnight. Two hours' good sleep before twelve o'clock is worth more than four hours after twelve o'clock.⁸⁵

Scientific Evaluation of Mrs. White's Sleep Statement

Through scientific studies of shift workers, modern sleep researchers have dispelled the myth that sleep before midnight is superior:

As long as you fulfill your sleep requirement without interruption, it doesn't really matter what time you go to bed or get up. ... 'Grandmother' psychology tells us that sleep before midnight is best, and that one hour of sleep before midnight is equal to two hours of sleep after midnight. Again, 'it ain't necessarily so.' While the first few hours of sleep are the most restful in terms of deep sleep and the secretion of the growth hormone, it doesn't matter what the time on the clock is when such sleep occurs. Duration of sleep and regularity are what count.⁸⁶

Contrary to what Mrs. White wrote, researchers have found that sleeping early in the evening, prior to 9 PM, results in a significant increase in the chance of a person developing Alzheimer disease.⁸⁷

Scientific Verdict: Mostly inaccurate

Sleep is not magically better before midnight. The value of sleep depends on circadian rhythm alignment, sleep stages, and total sleep time—not the clock itself. For example, if someone regularly sleeps from 2 AM to 10 AM, they can still get healthy, restorative sleep if it is consistent, sufficient in duration, and aligns with their internal circadian rhythm.

8. No Antidote for Strychnine Poisoning?

Strychnine (Nux vomica) appears in various 18th and early 19th-century medical guides as both a dangerous poison and a potent medicinal substance (in small, controlled doses for conditions like paralysis or digestive disorders). For example, Jonathan Pereira's Elements of Materia Medica (first published in the 1830s) contains detailed warnings about the dangers of strychnine and Nux vomica. Robert Christison, a pioneer of toxicology, wrote extensively on Nux vomica and strychnine in his 1835 book A Treatise on Poisons. By the 1850s, medical students and physicians were being trained to recognize and treat strychnine poisoning.

In 1864, Mrs. White had a "vision" regarding strychnine:

A branch was presented before me bearing large flat seeds. Upon it was written, Nux vomica, strychnine. Beneath was written, No antidote.⁸⁸

Scientific Evaluation of Ellen White's Strychnine Statement

Even prior to this "vision," English scientists had discovered charcoal to be an effective antidote. In England, by 1855, powdered animal charcoal suspended in sugared water was being used in London to treat poisoning with strychnine and other alkaloids. Later antidotes discovered by scientists include magnesium oxide, potassium permangnate, and tannic acid.

The most striking aspect of her mistake is that she describes it vividly as if it is being shown to her in vision. The words "no antidote" were written beneath the branch. God did not write this because God is not a liar. This shows that her visions were not from God.

Scientific Verdict: Misleading

The claim "No antidote" is medically misleading, as effective treatment strategies existed even in the nineteenth century and saved lives when applied promptly.

9. Fruits and Vegetables at the Same Meal?

In the 19th century, some health reformers were opposed to eating fruit and vegetables at the same meal. Dr. Russell Trall, in his Hydropathic Encyclopedia (1851), discouraged eating fruits with other food groups, believing they fermented in the stomach and caused digestive distress. In 1873, he warned that people "troubled" with digestive problems should not take fruits and vegetables at the same meal."⁸⁹ Dr. Caleb Jackson, from whom Mrs. White received her "health message," warned in 1868 that those suffering with "wind-colic" should avoid eating "vegetables and fruit at the same meal."⁹⁰ In 1882, SDA physician J.H. Kellogg warned that people with "impaired" digestion "should avoid the use of fruits and vegetables at the same meal."⁹¹

In 1892, Mrs. White wrote her first testimony on this subject, advising Elder Gates, who was having digestive difficulties, to avoid eating fruit and vegetables at the same meal.⁹² Two years later, she warned the sect's youth:

If we would preserve the best health, we should avoid eating vegetables and fruit at the same meal. If the stomach is feeble, there will be distress, the brain will be confused, and unable to put forth mental effort. Have fruit at one meal and vegetables at the next.⁹³

At this time, her prohibition seems primarily focused on those with weak digestion. However, in 1897, writing in the Signs of the Times, she made this a dietary rule for her entire sect, not simply those with digestive issues:

Vegetables and fruit should not be eaten at the same meal.⁹⁴

She immediately follows this prohibition by claiming the "heavenly Father sent light on health reform to guard against the evil that results from a debased appetite," which presumably means God sent her health messages to enlighten Seventh-day Adventists. She goes on to say that by "exercising temperance...we may become sanctified through the truth," implying this dietary rule was a "truth" that would result in the sanctification of SDAs. Intemperance, on the other hand, "are living on borrowed capital," "expending vital force...recklessly," and "will sometime have to pay the penalty" for violating Ellen White's rules. That penalty could include their lives ending "prematurely."⁹⁵ This same statement was later republished in White's 1905 book on health, Ministry of Healing.⁹⁶

SDAs Believed Ellen White's Myths

Sadly, many SDA people lived their lives believing this instruction was "truth" sent from God. They carefully avoided mixing fruits and vegetables at the same meal, fearing their vital force would be diminished and they would "pay the penalty" by dying prematurely. Here is what that meant to SDAs in a practical sense:

• No mixed green salads with berries, apples, pears, oranges, or grapes.
• No cranberries or cranberry sauce for Americans on Thanksgiving if they also ate potatoes or sweet potatoes.
• No apple, pumpkin, or cherry pie after dinner if vegetables were eaten in the meal.
• No mango or pineapple salsa (blends fruit with onions, peppers, and cilantro).
• No rhubarb pie (rhubarb, a vegetable, is often mixed with fruit such as strawberries).
• No smoothies or juices that mix fruits and vegetables (like spinach and berries, or carrot and apple).

What a burden to place upon the SDA people in order for them to become sanctified!

Scientific Evaluation of Mrs. White's Food-Combining Theories

The notion that consuming fruits and vegetables together in a single meal causes digestive issues lacks scientific support. This idea stems from the "food combining" theory, which posits that certain food combinations can negatively affect digestion. Here are some key points and studies that debunk this theory:

Modern digestive physiology shows that the human gastrointestinal tract is well equipped to handle a wide variety of foods simultaneously. Enzymes such as amylase, proteases, and lipases are secreted concurrently to digest carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, respectively. The stomach’s acidic environment and the coordinated activity of the small intestine ensure that mixed meals are broken down efficiently. Reviews in journals such as the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition emphasize that the digestive system is designed for mixed meals rather than sequential, isolated digestion. The absence of any demonstrable benefit from strict food combining is noted by many nutrition experts and dietetic organizations, including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

The claim that combining fruits and vegetables impairs digestion or causes fermentation problems is not supported by any controlled clinical studies. Instead, research indicates that the timing and combination of foods do not significantly alter nutrient absorption or digestive efficiency in healthy individuals. A review of the “food combining” literature in reputable sources has found no evidence that the simultaneous consumption of fruits and vegetables leads to adverse digestive outcomes. For instance, multiple studies have examined meal composition and found that overall nutrient bioavailability and digestive comfort are not compromised by eating mixed meals.⁹⁷

Large-scale nutritional studies, such as those conducted on populations with diverse dietary patterns, show that diets incorporating fruits, vegetables, grains, proteins, and fats together are associated with numerous health benefits. There is no indication that these benefits would be lost if fruits and vegetables are consumed together. Epidemiological research, including the landmark studies cited by the World Health Organization, supports a diet rich in fruits and vegetables consumed together as part of a balanced meal. These studies demonstrate reduced risks for chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain cancers.

Major health organizations and nutrition experts have consistently stated that the idea of avoiding food combinations is a myth. The American Dietetic Association (now the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) has explicitly stated that there is no scientific rationale for food combining diets, and that they offer no advantage over balanced meals that include a variety of food groups. For healthy individuals, enjoying a diverse, balanced diet, including mixed fruits and vegetables, is not only safe but beneficial for overall health.

10. Bathing Improves Internal Organs?

Hydrotherapy ("water cure") exploded in popularity during the 1800s.⁹⁸ It was based on the belief that water, in various temperatures and forms, could stimulate healing in the body. Dr. Caleb Jackson, from whom Mrs. White received her "health message, was a strong advocate of hydrotherapy. After the Whites attended his Dansville "Water Cure" Clinic and saw the popularity of this form of treatment, they set out on a lifelong mission to create their own "water cure" sanitariums. Although certainly a lucrative business, the Whites also saw this as an opportunity to proselytize the patients attending SDA clinics. Mrs. White furnished a testimony in 1867 instructing SDAs to get into the water-cure business.⁹⁹ She intended for SDAs to heal people with diet and water treatments instead of drug medicines. The most famous of those clinics was John Harvey Kellogg's world-renowned sanitarium in Battle Creek, Michigan. Mrs. White informed her followers that wherever they erected an SDA church, they should also install a hydrotherapy bathhouse:

In every place where we have a church, there should be some place specially fitted up where treatments can be given—a bathhouse with appropriate rooms. This is as the Lord designs it should be.¹⁰⁰

In 1908, she wrote:

The Lord has taught us that great efficacy for healing lies in a proper use of water.¹⁰¹

Hydrotherapy promised to treat everything from rheumatism, digestive problems, tuberculosis, mental illness, and even moral failings. Many practitioners made exaggerated or even miraculous claims—that hydrotherapy could cure cancer, epilepsy, insanity, or "impure blood."

Ellen White made fantastic claims about the supposed health benefits of bathing:

It promotes general perspiration, quickens the circulation, overcomes obstructions in the system and acts beneficially on the kidneys and urinary organs. Bathing helps the bowels, stomach, and liver, giving energy and new life to each. Digestion is promoted by bathing, and instead of the system being weakened, it is strengthened.¹⁰²

Ellen White repeated the hype of the era—that bathing could somehow perform miracles to restore the internal organs. However, no evidence exists that external bathing directly energizes or revitalizes internal organs like the kidneys, bladder, liver, or bowels in a clinical sense. While indirect effects (via circulation or relaxation) can support general organ function, the idea of bathing sending "new life" to internal digestive organs is wildly exaggerated. Bathing does not treat kidney, liver, or bowel disease, nor does it directly alter digestion in any medically measurable way in most people.

Exaggerations like the ones above by Ellen White were not backed by empirical evidence and eventually the public began to lose trust in the water cure. Even Mrs. White had mixed results. In Australia, she got water treatments for her rheumatism, but she wrote that it had "such a firm hold upon me however that six powerful baths have not overcome it."¹⁰³

As modern medical science and the germ theory of disease became more established (post-1870s), hydrotherapy was seen as pseudoscientific or overly simplistic. It failed to explain how water could treat deep internal diseases or infections. The early 20th century brought vaccines, antibiotics, and anesthetics—game-changers that made hydrotherapy seem outdated. Compared to these breakthroughs, bathing and wraps no longer impressed physicians or patients. By the early twentieth century, most "water cure" sanitariums closed and the entire movement dried up. To survive economically, SDA sanitariums largely abandoned hydrotherapy and turned to the drug medicines that their prophet routinely denounced. The "Lord's design" for every SDA church to have a bathhouse was quietly shelved.

Scientific Verdict: Gross Exaggeration

Science later confirmed what patients had already discovered. Hydrotherapy, while relaxing and enjoyable, had little impact on serious health issues. A 2009 systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials found no evidence that water therapy provided any therapeutic benefit other than temporary pain relief.¹⁰⁴ The fact that SDA Sanitariums abandoned this form of treatment in favor of pharmaceuticals is further proof that it was ineffective.

11. Malaria Caused by Sweet Cake?

At one point in her prophetic career, Mrs. White advised brother Pallant to avoid eating Sweet Cake, warning him:

The idea that we should have sweet cake should be discarded, for it ferments in the stomach, and brings on malaria.¹⁰⁵

While warning her followers to avoid quinine, an effective treatment against malaria, she instead recommended lemon juice to treat malaria:

I use lemon juice freely. It is the best thing you could use for rheumatism, and for your head, and for malaria.¹⁰⁶

Are these accurate statements? Does Sweet Cake ferment in the stomach, causing malaria? Was lemon juice the best treatment for malaria in the nineteenth century?

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Malaria Statement

"...sweet cake...ferments in the stomach..."

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

Food does not ferment in the stomach in the sense that Ellen White suggests. The stomach is highly acidic (pH ~1.5–3.5), which prevents fermentation by most microbes. Fermentation (by bacteria or yeast) occurs primarily in the colon, and even there, it is a normal part of digestion and is not inherently harmful. Some people with digestive issues may experience gas or bloating when certain carbs reach the wrong part of the gut, but that is not the same as harmful "fermentation" from cake.

"...and brings on malaria."

Scientific Verdict: Totally False

Malaria has nothing to do with diet or digestion. It is an infectious disease requiring a specific parasite-vector-host chain. Ellen White was out of touch with the current science of her day. By 1897, British physician Ronald Ross had already discovered that malaria is caused by a parasite (Plasmodium) and is transmitted by the Anopheles mosquito. This was a monumental shift from earlier "miasma" theories that falsely linked disease to "bad air" or indigestion.

"...lemon juice...best thing...for malaria."

Scientific Verdict: Highly Inaccurate

Quinine, derived from the cinchona bark, had been known for centuries and was the undisputed drug of choice for treating malaria in the nineteenth century. Its efficacy in reducing fever and clearing parasites was well-established. It had been isolated in the 1820s, and by the mid-1800s, it was widely recognized as the primary antimalarial.

Lemon juice (or citrus fruits in general) does not contain compounds that are effective in killing the Plasmodium parasite or stopping the progression of malaria. There is no scientific basis to suggest lemon juice combats the parasite. Relying on lemon juice for malaria in 1896 would have been a dangerous and ineffective practice, as it would not have addressed the parasitic infection that causes the disease, potentially leading to severe illness or death. Unfortunately, some SDAs took Ellen White seriously—believing her to be the Spirit of Prophecy—and they died because they refused to take quinine.

Conclusion

Ellen White's statements are scientifically invalid, both then and now. They reflect a an out-dated worldview and folk-medicine, not evidence-based medicine. While excessive sweets may contribute to poor health, they do not ferment in the stomach or cause malaria. Neither does lemon juice cure malaria.

12. Vital Force

Ellen White frequently referred to a God-given "vital force"—a finite reserve of life energy that can be preserved through temperance or squandered through sexual activity, overwork, poor diet, or sin. In 1905, she wrote:

God has endowed us with a certain amount of vital force. ... If we carefully preserve the life force, and keep the delicate mechanism of the body in order, the result is health; but if the vital force is too rapidly exhausted, the nervous system borrows power for present use from its resources of strength...¹⁰⁶

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Vital Force Statements

Scientific Verdict: Invalid The idea of a fixed "vital force" is not supported by modern science and rests on outdated assumptions about human biology.

The belief that the body contains a limited store of mystical life energy—and that health depends on conserving it—stems from the vitalist tradition, which dominated pre-20th-century medical thought. However, vitalism has since been thoroughly disproven. Scientific discoveries in cell biology, biochemistry, and neurophysiology have shown that the body operates through chemical reactions, electrical signaling, and energy transfer systems that are dynamic, renewable, and governed by physical laws—not by an invisible, diminishing force.

The human body generates energy continuously by metabolizing carbohydrates, fats, and proteins into ATP, the cellular energy currency. This process is not spiritual or mystical. It is chemical, measurable, and universal across all living organisms. Likewise, the nervous system does not "borrow power" from some hidden reservoir. Fatigue, stress, or illness occur when physical systems (like hormonal balance, neurotransmitter levels, or immune responses) are disrupted, not when a metaphysical essence is depleted.

Ellen White's framing of a declining "vital force" is not scientifically valid. Modern physiology affirms that health is not about guarding a vanishing spark of life, but about supporting adaptable, biological systems that can recover, repair, and regenerate.

13. Cheese Unfit for Food?

In his 1894 book, John Harvey Kellogg called cheese "wholly unfit to enter the human stomach"¹⁰⁷ Mrs. White must have approved of his wording, because in 1905 she wrote:

Cheese is still more objectionable; it is wholly unfit for food.¹⁰⁸

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Cheese Statement

Even by 1905 standards, her statement was scientifically unsupported, though some concerns were plausible given the era:

Scientific Verdict: Some Concerns Are Valid

In 1905, cheese could be a vector for foodborne illness, especially when unrefrigerated and made from raw milk. High fat and salt content in cheese may have led to indigestion, especially in people not accustomed to it.

Scientific Verdict: Risks are Grossly Exaggerated

In the nineteenth century, many European populations thrived on diets including cheese, such as in Switzerland, France, and Italy. While it was valid to have some hygienic concerns about low-quality sources of cheese, the claim that cheese is "wholly unfit for food" is based more on ideology and pseudoscience than real scientific analysis. Thus, Mrs. White's claim is scientifically inaccurate and a gross exaggeration, even by 1905 standards.

Health Benefits of Cheese

In 2022, a meta-analysis was performed on dozens of studied to evaluate the impact of eating cheese. The researchers found that cheese consumption was associated with:¹⁰⁹

• Lower all-cause mortality
• Lower cardiovascular mortality
• Lower cardiovascular disease
• Lower coronary heart disease
• Lower stroke
• Lower ER- breast cancer
• Lower type 2 diabetes
• Lower total fracture
• Lower dementia

Many cheeses—especially aged, raw-milk, or traditionally fermented varieties—contain natural probiotics that can support gut health. These beneficial bacteria survive the fermentation and aging process and help maintain a healthy balance of microbes in the digestive system.

Cheeses like Gouda, cheddar, Swiss, Gruyère, Parmesan, feta, and some blues are particularly good sources because their aging environments protect the bacteria and help them remain active until you eat them. Unlike yogurt, whose probiotics often do not survive stomach acid, certain hard and aged cheeses act as a "protective capsule," allowing more of the good bacteria to reach the intestines where they can actually do their work. This can result in better digestion, improved immune function, and a more resilient gut microbiome.

Conclusion

Cheese packs a surprising punch of goodness. It is rich in protein, calcium, vitamin B12, and fat-soluble vitamins that support strong bones, healthy muscles, and steady energy. Its natural probiotics can aid digestion, and its healthy fats help keep you satisfied longer. Cheese can be a great alternative source of protein for vegetarians.

14. Hot and Cold Food/Drinks Harm the Health?

Like many health reformers of her era, Mrs. White greatly exaggerated the dangers of eating hot and cold food or drinking hot or cold drinks with meals. In 1905 she wrote:

If food is cold, the vital force of the stomach is drawn upon in order to warm it before digestion can take place. Cold drinks are injurious for the same reason; while the free use of hot drinks is debilitating. In fact, the more liquid there is taken with the meals, the more difficult it is for the food to digest; for the liquid must be absorbed before digestion can begin.¹¹⁰

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Statement

"If food is cold, the vital force of the stomach is drawn upon in order to warm it before digestion can take place."

Scientific Verdict: Partially Inaccurate

The human body does indeed expend energy (not "vital force," but calories) to warm ingested food and liquids to core body temperature (around 98.6°F or 37°C). Digestive enzymes function optimally within this narrow temperature range. However, the idea that digestion cannot "take place" until warming is complete, or that this warming process constitutes a significant and detrimental "drain on vital force," is incorrect. The stomach begins mechanical and chemical digestion almost immediately. The energy cost of warming food is relatively minor compared to the body's overall metabolic expenditure, and a healthy body easily handles it without any meaningful impediment to digestion or perceived "drain on vitality."

"Cold drinks are injurious for the same reason..."

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

Following the logic of the previous point, the "reason" (energy expenditure for warming) is real, but the conclusion that cold drinks are "injurious" is not supported by science for healthy individuals. There is no evidence that drinking cold beverages causes harm or significantly impairs digestion.

"...while the free use of hot drinks is debilitating."

Scientific Verdict: Mostly Inaccurate

Consuming beverages that are scalding hot can obviously be harmful. However, drinking comfortably warm or hot beverages (like tea or coffee at typical consumption temperatures) is not "debilitating" and is a common, often soothing, practice in many cultures. There is no scientific basis for such drinks being generally harmful or weakening.

"In fact, the more liquid there is taken with the meals, the more difficult it is for the food to digest; for the liquid must be absorbed before digestion can begin."

Scientific Verdict: Largely Inaccurate

This argument often stems from the idea that liquids dilute digestive enzymes or stomach acid, thereby hindering digestion. While liquids can temporarily dilute digestive juices, the stomach is highly adaptive and produces more acid and enzymes as needed to compensate. For most healthy individuals, this temporary dilution has no significant negative impact on digestion. Liquids pass through the stomach relatively quickly, but food digestion (mechanical breakdown and initial chemical processing) does not wait for all liquid to be absorbed. Digestion of solids and liquids occurs concurrently. Absorption of most nutrients and water primarily occurs later in the small intestine.

Drinking a reasonable amount of liquid with meals is often beneficial, aiding in the formation of chyme (the semi-liquid mass of digested food), helping move food through the digestive tract, and preventing constipation.

Conclusion

Ellen White's statement reflects a pre-modern scientific understanding of human physiology that contains a kernel of truth (the body expends energy to warm food) but then extrapolates it into exaggerated, misleading, or incorrect conclusions about the detrimental effects of food/drink temperature and liquid intake on digestion. Modern gastroenterology and nutritional science do not support the idea that cold food or drinks are inherently injurious or that liquids must be absorbed before digestion can begin.

15. Baking Soda/Powder is Harmful?

Many nineteenth century health reformers were suspicious of baking soda and baking powder. Mrs. White wrote in 1905:

The use of soda or baking powder in breadmaking is harmful and unnecessary. Soda causes inflammation of the stomach and often poisons the entire system.¹¹¹

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Baking Soda/Powder Statement

"...soda or baking power...is harmful... Soda causes inflammation of the stomach..."

Scientific Verdict: Largely Inaccurate

Baking Soda (Sodium Bicarbonate) is an alkaline compound. When mixed into bread dough, it reacts with an acid (either present in ingredients like buttermilk, or provided by baking powder itself) to produce carbon dioxide gas, which creates bubbles and makes the bread rise.

In a properly formulated recipe, the baking soda should be largely neutralized by the acid during the baking process. True inflammation of the stomach lining (gastritis) is a medical condition usually caused by factors like bacterial infection (e.g., H. pylori), excessive alcohol use, prolonged use of certain medications, or autoimmune issues. It is highly unlikely that the small amounts of baking soda (even if some is unreacted) in normal bread consumption would cause actual, sustained "inflammation of the stomach."

"...and often poisons the entire system."

Scientific Verdict: Highly Inaccurate and Alarmist

This is a severe overstatement. Ingesting normal amounts of bread made with baking soda or baking powder does not "poison the entire system." Baking soda is primarily sodium bicarbonate, so excessive intake of baked goods (or any food high in sodium) contributes to overall sodium intake, which can be a long-term concern for blood pressure and cardiovascular health. However, this is a general dietary consideration, not a direct "poisoning" from the leavening agent itself.

Only in cases of massive, deliberate overdose of pure baking soda (e.g., consuming large spoonfuls directly, which is not how it is used in bread) could severe systemic issues like metabolic alkalosis or electrolyte imbalances occur, which would be life-threatening. This is entirely irrelevant to its use in breadmaking.

Conclusion

Ellen White's Baking Soda/Powder statement is largely unscientific and misinformed regarding the "harmful" and "poisonous" effects of baking soda/powder in bread. The claims of causing stomach inflammation or "poisoning the entire system" are gross exaggerations and false based on modern understanding of food chemistry and human physiology. The minor amounts used in recipes are mostly neutralized during baking, and the body's digestive system is well-equipped to handle them without harm. This statement likely stemmed from a general suspicion of "chemical" ingredients in food, a common sentiment in early health reform movements that sometimes led to oversimplified or incorrect conclusions about their effects on the body.

16. Milk in Bread

Nineteenth-century health reformers mistakenly thought that putting milk in baked goods was unhealthy. Mrs. White wrote in 1905:

In the making of raised or yeast bread, milk should not be used in place of water. The use of milk is an additional expense, and it makes the bread much less wholesome. Milk bread does not keep sweet so long after baking as does that made with water, and it ferments more readily in the stomach.¹¹²

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Milk in Bread Statement

"Milk should not be used in place of water in raised or yeast bread."

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

Using milk instead of water in bread is a matter of texture, flavor, and nutritional goals, not health risk. Milk adds fat, sugar (lactose), and proteins, which lead to a softer crumb, a richer flavor, and a slightly darker crust (due to Maillard browning). Milk does not inhibit yeast fermentation and can actually enhance it slightly due to additional sugars.

"The use of milk...makes the bread much less wholesome."

Scientific Verdict: Largely Inaccurate

This is subjective and based on the moral-nutritional lens of nineteenth-century health reformers. They often saw milk as mucous-forming, perishable, and less ideal than plant-based alternatives. In modern terms, milk bread is not less wholesome for most people; in fact, it can add calcium, protein, and fat. However, for lactose-intolerant individuals there could be digestive or safety concerns.

"Milk bread does not keep sweet so long after baking as that made with water."

Scientific Verdict: Somewhat Accurate

Milk contains lactose and fats which make bread more prone to spoilage and rancidity, especially before refrigeration was widespread. Water-only breads, especially sourdoughs or lean artisan loaves, often have longer shelf life and resist microbial spoilage better.

"It [milk bread] ferments more readily in the stomach."

Scientific Verdict: Inaccurate

This is a pseudoscientific claim from the era's "autointoxication" theory, which falsely believed that undigested or slowly digested foods would rot or ferment in the stomach and poison the body. The stomach is highly acidic (pH ~1.5–3.5), which prevents fermentation. All types of bread are broken down primarily in the small intestine, and milk does not inherently cause fermentation unless someone is lactose intolerant. For lactose-intolerant individuals, fermentation can occur in the colon, leading to gas and bloating, but this is not due to the bread fermenting in the stomach.

Conclusion

This statement reflects a mixture of culinary observation and outdated health theory. While the spoilage concern is valid (especially pre-refrigeration), the rest of the claims are either inaccurate or not supported by current science. It is a good example of how health reformers' moral and dietary beliefs influenced early 20th-century food advice.

17. Hot Bread Difficult to Digest?

Eating freshly baked bread was a concern for some health reformers. Mrs. White writes in 1905:

When hot or new, raised bread of any kind is difficult of digestion. It should never appear on the table.¹¹³

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Bread Statement

"Hot or new raised bread is difficult to digest."

Scientific Verdict: Exaggerated

This belief is partially grounded in real physiological effects, but it is overstated and not universally applicable. Fresh bread (especially hot) contains more moisture and starch in a gelatinized form, which may make it chewier or gummier, especially in dense loaves. If underbaked or very moist, it may be more difficult to break down in the mouth and stomach. As bread cools, starches retrograde (recrystallize), which can make the texture firmer and potentially easier to chew thoroughly. For most healthy people, fresh bread is not significantly harder to digest than stale bread. There is no evidence that warm bread causes indigestion in the majority of people, unless they already have a sensitive GI system (e.g., IBS, dyspepsia).

"It should never appear on the table."

Scientific Verdict: Overstatement

This is a moralistic and dogmatic overstatement, typical of the health reform movement and their attempts to "purify" food. Reformers like Graham and Kellogg saw "hot bread" as indulgent, weakening to digestion, and potentially leading to moral and physical decline. The advice was more about discipline and control than hard nutritional science. Today, there is no health-based reason to ban hot bread entirely, although allowing bread to cool slightly can improve texture and possibly digestion (especially in coarse, wholegrain loaves).

Conclusion

This statement is mildly grounded in early digestive observations, but it is largely outdated and overzealous by modern standards. It reflects the moral and ascetic approach to diet common among 19th-century health reformers, not current evidence-based nutrition.

18. Infants Should Eat Two or Three Meals a Day?

In 1870, Mrs. White wrote:

The first education children should receive from the mother in infancy should be in regard to their physical health. They should be allowed only plain food, of that quality that would preserve to them the best condition of health, and that should be partaken of only at regular periods, not oftener than three times a day, and two meals would be better than three."¹¹⁴

Evidently impressed with this "divine revelation," the SDA sect republished this statement five times between 1897 and 1958.¹¹⁵

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Infant Feeding Schedule

Scientific Verdict: Highly Inaccurate and Potentially Harmful

This statement is severely outdated and contradicts current pediatric recommendations. The modern medical consensus, including the Cleveland Clinic and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), emphasizes feeding infants "on demand" rather than sticking to a rigid schedule, especially in the early weeks and months. Infants have small stomachs and high energy requirements relative to their size. For the first 6 months, they should be exclusively breastfed or formula-fed on demand, which is typically many times a day. Once complementary foods are introduced (around 6 months), they are in addition to milk feeds. By 8-12 months, infants typically need 3 meals and 1-2 snacks per day, along with continued milk. Limiting feeding to just two or three times a day would likely result in insufficient caloric intake, nutrient deficiencies, and impaired growth. Modern feeding practices emphasize responsive feeding, where caregivers respond to an infant's hunger and fullness cues rather than rigid schedules.

Conclusion

Mrs. White's infant feeding schedule reflects a historical perspective on infant care that is medically unsound. Adhering to the feeding advice in this statement today could seriously compromise an infant's health and development. To conclude, this is some of the worst advice ever given by Ellen White.

19. Dressings Causes Fermentation in Stomach?

In 1887, Mrs. White wrote:

The salads are prepared with oil and vinegar, fermentation takes place in the stomach, and the food does not digest, but decays or putrefies. As a consequence the blood is not nourished, but becomes filled with impurities, and liver and kidney difficulty appear. Heart disturbances, inflammation, and many evils are the result of such kind of treatment, and not only are the bodies affected, but the morals, the religious life, are affected.¹¹⁷

Scientific Review of Ellen White's Salad Dressing Statement

"...fermentation takes place in the stomach, and the food does not digest, but decays or putrefies."

Scientific Verdict: Highly Inaccurate

The human stomach is extremely acidic (pH typically 1.5 to 3.5 due to hydrochloric acid). This highly acidic environment is designed to break down food and kill most bacteria that would cause fermentation or putrefaction (rotting). It is a digestive, not a putrefying, chamber. While some fermentation by bacteria does occur in the large intestine (primarily of indigestible fibers), this is a normal and often beneficial process. It does not occur significantly in the stomach in a harmful way, nor does food "decay" or "putrefy" there. Vinegar, being a fermented product itself, does not cause fermentation in the stomach. Oil, a fat and does not ferment.

"As a consequence the blood is not nourished, but becomes filled with impurities, and liver and kidney difficulty appear."

Scientific Verdict: Highly Inaccurate

The entire digestive process is designed to break down food into absorbable nutrients, which are then indeed absorbed into the bloodstream to nourish the body. Salads, oil, and vinegar contain nutrients (vitamins, minerals, healthy fats, fiber). "Impurities" is a vague and unscientific term. The body has highly efficient detoxification systems (primarily the liver and kidneys) that filter waste products and maintain blood purity. Consuming food does not "fill the blood with impurities" in a harmful way; rather, it provides the building blocks for health. There is no evidence that a typical salad with oil and vinegar would cause liver or kidney dysfunction.

"Heart disturbances, inflammation, and many evils are the result of such kind of treatment..."

Scientific Accuracy: Inaccurate

Modern science often links healthy fats (like olive oil commonly used in salads) and the array of antioxidants and phytonutrients in vegetables to anti-inflammatory effects, not pro-inflammatory ones. Diets rich in vegetables and healthy fats (like the Mediterranean diet) are associated with reduced risk of heart disease and chronic inflammation.

There is no scientific basis to suggest that consuming salads with oil and vinegar causes heart disturbances. Rather, a balanced diet that includes these components is considered heart-healthy.

"...and not only are the bodies affected, but the morals, the religious life, are affected."

Scientific Accuracy: Completely Unscientific and Moralistic

This claim moves entirely outside the realm of scientific inquiry. There is absolutely no known biological mechanism or scientific evidence to suggest that diet, particularly a salad with oil and vinegar, can directly influence one's moral character or religious piety. This aspect of the statement is rooted in the moralistic dietary movements prevalent in the 19th century. Some in the temperance movement or early health reform movements feared that the tiny amount of alcohol in vinegar was somehow "evil."

Conclusion

Ellen White's statement is largely a product of outdated physiological understanding and prevailing dietary ideologies of the time. It is demonstrably false by current scientific and medical knowledge regarding digestion, metabolism, nutrition, and disease. It's a classic example of "autointoxication" theory combined with moralizing about food choices.

20. Coffee Leads to Tobacco and Alcohol Use?

Mrs. White viewed the consumption of stimulants such as coffee and tea to be dangerous because they supposedly led to tobacco and alcohol consumption. In one testimony she wrote:

The tables of our American people are generally prepared in a manner to make drunkards.... By the use of tea and coffee an appetite is formed for tobacco, and this encourages the appetite for liquors...¹¹⁸

Scientific Evaluation of Mrs. White's Statement

"By the use of tea and coffee an appetite is formed for tobacco..."

Scientific Accuracy: No Evidence

There is no clear biological evidence that drinking tea or coffee causes someone to develop a craving for tobacco.

"...and this encourages the appetite for liquors."

Scientific Accuracy: No Direct Link

Caffeine (from tea or coffee) is not known to biologically encourage an appetite for alcohol.

Conclusion

This statement is not scientifically accurate. The idea that tea or coffee create an appetite for tobacco and alcohol is a moral hypothesis, not a physiological fact. Modern research finds no evidence that tea or coffee cause or trigger addiction to tobacco or alcohol. Associations may exist behaviorally, but not causally.

The Verdict

Ellen White enthusiasts point out that much of her advice on health is beneficial. This is true. Our own studies indicate that roughly 60% of her health admonitions have some validity. She advocated eating plenty of fruits and vegetables, drinking good pure water, exercising, and getting plenty of rest. All of this is good.

However, mixed in with her good teachings are extremes that are either not beneficial or downright harmful. When one stops to consider that her health writings contain both truth and falsehood, then one must admit that these writings did not originate from visions of God, but were merely copied down from the other health reformers of her day. As such, her teachings are no better than the teachers she copied from, and represent the antiquated scientific knowledge of the nineteenth century. Science has advanced greatly since she wrote her books, and as scientists discover more and more about the human body and medicine, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Mrs. White's health teachings missed the mark a number of times.

Today, anyone can clearly see that her health writings are not the product of divine inspiration as earlier generations had been led to believe. It seems that the more that science discovers, the more modern medicine proves White wrong.