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