OUR INDUSTRY TODAY

OFFICIAL ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOGENIZED MILK IN THE

UNITED STATES

G. M. TROUT ~
Department of Food Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing

A preliminary survey of dairy scientists L E G A L ADOPTIOX

placed the invention of the homogenizer and Not so generally known is the legal accep-
the homogenization of milk among the ten tance of homogenized milk throughout the
basic introductions contributing most to the United States. Legal acceptance refers to the
development of the present dairy industry. placing on the statutes, milk ordinances, and
Other surveys had shown that from 94 to 100% public health regulations the definition of ho-
of beverage milk being sold today is homog- mogenized milk and the conditions under which
enized. Protection of the cream line and mod- the product can be processed and sold. To this
ern milk processing would seem to have be- end a questionnaire was sent to the departments
come incompatible. of health in 236 cities in 50 states and the
District of Columbia asking for specific in-
EARLY t t I S T O R Y formation about legalizing the sale of homog-
History records that The Torrington Cream- enized milk under their respective jurisdictions.
ery, Torrington, Connecticut, processed and Responses were received from 150 cities
sold homogenized milk continually since 1919. (63.6%) in 43 states. These came from 68
A r t h u r G. Weigold, Manager, related that as cities with populations between 33,000 and
a result of unfavorable experience with dipped 100,000; 42 from cities of 101,000 to 200,000;
nonhomogenized beverage milk sold in restau- and 40 from large cities of 201,000 to over
rants, he homogenized all milk going to that 7,000,000. I n their replies, officials from 77
outlet. Later, about 1925, when bottling and cities sent copies of their milk ordinance and
serving milk in unopened, plant-capped bottles code; seven others sent official regulatory doc-
to customers became mandatory, restaurateurs uments.
demanded a continuation of the homogenized This wide generous response, supplemented
product. Thus encouraged and fortified with with current regulatory materiM dealing in
favorable reports on homogenized milk for p a r t with homogenized milk, was invaluable
infant feeding, the management of The Tor- to a fair documentation of homogenized milk
rington Creamery presented a favorable case in the United States.
for homogenized milk to the physicians at the F r o m five to ten responses were had from
local hospital. Sales of homogenized milk be- cities in the following 14 states: Pennsylvania,
gan there around 1932. Texas, California, Michigan, Massachusetts,
Meanwhile, the public was hearing about the Ohio, Connecticut, New York, Florida, Illinois,
successful venture of homogenized milk sales Indiana, Iowa, New Jersey, Virginia. These
in Canada. The Laurentian Dairy, Ottawa, states represent about 60% of the United
Ontario, sold its first bottle of homogenized States population. Replies were not had from
milk on A p r i l 8, 1927. Shortly thereafter the seven states representing about 3% of the
product was introduced in Toronto and other population. Thus, the replies appeared to be
Canadian cities. By 1932, milk plants in ninny proportionate to and representative of the
of the large cities and towns of Ontario offered people. The summary of the responses to the
homogenized milk for sale. several questions follows:
I n the United States enthusiasm for the
product was generated by William McDonald, 1. In ~vhat year was homogenized milk first
Flint, Michigan, in 1932, who introduced ho- produced and sold in your city?
nmgenized milk successfully in that city. By The percentage distribution of the dates ac-
unique experiments and demonstrations in- corded this event are included in Table 1.
volving regurgitation studies, attention of the Assmnption is made that all homogenized milk
public was drawn to homogenized milk. Ho- sold was legalized by regulatory officials and
mogenized milk sales by the McDonald Dairy that the product was defined in the regulations.
Company, in the midst of the economic depres- Apparently, the first major upsurge of in-
sion, stimulated much interest, not only in terest in homogenized milk sMes by milk dis-
Michigan but throughout the nation. tributors in United States cities came between
1930 and 1934, when about 20% of the cities
1 Itistorian, American Dairy Science Association. reporting legalized the product. This period
342
 OUR INDUSTRY TODAY 343

TABLE 1 Experiments showed that its stringency was

Distribution of years during which homogenized unnecessary, that a 10% tolerance of fat be-
milk was first sold in 147 United States tween the upper 100 ml and the remainder of
cities the quart was satisfactory and compliable.
Accordingly, the definition in this respect was
Distribution by years changed in the tentatively revised 1947 edition.
Years :No. % Thus, this definition set the pattern for defin-
19.20 to 1924 2 1.4 ing homogenized milk throughout the country.
1925 to 1929 4 2.7 2. A t what temperature and time is homog-
1930 to 1934 29 19.7 enized milk pasteurized?
1935 to 1939 51 34.7
1940 to 1944 29 19.7 Two general answers were given to this ques-
1945 to 19.49 19 12.9 tion: (a) the ordinance requirements, and (b)
1950 0 0.0 the pasteurization exposures actually used.
:No response; unknown 13 8.8 Almost without exception, ordinances required
1~7 99.9 a minimum heat treatment of 142 to 145 F
(usually 1 4 3 F ) for 30 min or 1 6 1 F for 15
sec. Since preservation of the creaming ability
is not a factor in heat-treating milk intended
coincided with that of the great depression. for homogenization, higher-than-minhnum-re-
Undoubtedly, impetus was motivated by neces- quired temperatures often prevailed. I n fact,
sity for sales and by the successful adventure the temperature-and-tinm relationship yielding
by McDonald of Flint, Michigan. I n fact, the the cooked flavor seemed to be the restraining
great move toward homogenized milk came be- factor in employing even higher temperatures.
tween 1935 and 1939, when 51 of the 147 re- Generally, the holding periods were not ex-
porting cities (34.7%) took on the new prod- tended beyond the legal times, 30 mill and 15
uct. Beyond question, McDonald's report on to 16 see, respectively. A very few were re-
the sales possibilities of homogenized milk at ported to have held the milk up to 20 see. The
the 1937 Dallas meeting of the Milk Industry distribution of cities reporting the various
Foundation had a profound influence in moti- pasteurization temperatures used is given in
vating sales. Also, the increasing tempo of Table 2.
lectures at dairy conventions and research on
homogenized milk by dairy educators was be-
ginning to take effect. By 1950, the great shift TABLE 2
from cream line to homogenized milk had been
Distribution of cities' using various temperatures
made. The intervening war years, with econ- of pasteurizing homogenized milk
omies of distribution and longer holding, aided
in the doom of cream-line milk. By the end Temperature Distribution
of World W a r II, a greater backlog of orders range (F) No. %
existed for homogenizers than for any other
single piece of dairy equipment. Perhaps this Holder pasteurization (30 min)
was accentuated by mistakes of the past, when 14,2 to 144 20 31.3
many dealers bought homogenizers of too little 145 to 149 37 57.8
150 to 154 4 6.3
capacity, making purchase of larger units as 155 to 160 3 4.7
sales of homogenized milk increased.
64 lOO.1
The acceptance of homogenized milk by the
United States Public Health Service gave offi- ItT ST (15 sec)
cial sanction to the product over a wide area. 160 to 164 61 4.6.3
The first United States Public Health Service 16,5 to 169 28 21.3
definition for homogenized milk, appearing in 170 to 174 30 22.7
the Milk Ordinance and Code, 1939, was too 175 to 179 8 6.1
stringent for commercial compliance. I t fol- 180 to 184 5 3.8
lows : 132 100.2
Homogenized milk is milk which has been
treated in such a manner as to insure break-
up of the f a t globules to such an extent that From the data reported on plants in 64 cities
after 48 hr storage no visible cream separa- employing holder pasteurization, 57.8% of them
tion occurs on the milk and the fat percent- were using temperatures from 145 to 149 F
age of the top 100 cc of milk in a quart bot- for 30 rain. Eleven per cent pasteurized the
tle, or of proportionate volumes in containers homogenized milk at 150 F or higher. Strangely,
of other sizes, does not differ by more than nearly one-third of the plants (31.3%) kept
5% of itself from the fat percentage of' the the pasteurization exposure within the cream-
remaining nfilk as determined after thorough ing-preservation zone, 142 to 1 4 4 F . Unless
mixing. a high-temperature heating medium were used,
344 J O U R N A L OF D A I R Y S C I E N C E

and probably associated with a slow movement of homogenization was not a public health prob-
of the milk over the heating surface, tempera- lem and so stated. Nonetheless, a majority
tures sufficiently high to yield the cooked taste were concerued that the product met standards
would not be attained. set for homogenized hilk. Several tests to note
Again, a high percentage (46.3%) o£ those efficiency of homogenization were reported
using H T S T pasteurization seemed to. be fear- from scattered areas. All are of interest. Their
ful of the cooked taste, for the temperatures classification and distribution follow:
were maintained near the legal minimum
( 1 6 1 F ) . In fact, 43 of the 61 (70%) in this Response No. %
zone of operation did pasteurize at 161 F. None 3.4 23.8
A slight majority (53.7%) were reported 48-hr, top-and-bottom fat
to have pasteurized at 165 1~ or higher. A few test (USPIIS) 81 56.6
(3.8%) even went beyond 180 F. F o r the most Visible fat separation (line,
part, 44% used temperatures between 165 and plug, ring) 14 9.8
174 F. F o r flashing the milk, this would seem Direct microscopic examination
to be a good zone f o r heat-treating homogenized of fat globules 6 4.2
milk. Animal bioassay 2 1.4
Curd tension 2 1.4
3. What specific regulationsj i f a n ~ beyond
time and temperature do you require for Phosphatase ; enzyme 2 1A
homogenization of millc~. Viscosity 1 0.7
This question brought forth many interesting Cheek on gauge and pistons 1 0.7
responses. These are classified as follows: 143 lOO.O
Response No. % About one-fourth of those responding were
None 61 41.8 unconcerned with the efficiency of homogeniza-
Must comply with USPHS tion. Of those who were, by f ar the majority
definition 39 2.6.7 favored the standard U S P H S top-and-bottom
Meet various sanitary and test. About 10% of all respondents merely
composition standards 17 11.6
Coliform 4 looked for visible fat separation as cream line,
Total bacteria count 4 plug, or fat ring. A few made use of direct
Same as regular milk 3 microscopic examination. The use of bioassays,
lear 3 curd tension, phosphatase, viscosity, and check
Grade A 2 on condition of vital homogenizer parts can be
Sanitary code 1 explained in view of some requirements speci-
tIomogenizer 7 4.8 fied previously. Rather than a measure of
Approved 1 homogenizing efficiency, the phosphatase test
Comply with 3-A standards 1
Special wiring with respect measures the effectiveness of pasteurization.
to metering pump and 5. W h a t problems do you still encounter with
/low diversion valve 2 homogenized milk?
Operate at 2,006. psi 1
Sterilized 2 This question recalled several problems of
Be labeled properly 6 4.1 the past such as rancidity and sediment. Sev-
Show no cream line or plug 5 3.4 eral pointed out that clarification removed the
Time of homogenizing 5 3.4 problem of" sediment. Apparently, H T S T pas-
After pasteurization 3 teurization with its closed system, timing pump,
Before pasteurization 2 and flow-diversion valve assured destruction of
Be clarified 2 1.4 lipase; hence, rancidity today in homogenized
Have vitamin D added 2 1.4
IIave foam heater; flow diversion milk is rarely encountel~d. The classification
valve 2 1.4 of the responses is as follows:
146 100.0 Response No. %
F o r the most part, no special regulations None 77 49.4
for homogenized milk, other than compliance Flavor 26 16.7
with standards o~ homogeneity and quality, Off 10
were required. Some regulations were of in- Sunshine (oxidized) 9
Rancid (bitter, putrid) 3
terest. Several cities required specific labeling, Picks up off flavors
the addition of vitamin D, certain conditions more readily 2
with respect to the homogenizer, and the tinm Chalky 1
of honmgenizing relative to pasteurization. Di- Off odor, if fortified 1
rectly opposite regulations existed on the latter. Inadequate homogenization 19 12.2
4. What test do you follow in checking effi- Cream plug (spaghetti
ring; fat separation) 13
ciency of homogenization? Meeting top-and-bottom
Some respondents recognized that efficiency standards (per cent
 OUR INDUSTRY TODAY 345

difference) 4 fication. However, it still existed in some cases,

Fa~ separation in 5-gal might be obscured by the paper container, and
dispensers 2 the leukocyte problem yet remained with the
Sediment (occasional settling ; prevalence of mastitis.
leucocytes; must clarify) 10 6.4
Homogenizer 8 5.1 The bacteria problem was of relative uninl-
Air leaks (causing foaming) 2 portance percentagewise. But the occasional
Valve maintenance (im- presence of coliforms suggests the need for
proper seating) 2 closer supervision of the product after pas-
Cleaning (inexperienced teurization.
labor; poor housekeeping) 2
Temperature at time of I n the miscellaneous group were problems
homogenization 1 which sooner or later come to the attention of
Improper pressures i the processor and regulatory agency. One is
Bacteria 5 3.2 below-minimum fat test, p~obably resulting
Coliform 3 from inaccuracy of sampling or testing. Often,
High cou~ts in raw milk use o£ the Babcock test without modification is
(pinpoint colonies) 2 discouraging. Others are curdling in cookery,
Fat tests (difficult to get clear
amber fat column; Babcock adequate shelf life, occasionally thickened prod-
test must be modified; Gerber uct, and salvaging of milk fat from returns.
test preferred) 3 1.9 Fortunately, research studies have been made
Miscellaneous 8 5.1 on most of these problems, yielding solutions
Added water 1 to them.
Cooking difficulties 1
Cooling 1 SU~CI~IARY
Flaking 1
High viscosity, thickened 1 Infm~nation was sought through a ques-
Low fat in nfilk from deal- tionnaire to departments of health in 256 cities
ers standardizing too close in 50 states and the District of Columbia con-
to minimum fat standard 1 cerning the date when homogenized milk was
Salvaging of milk fat adopted officially. Replies were had from 150
on returns 1
Shelf life 1 cities (63.6%) of 43 states representing the
larger percentage of the United States popu-
156 100.0 lation.
Data reported indicate that good flavor of Responses indicated that the great surge o£
homogenized milk cannot be taken for granted. legalizing homogenized milk sales in the United
Flavor p¢oblems, especially those associated States came from 1935 to 1939, inclusive. A
with light, do occur. Unfortunately, off-flavor few permitted homogenized milk before 1930;
designation reveals little of its specific nature, by 1950, virtually all cities had provision in
but perhaps is associated more frequently with their ordinances for this product.
light. Since cream line was no longer of concern,
Inadequate or inefficient homogenization ac- milk intended for homogenization was heat-
counted for 24% of all problems reported, treated above those exposures which preserved
being second only to those on flavor, which the creaming ability. I n the ease of holder
commanded 33% of them all. I n this group- pasteurization, the majority of plants report-
ing, fat-ring formation was of most concern. ing heated the milk at 145 to 149 F for 30 rain;
Under this situation difficulty would be en- H T S T from 160 to 1 7 4 F for 15 to 20 see.
countered in complying with the 10% fat dif- The majority of regulations placed no spe-
ferential between the upper 100 ml and the cific requirements on homogenized milk beyond
remainder of the quart after 48 hr of quiescent those for nonhomogenized milk; a minority
storage. F a t rising in bulk dispensers, re- had specific requirements, some of which were
ported by two, while seemingly of little sig- irrelevant to public health.
nificance should be watched. I f bulk dispensing The 48-hr quiescent storage top-and-bottom
becomes extensive, as present installations in- test was the prevailing one used for checking
dicate, sampling for fat content might not be homogenization efficiency, although several
representative and the dealer will be charged others were employed.
with low percentage o£ fat. This situation Nearly one-half of the respondents en-
might account for such a problem listed raider countered no problems with homogenized milk.
miscellaneous. The other half reported va~ious off-flavors, fat
Despite virtually 100% aeeeptance of elaxi- rising, sedimentation, difficulty in fat testing,
fication, sedimentation in honmgenized milk coliforms, machine troubles, and several less
still bears watching. Many respondents said frequent problems. Most were surmountable
sediment was no problem since adopting clari- by closer supervision and prevention.