250 THE COMMON SENSE OF THE MILK QUESTION 



the attack upon pasteurization and to consider them 

 in relation to the available evidence. 



(1) It is urged that pasteurization does not kill all 

 the disease germs. It is claimed that the most harmful 

 germs survive, those killed being the least harmful, the 

 harmless, and the useful. 



Now, it is obvious that, if true, this is a serious, 

 though not necessarily fatal, objection. I say, that 

 it is not necessarily a fatal objection, because it 

 might be claimed with good reason that if pasteur- 

 ization did not kin all the most dangerous germs but 

 only a few of them, it would still be advantageous 

 if it killed a very large number of disease germs. The 

 weight of the criticism, however, cannot be denied. 

 In bacteria land, as in most other places, the wicked 

 flourish and the good die too easily. The disease 

 germs which men most fear in milk are those of the 

 dread tuberculosis, ajid it is alleged that the pasteur- 

 izing process does not kill the tubercle bacilli. It 

 is not denied that it kills the germs of scarlet fever, 

 typhoid, and diphtheria, but it is contended that one 

 of the greatest dangers to be feared is the presence 

 of tubercle bacilli in milk, and that the fact of milk 

 being an important factor in the spread of tubercu- 

 losis has been one of the most cogent arguments for 

 pasteurization. If, therefore, the process does not 

 kill the tubercle baciUi, that danger is not removed, 

 and the utility of the process is very much less than 

 is claimed by its friends. 



