PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 132, Issue 22010, 12 April 1943, Page 4

PUBLIC OPINION

CURRENT VIEWPOINTS

WHAT OF OTHER PARTIES? (To the Editor) Sir,—Looking through this evening’s Tim the news items concerning the dismissal of an officer caught my eye and made me think. The average reader will no doubt conclude it “served him right” and dismiss the matter from nis mind, or maybe he will discuss the subject with his acquaintances and there the matter will end, and in a day or two, in these stirring times, the matter will be a thing of the past. . As one who ran look back on a few years oi active service, in the South African and World War No. 1, I have a good idea oi' what I am talking about and would like to take advantage of this opportunity and appeal to tnose citizens who are better able than I am not to miss this opportunity of taking up this matter and voicing a protest far and wide. i hold no brief for the officer dismissed or any other wrongdoer when, after a trial in an open court, properly constituted, he has been found guilty of the charge preferred against him. But what of the people who were party to the crime? What becomes of them? Do they go scot free? My contention is that if one party is proved guilty, as in this case, all parties are equally guilty, and the tempter more guilty than the tempted. As I have indicated, I have roamed around a little in my time and have observed what has gone on in previous wars and is happening daily in this war, but it is one thing know - mg and it is quite a different thing to prove it. I suggest there are not a few in this same fair New Zealand who are getting more than their share of “backsheesh” at the present time. i trust that some abler writers and speakers too, will take this matter up and give it the publicity it deserves, to see that equal punishment is handed out to all concerned in practices of this kind. —I am, etc., 4/2188 N.Z.E.F. 345—5/. A.C.H. Frankton, April 6. “INFORMED OPINION” ON MILK (To the Editor) Sir,—Your report, published on March 12, concerning the proposals for a municipal milk supply in Hamilton is important. I take no objection to an enabling Bill. Ido contest some of the statements of the medical officer of health, Dr. L. S. Davis, if he is correctly reported, concerning pasteurisation. “Informed opinion the world over,” he says, “was unanimous as to the value of pasteurisation. . . The ideal milk supply . . . was pasteurised and distributed in bottles.” I have studied, and even experimented in, the milk problem for many years, and I say that such a sweeping generalisation is not justified on the evidence, and further

that the most any objectively-mind- ] ed scientist could say is that the | matter is one of constant contro- ; versy. It may, of course, be said ! that, under certain conditions, pasteurised milk is better than non- 1 pasteurised. It may be said, on the evidence, perfectly dogmatically, that fresh raw milk, clean, is the safest and best milk. It is not open to controversy that such can be pro- i duced if we care to take the trouble. One is bound, of course, in meet- , ing statements about “informed j opinion,” to quote authority. Dr. ! Henry Chellow. director of the Bur- | eau of Scientific Resjearch, London, j in 1935 said: “When we consider the chemistry of milk and know, as we do, how changed it becomes after pasteurisation, and how so many of the vital elements are destroyed or partly so by overheating beyond the heat of the animal, we cannot but take the view and, if we do our duty, express it emphatically, that milk as it comes from nature’s laboratory is ; milk at its best, incapable of being improved upon by man. t Milk in any other form ought not to be called milk at all.” Is this “informed j opinion”? I would, in the second place, quote an extract from the Review of Reviews (London, 1934) concerning a j British Government committee re- i port on pasteurised milk. “Some milk (j.e., pasteurised) when delivered to ' consumers may appear quite usable ' for some hours if kept cool, but so : high is its acidity (bacterial activa- j tion) that the application of heat j produces curdling.” Is this “informed j opinion”? Time and Tide (London, Decern- j ber, 1932) states: “Pasteurisation ! does not afford complete safety from j tuberculosis as in certain samples of i milk, even in up-to-date plants, more bacteria have been found after pas- I teurisation than before.” Is this true? • In regard to current controversy I should like to quote a letter dated j January 12, 1943, from my own son \ on active service in England. “You j may have read,” he says, “that last ; week Lord Woolton proposed a 1 scheme whereby all milk was to be I compulsorily pasteurised, his contention being that it would prevent any ' more cases of T.B. of bovine origin. This caused a big controversy in the press. Many leading medical men voiced their opinions. One leading medical authority maintained that it would certainly destroy harmful germs but it also destroyed much of the good as well. He finished by saying the most sensible way was to produce disease-free milk.” I have no further space for “informed opinion,” but I would like to refer to the “main reason” given by Dr. Davis for pasteurisation—that it destroys the organisms of tuberculosis, brucella, abortus, etc. In regard to tuberculosis there is one royal road, to prevent the sale of milk from cows not tuberculin-tested. For 15 years I struggled to get this legislation, and for 10 years I supplied ! such milk. In 1926 I found that the j Waikato Hospital was not supplied ; with milk from T.T. herds, and the J late Dr. Hcckin told me that the