114 THE COMMON SENSE OF THE MILK QUESTION 



the adoption of bacteriological standards as well as 

 standards regulating the percentages of fat, and then 

 compare them with actual conditions in the world's 

 greatest cities. Such a comparison cannot fail to be 

 of interest and valu6. 



Boston is exceedingly proud of the f^,ct that it was 

 a pioneer in this important reform. It has a bacte- 

 riological standard and reproaches New York for not 

 having followed its example. That it is to the shame 

 of New York that it has no bacteriological test, that 

 it has not advanced beyond the stage where it is illegal 

 to water milk o? to adulterate it with chemicals, but 

 not illegal to pollute it with dirt or to infect it with 

 disease germs, so that to sell milk with too little fat 

 is a crime, while it is not a crime to sell pus and dirt, 

 I cordially agree. But I am not at all sure that 

 Boston's standard of "pUrity" is not more shameful 

 still. For Boston is in the position of having, in the 

 name of cleanliness, indorsed a standard which rep- 

 resents filth and danger. Boston is satisfied with 

 milk that contains not more than 500,000 bacteria 

 per cubic centimeter ! In other words, Boston accepts 

 as sufficiently clean and pure milk containing five 

 hundred times the amount of germ life which von Behring 

 believes to be the limit of safety for infants' food, and 

 more than fifteen times that accepted by the leaders of 

 the Certified Milk Movement as a compromise, a step 

 toward better conditions! 



