156 MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 187. 



it is to be hoped, may eventually have fairly covered the field compre- 

 hensively as well as quite intensively. 



The present attitude toward the clarifier is reflected by the Commission 

 on Milk Standards^ which offers a status on clarification. Summing up 

 the points bearing upon milk purification by the clarifier are found these 



Favorable : — 



(a) It removes visible dirt. 



(b) It removes inflammatory products, including many of the causative germs. 



(c) It performs the work of the strainer, but in a much more efficient manner. 



Against : — 



(a) It removes visible dirt, but not all disease-producing germs, and hence mis- 



leads the consumer as to the real purity of the milk. 



(b) It does not remove urine or the soluble portion of feces; nevertheless the 



milk appears clean. 



(c) It adds another process requiring the handling of the milk, complicating the 



situation. 



(d) It largely destroys the value of the dirt test, though no more so than good 



straining. 



(e) It breaks up clumps of bacteria and distributes them through the milk. 

 (/) The exact nature of the material removed is not yet fully understood. 



The essence of the above assertions is found in the bewildering effect 

 it produces on the mind of a critical reader, for it both asserts and 

 does not assert. When the summary concludes thus: "The exact nature 

 of the material removed is not yet fidly understood," it neutrahzes the 

 first effect produced and causes a fog to settle on the rather precocious 

 opinions preceding. It is unfortunate that the reader is left to speculate 

 concerning the reaUties wliich actually he submerged beneath tliis opales- 

 cent atmosphere. It is fitting, therefore, to analj^ze these statements, not 

 exhaustively, but a little more closely, just for the purpose of indicating 

 their looseness. 



Putting several of these statements together, the thought is thrown 

 into one or two channels: — 



(a) It removes visible dirt. 



(b) It performs the work of a strainer, but in a much more efficient manner. 



(c) It removes ^'isible dirt, but not all disease-producing germs, and hence mis- 

 leads the consumer as to the real purity of the milk. 



(d) It largely destroys the value of the dirt test, though no more so than good 

 straim'ng. 



In other words, it removes visible dirt more effectively than any strainer. 

 "Confusing the consumer," "the total elimination of organisms," and 

 "the effect on a test" have no relation to its claim. It may be said, too, 

 that straining of milk must be as reprehensible in misleading the consumer 

 as clarifying, for does it not prepare the consumer for a more sightly 

 product? Yet straining is upheld. The authors feel confident that such 

 assertions as the above will mislead the reader. 



1 U. S. Public Health Service, Public Health Reports, Vol. 2, No. 7, p. 17. 



