In the process of pasteurizing, milk is heated to 145 degrees F., and maintained at this temperature for a half hour, or longer. This produces some very important changes in the milk itself, none of which are beneficial. The process is intended to destroy bacteria which are supposed to cause disease. It does destroy some of the germs in milk, including the lactic acid bacilli, which are the natural protectors of the milk. The destruction of these lactic acid bacteria permits the milk to rot--it will not sour.

   Welch's Bacillus and various putrefactive germs are present in pasteurized milk and, due to the absence of the protective lactic-acid germs, these set up putrefaction in the milk, which then becomes poisonous. Diarrhea is perhaps only the least of troubles resulting from such poisoning.


   Many bacteria or their spores are not killed, even by boiling. I put no stock in the germ theory, but it was this theory that started this pasteurizing monkey-work, and I want to show its folly, even from this angle.

   Pasteurization does not render milk sterile--that is bacteria-free. Not even boiling for a few minutes will do this. We are assured that 99% of the bacteria in milk are destroyed by pasteurization. This is true only under ideal conditions and these often do not prevail in commercial practice. This assurance, however, is very misleading in that it omits to mention the fact that most of the bacteria destroyed are the harmless lactic acid bacteria, while those that remain are largely the very bacteria that are said to be harmful. The statement also hides the fact that those bacteria that survive even ideal pasteurization multiply rapidly thereafter, so that within several hours after pasteurization the number of bacteria in the milk may be considerably larger than before.

   In proof of this I shall appeal only to the most orthodox authorities. In their official publication: A Study of Bacteria Which Survive Pasteurization; Ayers and Johnson of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, say:

   "Four distinct groups of bacteria, the acid forming, the inert, the alkali forming and the peptonizing, survive pasteurization . . . .

   ". . . . Streptococci from milk and cream were much more resistant than those from other sources."

   The works of three noted medical authorities, Rogers and Frazier and Prucha have revealed that certain types of what the medical profession regards as dangerous streptococci and other groups of bacteria actually flourish at the temperatures of pasteurization.

   Dr. Chas. Sanford Porter, who is considered an authority on milk, declares that pasteurization destroys the lactic-acid forming bacteria and that "these bacteria are not dangerous to health, and the methods of restraining or destroying them are without effect on the bacteria of consumption, typhoid, or other fevers that might contaminate milk in certain places."

   Dr. Kellogg declares that: "Present methods of controlling the milk supply are by no means entirely satisfactory. This is especially true as regards the bacteriological examination of the milk. At the present time this examination usually extends no further than the determination of the total number of bacteria present except when a special research is undertaken, the number of bacteria present is no criteria whatever of the character of the milk as regards its safety to life and health. In general the greater number of bacteria present are ordinary sour germs which are entirely harmless."

   Dr. Kellogg's words mean that it is not customary to make a differential count. Most of the germs present are lactic acid bacilli and not so-called typhoid germs nor so-called tubercular germs, etc. Pasteurization kills the wrong germs.


   The lactic acid bacteria are often referred to as protective bacteria. Many medical men of outstanding ability think that by destroying the lactic acid bacilli, which destroy the other forms of bacteria, pasteurization may actually increase the "dangers of milk."

   Discussing "Antiseptic in Milk" in The Drug Trade and Cosmetic Industry (July 1938) Wizaman and Kneiner point out that raw human and cow's milk do not support the growth of many bacteria, such as the diphtheria bacillus, streptococci and others, or permit but slight growth of these bacteria. The factor in human milk inhibiting bacterial growth has been given the name, inhibins. These men showed that this factor is inactivated by heating to temperatures lower than those employed in pasteurization. A higher temperature was found necessary to destroy/the inhibin in cow's milk in seven minutes.


   Only victims of the bacteriophobia created by medical men and bacteriologists are much interested in what happens to the bacteria of milk when this is pasteurized. What happens to the milk itself and what effect this has upon the user is of vastly more importance. These are the serious effects of pasteurization. If pasteurization only killed a few harmless germs, nobody could offer any serious objection to the process.

   I shall rely upon the most orthodox authorities to show that the chemistry and physical structure of the milk are greatly altered, its vitamins destroyed, its calcium and phosphorus rendered useless, its digestibility impaired, its proteins rendered less valuable and its value as a food greatly reduced. The sugars of the milk are broken down and caramelized and to some extent the colloids are agglutinated. The original structure of the milk is broken down and the cream line is slightly reduced.


   Parsons and McCollum demonstrated that the protein of milk is partially coagulated by "sterilization" and that the coagulated portion is precipitated with the salts and clings to the walls of the container. They found also, that when milk is boiled, its antineuritic principle is destroyed more rapidly than its growth-factor. In feeding cow's milk to rats, it was found that 50 per cent more of dried milk is required than of raw milk to maintain normal growth.

   The partial coagulation of the protein of milk and its precipitation, the precipitation of the salts of the milk, the practical destruction of the milk albumen as food and the disturbance of the mineral balance of the milk renders it very unsatisfactory as a food. Many evils flow from this impairment of the food value of the milk.


   There is a great and physiologically important reduction of the bone-nourishing salts of the milk. Its calcium-magnesium-carbono-phosphate is broken up into its constituent salts an at least three of these--calcium phosphate, magnesium phosphate and calcium carbonate--are practically insoluble and their usefulness almost destroyed Pasteurization renders the mineral salts of milk insoluble and non-absorbable.

   In the Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1928, Martha M. Kramer, E. Latzke and M. M. Shaw in "A Comparison of Raw, Pasteurized, Evaporated and Dried Milks as Sources of Calcium and Phosphorus for the Human Subject," noted not only a striking calcium inadequacy for infants in pasteurized milk, but also a less favorable calcium balance for adults as compared with fresh raw milk. They further observed that milk from cows kept in the barn for five months gave a less favorable calcium balance than did fresh milk from a college dairy herd. This is but another evidence that certified milk from cows kept in sunless barns and fed on dry foods is an inadequate food.

   In the Lancet (London) for May 8, 1937, it is shown that chilblains are practically eliminated when raw milk rather than pasteurized milk is used in the diet of children. This is attributed to the higher calcium value of raw milk or to the improved calcium assimilation when raw milk is used.

   Milk drinking is advocated as a means of assuring good teeth. The drinking of large quantities of milk by infants, children and adults is not preserving the teeth of the people of this country. The evidence for this is all around us. One reason for this is that most of the milk consumed is pasteurized milk. The Lancet (London) for May 8, 1937 says that in children the teeth are less likely to decay on a diet supplemented with raw milk than with pasteurized milk. In his Vitamin Theory and Practice (Cambridge, University Press, 1935) L. J. Harris says: "Dr. Evelyn Sprawson of the London Hospital has recently stated that in certain institutions children who were brought up on raw milk (as opposed to pasteurized milk) had perfect teeth and no decay. Whether this was due actually to the milk being unheated, or possibly to some other quite different and so far unrecognized cause, we cannot yet say; but we may be sure of one thing, that the result is so striking and unusual that it will undoubtedly be made subject of further inquiry."


   In the article previously quoted from in this chapter, Krauss, Erb and Washburn say: "According to S. Schmidt-Neilson and Schmidt Neilsen (Kgl. Norske Videnskab, Sels k, Forhandl, 1: 126-128, abstract in Biological Abstracts, 4:96, 1930), when milk is pasteurized at 63 degrees C. (145 degrees F.) was fed to mature rats, early death or diminished vitality resulted in the offspring.

   "Pasteurization of milk destroys about 38% of the B complex according to Dutchera and his associates". Again, "Mattick and Golding (Relative Value of Raw and Heated Milk in Nutrition, Lancet) reported some preliminary experiments which indicated that pasteurization destroys some of the dietetic value of milk, including partial destruction of vitamin B1. These same workers found the raw milk to be considerably superior to sterilized milk in nutritive value."

   They add "On the 7.5 cc. level two rats on raw milk developed milk polyneuritis toward the end of the trial, whereas three rats on pasteurized milk developed polyneuritis early, which became severe as the trial drew to a close. On the 10.0 cc. level none of the rats on raw milk developed polyneuritis, but three on pasteurized milk were severely afflicted." Again they say "Using standard methods for determining vitamins A, B, G and D, it was found that pasteurization destroys at least 25% of the vitamin in the original raw milk."


   E. O. Jorda, in the twelfth revised edition of his Textbook of General Bacteriology (page 691) says: "Current objection to pasteurization is mainly on the ground of vitamin destruction. Vitamin A (fat soluble) and B (water-soluble), both abundant in milk, are quite resistant to heat, but the antiscorbutic vitamin C is weakened or destroyed by pasteurizing temperatures. Infants fed exclusively on a diet of pasteurized milk will develop scurvy."


   Hess points out, in a statement to be quoted in a later section of this chapter, that children fed on pasteurized milk have less resistance to "infections" than those fed on "raw" milk.

   The Lancet (London) of May 8, 1937, states that resistance to tuberculosis increased in children fed raw milk instead of pasteurized, to the point that in five years only one case of pulmonary tuberculosis had developed, whereas in the previous five years, when the children had been given pasteurized milk, fourteen cases of pulmonary tuberculosis had developed. It thus becomes apparent that pasteurization does not protect against tuberculosis.

   F. M. Pottenger, Jr., says in Clinical and Experimental Evidence of Growth Factors in Raw Milk, Certified Milk, Jan. 1937: "It should be determined experimentally, if possible, whether health and resistance are undermined by pasteurization. If so, in our attempt to protect the child from milk-borne infections, we may be denying his heritage of good health by removing from his milk vitamins, hormones, and enzymes that control mineral assimilation and promote body development and general resistance to disease. It is also possible that these same elements are as important to the adult invalid who needs milk as to the infant . . . We cannot afford to pasteurize milk if it is found that pasteurization diminishes the potency of the growth-promoting factors that determine the skeletal development of our children . . . and resistance to respiratory infection, asthma, bronchitis and the common cold when factors preventing them are present in greater amounts in properly produced, clean, raw milk than in pasteurized milk."

   These are considerations that should have received attention before the campaign to pasteurize all milk sold in commerce was started. Pasteurization was born of fear and frenzy and pushed by the large dairy interests for profit. Few stopped to ask the important question: What effect will it have upon the health and development of those who drink this milk? Pottenger says that many experiments, such as those made by Cattel, Dutcher, Wilson, and others have shown that animals fed on pasteurized milk show deficiencies. He himself, presents three babies, one of which was breast-fed, a second of which was fed on raw cow's milk, and a third that was fed powdered milk, pasteurized milk, boiled certified milk, and canned milk. The first two babies were healthy and developed normally. The third "was always sickly" is small and at the age of eight months developed asthma. This is not enough evidence upon which to condemn pasteurized milk, but it is additional evidence of the evils of tampering with milk.


   Pottenger thinks that "the strictest bacteriologic standards for milk should be maintained" and that there should be "closer cooperation between raw-milk producers and public-health officials so that the growth-promoting factors of raw milk can be studied." He says: "We cannot afford to pasteurize milk if it is found that pasteurization diminishes the potency of the growth-promoting factors that determine the skeletal development of our children" and destroys the factors that protect children against "respiratory infection, asthma, bronchitis and the common cold." He says that the factors "preventing them (aforementioned respiratory 'infections') are present in greater amounts in properly produced, clean, raw milk than in pasteurized milk."

   W. E. Krauss, J. H. Erb and R. C. Washbum in their Studies on the Nutritional Value of Milk and the Effects of Pasteurization on Some of the Nutritional Properties of Milk, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 518, page 7, Jan. 1933 say that ". . . Fisher and Bartlett point out by a statistical treatment that the response in height to raw milk was significantly greater than that to pasteurized milk. Their interpretation of the data led to the assertion that the pasteurized milk was only 66.0 per cent as effective as raw milk in the case of boys and 91.1 per cent as effective in the case of girls in inducing increases in weight, and 50.0 per cent as effective in boys and 70.0 per cent in girls in bringing about height increases."

   Daniels and Laughlin found the same thing to be true in young rats fed on evaporated milk, pasteurized milk and long heat-treated milk, as they report in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1920. The rats failed to grow normally. Holmes and Pigot include these experiments in their studies of "Factors that Influence the Antirachitic Value of Milk in Infant Feeding" published in Oil and Soap, Sept. 1935 and show that the heating of milk precipitates the calcium salts of the milk, rendering the calcium unavailable.


   Krauss, Erb and Washburn, in their studies of the "Nutritive Value of Milk and the Effects of Pasteurization on Some of the Nutritive Properties of Milk," (Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, Jan. 1933) tell us that "pasteurization was also found to affect the hematogenic (blood producing) and growth-promoting properties of the special milk." This "special milk" was raw milk from specially fed cows which did not produce nutritional anemia.


   In 1926 McCollum stated in a lecture in Pittsburgh, that since the city of Baltimore had passed an ordinance requiring the pasteurizing of all milk sold in that city, the cases of rickets among children had increased 100%, This increase in rickets flows naturally and logically from the destruction of the vitamins of the milk and the precipitation of its lime salts. The addition of cod liver oil and synthetic vitamins to the diet of the infant fed on pasteurized milk can not compensate for all the losses from pasteurization.


   In the American Journal of Diseases of Children, Nov. 1917, A. F. Hess of Columbia University, in "A Study of Pathogenesis of Infantile Scurvy," says: "Some have questioned whether pasteurized milk is really involved in the production of scurvy. The fact, however, that when one gives a group of infants this food for a period of about six months, instances of scurvy occur, and that a cure is brought about when raw milk is substituted, taken in conjunction with the fact that if we feed the same number of infants on raw milk, cases of scurvy will not develop--these results seem sufficient to warrant the deduction that pasteurized milk is a causative factor. The experience in Berlin, noted by Neumann (Neumann, H. Deutsch,, Klin., 7: 341, 1904) and others, is most illuminating and convincing in this connection. In 1901 a large dairy in that city established a pasteurizing plant in which all milk was raised to a temperature of about 60 degrees C. After an interval of some months infantile scurvy was reported from various sources throughout the city. Neumann writes about the situation as follows:

   '"Whereas Heubner, Sassel and myself had seen only thirty-two cases of scurvy from 1896 to 1900, the number of cases suddenly rose from the year 1901--so that the same observers, not to mention a great many others, treated eighty-three cases in 1901 and 1902.'

   "An investigation was made as to cause, and the pasteurization was discontinued. The result was that the number of cases decreased just as suddenly as they had increased."

   The reader will note that the fact that pasteurized milk causes scurvy in infants has been known for forty six years or more. It was no new discovery that Hess proved by his tests, involving damaging experiments of helpless infants. In spite of this knowledge, in 1912 a Medical Commission declared that in feeding infants, heated milk is the full equivalent of raw milk. A Hebrew orphan asylum in New York, sometime thereafter, began the feeding of infants upon cow's milk which had previously been heated to 145 degrees Fahrenheit for thirty minutes. After a few months on this diet there occurred (1914) an "outbreak" of scurvy in these infants. Dr. Hess recommended the addition of orange juice to the diet. The scurvy cleared up rapidly following the addition of the orange juice.

   Hess points out that the infants developed scurvy on a diet of pasteurized milk and adds: "This form of scurvy takes many months to develop and may be termed subacute. It must be considered not only the most common form of this disorder, but the one which passes most often unrecognized." He says also, that "one of the most striking clinical phenomenon of infantile scurvy is the marked susceptibility of infection which it entails--the infrequent attacks of 'grippe,' the widespread occurrence of nasal diphtheria, the furunculosis of the skin, the danger of pneumonia in advanced cases," constitute evidences of this susceptibility. A study of the widespread epidemics of the Middle Ages reveals that they followed in the wake of widespread scurvy, a condition that was very prevalent in those days .

   Hess thinks that although pasteurized milk "is to be recommended on account of the security which it affords against infection, we should realize that it is an incomplete food." Is it not strange that a man can show that the feeding of a diet of pasteurized milk produces scurvy and greatly increases liability to infection and then, at the same time, state that pasteurized milk affords security against infection? He recommends the feeding of "an antiscorbutic, such as orange juice . . . or potato water" to the pasteurized milk diet and says, "In order to guard against it (scurvy), infants fed exclusively on a diet of pasteurized milk should be given antiscorbutics far earlier than is at present the custom, even as early as the end of the first month of life."

   Why wait a full month before beginning to protect the child against the deficiencies and inadequacies of pasteurized milk? Infants can take orange juice and other juices from the third day after birth. It is my practice to start juices this early if there is reason to think the mother's milk is inadequate or if the child is placed on cow's milk, even raw cow's milk.

   Berg says of the scorbutogenic diet, "the addition of milk to the diet will prevent the onset of scurvy; but this prophylactic power is more or less completely lost if the milk be boiled, condensed or dried." The antiscorbutic property of milk is ascribed to its vitamin C, which is destroyed even by pasteurization. Discussing the influence of heat on this complettin, Berg says: "this makes it obvious why the pasteurization of milk greatly reduces the C content of the nutriment and why infants and children fed on pasteurized milk are so apt to suffer from scurvy. Of course in the process of condensation, the antiscorbutic qualities of milk are gravely impaired. In young monkeys, and also in guinea-pigs it induces typical scurvy."

   The addition of sodium citrate, lime and other alkalies to milk further impairs the milk, besides interfering with its digestion. Berg says: "Since the complettin C is sensitive to alkalies, we can readily understand that it is completely destroyed when milk is sterilized after addition of sodium citrate, which has an alkaline reaction.

   Generally speaking, the sterilization of nutrients impairs their antiscorbutic power, being more injurious in proportion to the height of the temperature. Tinned meat and tinned milk are therefore invariably scorbutogenic." Barnes and Hume showed that the drying of milk reduces its antiscorbutic efficacy to approximately two-fifths the original. Hess and Unger showed that this does not occur if the milk is dried in a few seconds.

   Berg refers to a four-year-old child which developed scurvy while fed exclusively upon a diet of soups, coffee and boiled milk. He says "such cases are, in truth, far less exceptional than might be supposed." Many mild cases developed in Germany during the war, while, reports of "epidemics" of scurvy in orphanages exist.

   R. M. Overstreet, in Northwest Medicine, June, 1938, as abstracted by Clinical Medicine and Surgery, "The Increase of Scurvy," says: "Within the past few years an increasing number of patients affected with scurvy have been brought to the Oregon Children's Hospital. As the prophylactic amount of vitamin C (15 mg daily) is contained in 300 cc. of breast milk, scurvy is rarely found in breast-fed babies.

   "The vitamin C of cow's milk is largely destroyed by pasteurization or evaporation."

   In the Journal of Nutrition for Dec. 1939, in an article dealing with "The Destruction of Ascorbic Acid in Commercial Milks," Warren W. Woessner, C. A. Elvehjem and Henry A. Schuette say: "Samples of raw, certified, certified Guernsey and certified vitamin D milks were collected at the different dairies throughout the city of Madison. These milks on the average are only a little below the fresh milks as recorded in table 1, indicating that commercial raw and certified milks as delivered to the consumer lose only a small amount of their antiscorbutic potency. Likewise samples of commercial pasteurized milks were collected and analyzed. On an average they contained only about one-half as much ascorbic acid as fresh raw milks and significantly less ascorbic acid than the commercial un-pasteurized milks.

   "It was found that commercial raw milk contained an anti-scorbutic potency which was only slightly less than fresh raw milks and that pasteurized milks on the average contained only one-half the latter potency. Mineral modification and homogenization apparently have a destructive effect on ascorbic acid."


   The London Lancet reported, a few years ago, some experiments by an English physician who fed a number of kittens and puppies on pasteurized milk. They died. Kittens and puppies fed on raw milk thrived well.

   The digestibility of the milk is markedly impaired. It produces constipation and if fed exclusively, scurvy, rickets, scrofulosis and kindred diseases. Dogs fed pasteurized milk develop mange and other disorders. The same litter, fed on raw milk thrived. Pasteurized milk is simply not capable of sustaining life, health and growth for very long.

   The infant death-rate in Toronto, Canada is 20 per cent higher than that of London, England, and double that of rural Ontario. Toronto uses pasteurized milk while both London and rural Ontario use natural milk. When pasteurized milk was substituted for raw milk in Toronto, the death rate in three of the city's largest homes and hospitals for children increased.

   In many instances there is nothing wrong with babies except that they are being starved by being fed pasteurized milk. Babies do not thrive, and cease to thrive on heated milk. These same babies do well when changed to raw milk.


   S. L. Harris, bacteriologist, Janesville, Wis., says that "pasteurization destroys some of the very important constituents and makes them indigestible. The albuminoids are coagulated. The sugars.are broken down, and to some extent the colloids are agglutinated."


   The standards of sanitation demanded of the producers of Grade A raw milk are much higher than those demanded of the producers of pasteurized milk. Dirty milk is almost assured by pasteurization. The false sense of security created by faith in the protective power of the process discourages rigid cleanliness and promotes carelessness in handling on the part of the producer and all concerned. A high standard of cleanliness is not demanded by friends of pasteurization. Milk produced under all kinds of conditions, even though pasteurized afterward, is not as desirable as raw milk produced under sanitary conditions. Pasteurization does not make unclean milk clean.

   "By milk I mean safe milk," says Alfred W. McCann, "and the only scientific way of insuring safety is by the process of pasteurizing."

   McCann knows that safe milk depends upon: (1) a healthy cow, (2) proper food, sunshine, fresh air and exercise for the cow, (3) clean handling. He knows that healthy dairy cows are extremely rare; that no dairy cow is properly nourished; that their food is always denatured and unbalanced; and that milk is not always handled in a way to keep it clean. What then does he mean by calling pasteurized milk, "safe?" He means this:

   If the cow is sick, pasteurize the milk and use it.

   If the milk is deficient, due to a deficient diet or lack of sunshine, pasteurize it and use it.

   If the milk is dirty, pasteurize it and use it.

   We reject such plans and programs as this. If we are to use milk, let us have clean milk from healthy, well-nourished cows. It is not impossible to get such milk.

   McCann says:--"In early infancy, during an exclusive milk diet, a few teaspoonfuls of sweet orange juice strained through a clean linen cloth, will offset any so-called disadvantages that here and there the enemies of pasteurized milk have charged against it."

   This is ridiculous, although it is the attitude of Sherman, McCollum, Howe, and most other experimenters who recognize the impairing work of pasteurization--and these "so-called disadvantages" are not merely charged against milk by its enemies; they are admitted by its friends.

   A few teaspoonfuls of orange juice, or tomato juice, or lemon juice will not and cannot replace the destroyed and impaired substances in pasteurized milk. Dr. Howe says: "If milk is to come from unknown sources. I prefer to have it pasteurized, because I can compensate for the loss of vitamin C by taking enough orange juice." But there is more loss to milk through pasteurization than the mere loss of vitamin C arid orange juice and tomato juice cannot entirely take the place of the qualities lost. The whole theory of denaturing some of our foods and "offsetting" these with foods that have not been denatured is false and ridiculous, whether we are dealing with milk or with white flour.

   Assuming that orange juice, lemon juice, or tomato juice will prevent the development of scurvy in infants fed on pasteurized milk; this is not enough. We don't want our infants merely to escape recognizable scurvy. We want the maximum of health and development. A child may present no recognizable signs of deficiency, may appear normal, and still not have the high standard of vigorous positive health that is always desirable.

   The false sense of security that the process of pasteurization gives people who use such milk, is only one of the evils of this process. It puts a premium upon carelessness and uncleanliness in the handling of milk.

   In those parts of the country where the big dairy interests, with the aid of the Board of Health, have succeeded in getting raw milk outlawed, so that nothing but pasteurized milk is available, there is nothing left for mothers to do except to supplement the milk. This can only be done by feeding orange juice, grape juice, and other juices in much larger quantities than those commonly prescribed.