Evening star., 1950-07-12
Milk: Everybody's Problem
Fourth of a SerieSJ
By Crosby S. Noyes

The milk war raging in Wash
ington is being fought out on a
battlefield of public health.
One side is throwing its brick
bats from the shelter of diapered
infant pleading for steam sterili-
zation of milk cans. The other
side. with irony, speaks of 40
million "second-class citizens"
all over the country who seem to
be getting along all right with
chemical sterilization.
The average consumer, who by
this time is probably aware that
the milk war is an economic war,
may still feel some misgivings
over the proposals to change and,
in effect. to relax District health
regulations governing the milk
supply. Quite apart from the &C.
onomic considerations, he wants
to know. and has right to know,
how far his health is involved.
Breeder of Disease.
Lying behind regulations gov
erning the supply of milk any,
where is fact that was clearly
stated for the record on Tuesday
by District Health Officer Daniel
L. Seckinger:
Milk, which is our most nearly
perfect food, is also a nearly per-
feet vehicle for breeding and
spreading a variety of diseases.
In the history of gradual victory
over such killers as tuberculosis
and typhoid and undulant fevers,
effective control over milk produc-
tion and handling has played an
important part. Among the other
organisms that thrive On milk are
those causing cholera. @. fever,
diphtheria. streptococcal infec-
tions, several forms OF diarrhea
and possibly pneumonia and men
ingitis.
Public health regulations con-
trolling milk supply use a double
barrelled attack On these milk
borne organisms. The main
weapcu is paSteurization. The
ether is keeping raw milk from
becoming contaminated in the
first place.
According to scientists at the
National Institute of Health.
pasteurization, properly carried
out, will kill or otherwise make
harmless all of the organisms
causing the diseases listed above,
with the possible exception of @
fever.
Not 100 Per Cent Certain.
In Washington. nearly all the
milk sold to the public is pasteur-
lied. But scientists point out two
reasons why the public should not
place it's whole trust in that single
health safeguard.
In the first place, the effective
ness of pasteurization, like any
other similar process, depends on
the way it is carried out. With
many different people using the
process, the human factor comes
into the picture. Outbreaks of
milk borne epidemics in areas US
ing pasteurized milk have hap
pened. adding weight to the opin-
ion that the safeguard is not en-
tirely fool-proof.
In the second place, the sclen-
lists admit their present knowl-
edge about milk-borne diseases is
limited. There are other diseases !
such as the deadly infant diarrhea.
that may be spread by milk, and
may not be controlled by pasteur-
iZation.
The scientists philosophy runs
something along this line:
1--WE don't think we should take
milk or any other food that is bad
and try to make it safe by treating
it. There are many bacteria in
milk Most of them are harmless.
But in general, milk that has a low
bacteria count is likely to be the
safer product.
Local Regulations Vary.
The evidence seems to show
there is still a large place for
programs designed to protect the
purity of milk as it comes from
1.-THE farms. These programs, here
and elsewhere, are based on local
regulations prescribing methods
Of handling COWS and equipment.
The local regulations vary con-
siderably from community to COM
munity throughout the country.
Here in Washington, the regula-
tions under which our milk has
been produced in the past are
among the strictest in the country.
They have certainly played an
important role in making our milk
supply among the purest in the
country. In terms of bacteria
count-the standard measure of
purity - Washington and San
Francisco are said to be way out
front. Witnesses at Tuesdays
y