Association History 1911-2000

Acknowledgments

At the 1999 Annual Meeting in Dearborn, Michigan, President Jack Guzewich issued a call for an Association History to be written. A history document was not available and he felt that the turn of the century was an excellent time to "take a look back" at the Association’s roots. He asked for assistance from the Past Presidents and long-time Members.

Following Jack’s call, four Past Presidents volunteered to help review early Journals and Annual Reports, to pull information from printed Presidential Addresses, to look at information and extract interesting details, and to write text that would capture the essence of the important contributions this Association made to enhance public health since 1911. As it turned out, two individuals, Harry Haverland and Earl Wright carried the bulk of the weight in seeing the project through to fruition. In addition to Harry and Earl’s contributions, Jackie Runyan and David Tharp wrote sections to round out the history. Donna Bahun, Lucia Collison, Didi Loynachan, and Pam Wanninger from the Association office provided additional assistance. Helene Uhlman contributed a woman’s perspective of her 30-plus years as Member. Harold Bengsch and William LaGrange also reviewed the draft manuscript and provided meaningful guidance. To everyone who contributed time, effort and expertise to this document, we are grateful to you. Thanks also to the individual Members who devoted their time and effort to the Association from that first Meeting in Milwaukee to the present time.

The majority of information contained within this document was taken from written, Presidential Addresses presented at Association Annual Meetings. Because of relying heavily on these reports, some details of the Association history may have been overlooked.

To everyone who reads the History of the International Association for Food Protection, we hope you will enjoy it and we hope you will learn about the contributions the Association has made to improve the public’s health for over 89 years.

The Early Years

Who we are today as an organization is largely a result of how we started and how we have adapted through the years to changes in the world. How and why we started was summed up in the first Presidential Address, read at the first annual convention of what was to become, after almost nine decades, the International Association for Food Protection. The following account of the early years draws heavily on that address of 1912, much of which is worth repeating because the statements in it were to hold true for so many years to come.

In 1911, a group of men engaged in advocating improved cleanliness in milk production — men whose purpose was "producing and marketing the products of the dairy cow" — banded together because of their conviction that improvements were needed in the nation’s milk supply. The problem was not one of quantity; the supply of milk was ample for the needs of the population. Rather, the need was for better quality — bluntly, a more clean product.

The responsibility for improvement rested on producers and consumers alike, and both had fallen short: Although producers were responsible for setting a high standard of cleanliness, many had not done so, and although consumers should have been willing to pay more for clean milk than for dirty milk, most were not.

In many cities and states, laws had been passed requiring that dairies be maintained in reasonably sanitary condition and that milk meet certain minimum requirements before it could be sold in those areas. Such laws were not intended simply to prevent consumer deception by practices such as the sale of watered-down milk or adulteration of butter with cheaper substitutes. The laws were, rather, often a matter of life and death. Diseases rampant at that time — typhoid fever, diphtheria, scarlet fever, pneumonia, tuberculosis — were known to be spread via the milk supply. Further, it had been shown that if a city efficiently supervised the production and sale of milk, this alone could greatly reduce its infant mortality rate. Conservation of human life and prevention of disease, then, were the goals of those early pioneers in milk sanitation.

Why then, was milk inspection still so ineffective in many parts of the United States and other parts of the world that an organization such as the Inter-national Association of Milk and Dairy Inspectors was seen as a pressing need?

Both milk producers and milk inspectors had to bear some of the responsibility. Milk inspectors included some men who had been appointed to the office purely as a reward for loyalty to the political party currently in power; some had obtained their positions despite having "absolutely no practical or theoretical knowledge of the fundamental principles of milk production, transportation or distribution." In some areas, veterinarians had attempted to monopolize the dairy inspection field, claiming unique qualifications for this line of work despite the fact that neither their training nor their experience fitted them for it. Understandably, milk producers often refused to listen to such men: Why should a dairy producer be taught by "inspectors whose knowledge of the dairy industry is less than that of the men whose business and premises they are appointed to inspect?"

Clearly, what was needed was a cadre of specially trained and experienced inspectors, perhaps coming out of the nation’s agricultural colleges or perhaps resulting from the less formal but often no less valuable process of supervised on-the-job experience. Such inspectors could offer instruction on cattle feeding and care; on improvements in barns for housing cattle; on construction and care of dairy equipment; and on the best methods of milking and then of handling the milk between the time it left the cow and the time it was bought by the consumer. Most important, the advice offered by such well-informed inspectors would very likely be accepted and put into practice by dairy farmers, because it would be "more likely to secure the confidence and cooperation of the men on the farms who are daily engaged in this work" than "the more sensational wielding of the ‘big stick’ could ever be."

A 1912 document (see Appendix A) listed 35 Members, two of whom were from outside the United States (one from Canada and one from Australia). Nineteen of them held positions in the central United States. By 1913 (the time of the second annual convention) the organization had a constitution, which it duly published; this document sets forth qualification for Membership as "any person who now is or who has been actively engaged in dairy or milk inspection," announced the annual dues of five dollars, and decreed the object of the Association: To develop "uniform and efficient inspection of dairy farms, milk establishments, milk and milk products" by "men who have a thorough knowledge of dairy work."

In 1913, the International Association of Dairy and Milk Inspectors published its First Annual Report, (see Appendix B) which included papers read at the annual convention held in 1912.

The time was right for the formation of such a group. The nation’s first Pure Food and Drug law had recently been passed, and interest in infant and child welfare had undergone a recent upsurge.

The name "International Association of Dairy and Milk Inspectors" might almost seem a misnomer in view of the nationalities of the original 35 Members, only two of whom were from outside the United States. In addition, it was not until 1927 that the first Annual Meeting was held outside the United States in Canada.

Nevertheless, the organization has always been true to the spirit of the "international" part of its name. By communicating with representatives of many nations who sought the Association’s assistance, it served a vital role in the development of public health programs throughout the world, even though the majority of its Membership was drawn from the United States.

Although it was women who had primary responsibility for the rearing of infants and children, and women made up a large proportion of milk consumers; the International Association of Dairy and Milk Inspectors was an all-male group in its early years. The first statement on membership, published in 1913, declared that the Membership "shall be composed of men who are or who have been actively engaged in dairy or milk inspection." Even if the word "men" in that statement had been replaced by a term such as "individuals" or "workers," few women would have been able to meet the experience requirements. Like other professional organizations of its time, the Association saw work outside the home as a man’s sphere of interest and a man’s role.

The importance of women as purchasers of milk and nurturers of children was recognized; the President of the Association pointed out in 1914 that, although disease traceable to milk had become less common than formerly, such diseases were still greatly feared and "mothers are continually warned about feeding their children impure milk." The economic impact of such fears on the dairy industry are obvious.

The close relationship between the Association and the Department of Labor’s Children’s Bureau (under the leadership of a woman identified in Association documents only as "Miss Lathrop") was pointed out in the Welcoming Address at the 1915 convention. That same year, the Presidential Address identified the principal object of milk inspection as the providing of "a substitute which approaches, as near as possible, breast milk for infant feeding" and went so far as to suggest that "the visiting nurse in the home of the newborn babe is surely as essential in educating the consumer to the proper handling of milk" as was the milk inspector’s work in milk production.

The ‘20s

Nevertheless, early records show little or no active participation in the Association by women. Not until 1920 did a woman, a Milk Utilization Specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, first address the Association Membership at the Annual Meeting.

In 1921, the Presidential Address stressed that the progress achieved in milk and dairy sanitation in California was largely because of the influence of "the 60,000 women club members who have the right of suffrage." Thus, although women were still not welcomed into the profession of milk and dairy inspection, they were exerting increasing influence outside the home through their own organizations, which worked for laws requiring, for example, tuberculin testing of dairy cows and pasteurization of dairy products.

It was in 1924 that an actual research paper was given at the Annual Meeting by a woman, who presented results of her observations on school children served "milk lunches." The following year, a woman speaker gave a report in her capacity as chairperson of the Committee on Securing a Satisfactory Supply of Raw Milk for Pasteurization, and in 1928, a woman first gave a presentation on a technical subject, on improvement of pasteurization plants.

Some of the social aspects of the Association attracted large numbers of women, however, as seen in remarks such as those delivered by the dinner speaker at the 1936 meeting: "We are pleased to have so many ladies present. As my speech was prepared for gentlemen only, much of it must be deleted."

The increasing participation of women in the workforce during the late 1930s, and even more so during World War II, was reflected in greater participation of women in Association activities. After the Journal of Milk Technology replaced the annual yearbook as the official publication of the Association in 1937, a woman was a member of its staff of editors by 1942, and among new Association Members listed for 1943 was the first full-fledged female Member — a woman serving as chief microbiologist in the Department of Health in Hartford, Connecticut.

For the most part, presentations given at the Annual Meetings were thoughtful and informative. However, not all were equally accurate. Some, in fact, had more of the flavor of cheerleading than of instructing. An example is seen in the Address of Welcome at the 1920 Meeting, delivered by the Dean of the University Farm School in Davis, California, and President of the National Dairy Council: "When we teach the mother of a pale-faced, bow-legged, anemic child that all he needs is a quart of milk a day to make him healthy, we are rendering a real service to that mother and society…". A statement such as this may have had a commendable purpose (it was an attempt to increase milk consumption by youngsters), but it contained more enthusiasm than accuracy. As we know today, "pale-faced," "anemic" children need iron, of which milk is a naturally poor source; and bow legs, if caused by rickets, can be prevented by vitamin D, which in 1920 was not yet being added to milk as a fortification measure.

In his response to the welcoming address and his presentation to the Membership, the International Association of Dairy and Milk Inspectors President thoughtfully analyzed some of the problems inherent in milk inspection programs of the time. Inspectors cannot, he stated, allow sympathy for the industry’s problems to eclipse the necessary duty of safeguarding the industry’s products. At the same time, a fuller understanding of the dairy industry’s problems — including, and perhaps especially, its economic problems — might make the inspector more effective in the long run: "…we may have the privilege of helping spread the gospel of more and better milk throughout the country" because when a dairyman is better off economically, "we will get much better results from him from a sanitary standpoint." In short, successful dairymen can better afford the time and money required to produce more milk and better quality milk.

Economic factors continued to be important throughout the following years. When the 1921 Meeting was held in New York City, that city was in the midst of a strike by the milk deliverymen. Nevertheless, the Annual Meetings continued to emphasize the healthfulness of dairy products, their importance as foods for adults as well as for children and infants, and the need for laws providing for pasteurization of all milk and cream unless it was known to be from a certifiably safe source.

The inadequacy and multiplicity of laws and regulations resulted in much confusion, as was pointed out at the 1922 Meeting. For example, a Massachusetts law provided that a license could be given to any milk dealer who could be shown to be a "suitable person." Someone with no knowledge of sanitary methods, who did not consider cleanliness a necessity or even very important, and who thought of inspectors as pests to be outwitted could nevertheless become a licensed milk dealer if only he could persuade the licensing authorities that he was a "suitable person." Pasteurization, with its pipes, pumps, and other apparatus, provided additional necessary inspection points, with their accompanying legal requirements. It had been established by that time that bovine tuberculosis, once considered a serious threat to cattle but only a negligible danger to humans, was indeed transmissible to humans via milk, milk products, and meats from infected animals. Laws to protect the public from transmission of such a serious disease were therefore imperative.

In 1923, the Association defined pasteurization in terms of the conditions necessary for its proper performance and endorsed the procedure as "the only adequate safeguard for milk supplies." Within the previous decade, opposition to pasteurization had lessened somewhat as the public had become increasingly aware of the importance of milk to health as well as the importance of proper milk handling in preventing diseases that milk might otherwise have caused.

By 1924, the Membership was approximately 200, representing four countries outside the United States and Canada, as well as 32 states and the District of Columbia within the United States. The "international" character of the Association was evident in the list of countries requesting copies of the annual reports in which the proceedings of the Annual Meetings were published. With Members and other interested parties so widely scattered, many who might have wished to attend the conventions could not do so, and the published reports were especially valuable for keeping those individuals informed and making them feel a part of the organization.

A major topic at the 1925 Annual Meeting was the lack of uniformity in milk-related ordinances. A producer or dealer might find it impossible to sell in more than one municipality because different areas sometimes had regulations that were not only different, but sometimes in direct conflict. Attempts to prevent fraud (for example, by watering down milk) and to insure the sanitary condition of milk supplies were sometimes so complex that they had negative effects on the ease with which this desirable product could be supplied. The Presidential Address at the 1926 Meeting dealt at length on the need for "adaptation of existing regulatory mechanisms to prevailing conditions" so that "more thorough control is exercised over the fundamental requirements and less effort expended on obsolete and unenforceable non-essentials." The fact that the country was in the midst of Prohibition might have contributed to the questioning of "unenforceable nonessentials" that were undoubtedly seen as not confined to laws on milk alone.

The "international" aspect of the Association received additional emphasis in 1927 when the Annual Meeting was held in Toronto, Canada, the first Meeting to be held outside the United States.