- PDF Version (216K) - Print Friendly - Help

Proposed framework for the manufacture, importation and sale of raw milk products

6 Possible options considered by NZFSA and analysis of their impacts

In considering the approach to take with regard to the New Zealand production and importation of raw milk products, NZFSA considered four possible options:

• Option 1: To maintain the status quo;

• Option 2: To maintain the status quo and, in addition, not consider any further applications for case-by-case assessments that could allow importation of raw milk products not already available New Zealand;

• Option 3: To develop a framework, based on risk to consumers, which would allow both New Zealand production of some raw milk products and the importation of a similar range of raw milk products while maintaining an acceptable level of protection for consumers; and

• Option 4: To allow all types of raw milk products to be both made in New Zealand and imported into New Zealand, regardless of the risk they pose to consumers.

The potential positive and negative impacts of each of these options are analysed below.

The preferred option of NZFSA is Option 3.

6.1 Analysis of options

6.1.1 Option 1: To maintain the status quo

Potential positive impacts of Option 1 include:

• A small range of raw milk cheeses would continue to be available in New Zealand, maintaining some limited access to raw milk products for New Zealand consumers.

• There would be no need for resources to be devoted to developing either a framework for raw milk products, or the necessary standards to implement this framework.

Potential negative impacts of Option 1 include:

• The restrictions on the range of raw milk products available would be unpopular with those who advocate consumer choice, or those who consider raw milk products have desirable flavour, quality or health properties.

• New Zealand legislation would continue to allow for domestic dairy producers to apply to NZFSA for approval to manufacture raw milk products under an RMP or FSP, but in practice there would still be no technical criteria or other guidance material to assist with the development, evaluation, assessment for registration and subsequent verification of such a programme. This would be likely to deter local production, as has been the case in the past, and to prevent local manufacturers from diversifying into new market niches, both in New Zealand and overseas.

• NZFSA would continue to assess, on a case-by-case basis, any additional raw milk products which importers might apply to bring into New Zealand. This is a slow, resource intensive process that can potentially result in inconsistencies between the treatment of imported and domestic products, and between different imported products.

• Overseas suppliers wishing to export raw milk products to New Zealand (other than those varieties approved by case-by-case assessments) would be unable to do so.

• Australia is considering developing a regulatory framework which, if approved, would allow for the production and importation of a wider range of raw milk products in Australia. Should this occur, NZFSA and FSANZ would need to work to facilitate trade of these products. This would exacerbate the anomalous situation for those interested in manufacturing raw milk products in New Zealand, or create an anomaly for those interested in importing such products directly from markets other than Australia.

• The EC and some EU member states have expressed interest in New Zealand allowing a wider range of raw milk products to be more readily imported; but this option would not facilitate such trade.

6.1.2 Option 2: To maintain the status quo and, in addition, not consider any further applications for case-by-case assessments that could allow importation of raw milk products not already available in New Zealand

Potential positive impacts of Option 2 include:

As for Option 1 above, but would also include that:

• Some local manufacturers may consider this Option more equitable than Option 1. This is because no further varieties of raw milk products, other than those already on the New Zealand market, could be imported in the future.

• Those that consider that raw milk products pose significant health risks to vulnerable consumers (despite proposed risk mitigation strategies) may welcome this Option as it would prevent wider importation and production of raw milk products.

Potential negative impacts of Option 2

As for Option 1 above, but would also include that:

• Some commentators could consider this Option to be inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the World Trade Organization Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement.

• Under this Option, no further case-by-case assessments of overseas made raw milk products would be undertaken. Whilst this would remove the potential for inconsistencies to arise between the treatment of imported and domestic raw milk products, it would also mean that New Zealand consumers would not have access to any other types of overseas raw milk products, other than those varieties already available.

6.1.3 Option 3: To develop a framework, based on risk to consumers, which would facilitate both New Zealand production of some raw milk products and the importation of a similar range of raw milk products, while maintaining an acceptable level of consumer protection for New Zealanders

This is NZFSA’s preferred option.

Potential positive impacts of Option 3 include:

• New Zealand consumers would have access to a wider range of raw milk products. This would be welcomed by those who advocate consumer choice and those who consider that raw milk products have desirable flavour, quality and/or health properties.

• New Zealand manufacturers could produce some raw milk products. This could allow local manufacturers to take advantage of new business opportunities both in domestic and export markets, and would ensure there is no inequity between the treatments of overseas and locally made raw milk products.

• The framework proposed by this Option would categorise raw milk products according to the level of risk that their consumption poses to human health. As a result, those raw milk products that pose higher levels of risk to New Zealand consumers would be unable to be made in, or imported into, New Zealand unless manufacturers or importers could demonstrate that processing steps could be followed to ensure products were produced to an acceptable level of safety. The framework proposed by this Option includes risk mitigation strategies (for example, consumer education and labelling), which would offer protection for public health.

• New Zealand importers could import a wider range of raw milk products directly from their countries of origin (once any Import Health Standards have been reviewed or developed by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, as may be required).

• NZFSA would assess the risks posed by imported raw milk products according to the new framework, instead of the current case-by-case basis. The current case-by-case system is resource intensive and allows for potential inconsistencies to arise between the treatment of imported and domestic products, and between different imported products.

• This Option would remove the potential for an anomaly to be created if a local manufacturer was to apply to have an RMP registered or an FSP approved for raw milk products, only to find that no technical criteria exist against which such a programme could be evaluated, assessed or verified.

• If Australia proceeds with plans to allow for the production and importation of a wider range of raw milk products, then New Zealand and Australian rules for the importation and manufacture of raw milk products would remain similar.

• New Zealand trading partners may welcome this Option.

Potential negative impacts of Option 3 include:

• Those who may consider that raw milk products pose significant health risks to vulnerable consumers (despite the proposed risk framework and risk mitigation strategies) may be concerned that an increased variety of raw milk products would be available in New Zealand.

• Raw milk products classified under NZFSA’s proposed new framework as Category 3, or high risk products, would be unable to be manufactured or imported (see Section 5.1.3 for a description of these categories). Whilst some may consider this to be an advantage, others, such as local manufacturers and those who contend that all raw milk products can provide health benefits to consumers may oppose this restriction.

• This Option would require resources to be devoted to developing the risk management framework, developing the standards necessary to implement the framework, and to educating consumers about raw milk products.

• Manufacturers and importers of raw milk products would have to follow technical criteria, and/or demonstrate that these have been met, and would need to commit resources to this process.

• This Option would require that agencies and persons are available, or can be trained, to provide verification and related services for raw milk products.

6.1.4 Option 4: To allow for all types of raw milk products to be both made in New Zealand and imported into New Zealand, regardless of risk

Potential positive impacts of Option 4 include:

• New Zealand consumers would have access to a full range of raw milk products. This could be welcomed by those who advocate consumer choice and those who consider that raw milk products have desirable flavour, quality and/or health properties.

• New Zealand manufacturers could produce raw milk products without any restriction and there would be no inequity between the treatment of overseas and locally made raw milk products.

• New Zealand importers could import the full range of raw milk products directly from their countries of origin.

Potential negative impacts of Option 4 include:

• In the absence of a framework based on risk, all types of raw milk products could be manufactured, and imported into New Zealand, regardless of the risks that they pose to public health. As some types of raw milk products do pose high risks, this could result in serious health consequences for the New Zealand population.

• An outbreak of illness associated with consumption of raw milk products could damage New Zealand’s reputation as a reliable and trusted supplier of safe and suitable food.

• If raw milk products that pose high risks to consumers were to be exported from New Zealand, a negative incident related to any such products could have a substantial and damaging impact on New Zealand’s reputation as an international exporter of food, and especially as an exporter of milk products. The success of the New Zealand dairy industry is linked to its reputation as a high quality and safe provider of products, both to export markets and to the New Zealand domestic market.

• RMPs and FSPs require that food safety risk factors are identified and controlled and/or eliminated. Allowing all types of raw milk products to be available in New Zealand, regardless of the risks that they pose, would therefore be out of step with current food safety policy and would require amendment to, or exemption from, existing legislation.

• This proposal is out of step with government policy and the approach taken in other food related legislation. Some raw milk products are a threat to public health, as evidenced by outbreaks in other countries. To knowingly allow these products to be manufactured or imported into New Zealand would expose NZFSA, and possibly the government, to a charge of relinquishing responsibility.

• New Zealand does not operate a ‘buyer beware’ approach to food – therefore importers and/or manufacturers of products that were identified as causing illness or death would be open to prosecution unless the relevant legislation (the Food Act and Animal Products Act) was amended to remove such a liability.

The scale and significance of the potential negative impacts of Option 4 calls into question the viability of this Option.