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.