Yes! I discussed this era of American food sentiment in my history of drunk snacking a little while ago:

By 1900, the difference between "what drunk people ate" and "what polemicists claimed drunk people ate" was taking on a new and insidious dimension: xenophobia. There was rather a long history of American tavern food being very well sauced and spiced. And definitely salty, which Sismondo postulates was a conscious ruse to get people to drink more. Temperance advocates saw causality: "Condiments create a desire for narcotics," claimed one doctor, D. H. Kress. But everyone down to cookbook authors recognized the connection.

And in the burgeoning white nationalism of the late 19th century, good old fashioned ascetic impulses made a splash as a way to separate good white middle class Americans from the brown (especially Asian) newcomers. Spicy foods were denounced as too foreign, that horrible temptation of the Filipinos and Chinese. "Perverted appetites" was how Mrs. Norton's 1917 cookbook described it. Indeed, contemporary dietetic thought held that eating spicy food was not satisfying, because the spices camouflaged the good wholesome nutrition, and so people turned to alcohol to fill the void.

Christine Sisimondo, America Walks Into a Bar, is the source I mentioned in the above excerpt. But better for your purposes (and used here) is Helen Zoe Veit, Modern Food, Moral Food: Self-Control, Science, and the Rise of Modern American Eating in the Early Twentieth Century (and I was able to get to relevant parts of the book via Google Books preview, FWIW). From there you can track down several primary sources available online, like the Kress article "Errors in Diet as Related to Inebriety and Crime".