Appendix 1 Details of submissions received on the New Zealand Food Safety Authority Public Discussion Document No 04/08 August 2008: Proposed framework for the manufacture, importation and sale of raw milk products.

Details of submissions received on the New Zealand Food Safety Authority Public Discussion Document No 04/08 August 2008: Proposed framework for the manufacture, importation and sale of raw milk products. -->

November 2008

The forty-three submissions received on the above discussion document are presented in the following table. Respondents have been grouped according to their affiliation. 26 were classified as “consumers”, 13 as “industry”, and four as “other”.

The summary of submissions should be considered as a whole. Reviewing comments in isolation may be misleading. Any views, opinions, or proposals contained or summarised in this document are those of the submitters and should be considered as a whole. Furthermore, they do not reflect government policy.

NZFSA thanks all submitters for their comments.

Affiliation	Submitter No	Topic (from discussion document)	Submission comment
Consumer	1	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondents support the availability of raw milk products. Respondents have personally experienced health benefits from raw milk products and have safely consumed these products for years in Germany and know many people who consume raw milk and support this view.
Consumer	2	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent wants healthy unpasteurised cheeses (both hard and soft) to be available in NZ, just as such products are available in nations such as France and Switzerland.
Consumer	3	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports a wide range of raw milk cheeses being imported into NZ (both hard & soft). Customers at the respondent’s café are keen for such cheeses to be allowed into NZ.

Consumer	4	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent believes NZ consumers should have the same options and freedom as overseas consumers to buy a wide range of raw milk products, and that raw milk cheeses have better flavours and nutritional values than other types of cheeses. Respondent currently pays a high price for raw cheese imported mainly from Europe and would rather buy similar products from a NZ producer. Respondent considers that allowing the local manufacture of raw milk cheeses would have the advantage of increasing the competitiveness of the NZ cheese making industry, also that it could encourage better farming practices, including lower use of chemical fertilisers.
Consumer	4	Other	Respondent considers allowing raw milk products to be imported into New Zealand would allow producers to have a benchmark against which to compare local production, keep our standards high and encourage “sustainable, organic local dairies”.
Consumer	5	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent would like to see both soft and hard raw milk cheeses being made available in NZ, so as to allow consumers a wider choice. Respondent considers soft unpasteurised cheeses, made using industry best practice from farm to retailer, are “just as safe as soft pasteurised cheeses”. Importing raw milk products would benefit the local cheese making industry and encourage local manufacturers to step up to the mark.
Consumer	6	Consultation process	Respondent considers the consultation process was unfriendly and not very public. Comments that the discussion document was hard to understand, and was not clear about what was to be submitted. Respondent was unable to determine if submissions could be made via the internet.
		Support for and against raw milk products	The future availability of raw milk products is strongly supported by the respondent, in particular the availability of a wide range of cheeses. The respondent regularly buys Roquefort cheese and is keen to purchase an increased range of raw milk products, either imported or locally produced.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent does not understand the proposed framework for raw milk products and is concerned it will result in only a very limited range of raw milk cheeses becoming available. Considers the material in the discussion document regarding the risk management framework is obscure, and was unable to determine the method or criteria to be applied to determine acceptable risk for raw milk products.
		Communication of risk	Respondent considers that many New Zealanders will already have an awareness of the risks associated with the consumption of raw milk products. Comments that the best way to communicate with vulnerable groups is by labelling. Suggests that raw milk products are best described as “raw milk products”.
		Other	Respondent considers the proposal “smacks of a Nanny State approach”.
Consumer	7	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports free access for NZ consumers to raw milk and all raw milk products. Considers these products are healthy and nutritious.
Consumer	8	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports raw milk cheeses being made available to all those who would like to purchase such products, including both hard and soft cheeses. Respondent knows of no public health issues which have arisen since some soft raw milk cheeses became available in NZ. Raw milk products currently available in NZ are clearly marked as such. Respondent notes that consumers who do not wish to consume raw milk products have access to a huge range of alternative pasteurised cheeses.
	8	Other	Respondent takes strong exception to the regulatory authorities determining which cheeses can be eaten by the consumer. Notes inconsistencies in New Zealand legislation as cigarettes, which are clearly dangerous, are permitted for sale whereas raw milk soft cheeses are not. Respondent is unaware of any evidence that raw milk cheese is dangerous to health.
Consumer	9	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports consumers having the freedom to make their own informed choices about the foods they eat. Soft raw milk cheeses should be allowed as well as hard.
Consumer	10	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports freedom of choice. Notes that raw milk products have been available in Europe for centuries. Opposes “social engineering” by bureaucrats.
Consumer	11	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports allowing raw milk and raw milk cheeses to be more readily made/harvested and sold in NZ, and consumers being able to choose what they eat. Considers that benefits result from consuming raw milk and raw milk cheeses, including health improvements, retained flavour and the retention of good bacteria (which suppress pathogen growth). Respondent also considers that buying raw milk products will provide consumers with more opportunity to deal with small enterprises/farmers markets and to have the opportunity to personally get to know the farmers and learn about the farms and cows from which products are harvested. The respondent comments that they would prefer to access raw drinking milk because they are no longer able to trust big business, and believes people want to know the origins of their food.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent understands there can be risks associated with raw milk products, but considers such products are safe provided they are harvested from healthy cows, raised organically and from a clean dairy.
		Communication of risk	Respondent considers that labelling of raw milk products should warn of health risks and provide the customer with the opportunity to choose.
Consumer	12	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports the availability in NZ of fresh, local raw milk and raw local organic products and strongly believes in the right of the consumer to have access to these products. Links these products with the “growing movement towards healthier eating habits and organic food culture”. Believes them to be safe and “full of beneficial attributes” provided reasonable care is taken during handling. States that “previous generations were raised on them” and respondent has “heard [of] no reasonable argument [as] to why [today’s] children shouldn’t be”.
		Other	Respondent comments that “for a country renowned for its pristine lands and superior dairy, what sort of message does it send not to allow access to simple, natural raw milk?”
Consumer	13	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent would like the freedom to make informed decisions about food that they eat and supports proposal.
	13	Other	Respondent considers that the changes to the framework for raw milk products as proposed in the discussion document are not sufficient. Instead, the respondent would strongly support greater changes to allow the retail sale of both certified raw drinking milk and raw milk products. Comments on the significant health benefits that family members have experienced as a result of consuming raw drinking milk.
Consumer	14	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent advocates that any future New Zealand legislation on raw milk products should be based on relevant laws in the European Union (EU). Respondent expects the NZ population would have similar, or better, resistance than European consumers to any hazards in raw milk products, as a higher proportion of New Zealanders have been exposed to farm animals during childhood.
	14	Communication of risk	Respondent states that “vulnerable people should be aware of their vulnerability and therefore know to avoid raw milk. It is not the state’s responsibility to protect people from themselves”.
Consumer	15	Consultation process	Respondent comments that public awareness of the consultation process has been very limited.
		Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent perceives there is a demand for raw milk products, especially amongst anyone who has travelled to Europe. Respondent would buy and consume such products if they were available as they greatly appeal, especially cheeses.
		Proposed framework	Respondent agrees with the proposed framework. Comments that the framework, categories and risk management options “seem well thought out”. Sees Option 3¹ as the most realistic, but Option 4 would be best from a consumer viewpoint.
		Communication of risk	Recommends labelling & vendor education at point of sale. Points out that raw milk products would be niche market products only, and labels should be simple e.g. saying “not suitable for consumption by…”
Consumer	16	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent considers this generation should have the same access to raw milk and raw milk products as their ancestors. Advocates that producers who have healthy animals, reared on healthy land, and who use good processing techniques should have the right to supply raw milk products. Comments that such products are healthier and safer than those made from pasteurised milk. Suggests raw milk products are more useful as they don’t “go rancid [and] rather simply change into a new product that can be used”.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent fully supports consumers having access to raw milk products, including raw milk.
		Other	Notes consumers have the right to products that cause ill health, such as cigarettes, alcohol and many foods, but do not have the right to “natural honest” products such as raw milk.
Consumer	17	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent would like the widest range of choice and to be able to make their own informed decision about purchasing hard and soft raw milk cheeses. Acknowledges, however, that safety should be a consideration when developing a framework for raw milk products.
Consumer	18	Support for and against raw milk products	Supports raw milk cheeses being produced in NZ as it is their opinion that they are traditional foods, often with superior health giving properties (compared to conventional mass produced foods). States that people should be given choice and that allowing the manufacture and sale of raw milk products will enhance our sustainability as a nation.
Consumer	19	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent considers consumers should have the right to choose what they eat and drink. Supports the manufacture and importation of raw milk products. Respondent asks NZFSA to consider allowing the sale of raw drinking milk because they believe raw drinking milk is a nutrient-dense, natural product which provides health benefits and has “built in safety features.”
Consumer	20	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent believes consumers should have choice and that raw milk and raw milk products should be allowed to be sold in New Zealand. Respondent would consume raw milk and raw milk products (especially organic) as would many of their friends if these were available. Believes these products confer health benefits and has no concerns about the safety of raw milk.
Consumer	21	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent welcomes the proposed wider availability of raw milk cheeses in NZ, including those sourced both from local manufacturers and from overseas. Respondent has enjoyed raw milk cheeses overseas, especially in Europe and has eaten Roquefort cheese since it has been available in NZ. Respondent would be more likely to choose an unpasteurised cheese, rather than a pasteurised version of the same. Respondent considers there is consumer interest in raw milk products, and that the taste and texture of such products is superior.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent agrees with the proposed category approach.² Comments that the proposed framework is an appropriate way of balancing the safety of consumers with the demand for raw milk products.
		Communication of risk	Respondent considers labelling and education should be introduced to mitigate potential risks to vulnerable consumers. As a former member of a high risk group (expectant mothers), respondent has encountered NZFSA information, on foods that pose a risk, via a number of medical caregivers. Comments that the list of ingredients for raw milk products should state they are made from “raw (unpasteurised) milk”. Respondent notes that raw milk cheeses are likely to be expensive compared to other types of cheeses, which will limit any risks of consumption to those that are prepared to afford raw milk products.
Consumer	22	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports the proposal and considers both soft and hard unpasteurised cheeses should be allowed in NZ. Comments that “soft unpasteurised cheeses produced using industry best practice from farm to retailer, are just as safe as pasteurised soft cheeses”.
Consumer	23	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports consumer choice, and both hard and soft cheeses (produced using industry best practice) being made available in New Zealand.
Consumer	24	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports the move towards allowing more unpasteurised cheese to be sold in NZ. Considers both hard and soft raw milk cheeses should be available and that soft unpasterurised cheese is as safe as pasteurised soft cheese. Considers that NZ consumers should have the right to make informed choices about the foods they eat.
Consumer	25	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports the proposed framework. Considers that NZ consumers should be allowed choice and the opportunity to buy a wider variety of both local and imported cheeses than is currently available. Respondent agrees with Section 1.2 of the discussion document that raw milk cheeses will appeal to a niche market and, as such, should not pose a risk to the majority of the population. As a consumer of raw milk products, the respondent is aware of the associated health risks, and accepts these.
	25	Other	Given the high quality of the NZ dairy industry, the respondent would be interested to see NZ raw milk cheeses being able to be produced and then exported to France.
Consumer	26	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports the removal of all restrictions on the manufacture and sale of raw milk products in NZ. Respondent is a home cheese-maker and would like to be able to purchase more than five litres of raw drinking milk per day for personal use.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent supports Option 4 in the discussion document and opposes the Government making decisions about which foods are safe to consume.
		Communication of risk	Respondent comments that clear labelling will mitigate the risks that raw milk products pose to consumers. Also notes that only a small proportion of consumers will be interested in raw milk products, and this will also mitigate health risks.
Industry	27	General comment	This respondent represents a dairy industry body and comments that, whilst a wide range of views may be held by the body’s individual members, the views expressed in the submission are those which are consistent amongst members. Individual members with differing views have been encouraged to provide separate comment to NZFSA.
		Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent group supports the notion that raw milk products should be able to be made in NZ, especially as such products can be imported.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent body supports the proposed framework. Considers that dividing raw milk products into three risk categories is a sensible approach. No significant concerns have been expressed by the body’s members around the proposed Categories 1 & 3. The respondent expects that cheese makers in NZ will be most likely to first (and possibly exclusively) make raw milk cheeses that would fall under Category 1. As Category 3 products will not be able to be made/sold in NZ, members are unlikely to have concerns about the products that fall into this Category. The widest range of views, debate and concerns amongst members of the industry body centre around Category 2, and in particular the perceived versus actual safety of products in this Category, and the prescriptive measures that will need to be met before such products can be sold.
		Communication of risk	Respondent body considers consumer education is a must. High risk groups are not the only ones who should be informed about raw milk products, as other members of society may pass on misinformation to those at risk. Members of the industry body vary in their opinions over the nature of labelling for raw milk products, but accept that labelling in some form will be a requirement.
		Imports	Respondent considers that, if raw milk products can be imported, it is reasonable to allow domestic manufacture and the converse should apply: “If we can’t make it and sell it in NZ, then no one else should be allowed to import and sell it”.
		Exports	Respondent states that NZFSA has to ensure that importing requirements are met when issuing export certification. Members of the industry body who already export will be aware of these issues.
		Cost recovery	Members think that those who are not making raw milk products should not be expected to subsidise those who are making such products.
		Other	Respondent then summarised various questions that had been posed by its members as follows: • “How do we ensure those who don’t know how to make a good cheese don’t make bad raw milk cheese and affect everyone’s market?” • “What are the likely issues regarding cross-contamination for premises that make both raw milk and heat treated milk on the same site?” • “Will raw milk products be able to be released for sale prior to final product testing, or only after clear results [have been] obtained?” • “Will heat treated products from the same site require the same testing?” • “What are the labelling implications (think peanut labelling) for those making raw and cooked products in the same site?” • “If a company wishes to make Category 1 cheese, will the milk harvesting requirements be the same as for heat treated milk products or those proposed as Category 2? Is this practical logistically?” • “If there is a debate about whether a product should be classified as Category 1 or 2, or Category 2 or 3, will NZFSA err on the side of caution or side with robust scientific evidence?” Some members of the industry body consider that raw milk products should only be able to be made under a Risk Management Programme under the Animal Products Act 1999, but others are comfortable with such products being made under a Food Safety Programme under the Food Act 1981.

Industry	28	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent considers that raw milk cheeses have better flavour and more complexity that those made from pasteurised milk. The respondent expects customer demand for such cheeses to increase if they are allowed to be sold in NZ. Respondent notes that NZ has a Treaty Level sanitary agreement with the European Community, and considers NZ should therefore accept all products made in Europe, under European food safety legislation, as safe. Respondent considers raw milk is acceptable as an ingredient in specialist cheese making in NZ (as it is in the UK) but that in large scale processes, where raw milk would need to be transported from several sources, pasteurisation is necessary to ensure product safety. Respondent strongly supports the right of NZ cheese makers to develop Food Safety Programmes and Risk Management Programmes to produce raw milk cheeses for domestic and export sales
	28	Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent generally agrees with Option 3. Respondent expresses concern that consumer warnings proposed by NZFSA are solely focussed on whether or not the cheese is pasteurised, rather than on intrinsic risks such as moisture level and pH levels. Respondent recommends that importers should be required to submit analysis and test results for individual raw milk cheeses from specific overseas manufacturers, rather than relying on results for generic cheese types such as camembert or brie, as these can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. These individual analyses and test results could determine the category into which a cheese falls. Respondent considers that imports of Category 1 products should be allowed to enter New Zealand with only minimal monitoring on entry to NZ, but that Category 2 imports should be monitored on entry into New Zealand and randomly tested.
Industry	29	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent believes there is strong demand in NZ for raw milk products, and bases this opinion on contact with customers. Puts forward the view that it is unacceptable for NZ to import but not to allow local manufacture of these products.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent supports Option 3. Considers that Category 2 is very broad and would cover over 90% of cheese types. Considers that appropriate controls, as laid down by Food Safety Programmes, should allow manufacture of such products with an acceptably low risk.
		Communication of risk	Respondent considers that the labelling proposals in the discussion document “appear to be sensible”. However, they consider that warning statements on labels may have an undesirable effect of implying such products are intrinsically risky or unsafe. Respondent has noted that vulnerable groups seem to be informed about the risks associated with raw milk products, judging by questions posed by pregnant women buying cheese from the markets at which the respondent sells product.
		Costs	Respondent considers it important that future compliance costs associated with raw milk products are kept at a level that will not deter small producers.
		Alternative Options	Respondent suggests that a separate category should be developed for hard cheeses and that this category should be split into (a) extra hard grating cheeses and (b) hard cheeses.
Industry	30	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports the proposed framework to allow raw milk products to be made in NZ. Respondent has personally observed health benefits from the consumption of these products and would like to be able to distribute such products through an organic co-operative.
	30	Proposed framework for raw milk products	Prefers Option 3 but considers this should be limited to manufacture in NZ without importation of similar products. Considers that a costly additional infrastructure should not be required for raw milk products because NZ already has developed health regulations and monitoring systems.
		Communication of risk	Respondent considers clear labelling for raw milk products, that is readily understandable by the average layperson, is important.
		Alternative options	Respondent recommends that only the manufacture of raw milk products should be allowed, with no imports of similar products.
Industry	31	Consultation process	Respondent was concerned that their local organic/health food shop was unaware of the discussion document.
	31	Support for and against raw milk products	As a consumer, the respondent supports NZ production and importation of raw milk products such as raw milk yoghurt, quark etc. The respondent would buy raw milk cheeses if they were available and appreciates the diversity and depth of flavour of raw milk cheeses. The respondent points out that there is a commercial incentive for raw milk cheeses to be of high quality because a solid customer base for such products cannot be built by selling inferior product. Respondent expects that raw milk product manufacturers (& original harvesters of raw milk) would have to be scrupulously clean and knowledgeable, otherwise problems would ensue, causing loss of profit. Respondent considers that the denaturation of milk during pasteurisation changes the properties of the milk and leaves it more vulnerable than raw milk to infection or re-infection by e.g. Listeria. Also comments that ”pasteurising milk makes the [resulting] cheese twice as slow to mature” and that “customer’s want cheese free of the additives required in large scale production to counteract this”. As a cheese manufacturer, the respondent wishes to make soft milk raw cheese. States that the framework does not distinguish between cheese made directly on the farm (where more controls are possible) and cheeses made from milk which is harvested using farm practices unknown to the manufacturer and then shipped over a distance.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent suggests that raw milk cheeses would not be a danger to public health if stringent audit requirements and the risk management options outlined in the discussion document (section 5.2.1.) were to be introduced. Respondent notes the difference that clean pastures, and no silage, or very clean silage in the diet of animals, has on harvested raw milk.
		Communication of risk	Respondent suggests clear labelling using the phrase “Raw milk cheese”, and clearly visible best before dates are recommended by the respondent. Respondent considers that the market segment interested in buying raw milk products would be prepared to pay higher prices and be capable of assessing food risks.
Industry	32	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent is an industry group that the respondent represents supports increasing the range of milk products manufactured in, and imported to, NZ to include raw milk products as this would satisfy consumers who believe the flavour and nutritional attributes of these products are superior. Respondent also considers that business opportunities would arise from the increased availability of raw milk products. Respondent is aware of biosecurity and food safety risks associated with raw milk products, and therefore support is contingent on adequate processing standards being developed for such products. The respondent understands that these standards will be the subject of the next round of consultation.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent supports Option 3 and the proposal proceeding to the next stage, which will allow further consultation on the draft technical and legal requirements.
		Communication of risk	Respondent supports proposal to raise public awareness about the risks of consumption of raw milk products and supports appropriate labelling of such products.
Industry	33	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports proposed framework.
		Industry view	Respondent receives numerous enquiries from customers seeking to buy certified organic raw milk goat cheeses, rather than pasteurised cheeses. Respondent would produce these products if this was possible and considers this would benefit both their customers and their business.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent believes that the health benefits of raw milk products outweigh the risks. Considers that good cheese making begins with a healthy, stress-free animal that produces top quality disease free milk, collected under the highest hygienic conditions. Animal welfare considered to be paramount. Respondent supports Option 4 and considers that organic semi-hard goat cheeses, matured for 90 days, would fit into Category 2 in the proposed framework.
		Communication of risk	Respondent supports labelling to ensure that customers are informed about raw milk products.

Industry	34	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports progressing the framework for raw milk products through to the next stage of public consultation. Supports the principle that alternative technologies to pasteurisation be allowed in dairy production, provided that the associated risks are managed. Respondent considers that the reputation of the NZ dairy industry is of paramount importance and must not be put at risk by any outcome of the proposal.
	34	Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent believes more detail needs to be provided about the types of raw milk products that will fit into each category, together with the associated risk assessment and control measures, before the effectiveness of the proposed framework can be assessed.
Industry	35	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent expresses support for raw milk products to be made available. Respondent states it is reasonable to allow the NZ dairy industry to make products that can be imported. The respondent’s company plans only to make cheeses that would fit into Category 1.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent favours the proposed category approach. States that the manufacture and consumption of Category 2 cheeses will pose risks, and that if someone is made ill by one of these cheeses the resulting publicity could also affect the heat treated version of that cheese. Respondent raises a concern that, while harvesting of raw milk would fall under a Risk Management Programme governed by the Animal Products Act, any future processing of raw milk would be covered by a Food Safety Programme developed under the Food Act. Respondent is less confident in the administration of the Food Act requirements, compared to those of the Animal Products Act. Recommends that NZFSA should have control over at least the manufacture of products in Category 2, if not the manufacture of all raw milk products, for at least the first few years while auditors, consumers and all systems for raw milk products are generally bedded down.
		Communication of risk	Respondent believes that consumer education about raw milk products is a must and that education needs to cover a wider range of people than just the most vulnerable groups, as often it is those who are not at risk who provide misinformation to those at risk. Respondent considers labelling for raw milk products is very important and the terminology used must be consistent with that used in education programmes.
		Import	Respondent states “If we can’t make it and sell it in NZ then no-one else should be able to import that product and sell it”. Respondent advocates that the same rules and standards should apply to both locally and overseas made raw milk products.
		Cost	Respondent considers that those companies that are not making raw milk products should not have to subsidise those who are, nor should NZ dairy companies have to fund consumer education programmes.
		Other	Respondent anticipates that, when more information becomes available about the details of the proposal, a greater number of submissions can be expected.
Industry	36	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent considers there is a demand for cheeses of the type that would fall into Category 1 and is interested in producing cheeses that would fall into this Category.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent agrees with the Category approach. Suggests suitable requirements for future Good Operating Practices for raw milk products should cover aspects including fast acid development, temperature controls, maximum moisture content and minimum curing times.
		Communication of risk	Respondent considers raw milk cheese should be labelled with the words “made from raw milk”.
Industry	37	Consultation process	Respondent comments that consultation has been conducted in an appropriate manner that aligns with “requirements for transparency”.
	37	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports Option 3 and comments that raw milk cheese has been available in many European countries for years, with low risks to the general population. Respondent considers raw milk cheeses are likely to be the product of most significance, should the proposed framework proceed, but that there may also be interest in processing raw milk products that contain bioactive compounds sensitive to current pasteurisation processes.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent considers the category approach proposed is practical, risk based, developed in conjunction with FSANZ, and will meet NZ’s obligations under the Trans Tasman Mutual recognition Agreement (TTMRA). Notes that the proposed framework should align with NZ’s World Trade Organisation obligations. Points out that the preferred level of safety outlined in the discussion document is one that poses a low risk to the general population with a higher risk to vulnerable groups, combined with labelling and education strategies.
		Communication of risk	Respondent concludes that the consumer education strategies proposed in the discussion document are relevant. Considers that point of sale information is also important. Respondent suggests other useful strategies may be to work with senior citizen’s clubs and to develop further information to be distributed through the internet. Also suggests that NZFSA consider a mandatory font size on labels, as the elderly population is a sector with reduced visible acuity.
		Other	Respondent agrees that collaboration with FSANZ is important. Respondent considers that raw milk products are most likely to be classified as high regulatory interest foods under the new import food regime and to be imported from countries with which NZ has a country to country arrangement. Comments that this issue is not addressed in the discussion document in the assessment of the positive and negative impacts of the proposed options, and that NZFSA has not identified any alternative regulatory options that might apply if raw milk products are not classified as high regulatory interest foods. As a result, the respondent concludes that NZFSA has already formed a view about the framework and the parameters that will be required for imported products.
Industry	38	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports the rights of consumers to have access to raw milk and raw milk products. Believes health benefits can be derived from raw milk products, if the milk is harvested from healthy animals on healthy land with proper techniques. Notes that raw milk products have been available for generations in other parts of the world and believes New Zealanders should have the same access to such products. Respondent is aware of a clear demand for such products amongst NZ consumers, as evidenced by feedback from the respondent’s staff and family members. Respondent considers that permitting the sale and manufacture of raw milk products would have a positive impact on their business. As the owner of an organic and biodynamic property, the respondent would investigate opportunities to produce and sell raw milk and raw milk products under an appropriate regulatory framework.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent considers that appropriate consumer education about the possible risks associated with raw milk products may be justified.
		Other	Respondent considers that raw drinking milk should be allowed for sale.
Industry	39	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports the manufacture and sale of safe raw milk products and considers that opportunity exists for a small volume of such products to be sold in the NZ market. Respondent asks for a definition of the term “raw milk product” with regard to milk content, the addition of other ingredients, and further processing.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent supports the proposed framework and category approach. Respondent considers more work is needed to define the criteria for the three categories. Respondent notes that the preliminary risk management options outlined in the discussion document broadly cover the need to reduce the risk of illness due to consumption of raw milk products. Respondent expects more detail to be provided in future regarding the extra testing that will be required of milk processors.
		Communication of risk	Respondent advocates that consumer risk should be minimised by only allowing low to medium risk products to be made in NZ and by ensuring NZ consumers are educated. Respondent comments that more development work is needed relating to the labelling of raw milk products, as this is potentially the only information that consumers will see relating to raw milk and its risks. Suggests that labelling should carry a warning – a possible alternative to the term “raw milk” is “no heat-treated milk”.
Other	40	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent represents a group of academics who do not support the proposed framework and favours the maintenance of the status quo, ie pasteurisation of milk and milk products manufactured and sold in New Zealand. Concern is expressed that the proposed legislation would put an unnecessary burden on the consumer to make the right choice from a food safety perspective. Acknowledges that certain cheeses can be manufactured safely from raw milk, but considers that minimising, rather than eliminating, the risks associated with the manufacture of raw milk products will require complex regulations and guidelines which will be difficult to monitor and are not worth pursuing. States that technology is currently available (e.g. the use of starter adjuncts) to enhance the flavour of products such as cheese without introducing the risks associated with raw milk products. Also states that there are inconsistencies in unpasteurised products, as their flavours can be unpredictable. Comments that there are no nutrients in raw milk that are not found in pasteurised milk and that are in deficit in the New Zealand diet.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent considers that the key drivers for the proposed framework are linked to giving consumers the right to choose and to falling into line with other countries, such as Australia, which are considering similar changes to allow production of raw milk products. However, considers that not all consumers have sufficient information and knowledge to make a wise choice about the products that they eat, and many do not understand the value of pasteurisation. Respondent comments that the risks posed by raw milk products are too great, and notes recent food safety incidents in Canada associated with raw milk products. Respondent states that current studies, which may provide relevant data about raw milk products, are not yet complete.
		Communication of risk	Respondent notes that demographic changes (relating to age and illness) are increasing the proportion of the population susceptible to food poisoning and to risks from consuming raw milk products. Respondent considers that consumer education would not be as effective, in terms of managing risks, as legislation requiring mandatory pasteurisation. Notes that whilst the NZ education programme aimed at the handling of chicken failed to reduce the risk of Campylobacter, the introduction of new controls in the poultry industry have been more effective in reducing the incidence of food borne illness related to chicken consumption.
		Other	Respondent considers risk management should favour the elimination of risks wherever possible, as is occurring internationally. Refers to NZFSA’s mandate which confirms that “consumer protection is the organisation’s number one priority”.
Other	41	Consultation process	Respondent considers the consultation process to be “good”.
		Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent is opposed to proposed changes and cites references to support this opposition. Respondent considers that the risks of contracting enteric zoonotic infections, such as Salmonella, Listeria, E coli and Campylobacter, from cattle are always present. States that current indirect testing for E. coli can minimise these risks, but specific pathogen testing for these organisms is impractical and cattle cannot be guaranteed free of these infections. Respondent notes that no data was produced in the discussion document to show the level of pathogens in NZ bulk milk. Comments that these levels are likely to be low, but intermittent and highly unpredictable. Respondent states that overseas (United States) data has shown that 13% of bulk milk samples contain one or more species of pathogens, and that human illness in NZ of milk-borne origin appears to have been very low since pasteurisation became widespread. Respondent is concerned that the current food borne disease surveillance programme in New Zealand may not be capable of detecting any increase in human illness that may result from raw milk products becoming more widely available in future. Comments that, in the United States, outbreaks of milk borne illness are greater in those states where it is legal to sell raw milk. Respondent believes that alleged health claims relating to raw milk have never been substantiated. Respondent notes that no information is presented in the discussion document as to what percentage of the NZ population falls into the YOPI (young, old, pregnant and immuno-compromised) category, but that a recent US study showed that 20% of the population could be categorised as YOPI at any one time, and this percentage is likely to increase. Respondent comments that NZFSA has produced good informational materials dealing with pregnancy and immune related illnesses but that it is not proven how effective these are.
		Other	Respondent expressed concern that damage to the dairy industry may result if NZ eliminates a process (pasteurisation) which has provided assurances of safety over many years. Refers to NZFSA’s mandate to protect consumers and as a result is “disappointed” at the proposed framework for raw milk products.
Other	42	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent is opposed to the introduction of raw milk products and advocates that the earlier decision to allow the importation and sale of Roquefort cheese should be rescinded. Respondent notes the risks posed by raw milk products have been described as comparable to those posed by shellfish, but asks if NZFSA fully understands the problems associated with shellfish poisoning.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent stresses the importance of decisions about food safety being based on science and facts. Respondent notes that the proposed category approach may have been adopted to avoid having “hard” criteria for raw milk products.
		Communication of risk	Respondent questions the value and effectiveness of education programmes relating to foods. Also queries whether any education programme accompanied the introduction to the market of Roquefort cheese, especially in the South Island. Advocates that any future consumer education programme relating to raw milk products should be funded by those involved in the trade, rather than taxpayers. Respondent suggests any future labelling of raw milk products will need to carry a clear and emphatic message, along the lines of “Buyer Beware”. Respondent raises questions as to how restaurateurs and caterers will deal with raw milk product ingredients in their meals.
		Alternative Options	Respondent recommends the Government does not allow raw milk products to be manufactured, imported or sold in NZ and that the decision to allow Roquefort to be sold in NZ be rescinded. Points out that any inconsistency introduced by the decision to allow importation of Roquefort should not be used as an argument for extending the framework for raw milk products. Concern is expressed that there should only be one acceptable level of safety – total safety.
		Other	Respondent is concerned that the discussion document is devoid of standing because it has no acknowledged author/s and the personal pecuniary interests of the authors are not disclosed. Concern is also expressed that NZFSA gives more weight to the needs of businesses, than consumers. Respondent asks NZFSA to provide a definition of “minimal or low risk”, and the effects that introducing raw milk products to the market would have on the most immune compromised sector of the population. Respondent asks if the Fonterra experience in China with contaminated milk products has been taken into account.
Other	43	Support for and against raw milk products	Respondent supports the proposal.
		Proposed framework for raw milk products	Respondent supports the framework proposed by NZFSA that would divide raw milk products into three categories. Respondent notes that the approach is reliant on the detailed requirements that raw milk cheeses will have to meet and the certification process. Respondent understands the proposed framework will be developed in the context of the EU-NZ Veterinary Equivalence Agreement and will offer a degree of certainty to overseas exporters of raw milk products, when considering the NZ market.
		Other	Respondent notes the arrangement between Canada and France, which allows for the importation of raw milk soft and semi-soft cheeses without a requirement for 60 days storage. This is the model preferred by some EU member states. Respondent considers the proposed framework would meld well with the NZ-European Commission Sanitary Agreement and give confidence to EU raw milk producers to export to NZ. Respondent expects the outcome of this process will result in measures that are both in line with international risk management and health protection standards and lead to new requirements that are less stringent than the current control measures.

¹ This statement describes the options referred to by this respondent and by others.

Option 1: To maintain the status quo ie all dairy products manufactured in New Zealand are made from pasteurised or thermised milk and only a limited variety of raw milk products are able to be imported to New Zealand;

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.

² The category approach is proposed for option 3, in the discussion document and envisages that where raw milk products would be classified into one of three categories according to the food safety risks that they pose to the consumer. Only those products that could be produced to an acceptable level of safety would be able to be legally produced and imported. The potential food safety risk associated with each category would increase from Category 1 to Category 3 as described below:

Category 1: Raw milk products where intrinsic characteristics and/or processing techniques eliminate pathogens that may have been present in the raw milk

Category 2 Raw milk products where intrinsic characteristics and/or processing techniques may allow the survival of pathogens that may have been present in the raw milk but do not support the growth of these pathogens. Some soft raw milk cheeses are likely to fall into this category. Roquefort cheese may be an example of one such product.

Category 3 Raw milk products where intrinsic characteristics and/or processing conditions are likely to allow the survival of pathogens that may have been present in the raw milk and may support the growth of these pathogens.

If the framework is progressed it is expected that:

Category 1 products would be able to be safely produced or imported without additional control measures being required.

The focus of regulatory control would be on allowing the safe production and importation of products in Category 2 products, with regulatory measures expected to be developed relating to the harvesting of raw milk on farms and the processing into the resulting products.

Category 3 products would not be able to be legally produced in New Zealand or imported, for sale given the level of safety currently seen as acceptable for New Zealanders. These products would include raw drinking milk.

All information on this website is subject to a disclaimer.

Contact for enquiries

New Zealand Food Safety Authority
68-86 Jervois Quay
PO Box 2835
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: +64 4 894 2500
Fax: +64 4 894 2501

Contact NZFSA about this page

Appendix 1 Details of submissions received on the New Zealand Food Safety Authority Public Discussion Document No 04/08 August 2008: Proposed framework for the manufacture, importation and sale of raw milk products.

1 This statement describes the options referred to by this respondent and by others.

¹ This statement describes the options referred to by this respondent and by others.