NEW YORK MILK COMMITTEE 119 



or chemical, to protect the consumer from fraud and the hon- 

 est producer and distributor from dishonest competition. 



The chemical standards were the first to be adopted. They 

 are relatively easy of enforcement, but give us little indication 

 of the sanitary methods used in the dairy or in handling the 

 milk. 



They are primarily for economic purposes and to prevent 

 fraud ; they inform us as to the amount of fat, total solids, etc., 

 and the presence of preservatives, but convey little informa- 

 tion as to the wholesomeness and purity of the milk. 



Bacteriological standards, on the other hand, are an index 

 of the excellence of dairy methods and have a distinct place 

 in the control of milk from a public health standpoint. 



The acquisition of the knowledge of the part played by 

 bacteria as affecting the wholesomeness of milk gave rise to 

 efforts to determine, by means of bacteriological examination, 

 the purity of this food. These efforts at first were mainly 

 in the direction of determining the maximum number of bac- 

 teria in milk that was consistent with proper dairy methods. 

 This may be considered as the quantitative method of ex- 

 amination, as it is concerned only with the number of bacteria 

 in milk and takes no account of the qualitative examination 

 or determination of the kind of bacteria. This last, from a 

 public health standpoint, is by far the more important ; but 

 on account of the technical difficulties involved in such an ex- 

 amination, and by reason of the fact that the milk in ques- 

 tion has been used or has spoiled before such tests are com- 

 pleted, is less practicable and less widely used. 



The impression seems to prevail in some places that quan- 

 titative bacteriological standards for milk are in themselves 

 sufficient to indicate the purity and wholesomeness of milk; 

 this is shown by the fact that 45 out of 85 cities have adopted 

 a maximum bacterial standard, and in some cases these stan- 

 dards have been relied on to a large extent for the control of 

 the milk supply at the expense of an extension of dairy in- 

 spection. Among these there is a distinct lack of recognition 

 of the limitations of the value of bacterial standards. 



A low bacterial count of a sample of milk does not neces- 

 sarily mean that the milk is free from danger, for the contam- 

 ination of milk with the infection of scarlet fever or with a 



