[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
January 21, 1911


JAMA. 1911;LVI(3):200-201. doi:10.1001/jama.1911.02560030036017

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


The present wide-spread campaign for a clean milk-supply has brought about a more or less heated controversy between those favoring and those opposing the pasteurization of milk. The former contend (1) that there is protection from pathogenic bacteria; (2) that the reduction of numbers lessens infantile mortality; and (3) that the keeping qualities of the milk are thereby enhanced. The opponents contend that (1) pasteurization kills all acid-forming bacteria, which would, according to their view, protect the milk from pathogenic changes; (2) that bacterial toxins are not destroyed by pasteurization temperature; (3) that careless methods of handling milk are encouraged and dirt in milk is covered up; (4) that bacteria increase more rapidly in pasteurized milk than in raw milk; and (5) that undesirable changes take place by pasteurization.

Bulletin 126 of the U. S. Agricultural Experiment Station, Bureau of Animal Industry, recently published, reports a mass of work which

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview