MILTON J. ROSEN AU 417 



number of diseases harmful to man. Pasteurization effectively prevents this hazard. 

 It implies precaution, protection, and prevention. It is the best insurance both for 

 the industry and the consumer, and the simplest, cheapest, least objectionable, and 

 most trustworthy method of rendering infected milk safe. 



Pasteurization does not claim to replace sanitation and common decency. It can- 

 not atone for filth and should not be used as a redemption process. Stale, weak, and 

 dirty milk is still stale, weak, and dirty after it has been pasteurized. Theoretically, 

 a pure milk is better than a purified milk. However, no one should drink raw milk that 

 cannot be guaranteed by the health officer as safe and free from danger. Rash, in- 

 deed, would be the health officer who would give any raw milk a safe bill of health, 

 for raw milk is likely to be infected by carriers, missed cases, or other unseen means. 

 Furthermore, infection in milk does not disclose its presence by our available tests. 

 Even certified milk or milk of equally high character is not safe without pasteuriza- 

 tion. Less than i per cent of all the milk found upon the market is certified. There- 

 fore, raw milk of this honor class is not a public health problem of any magnitude, 

 although it has been responsible for outbreaks of diphtheria, scarlet fever, and other 

 diseases. There is no authentic record of any milk-borne epidemic caused by properly 

 pasteurized milk. 



It is sometimes alleged that pasteurization does not destroy nature's danger sig- 

 nal — souring. Milk pasteurized at the temperatures recommended (i42°-i45° F.) 

 sours as a result of lactic acid fermentation just as raw milk does, although somewhat 

 more slowly. Nature has no danger signal for infected milk. Milk may be teeming 

 with typhoid bacilli and other pathogenic micro-organisms without its taste, odor, or 

 appearance being changed. 



Pasteurization is sometimes objected to because it does not destroy heat-resisting 

 toxins which are supposed sometimes to be in milk. The occurrence of such poisons 

 is a mere assumption. Even if they exist in milk, they would be in the raw milk as 

 well as in the heated milk. 



One objection to pasteurization has always been the claim that it will put back 

 the cause of clean milk and good dairy methods, because pasteurization will make 

 cleanliness unnecessary and will put carelessness at a premium. Experience has 

 proved the fallacy of this argument; in fact, the general milk supply of large cities 

 has materially improved despite pasteurization. 



Pasteurization is not proposed as a substitute for, but as an adjunct to, inspec- 

 tion. Inspection gives us cleaner and better, but not necessarily safe, milk. Inspectors 

 cannot be present all the time, and, furthermore, even if they were Pasteurs, they could 

 not see missed cases and carriers. Pasteurization destroys the dangers inspection can- 

 not see. The combination of inspection and pasteurization corresponds in all respects 

 to the modern principles of furnishing a safe water supply to a large city. The water- 

 shed, through inspection, is kept as clean as practicable, but the water is filtered or 

 purified to protect the consumer. 



There can be no more objection to the heating of milk for the use of adults or 

 children above the age of one year than there is to the cooking of meat. Infants should 

 receive breast milk. There is no adequate substitute. When this is not possible, they 

 should have the best and freshest cow's milk that can be obtained. Whether such 

 milk is to be pasteurized, modified, or otherwise treated rests with the pediatrician. 



