Read First Bite: How We Learn to Eat for Free Online Page B

minced. Some, such as bone marrow, beef, peas, and carrots, were offered both in cooked and raw form. The selection was laid out in bowls, while nurses sat by, waiting to see what the children would choose. As Davis described it,
    the nurse’s orders were to sit quietly by, spoon in hand, and make no motion. When, and only when, the infant reached for or pointed to a dish might she take up a spoonful and, if he opened his mouth for it, put it in. She might not comment on what he took or did not take, point to or in any way attract his attention to any food, or refuse him any for which he reached. He might eat with his fingers or in any way he could without comment or correction of his manners.
    Davis continued this experiment over a period of six years, starting with three babies and building up to fifteen. The results, which have been hotly discussed by doctors ever since, were dramatic. Without any preconceived notions about what foods were suitable for them, the babies showed enthusiasm for everything from bone marrow to turnips. They didn’t realize they weren’t supposed to like beets or organ meats. All of them tried all of the thirty-four foods, except for two who never attempted lettuce and one who shunned spinach.
    Within a few days, Davis noticed, “they began to reach eagerly for some and to neglect others, so that definite tastes grew under our eyes.” It soon became obvious to her that for the fifteen children, there were “ fifteen different patterns of taste .” The children made some very odd selections that looked like a “dietician’s nightmare,” said Dr. Davis. They went on curious “food jags.” One day, they might gorge on liver, or eat a meal of nothing but bananas, eggs, and milk. A boy called Donald showed a rare passion for oranges, cramming in nearly two pounds of them one day. In the process of trial and error in finding out what tasted nice, some of the children “chewed hopefully” on plates and spoons, while others grabbed handfuls of pure salt. When they tried something new, Davis observed, their faces showed at first surprise, then indifference, pleasure, or dislike.
    However bizarre and unbalanced the children’s likes and dislikes look to our eyes, they served them well. In a 1928 article writing up her findings, Davis included a “before” and “after” photo of one of the children, Abraham G. At eight months, on arriving in her care, he looks a little pale. At twenty months, after a year on the diet, he is cherubic and plump.
    When they arrived at the hospital, the infants were generally in poor health. Four were seriously underweight; five had rickets. Yet within a few months, all of the children were pink-cheeked and optimally nourished. One of the rickets sufferers was offered cod liver oil, which he took the occasional glug of; but the other four managed to get enough vitamin D and calcium to cure their rickets through diet alone. When they suffered colds, they appeared to self-medicate, eating vast amounts of carrots, beets, and raw beef. Even though they were given no guidance on what their bodies needed, their ratio of calories averaged at protein 17 percent, fat 35 percent, and carbohydrate 48 percent, very much in line with contemporary nutritional science.
    Davis created an unprecedented body of information on childish appetites (though it was never fully analyzed; and, after her death in 1959, all the boxes of raw data were discarded). When she took up a new job, the original setup in Cleveland was moved to Chicago, where she established what amounted to “an eating-experiment orphanage.” In all, she logged around 36,000 meals as well as recording changes in heightand weight, blood and urine, bowel movements and bone density. It is unlikely that any other scientist will ever get such detailed data again, given the dubious ethics of keeping children locked up in an experimental nursery for so long. The babies stayed on the diet for a minimum of six months and