Evening star., 1903-07-28
DR.. Woodward's Reply.


To this Mr. Woodward has replied as fol-
lows:
Il have the honor to acknowledge the re-
ceipt of yours of the oath instant, relative
to the relation of bacteria to milk from a
sanitary standpoint. Our knowledge upon
this subject is by means satisfactory,
but above everything else stands out the
fact that for the young of the entire mann
malian order nature provides milk that Is
practically germ free and, at least 50 far
as my knowledge goes alongside of that
fact is the other that 50 long the young
are fed on such milk in that condition diar-
rhoeal diseases are all but unknown.
1T does not follow from the foregoing
statement that every bacterium found in
milk IS liable to cause disease. 1t does,
however. follow that those individuals who
claim that such organisms harmless
have The burden Of proof resting upon thl m.
In considering the subject it is necessary, of
course TO rear in mind that In the devel-
opment of disease due to bacteria two fac
tors are necessary; first, the bacteria and,
second. bodily conditions suitable for their
growth. While 1t may probably be safely
asserted that Tactic acid bacteria and Ger
tain others ordinarily exist in milk in enor-
nous quantities and do no harm it has
l believe. not been demonstrated that they
cannot do harm or even that they them
selves are not responsible for summer diar-
rhoeas of children. 1t may be asserted OF
course. that dlirymen should not be held
responsible for peculiar conditions of in
dividual infants which cause, or at least are
hable to cause. such ordinarily harmless
bacteria to find Judgement and give rise to
disease. but it seems to me the fact that
such bacteria may give rise to disease
should he sufficient to require every pos
slble effort to limit the number in market
milk. Just what a safe number is it is I'M
possible to state. The milk commission re-
Gently organized in this city has deter
mined upon ten thousand bacteria per cubic
centimeter as the maximum limit in milk
to be sold under its supervision.
The Really Dangerous Element.
AS l understand it, however, none of the
milk commissions which have been organ
lied claim that the miscellaneous bacteria
IN milk, taken as whole are the really
dangerous element in it or profess to know
what the really dangerous element is AS
stated above, 1 do not believe that our
present knowledge the subject is suffi-
clent TO Justify any positive statement
Neither do such commissions claim that
milk containing thirty thousand bacteria
per cubic centimeter Is safe while milk
containing forty thousand is unsafe Their
position, as l conceive 1t. is that milk con-
tanning thirty thousand bacteria per cubic
centimeter is less likely to contain among
those bacteria organisms certainly patho-
genie, or pothogeniC doses of organisms or
dinarily harmless, than Is milk containing
1orty thousand bacteria per cubic cent?
meter, and that other things being euual
milk containing thirty thousand bacteria
per cubic centimeter has been much better
cared for than milk containing % per
cent greater number. With these views of
the milk commissions. if have stated them
correctly, l heartily concur. l see no harm
liable to come from the use of sterile milk
under ordinary conditions.
ITO sum up, believe that 1t rests upon
those persons desiring to sell milk contain
ing unnecessarily large numbers of bac-
teria to show that such milk is a safe ar
t1cle of food for all persons who are likely
to consume 1t, and l believe that this has
not yet been shown. l believe that the
number of bacteria found in milk which has
not been paSteuriZed. sterilized or chem
ically preserved affords the best available
data as to the care which has been taken
In Its production, storage and delivery and
therefore. the best data available to de-
termine whether such milk does or does not
resemble with reasonable closeness milk in
its natural state"