142 MILK AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH chap. 



prompt appointment of another English Eoyal Commission on 

 Tuberculosis (still sitting, 1911), while fresh investigations to 

 settle the matter were undertaken in many other parts of the 

 world. The general result has been to unmistakably demon- 

 strate that bovine tuberculosis is a source of human tuber- 

 culosis. The most conclusive evidence of this fact is set out 

 in the reports giving the very careful and valuable work of 

 the English Eoyal Commission.^ Their conclusions and facts, 

 as far as they bear upon this specific matter, and as far as 

 they are yet published, are as follows : 



There can be no doubt but that in a certain number of cases 

 the tuberculosis occurring in the human subject, especially in 

 children, is the direct result of the introduction into the human 

 body of the bacillus of bovine tuberculosis ; and there also can be 

 no doubt that, in the majority at least of these cases, the bacillus 

 is introduced through cows' milk. Cows' milk containing bovine 

 tubercle bacilli is clearly a cause of tuberculosis and of fatal tuber- 

 culosis in man. 



A very considerable amount of disease and loss of life, especially 

 among the young, must be attributed to the consumption of cows' 

 milk containing tubercle bacilli. The presence of tubercle bacilli 

 in cows' milk can be detected, though with some difficulty, if the 

 proper means be adopted, and such milk ought never to be used 

 as food. 



In their Einal Eeport (1911) they are even more definite, 

 and state : 



. . . There can be no doubt that a considerable proportion of the 

 tuberculosis affecting children is of bovine origin, more particularly 

 that which affects primarily the abdominal organs and the cervical 

 glands. And further, there can be no doubt that primary abdom- 

 inal tuberculosis as well as tuberculosis of the cervical glands is 

 •commonly due to ingestion of tuberculous infective material. 



The important and extended work done by Dr. Nathan 

 Eaw deserves mention in this connection. 



Eaw, in 1903^ and in subsequent communications, very 

 •clearly expressed the view that while human and bovine 

 tuberculosis are separate and distinct diseases, the human body 

 is susceptible to both, and especially to bovine tuberculosis in 

 the early period of life. He based this opinion almost entirely 



1 Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, Second Interim lieport, 1907. 

 '^ British Medical Journal, 1903, i. p. 596. 



