Milk

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26887, 13 November 1952, Page 8

Milk

The authoritative statement subscribed to by 69 of the 70 doctors who attended a meeting of the Canterbury division of the British Medical Association should do much to lessen the prejudice against pasteurised milk still held by some Christchurch people. Every one of. those 69 doctors has a general knowledge of health and nutrition not possessed by the layman, and each of them has some special knowledge of a particular branch 1 of his profession. They were able to , quote an impressive number of ; authorities and present convincing ! evidence; but perhaps nothing could j be more convincing than the cor- '• porate opinion of medical men, all J of whom are personally known and trusted in Christchurch. Tljey said j flatly: “ Pasteurisation kills all the i “ disease-carrying germs in milk ' “ and does not affect the nutritive < “ value. . . . Raw milk is not 1 “ physically or bacteriologically !

“ clean ”. It would take some hardihood for anyone who has not had their training, their experience, and their contact with current thought to insist that 69 doctors are all wrong. Their statement plainly made the point, which cannot apparently be made often enough, that if tuberculosis could be entirely eliminated from New Zealand dairy herds—and it cannot be for some years at best—bulked raw milk would still not be safe, because of the many other infections it may carry. Chapter and verse were given for several milk-borne epidemics causing much suffering and a number of deaths in New Zealand, including eight in Canterbury. There are several reasons why New Zealand should as quickly as possible eliminate bovine tuberculosis or bring it to an irreducible minimum. Public health is strongest of them; but the need for pasteurisation of bulk supplies will remain. The case for pasteurisation has never been confuted, and is unanswerable; but possibly never before has it been made so strongly in Christchurch by such a large, competent, disinterested, and responsible group of experts. It is probably too much to expect that even this powerful argument for pasteurisation will convince some of the minority who cling to the right to drink raw milk, although that means, unfortunately, that they also have the right to inflict raw milk on their children and on guests

in their homes. It is not likely, either, to convince those who believe that everyone should have the right of choice in this particular matter. But the doctors’ statement did more than show why the general supply for any closely populated area should be pasteurised. It also set out the minimum conditions under which the sale of raw milk should be permitted: the milk should come from a single herd, be bottled on the farm, and be delivered direct to customers, with periodical testing of the cattle and I strict supervision of the plant. This, 'at least, should be insisted on if raw milk is to be sold in Christchurch. i