ee
SEE

UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
RUPERT BLUE, SURGEON GENERAL

STANDARDS FOR MILK

THEIR NECESSITY TO THE WELFARE OF THE DAIRY
INDUSTRY

BY

JOHN F. ANDERSON

President, American Public Health Association

REPRINT No. 318
FROM THE

PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS

JANUARY 7, 1916
Pages 2-8

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1-2 oa 1916

364 59
ae

STANDARDS FOR MILK.
THEIR NECESSITY TO THE WELFARE OF THE DAIRY INDUSTRY.

By JoHN F. ANDERSON, President, American Public Health Association,

This paper is a discussion of why standards for milk are necessary
to the welfare of the milk industry, and in the beginning it is desired
to present a clear idea of what kind of standards is meant.

Milk is one of the few articles of food to which two kinds of stand-
ards are applicable and for which two kinds of standards are essen-
tial. One of these standards is the chemical standard by which to
judge the food value of milk and has for its prime purposes to pre-
vent fraud on the part of the dealer and to insure the purchaser’s
receiving the number of food units for which he pays. This standard
is of but shght sanitary importance.

The other, and the more important, standard is that by which to
measure the sanitary quality of the milk, or the standard of decency
and health of the dairymen and cows producing it. While the
methods used for its application are not as yet as exact as those for
the chemical standard they are nevertheless sufficiently so to serve
our purpose.

When a farmer has an apple orchard he expects to sell his apples
on grade—a higher price for the best, a lower for the others; he
never expects to sell all for the same price. It is the same when eggs
are sold; they are sold strictly on grade—the freshest and those de-
livered to the consumer most quickly after being laid command the
highest price, those not so fresh a lower price, and so on; and when
the best are mixed with the others the price is that of an inferior
grade.

When the farmer comes to sell his milk to the dealer and the dealer
to sell it to the consumer, what do we find is the usual practice? As
a rule, the good milk is mixed with the bad and sold for one price
and that price is generally less than the price the good milk should
bring. The bad milk should not be sold at all.

Now let us consider in detail some of the various phases of this
one-quality, one-price practice of selling milk and the effect it has
upon the improvement of the sanitary quality of the milk supply and
upon the future of the milk industry. For purposes of discussion it
is convenient to consider this under several headings:

1 Read before the meeting of the International Association of Dairy and Milk Inspectors held at Wash-
ington, D. C., Oct. 27, 1915. Reprint from the Public Health Reports, vol. 31, No. 1, Jan. 7, 1916,
pp. 2-8.

2 *
22469—16 D. of D.

FEB 19 1916

a
)

STANDARDS FOR MILK. , 3

1. In every community the market milk contains milk of several
degrees of excellence. Some of it is very clean and of good sanitary
quality; some (and often most of it) is very dirty and therefore of
poor sanitary quality. In other words, some of it is safe and some
of it dangerous to the health of the consumer, but all of it may be
selling under one label and at one price.

You do not need to be told that this isso, for each of you can recall,
from personal experience, communities in which there are dairy farms
producing milk under the intelligent supervision of decent, careful,
and honest farmers, and you know that such milk is clean and safe.
You can also recall dairy farms on which milk is produced from
il-kept and perhaps diseased cows, handled in a slipshod manner,
not refrigerated, and dirty. Such milk is dangerous to the con-
sumer. But the milk from the good farm is sold to the same dealer
as the milk from the bad farm, the two are mixed, and the good milk
is made bad. The result of this “‘one-quality, one-price’’ method of
selling milk is that the good milk is sold for less than it is worth, the
bad milk is permitted to be sold (when it should not be sold, at least
not for food purposes), and the sanitary quality of the entire milk
supply is lowered to the level of the worst entering into its makeup.

2. In every community some dairy farms and dairy farmers are
better than others—cleaner, more decent, and produce cleaner milk;
but usually the milk of the clean dairymen is dumped into the same
tank with the milk of their dirty neighbors and the clean farmer gets
no higher price for his clean and safe milk than the dirty farmer gets
for his dirty and unsafe milk.

Again, the ‘‘one-quality, one-price”’’ puts a premium on slipshod
methods and slipshod farmers, and fails to reward the decent and
careful farmer, who uses intelligence in the production of his milk and
wants to produce and sell a clean, safe milk, a milk that can be con-
sumed by babies and children with safety. The result is that the
decent farmer loses his incentive to improve his herd and his barns
and to introduce modern methods. Unless such men are supported
by the decent dealers they gradually drop to the level of their more
shiftless neighbors.

3. In every community some milk dealers are more decent and
more honest than others. They desire to sell the best kind of milk,
but are confronted by the fact that the bad milk sold by indecent
and dishonest dealers brings the same price and carries the same
label as good milk.

Again we see the working of the ‘‘one-quality, one-price’’ system.
These decent and honest dealers strive to keep their plant in a sani-
tary condition, refrigerate their milk, thoroughly clean and sterilize
their utensils and bottles, and endeavor to make contracts with the
decent and honest farmers who produce a clean and safe milk; but

a

4 STANDARDS FOR MILK.

on account of the competition of the indecent and dishenest dealers,
fostered and protected by the ‘‘one-quality, one-price” system, are
put to an obvious disadvantage. The indecent and dishonest dealer
is protected in his sale of dirty and dangerous milk, while the decent
and honest dealer is hindered in his efforts to provide for his cus-
tomers a clean, safe milk.

This condition is such a familiar one that we all can recall com-
munities in which the conditions are as those recited. We even
know municipalities where the poor milk is sold to hospitals and
asylums because under the one-label, one-price system one kind of
milk appears to be as good as another.

4, In every community there are some milk consumers who value
decency and safety more than others, and are prepared and want to
buy the best milk, but are unable to locate it because all milk offered
for sale is labeled the same and is sold for the same price.

It is certainly a fact that there are persons who either through
ignorance or for other reasons do not care whether the milk they buy
is clean and safe or whether it is not clean and safe. To them all
milk is the same. The majority of milk consumers, however, want
clean, safe milk. They want a milk that is free from disease germs
and that they can give to their children and can themselves use.
They want the best milk, but on account of the operation of the
‘“‘one-quality one-price” system they can not distinguish between
the clean, safe milk and the dirty, unsafe milk. They have no diffi-
culty, however, in getting the best quality of eggs when such are
wanted, as eggs are not sold under the ‘‘one-quality one-price”
system but are sold on grade. When those of the community who
value decency and safety become sufficiently aroused to demand that
a distinction be made between the good and the bad milk it some-
times happens that the decent dealers are enabled to provide a safe
milk at an increased price.

5. This deadlock of ‘‘one quality one price” is tacitly fostered by
boards of health and milk inspectors who have followed the false
theory that ‘‘the entire milk supply must be elevated at the same
time.”

In most communities this is not possible; it is much easier to lift
one end of a big board than to lift the whole board. In many places
the authorities who have under their jurisdiction the control of the
milk supply seem to think that the only way to improve the milk
supply is to raise the level of the entire supply at the same time.
They do not seem to grasp the fact that by breaking away from the
“one-quality one-price” system and by fostering the efforts of those |
dealers who want to sell a clean, safe milk at a higher price the
elevation of the entire supply is made possible in a reasonable time.
As soon as the people find that they can buy a clean and safe milk

STANDARDS FOR MILK. 5

and the dealers find that they can get a higher price for such milk
we at once begin to establish grades of milk. When this is done it
will be found that it will not be difficult to convince the dealers of
the advantage of providing for safe milk selling at a higher price
than the bulk of the milk sold. There can be no question that the
production of so-called certified milk has been one of the biggest
factors in the improvement of the general milk supply, and this in
spite of the fact that certified milk is less than one per cent of the
total milk supply; but wherever certified milk is sold, that place at
once has forced upon it grades of milk, and grades of milk mean that
the milk supply is composed of milk of varying degrees of excellence
and sold for prices varying with its sanitary quality.

After having briefly discussed some of the causes that have to do
with the present unsatisfactory condition of the milk supply in
many of our cities and towns, the writer will now consider how, in
his opinion, these causes can be removed and how the welfare of the
dairy industry can be promoted.

As he has endeavored to point out, the greatest single obstacle
to the improvement of the milk supply is the “‘one-quality one-price”
system of selling milk; or, in other words, the lack of grades of milk,
the best grade bringing the highest price, the lower grades a lower
price. Therefore, the remedy is milk grades based upon milk
standards.

The grading of milk and the establishment and enforcement of
standards enables us at once to distinguish clean milk from dirty
milk, the clean farmer from the dirty farmer, the clean dealer from
the dirty dealer, the consumer of clean milk from the consumer of
dirty milk. This system puts a label on each grade, so that the
buyer may choose; it breaks up the ‘‘one-quality one-price” system
and creates several qualities at several prices; it stimulates the
production and sale of better milk by establishing a better price.

It has always been one of the things which the writer could never
understand why the idea seems so deeply rooted in many of those
who have to do with the milk industry—producers, inspectors, and
consumers—that the farmer or the dealer who sells a clean milk and
therefore a safe milk should not receive a higher price than his neigh-
bor receives for a dirty, unsafe milk. The establishment of grades
and standards for milk will cause this idea to disappear.

In December, 1910, there was held in New York City a meeting
participated in by the various groups interested in the welfare of the
milk industry. There were present at the meeting and took part
in the program dairy farmers, milk dealers, health authorities, and
consumers. As a result of the discussions at this meeting it was
apparent that the time had come for an organized effort to be made
to establish and enforce grades and classes of milk. The New York

6 STANDARDS FOR MILK.

milk committee, which is a voluntary organization workihg in the
interests of improving the milk supply of New York City, decided in
the following spring to appoimt and finance a commission on milk
standards. This decision was the direct result of the observation
of the New York milk committee, emphasized by the meeting of the
fall before, that there were great incompleteness and lack of uniformity
in the milk standards, milk ordinances, and rules and regulations of
public health authorities throughout the country for the control of
public milk supplies. There was a need that health officers should be
furnished ordinances drawn from large experience and mature
judgment and that ordinances should be as free from erroneous
positions and as uniform for the different sections of the country as
possible.

From a list of over 200 names of men of prominence in medicine,
sanitation, and public health, of laboratory workers, and those
recognized as authorities on the milk question, 20 names were finally
selected and those 20 men were asked to accept appointment on the
commission on milk standards. The first report of the commission
was not published until after its third meeting, one year after the
organization of the commission; the second and amended report was
published a year later. Both these reports were published by the
United States Public Health Service."

In its report the commission stated that ‘“‘Proper milk standards,
while they are essential to efficient milk control by public health
authorities and have as their object the protection of the milk con-
sumer, are also necessary for the ultimate well-being of the milk
industry itself. Public confidence is an asset of the highest value in
the milk business. The milk producer is interested in proper stand-
ards for milk, since those contribute to the control of bovine tuber-
culosis and other cattle diseases and distinguish between the good pro-
ducer and the bad producer. The milk dealer is immediately classi-
fied by milk standards, either into a seller of first-class milk or a
seller of second-class milk, and such distinction gives to the seller of
first-class milk the commercial rewards which he deserves, while it
inflicts just penalties on the seller of second-class milk. For milk
consumers, the setting of definite standards accompanied by proper
labeling makes it possible to know the character of the milk which is
purchased and to distinguish good milk from bad milk. In the mat-
ter of public health administration, standards are absolutely necessary
to furnish definitions around which the rules and regulations of city
health departments can be drawn and the milk supply efficiently
controlled.”

PE SP TR Ev ee
1 Public Health Reports, vol. 27, No. 19, May 10, 1912, pp. 673-700, and vol. 28, No. 34, Aug. 22, 1913,
pp. 1733-1756.

es

STANDARDS FOR MILK. 7

Throughout all of the deliberations of the commission it was recog=
nized that bacterial testing, using for the purpose the “bacterial
count,’”’ was the most important single factor in grading milk. It was
clearly understood that the bacterial count should be used only with a
full understanding of its limitations, but those limitations all put
together fail to shake or impair the consistency of the bacterial count
when properly applied to the grading of milk. Isolated instances of
wide discrepancies disappear when laboratories use uniform methods
and do a sufficient number of examinations. The parallel between
clean dairy farmers, proper refrigeration, efficient pasteurization, and
the bacterial content, is constant and convincing.

The grades decided upon by the commission on milk standards are
only three. It is, of course, obvious that there may be many degrees
of excellence in milk between the highest and the lowest, but three
grades are ample to properly classify the milk supply of any commu-_
nity. The standards must of necessity be decided upon somewhat
arbitrarily, but experience has shown us certain limits within which
milks of known sanitary quality may be defined. We must in each
grade indicate only the minimum, for in each grade there may be
milk much better than the minimum. It happens that some commu-
nities because of more favorable conditions may have more rigorous
standards than others. Thus grade “A” milk in New York City may
have a limit of 200,000 bacteria per cc., while grade “A” milk in
Syracuse may have a limit of 10,000 per ce.

The grading of milk and the establishment of standards have jus-
tified themselves in New York City. The writer is informed that over
20 per cent of the milk supply of that great city is ‘‘Grade A, Pasteur-
ized” and sells for 10 cents a quart. Many other cities throughout
the country are establishing grades, while New York State has estab-
lished grades for all cities a villages.

What the grades for milk should be will not be discussed here, as
the grading of milk within certain limits is governed by local eondi
tions. But it is desired to emphasize that it is the belief of the writer
that no raw milk should be allowed in any grade except the better
classes of grade A

Any community so minded can experience the rapid growth of a
clean and safe milk supply as the result of the establishment of grades
and the enforcement of milk standards, because the clean and honest
farmers by reason of the increased monet return are encouraged to
produce and to sell clean milk to the clean and honest dealer. These
latter, by reason of the use of the label signifying a higher quality of
milk, can sell this better milk at an increase to those customers who
value cleanliness and safety. A more general production of clean
milk is encouraged and brought about in any community through
the individuality and identification given to clean milk by the dis-

8 STANDARDS FOR MILK,

tinctive label indicating its superior quality and the greater nfarket
value of such milk. The production of a special or limited class of
milk is not here meant, but an increase in the supply of the regular
market milk which is already clean or capable of being made clean,
but the production of which is discouraged by the fact that under
existing conditions this milk can not be recognized by the consumer
and given the preference by him which it would be given if he could
recognize it by means of the label or other identifying mark.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C.

AT

5 CENTS PER COPY
Vv

rhea,

Gaylord Bros.
Makers
Syracuse, N. Y.
PAT. JAN. 21, 1908

Se

Sts oe
SS = =

Sn we

ii

00008961402

~~