CLARIFICATION OF MILK. 157 



Again, "it does not remove all the disease-producing organisms." 

 It would be a rare centrifuging machine which would claim such a func- 

 tion as eliminating all pathogenic micro-organisms, in the light of what is 

 known about centrifuging out such forms. Selective elimination of this 

 nature savors of the superhuman at present, and implies more than is 

 possible. The clarifier is the product of human effort. 



" It destroys the value of the dirt test." This is rated as an unfavorable 

 quaUty, yet is considered favorable in the case of straining. One might 

 ask whether it is desirable to remove as much dirt as possible, or allow it 

 to remain simply to make the dirt test, occasionally appUed, effective? 



If the authors were to sum up these statements as they stand, they 

 must conclude that the clarifier is a far more efficient strainer, which is 

 allowed, apparently, than any now in use. 



A criticism of the clarifier, very peculiar because of its subtle nature, is 

 introduced: — 



" (b) It does not remove urine or the soluble portion of feces; neverthe- 

 less the milk appears clean." The implication here is far-reaching, for 

 the reader might think that there is such a machine or device, on the one 

 hand or on the other, and that such a claim is made for the clarifier or a 

 centrifuge. Why such an assertion is left in its baldness for lay readers to 

 digest the writers caimot understand. Does any device accomplish it, 

 does even pasteurization of milk, which is a sort of panacea advocated by 

 this commission for aU mUk trouble, overcome what is intimated? That 

 such products exist even in the best of milk, in an infinitesimal degree, 

 cannot be denied, but it seems a strange assertion in connection with a 

 review of clarification. Why not explain? 



Here is another very interesting assertion (this is properly made): 

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

 milk." This is well-founded, but what is the result? The need of an 

 answer to this is apparent and it should accompany the statement. 

 Does the commission know? In a general waj^, how often is such a 

 reason given? 



"(c) It adds another process requiring the handling of the milk, com- 

 pHcating the situation." Here, too, is one of those statements which are 

 so commonly brought forth to "clinch" an argument. Has man ever 

 hesitated to utihze a new device, when such a device, so far as he can de- 

 termine, improves the product, even if it does entaU a new movement? 

 It corresponds very closely with the exclamation of a certain writer who 

 had done no particular work with the clarifier, and who closed his review 

 with, "What next?" 



The authors have perhaps colored this very brief analysis too highly 

 by specific selections, but not without a purpose. They have not even 

 done it to criticize, although criticism may be merited in a way. The 

 object has been to bring conspicuously before the reader the confused 

 condition of minds and the lack of knowledge as well as the existence of 

 certain substrata of prejudice relevant to a new device (the clarifier) 



