680 
Pasteurization of all of the milk supply of a community may not be 
desirable. The clean, fresh milk, free from contamination, may not 
need it. Special cases may require raw milk, but the general public 
should be protected against the old, dirty, and uncared for milk 
which forms the bulk of the supply of large cities. 
The heating must be done intelligently and under the supervision of 
the health officer. After heating, the milk is just as liable to serious 
contamination as before, if not more so. It must therefore be care- 
fully guarded, kept cool, and promptly delivered. 
Theobald Smith,® 1907, expressed the opinion that pasteurization is 
the inevitable outcome of the future. He says : 
It seems to me that the real difficulty of the present condition is the trans- 
mission of specific disease germs which are not easily controlled by any amount 
of cleanliness, and these specific disease germs, one and all of them, may be 
destroyed by the average pasteurization. 
Sedgwick * * 6 voices the opinion of many sanitarians when he states 
that — 
when all is said and done, I agree with Professor Smith that we have got to 
pasteurize milk. Cooked milk is the only safe milk and always will remain 
the only safe milk for the use of mankind. Little by little the idea is spread- 
ing that raw milk is apt to be dangerous milk. 
Theoretically, pasteurization should not be necessary; practically, 
we find it forced upon us. The heating of milk has certain disad- 
vantages which must be given consideration, but it effectually 
prevents much disease and death, especially in infants during the 
summer months. 
a Smith, Th. : Discussion of Botch’s paper on “ The pasteurization of milk for 
public sale.” Am. Journ. Pub. Hyg., vol. 17, May, 1907, p. 200. 
6 Sedgwick, W. T. : Discussion of Harrington’s paper on “ Some of the ways 
in which infection is disseminated.” Journ. Mass. Assn. Bds. Health, vol. 14, 
Feb., 1904, p. 41. 
