Bovine Tuberculosis
Sir, —I thank Mr Thomson for offering “world” authorities (why no New Zealand authorities?). However, the former fell into similar errors. Being highly sceptical whether milk was in fact the source of tuberculosis infection as the Medical Officer of Health at Christchurch (Dr. A. Douglas) was claiming it to be (no scientific cause-and-effect relationship was established), and convinced that the germ “scare” was principally for the purpose of enforcing pasteurisation—without there being the least intention of discontinuing compulsion, however clean the herds might subsequently become—l presented trenchant criticism before a Parliamentary Health Committee in 1958 and 1959. When Dr. F. A. de Hamel’s report absolving raw milk from blame was published in 1962, Dr. L. F. Jepson was reported commenting: “There seems little doubt that in Canterbury and probably throughout the country his interpretation is correct” Events have thus proved me right, both in this respect and also regarding the unjustified retention of compulsory pasteurisation'.—Yours, etc.,
PAUL MALING. June 6, 1966.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19660608.2.129.7
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31080, 8 June 1966, Page 16
Word count
Tapeke kupu
163Bovine Tuberculosis Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31080, 8 June 1966, Page 16
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
Ngā mihi
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.
Log in