PURE versus purified milk 247 



is a makeshift — a necessary evil. They readily 

 admit, as all sane men must, that it would be vastly 

 better to have clean and uninfected milk, rather 

 than milk which has been, so to say, cleansed and 

 disinfected. They do not for a moment dispute 

 the claim that milk so pure as to need no purifying 

 process is the ideal to be aimed at; that mUk ought 

 to be so pure as not to need any pasteurization. All 

 these things they admit without question.' So far 

 the two schools are in perfect agreement. 



But they do not share the optimism of the radi- 

 cals. Not for many years, if ever at all, they say, 

 shall we get the milk supply of our cities so pure that 

 it will need no purifying. So far as it is possible 

 to judge the future, contend the opportunists, there 

 are no probabilities of such ideal conditions being 

 attained within the lifetime of any now living. They 

 point to the fact that we go on quite contentedly 

 drinking milk which contains many millions of bac- 

 teria per cubic centimeter, even giving it to our 

 babies. They take such statements as that made 

 by Professor Conn that the milk of our cities con- 

 tains more bacteria than their sewage does,* and 

 they urge that now, until we can get a pure and 

 wholesome supply, entirely safe and free from infec- 

 tion, pasteurization is necessary — especially for the 

 milk intended for infants. 



The proposition is an exceedingly simple one. 



