280 THE MILK QUESTION 



and styles of single-service packages have been brought for- 

 ward by ingenious inventors, but it appears that none of 

 them entirely comply with the requirements of the case. 

 It is comparatively easy to ma^ke a paper bottle which 

 satisfies the requirements of the sanitarian, but it seems 

 that if such bottles are sufficiently strong and made of 

 good stock, with a satisfactory impervious coating and a 

 tight seal that will keep the milk in, and so shaped as to 

 keep the dirt out, the expense becomes prohibitive. Im- 

 provements are constantly being made to cheapen the 

 individual paper package, and there is no doubt that it 

 will ultimately replace the glass bottle. 



A disadvantage of the paper bottle is that it is not trans- 

 parent, so that it is not possible to see the cream line or to 

 detect dirt. This is not such a serious objection, for the 

 reason that health officers should guarantee the cleanliness 

 of the milk as well as its butter-fat content. Further, it is 

 not at all impossible that in time a single-service package 

 will be devised which is transparent. The individual milk 

 package is the package of the future. The glass bottle is 

 doomed, just as the common drinking-cups and roller 

 towels are fast becoming relics of the sanitary dark 

 ages. 



Milk utensils 



Milk pails, milk cans, and other milk utensils should 

 be made of tin. This is the least objectionable metal and 

 the easiest to keep bright and clean. Tin is not acted upon 

 very much by milk and does not furnish poisonous salts, 

 such as may come from copper or other metals. Pails and 

 cans should be free from rust, the surfaces must be kept 

 bright, and they must be so constructed that they may 

 be readily cleaned. The seams especially should be tight 

 and be entirely free from grooves, ridges, or irregular sur- 

 faces. Metal sieves are objectionable because they are apt 

 to rust and they are difficult to clean. Good dairy utensils 



