175_178.
QXD 8/18/2005 2:48 PM Page 175
Commentary
History, trends, and extent of pasteurization
James H. Steele, DVM, MPH
P asteurization is one of public health’s triumphs over
the ignorance and superstition of past ages. Within
a short span of a century, the beverage milk industry
evolved from virtual obscurity to the giant of the food
industry. Pasteurization, as the parboiling process
came to be called, was the single nucleus around which
all developments centered. The practical benefits of
pasteurization were so obvious to some milk distribu-
tors that the process stimulated commercial develop-
ments.
Heat Treatment of Foods
The heat treatment of foods antedates recorded
history. Since the discovery of fire, man used heat to
prepare foods to preserve them and enhance their fla-
vor.
Applying heat to liquids is a relatively recent prac-
tice, at least so far as records are concerned. In 1782,
the Swedish scientist Scheele used heat in the preser-
vation of vinegar. In 1824, William Dewees, a professor
of obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, recom-
mended heating milk to near the boiling point and
than cooling it before feeding it to infants. The knowl-
edge of the beneficial effects of boiling milk was not
new even in the early 19th century. Undoubtedly,
housewives had resorted to cooking or boiling milk for
ages, for such practices still exist where pasteurized
milk is not available.
The real breakthrough in heat treating milk was
the discovery of an entirely new principle, that of par-
boiling or under boiling. Credit for discovery of this
principle must go to Louis Pasteur, for the classic
study of the application of heat in controlling fermen-
tation and preserving the liquid product. From 1860
to 1864, he worked on and finally solved the wine
spoilage problem. He found that by heating the wine
to a sufficiently high temperature and time to inacti-
vate the spoilage organisms, the basic character of the
product could be preserved. Later he successfully
applied the same heating principle to beer. Despite
current popular writing, records fail to show that
Pasteur ever applied the principle to milk. Yet the par-
boiling heat-treatment process basic to the modern
milk market industry takes its name, pasteurization,
from Pasteur.
In 1889, American pediatrician Henry Koplik
heat-treated milk for infants and set up a dispensary for
From the Center for Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health,
University of Texas, Houston, TX 77030.
JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 2, July 15, 2000
the operation. Then Nathan Straus, a New York phil-
anthropist, became fascinated with the potentialities of
Koplik’s work. Being appalled at the mortality of chil-
dren fed raw milk, he established milk depots in New
York City. The lowering of the death rate among chil-
dren as a result of Straus’s ventures was astounding.
Thereafter the heat treatment of milk became a philan-
thropic obsession with him. He carried the message of
pasteurization to not only every large city of the United
States but to Europe as well.
Milk distributors recognized the merits of heat
treating milk early and practiced pasteurization even
before standards were established. Straus lived to see
pasteurization of milk a common process in all the
large cities of America.
At the turn of the century, veterinarians were the
supervisors of the local milk hygiene and tested the
cows for tuberculosis. Today they continue the super-
vision of dairy farms to ensure that cows are free of
tuberculosis and brucellosis as well as mastitis and
other diseases.
During this time, and even up to 1920, the fluid
milk industry lacked cohesion and assurance. But two
specific heat treatments of milk, namely flash and
holder pasteurization, were to have marked effects on
the solidarity and reputation of the market milk indus-
try. Flash pasteurization connoted several nonspecific
temperatures, always below boiling, to which the milk
was heated momentarily. Generally the process
involved a continuous milk flow. Temperatures usually
accorded flash pasteurization were 68.3 to 73.9 C (155
to 165 F) for an instant, or even higher, up to 85 C
(185 F). Rosenau gave the following brief description
of the process in the 1912 US Public Health Service
Bulletin on Pasteurization.1
“The flash method consists of heating the milk
momentarily to a temperature of about 178 F [81 C]
and chilling at once. This method is sometimes incor-
rectly called ‘commercial’ pasteurization. It does not
give uniform results, is not entirely reliable and does
not meet with the approval of the sanitarian. The
method however is rapid and cheap.”
Despite its shortcomings, early flash pasteuriza-
tion not only served its purpose, but also created an
awareness of the necessity of pasteurization in the
minds of a wary consuming public. In addition, flash
pasteurization made ready the coming of holder or vat
pasteurization, the basic process on which the founda-
tion of the modern milk industry was built.
Early on it was recognized that Mycobacterium
Views: Commentary 175
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/16/23 08:22 AM UTC
175_178.QXD 8/18/2005 2:48 PM Page 176
bovis occasionally survived pasteurization. A Uni-
versity of Wisconsin scientist found that injection of
hot air killed the tuberculosis organisms that survived
in the foam that built up in the vat pasteurizer.
Objections to Pasteurization
Pasteurization was not always readily accepted by
consumers as a necessary process in the distribution of
milk. Many health food hygienists in the early 20th
century frowned on the practice of parboiling milk,
believing it to be little more than a substitute measure
for sanitary milk production. However, time and
research have proved the invalidity of many of the early
beliefs against pasteurization of milk.
Not until much research in milk production, pro-
cessing, nutrition, and public health had been made,
and America had been well launched by the late 1930s
into a dairy technologic era, were most of the early
objections to pasteurized milk overcome. Even then,
educational forces claiming the virtues of pasteurized
milk were confronted often with some milk con-
sumer’s firm but false belief that the best milk was raw
milk.
When undertaking a survey of the obstacles to be
overcome in the minds of consumers, one appreciates
more fully the dedication of the milk industry to the
benefits to mankind. For the most part, the objections
involved sanitary, nutritive, or economic aspects
(Appendix). Only when furnished and fortified with
data proving that raw milk could be a potential health
hazard, did city officials adopt milk ordinances com-
pelling the pasteurization of milk sold within their
jurisdiction.
Defense of Pasteurization
With so many unfavorable beliefs about the pas-
teurization of milk, one is astounded that the process
was ever successfully introduced. The final acceptance
of pasteurization by milk distributors, the public
health officials, and eventually by the consumers is lit-
tle short of phenomenal. The fact that virtually all of
the bottled beverage milk in the United States is pas-
teurized attests the merits of this heat treatment.
Despite the claims that pasteurization was an excuse
for inferior milk, that its use would be the doom of
clean milk production, that tuberculosis would
become rampant, and that milk’s nutritive qualities
would be impaired, the fact remains that today’s milk is
sanitarily produced; and that the incidence of bovine
tuberculosis has almost disappeared. Today’s genera-
tions not only have thrived on the product but also
have enjoyed their successively longer life expectancy
in good health.
Municipal Adoption of Milk Pasteurization
Although milk had been heat treated for infant
feeding by mothers and recommended by the medical
profession, and Straus’s milk depots were established in
New York City in 1893, commercial pasteurization of
city milk supplies did not become reality until the close
of the 19th century.
Cincinnati is credited with the first (1897) com-
mercial milk pasteurization in America. New York
176 Views: Commentary
City followed in 1898, Philadelphia in 1899, St
Louis in 1900, Milwaukee in 1903, Boston and
Chicago in 1908, and Detroit in 1910. In August of
1908, Chicago passed an ordinance requiring that
after Jan 1, 1909, all milk, unless from tuberculin-
tested cows, offered for sale within the city be pas-
teurized.
Statewide Milk Pasteurization Legislation
With the development of pasteurization appara-
tus, refinements in sanitation, refrigeration, trans-
portation, and outer-market distribution of milk, pas-
teurized milk became more and more accepted. In
1947, Michigan became the first state to legislate a
statewide milk pasteurization law, which became
effective Jul 1, 1948. All other states have since legis-
lated similar requirements with exceptions where raw
milk is sold with a warning label, and usually a high-
er price.
Homogenization, an accessory process to pas-
teurization that came into common usage around
1940, did much to revolutionize the market milk
industry and change the accepted concepts of pas-
teurization temperatures. With the mechanical
destruction of the creaming of milk by homogeniza-
tion, the way was open for application of more rigor-
ous heat treatment, which heretofore would have
impaired the volume and distinctiveness of the cream
layer. Today, nearly all milk pasteurization is at high-
er temperatures for a shorter time (180 F for 5 to10
seconds).
Milestones in the Pasteurization of Milk
Certain discoveries, introductions, and processes
aided the development of milk pasteurization to its
present high level of achievement. Among them were:
1870s—In Denmark, Professor N.J. Fjord applied
the Pasteur process for retaining the quality of wine
and beer to milk.
1885—Milk was pasteurized on a commercial
scale in Denmark and Sweden.
1889–1893—Nathan Strauss and J.H. Monrad
advocated and practiced pasteurization of milk in New
York City.
1890—Pasteurization of cream for butter making,
first introduced to Denmark, became a common prac-
tice by 1890. A continuous heater, which momentarily
heated the milk to 85 C (185 F), was developed in
Denmark. Hence, the skim milk returned to the farm
for feeding calves was pasteurized, and gave impetus to
the control of bovine tuberculosis in calves fed this
milk.
1900—Russell and Hastings established that 60 C
(140 F) for 20 minutes destroyed M tuberculosis and
other pathogens.
1909—The US Public Health and Marine Hospital
Service,2 Washington, DC published the famous
Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin No. 56 containing Milton
J. Rosenau’s authoritative “Pasteurization” and the
JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 2, July 15, 2000
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/16/23 08:22 AM UTC
175_178.QXD 8/18/2005 2:48 PM Page 177
study “The Thermal Death Points of Pathogenic Micro-
organisms in Milk.”
The first compulsory pasteurization law in the
United States that affected all milk sold within the city
(with the only exception of milk from tuberculin-test-
ed cows) became effective in Chicago.
1948—Introduction of ultra-high temperature
pasteurization
1966—Sterile concentrated milk is commercially
marketed worldwide and has proven safe for weeks
after container is opened. Within the decade, a new
treatment combining the advantages of pasteurization
and sterilization has resulted in ultra-high temperature
milk. This semi-preserved milk has a bacterial compo-
sition approaching sterility, an absence of organoleptic
defects, and a superior keeping quality compared with
pasteurized milk.
Raw Milk and Foodborne Diseases
A review of the epidemiology of raw milk associat-
ed with foodborne diseases reported in the United
States 1973 to 1992 follows3:
“The hazards of drinking raw milk are evident
from the list of infectious diseases that may be acquired
from this product; these include campylobacteriosis,
salmonellosis, yersiniosis, listeriosis, tuberculosis, bru-
cellosis, staphylococcal enterotoxin poisoning, strepto-
coccal infections and Escherichia coli O157:H7 infec-
tion.”
The purpose of that report was to produce a
description of the epidemiology of outbreaks of disease
associated with raw milk reported to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 1973
through 1992. Furthermore, a determination was made
of the rates of reported raw-milk-associated outbreaks
among states in which the sale of raw milk was legal at
the time of the outbreak and states where the sale of
raw milk was illegal. Finally, investigation was under-
taken to determine whether the mean annual number
of outbreaks reported for the period prior to 1987 dif-
fered from that beginning in 1987, when the US Food
and Drug Administration implemented a ban on the
interstate sale of raw milk.
Forty-six raw-milk-associated outbreaks were
reported to the CDC from 21 states during the study
period. The median number of persons who became ill
in the outbreaks was 19 (range 2 to 190). Thirty-eight
reported outbreaks occurred prior to 1987 (mean, 2.7
outbreaks/y), compared with 8 outbreaks after 1987
(mean 1.3 outbreaks/y). In 38 (86%) reported out-
breaks, the implicated raw milk was produced at a
commercial dairy.
Survey responses regarding the legal status of raw
milk sales were received from all 52 jurisdictions (the
50 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of
Columbia). At the time of the survey, 28 (54%) states
permitted the intrastate sale of raw milk. In all states
where the sale of raw milk was legal, the estimated vol-
ume of raw milk sold as a percentage of the total milk
sold (ie, pasteurized and unpasteurized milk) was less
than 1%.
Some countries in Europe continue to have epi-
JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 2, July 15, 2000
demics traced to raw milk. In May 1997, a major out-
break of gastroenteritis occurred in six kindergartens
in a small town in Saxony-Anhalt. One hundred eighty
six of 412 (45.1%) persons (children and staff) were
affected (gastroenteritis associated with high fever and
in 16% of persons, with bloody feces). Campylobacter
jejuni was isolated from the fecal specimens as the only
agent. All persons involved had eaten the same meals
delivered from a mass catering kitchen, but not all
delivered components of the meals had been consumed
by each of them.
“The established clonal identity of isolated
campylobacter strains from raw milk and bovine
feces of the corresponding milking cows with the
outbreak strain suggests the obviously inadequately
heated raw milk to have been the vehicle of the
causative agent.4”
A few years ago, a question was raised about the
heat inactivation of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in
raw milk. Studies at the National Animal Disease
Center demonstrated effectively that all M paratubercu-
losis were effectively killed at 72 C for 15 seconds.5
Subsequently the US Food and Drug Administration
affirmed that current pasteurization standards are suf-
ficient to ensure complete killing of M paratuberculosis
in raw milk.
More recently Van Kruiningen, DVM, MD has
reviewed the Johne’s disease/Mycobacterium paratuber-
culosis and Crohn’s disease. He concludes that the
pathologic, microbiologic, serologic, and epidemio-
logic features do not support a common cause of
Johne’s disease in animals and Crohn’s disease in
humans.6
“Cow’s milk and its products are safe, healthful,
and exceptionally nutritious foods that play an impor-
tant role in the American diet. Certain components of
milk may even be helpful in the prevention or man-
agement of may disease states. Cows’ milk and its
products should not be eliminated from government
guidelines or programs.7”
References
1. Rosenau M. Pasteurization. US Public Health and Marine
Hospital Service Hygiene Laboratory Bulletin. 2nd ed. Washington,
DC: 1912;56.
2. Rosenau M. Pasteurization. US Public Health and Marine
Hospital Service Hygiene Laboratory Bulletin. Washington, DC: 1909;56.
3. Headrick M, Korangy S, Bean N, et al. The epidemiology of
raw milk associated foodborne disease outbreaks reported in the
United States, 1973 through 1992. Am J Pub Health 1998;88:
1219–1221.
4. Mayr A. Campylobacter gastroenteritis in kindergartens in
Saxony, Anhalt, Germany. WHO Surveillance Programme for Control
of Foodborne Infections and Intoxications (newsletter). March
1999;49.
5. Stabel J, Steadham E, Bolin C. Heat inactivation of
Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in raw milk: are current pasteuriza-
tion conditions effective? Appl Env Micro 1997;63:4975–4977.
6. Van Kruiningen H. Basic Science Review. Lack of support
for a common etiology in Johne’s disease of animals and Crohn’s dis-
ease in humans. Inflamm Bowel Dis 1999;5:183–191.
7. Fontenot B. Much ado about milk. 2nd ed. New York, NY:
American Council on Science and Health, October 1999.
8. Hall C, Trout G. Milk pasteurization. In: History, trends and
extent of pasteurization. Westport, Conn: AVI Publishing Co,
1968;1–21.
Views: Commentary 177
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/16/23 08:22 AM UTC
175_178.QXD 8/18/2005 2:48 PM Page 178

Appendix
Compilation of the objections raised by opponents of pasteur-
ization of the past hundred years. Public health officials continue
to hear objections to pasteurization, which now is being extend-
ed to other foods including fruit and fruit juices, eggs, meat,
poultry, and fish by electric pasteurization, gamma irradiation,
and x-rays. Pasteurization is one of the important advances in
the protection of the public health.8

Sanitation:
' Pasteurization is an excuse for the sale of dirty milk.
' Pasteurization may be used to mask low-quality milk.
' Pasteurization promotes carelessness and discourages the efforts to
produce clean milk.
' Compulsory pasteurization would diminish the incentive to clean milk
production.
' Pasteurization would remove the incentive for producers to deliver clean
milk.
' Pasteurization enables the distributor to sell stale milk to the public, and
so eliminates the necessity for the dairyman to get milk from the farm to
the consumer as quickly as possible.
' Heat destroys great numbers of bacteria in milk and thus conceals the
evidence of dirt.

Public Health and Safety:

' Pasteurization may be carelessly done. It is therefore not infallible.
' Unless the milk is handled and bottled sanitarily after pasteurization, “the
safety factor” of pasteurized milk is lost.
' Pasteurization is often inefficient.
' Imperfectly pasteurized milk is worse than raw milk.
' Toxins present as result of disease-bacterial action are not destroyed by
pasteurization.
' The toxins formed by disease bacteria may not be destroyed by pasteur-
ization, or possibly dangerous substances might be formed by destruc-
tion of other bacteria.
' Pasteurization fails to destroy bacterial toxins in milk.
' Some of the poisonous toxins are not killed at the temperatures used.
' Products of bacterial growth are not destroyed.
' Organisms developing in pasteurized milk form harmful products.
' Pasteurized milk may diminish resistance to disease.
' Pasteurization, by eliminating tuberculosis of bovine origin in early life,
would lead to an increase in pulmonary tuberculosis in adult life.
' Pasteurization is unnecessary, because raw milk does not give rise to
tuberculosis.
' The death rate from tuberculosis remains uniformly lower in rural areas
where all milk is drunk raw than in cities where all milk is pasteurized.
' Pasteurization would discourage the eradication of disease in dairy cat-
tle.
' Universal pasteurization would lead to the elimination of tuberculosis of
the bovine type, and so result in an increase in tuberculosis of the human
type.
' Compulsory pasteurization would remove the stimulus to the eradication
of diseased animals from milking herds.
' Pasteurization affects the disease resisting property of milk.
' Pasteurized milk interferes with the proper development of the teeth and
predisposes to dental caries.
' Pasteurization has often been accused of possessing the great disad-
vantage of producing scurvy and rickets.
' Pasteurization of milk diminishes the fertility of animals fed on it, and
might increase the present fall in the birth rate.
' Pasteurization would lead to an increase in infant mortality.
' Pasteurization of all the milk supply of a community may not be desirable.
The certified milk and the special milk free from contamination may not
need it. Certain invalids and babies may require raw milk.
' The medical profession is not unanimous in support of pasteurization.
' Pasteurization is not advocated by the Pasteur Institute.
' It is wrong to interfere in any way with nature’s perfect food.
' Pasteurization gives a false sense of security.

178 Views: Commentary JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 2, July 15, 2000

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/16/23 08:22 AM UTC