CO129-562-12 Dysentry epidemic- recommendation to enforce compulsory pasteurization of milk 7-6-1937 - 17-8-1937 — Page 38

65

58

to distinguish between the clean milk, namely, milk free from the bacteria responsible for souring, and safe milk, namely, milk free from those dangerous to public health. Considerable efforts have been made in recent years by farmers to improve the cleanliness of their milk. For the slackening of these efforts pasteurisation would afford no ground. The bacteria responsible for the deterioration of milk may be divided into two classes, those which are destroyed by pasteurisation (i.e., by being exposed to a temperature of 145°-150° F.) and those which survive it and subsequently multiply. The latter are encouraged by slovenly methods of production. Dirty milk cannot be made clean by pasteurisation. We believe, therefore, that once this is firmly grasped by farmers, they would not be discouraged from producing clean milk by the knowledge that it was subsequently to be pasteurised. We are confirmed in this view by the importance attached by the large milk distributing companies to the cleanliness with which the milk which they buy is produced.

153. The production of safe milk raises different questions, for most farmers are not making determined efforts to free their herds from tuberculosis. It has been represented by several witnesses that pasteurisation would deter farmers from undertaking eradication, and there is no doubt that many farmers at present regard pasteurisation and eradication as alternatives. But whether this feeling would ultimately influence their actions would depend on the way in which both pasteurisation and eradication were introduced. (See paragraph 169 below.)

154. There are three further objections to the compulsory pasteurisation of milk which carry little weight. In the first place, it is sometimes said that pasteurisation is contrary to the spirit of other legislation respecting dangerous foods, which has always followed the principle that such food should be destroyed and not reconstituted, This objection might have force if applied against pasteurisation in any form, but it is not valid against the extension of a process which is already permitted. Secondly, it is objected that compulsion in respect of this process is improper, as whoever wishes to buy pasteurised milk may do so to-day. It is held, there- fore, that there is no ground for compelling those who do not wish to do so to take this additional precaution for the benefit of their own health or that of their children. We do not accept this view. Finally, it has been suggested to us that a requirement that all milk not from tuberculosis-free herds should be pasteurised, would have the result of establishing small local monopolies in the distribution of milk. It is argued that pasteurisation is a process that is most cheaply carried out on a large scale; that this will result in the formation of larger distributing organisations, and that these in turn will be in a position to obtain unduly favourable terms both from the producers and from the consumers of milk. We are not ourselves apprehensive that this will occur. For the existence of a class of producer-retailer with tuberculosis-free herds would afford a guarantee against the extension of monopolistic practices.

59

155. For these reasons we do not accept the view that the substitution of pasteurised for raw milk is an evil in itself. Such objections as there are on this plane are easily outweighed by the saving in human life and suffering which would result.

But a substantial objection of a different character remains. We have seen that there is at present a balance in the supply of heat-treated milk, generally brought from a distance into large towns, and raw milk, generally produced in the country immediately surrounding them, determined by the relative costs of production and distribution of milk of each class. Compulsory pasteurisation would disturb this balance adversely to the neighbouring producers. These would suffer because they would have to bear either the high cost of pasteurisation in small plants or the increased costs of distribution, which combination to operate larger plants would involve. Moreover, the latter course is impossible for many of them, as it is important to their business to preserve the identity of their herds' milk.

156. We must anticipate, therefore, that in the event of pasteurisation being made compulsory in large towns, and in the absence of any provision designed to mitigate the economic conse- quences of such a change, a large number of farmers who produce milk and sell it on the circumference of such towns would be deprived of their present means of livelihood, and would be forced to find other employment for their capital and their industry. It is hardly to be expected that they would succeed in this without a break-up of their homes and a general deterioration in their economic position, which might in some instances amount to actual distress.

157. The existence of an interest, however deserving of consideration, which would be harmed by a proposed change in the law is not in itself a sufficient reason for refusing to entertain any desirable reform. Factory legislation affords a precedent.

The constantly increasing regulation of industry under successive factory acts through the nineteenth century imposed, no doubt, considerable burdens upon employers, especially on small employers. But the health of those employed in factories was held to be of greater importance than the immediate material interests of the owners of factories. And it was never suggested that those who were unable to afford the minimum standards of safety and comfort laid down in the acts had any claim to compensation. But the fact that provisions which are necessary from one point of view are likely to have unfavourable repercussions in another direction is a sufficient reason for proceeding with great circumspection and moderation. In the present instance it would be improper to recommend a policy of compulsory pasteurisation even for large towns if there were a reasonable expectation that the objects of this reform could be achieved by other means, which, even if they were more expensive, would not be disadvantageous to the livelihood of producer-retailers. change should be so introduced as to allow producer-retailers gradually to adapt their businesses to the altered conditions.

Any

66