PURE versus purified milk 253 



name ought never to be applied. I have long held 

 that there should be a legal definition of what con- 

 stitutes pasteurization. Such a definition would 

 go far toward protecting the public against what 

 is, under all the circumstances, practically a fraud, 

 as I said at the Milk Conference held in the New 

 York Academy of Medicine in 1906. 



(2) It is alleged that pasteurization destroys some 

 of the nutrient qualities of the milk, renders it difficult 

 to digest, destroys the lactic add bacteria which are of 

 great importance, and leads to diseases like scorbutus 

 and rachitis in infants. 



I place this group, of objections together for the 

 reason that they are, ultimately, only different state- 

 ments of the same difficulty. I place them second 

 only to the objection considered above for the reason 

 that, intrinsically, this group of charges undoubtedly 

 are second in importance only to the charge that 

 the germicidal action of pasteurization is inefficient. 

 But it is only fair to add that this mass of criticism 

 is. less often met with than formerly, so that it is of 

 less relative importance than it was at one time. 



There is a bewildering mass of contradictory tes- 

 timony on both sides from which either party to the 

 controversy could select enough to make out a very 

 strong and seemingly conclusive case. It is, however, 

 scarcely worth while attempting to sift it, for two 

 reasons. In the first place, because no conclusive 



