256 THE COMMON SENSE OF THE MILK QUESTION 



it is well to apply the common sense test of actual 

 experience. That our test may be fair and just we 

 must compare the results of feeding upon pasteurized 

 milk with the results of feeding upon the ordinary 

 raw milk of commerce, and not with the results of 

 feeding upon raw milk of exceptional purity. For 

 the advocates of pasteurization have never denied that 

 piure raw milk would be better than milk of doubt- 

 ful purity pasteurized. A conclusive answer to our 

 questions, it seems to me, is contained in the universal 

 experience that where the mUk supply is poor, pas- 

 teurization leads to a diminution of infantile mor- 

 tality. The figures cited in the previous chapter 

 afford a sufficient answer to the criticism that pas- 

 teurized milk is harder to digest than raw milk. If 

 this were true, we should find a larger mortality from 

 digestive trouble among infants fed upon it, and the 

 fact that we get a result the very opposite of this tends 

 to show that either the alleged indigestibility is a fic- 

 tion, or that pasteurized milk has other advantages 

 which outweigh the disadvantages — even when dis- 

 eases of the digestive system alone are taken into account. 

 In point of fact the criticism never rested upon 

 anything more scientific than guesswork. So far as 

 I am aware there never existed the conditions which 

 could provide a fair basis for a comparison of the 

 merits of raw milk with those of pasteurized milk as 

 a food for infants. Much of the argument rests upon 



