I have put together a bit of an introduction to the current review of the raw milk rules. My aim is to explain the lay of the land to someone who is a bit interested but doesn’t really have the time required to get their heads into it. Hopefully its in a more digestible format than offered by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).
Direct quotes are in the blue boxes, my words are not. It is only a few pages of easy reading, so check it out and follow the links at the bottom to make a submission, fill in the survey or hunt out more info. Its all due on the 8th of July.
James Andrews
A raw milkie
An interpretation for raw milk supporters
Government Raw Milk Review
The basic problem/starting point as identified by MPI:
The consumption of raw milk is causing some people to get sick, but the
amount being drunk appears to be increasing. The existing law is unclear and
this has led to some confusion about the rules that apply
So they (“they” from now on will be MPI) want to know what we think...
The Ministry for Primary Industries seeks feedback from interested people and organisa-
tions on options to change the requirements on the sale of raw milk to consumers
They have already decided that drinking raw milk is a bad idea.
MPI does not recommend drinking raw milk. In particular, the young, frail elderly, pregnant and
immuno-compromised avoid consuming raw milk because they are at greatest risk from infection.
They dedicate a paper (see link at the bottom of
this email) to largely refuting the following health
claims made for raw milk:
Claim 1 “Raw milk has a higher nutritional value than pasteurised milk”
Claim 2 “People with lactose intolerance can drink raw milk”
Claim 3 “Pasteurisation destroys/inactivates beneficial antimicrobial systems and enzymes”
Claim 4 “Consuming raw milk helps the development of a strong immune system
and prevents the development of allergies, asthma and atopy. People with
these conditions will have worse symptoms if they drink pasteurised milk”
I get the feeling they would prefer to ban it altogether, but…
The difficulty in effectively implementing a prohibition led us to consider it would not be a via-
ble option…… and…..Compliance action and vigorous enforcement would be needed to ensure
raw milk was no longer sold direct to consumers. This would impose a cost on government.
They know we wouldn’t accept a ban anyway
MPI considers that an underground market would likely result.
So, rather than try to knock it on the head entirely, they
are attempting to regulate it as heavily as they think they
can get away with. They have rejected retail sales and
farmers market sales as an option on the basis that the in-
creased distribution would see corresponding increases in
illness.
Option 1: sales only from the farm to consumers with restrictions on the quantity a dairy
farmer could sell each day (40L) and the amount a consumer could purchase (6L).
This would knock over probably hundreds of farmers with thriving businesses that are supplying raw milk around
the country. I don’t think this is a serious proposal, but more of a bottom place holder – something to be relieved
that we didn’t end up with.
Option 2: sales only from the farm directly to consumers, and no quantity limits, provided strict requirements
are followed (less strict for those selling under 40L per day)
What I like about option 2 and 3 is that they both allow for a less regulated environment for the small producer
(under 40L a day). BUT the devil will be in the detail. Exactly how restricting the regulations turn out to be will
make all the difference.
Option 3: sales from the farm as under option 2, plus home deliveries by the farmer directly to the consumer
MPI’s proposed options:
Raw milk is dangerous. It offers no health benefits, and it is a risk that people seem determined to expose themselves to.
If we accept that to be true, then their suggested options are a reasonable approach to harm minimisation. That is why its im-portant to feedback on their proposed options, as well as making it clear that their base assumptions are flawed
I would suggest an alternative starting point that goes something like this:
Raw milk and the raw products derived from it are cornerstones of robust health. The health benefits of raw
dairy greatly outweigh the risks they present when basic hygiene and animal husbandry practices are fol-
lowed. Overzealous regulation will do unseen damage by denying significant portions of the population a nutri-
tious, foundational food.
So my suggestion is to make a submission, and of their proposed options dismiss option 1 out of hand and pre-
fer option 3, so long as the regulations aren’t too onerous. But also I think that it is crucial to keep banging
away at the foundation of their argument – tell your stories if you have them of health benefits, share any arti-
cles or info of any kind that erodes the germ phobic mentality that intact biology is all risk and no reward, and
that annihilating biology through pasteurisation (and irradiation, UHT, fumigation etc) is all reward and no risk.
MPI’s starting point is essentially that:
To make a an online submission to MPI on their proposed options:
Raw Milk Online Submission due 5pm 8th July
To complete the Raw Milk Survey for MPI to use the info collected
Experience of Raw Milk Survey
MPI supporting info
An Assessment of the Effects of Pasteurisation on Claimed Nutrition and Health Benefits of Raw Milk
Assessment of the microbiological risks associated with the consumption of raw milk
Public discussion paper on the sale of raw milk to consumers
MPI’s relevant links:
Links worth browsing
Raw Milk Reality: Is Raw Milk Dangerous?
www.realmilk.com
Anti Pasteurisation