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

McCann says:-- "In early infancy, during an exclusive milk diet, a few teaspoonsful 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, McCullom, Howe, and most other experimenters who recognize the impairing work of pasteurization--and these "so-called disadvantages" are not merely charged against pasteurized milk by its enemies; they are admitted by its friends.

A few tespoonsful 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 this hypothetical vitamin and 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.

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 the 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.

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

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 very best of cow's milk is poor enough as infant food, without making it still worse by pasteurization. The best of cow's milk can be obtained only from healthy, range-fed cows, which get plenty of green foods, an abundance of sunshine and fresh air, and are not tuberculin tested (poisoned) and are not stuffed on protein-rich foods to overstimulate milk production.

The present method of keeping cows for producing certified milk, in sunless barns, feeding them dry food and tuberculin testing them at frequent intervals and force feeding them assures us a milk of poor quality. Milk from cows out of the sunshine is not good milk. Dr. Hess found that it will not sustain life. The infant death-rate in Toronto, Canada is 29 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 citys large homes and hospitals for children increased.