- PDF Version ( 37K) - Print Friendly - Help

Summary of submissions received on NZFSA Public Discussion Document 04/08: Proposed framework for the manufacture, importation and sale of raw milk products.

November 2008

1 Introduction

In August 2008 the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) released a public discussion document entitled: Proposed framework for the manufacture, importation and sale of raw milk products: NZFSA Public Discussion Document No 04/08. The discussion document provided information and sought feedback on a proposed framework that, if progressed, would facilitate the manufacture and domestic sale or export of some raw milk products for human consumption, and the importation and sale of a similar range of raw milk products.

This summary collates the opinions, concerns and queries raised by submitters.

2 Summary of proposed framework for raw milk products

In considering the approach to take with regard to the New Zealand production, importation and sale of raw milk products, NZFSA considered four possible options in the discussion document. These options are summarised below.

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 into 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.

The preferred option of NZFSA is Option 3 where raw milk products would be classified into one of three categories according to the food safety risks that they pose to the consumer. While the framework would cover all raw milk products, only those 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, 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.

3 Synopsis of the engagement and consultation process

The discussion document was posted on the NZFSA website with notifications going to all subscribers to the website. A notification letter was sent by e-mail or post to an extensive distribution list, including all dairy processors, importers, many stakeholder groups and associations, and an extensive number of individuals (with those who represent groups and associations being asked to advise their members of the release of the document).

Articles were published in various media including trade magazines and newspapers.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was notified of the release of the discussion document, thus enabling exporting countries to provide submissions on the proposed framework.

The closing date for submissions was 30 September 2008. Forty-three submissions were received on the discussion document. NZFSA thanks the submitters for their comments on the discussion paper.

4 Submissions

4.1 List of submitters

The submitters were:

Aroha Organic Goat Cheese

Ashley Robinson

Barbara and Ivo Gröpl

Canterbury Cheesemongers

Charles Drace

Clare Rodley

D L Baker

Diana Hawkins

Diana Shirtcliff

Dr David Gray

EU Delegation

Federated Farmers

Fiona Guyan

Fonterra Food Inc.

FNZIFST (Food Industry Consulatants)

GJ Heijneman

Goodman Fielder Dairy

Graeme Allan

Greg Harford

Helen Carter

Janet Gough

Jason Hale Tillman

Jill Freeman

John Draper

John Wood

Lisa Houghton

Lydia MacDonald

Mercer Cheese

Mt Eliza Cheese

N Z Specialty Cheesemakers Association

Pyramid Valley Vineyards

Richard Bysouth

Richard Lucy

Scott Mieras

Seresin Estate Vineyard

Sherry Elton

Sian Phillips

Simin Williams

Siobhan Leachman and Conrad Bullock

Steve Flint,Massey University

Tiritiri Lodge

Walter Clark, University of Canterbury

Wendy Sukeena

Submitters have been grouped in this document, according to their affiliation. 26 were classified as “consumers”, 13 as “industry”, and four as “other”.

Affiliation	Number	Comments
Consumers	26	Represented individual members of the public, rather than consumer groups.
Industry	13	Represented members of the dairy industry such as cheese makers, industry and sector associations, and consultants.
Other	4	Included those with academic affiliations and representing interests from outside New Zealand.

4.2 Details of submissions

A general overview of the submissions received and an overall summary table is provided below. Comments have been divided, following the structure outlined in the submission form contained in section 8 of the discussion document.

Appendix 1 provides details of the comments and recommendations made by submitters.

Affiliation	Number of respondents	For increased availability of raw milk products	Against Increased availability of raw milk products
Consumer	26	26	0
Industry	13	13	0
Other	4	1	3
Total	43	40	3

4.2.1 The consultation process

Most submitters did not comment on the consultation process. However, of those that did provide specific comment, three submitters expressed dissatisfaction and one thought the consultation process was good.

4.2.2 Support for and against milk products

Most respondents (40 out of 43) were in favour of raw milk products being made more widely available in New Zealand in some form. Six of these respondents, all of whom are consumers, would also like to see raw drinking milk being readily available, in addition to other raw milk products. Many of these respondents considered that both hard and soft raw milk cheeses should be available in New Zealand, as they considered all such products to be safe.

All the responses from industry were in favour of increased availability of raw milk products but many believed that appropriate controls are needed to ensure safety of these products.

Three of the four “other” submitters stated opposition to the increased availability of raw milk products.

Points made by submitters in support of the framework included:

Some submitters regularly consume, or have consumed raw milk products overseas, without adverse effects.

Consumers prefer the flavour and texture of raw milk products and consider these products to be healthy and nutritious.

Consumer choice is important.

It is unacceptable that New Zealand imports some raw milk products when these products cannot be currently manufactured in New Zealand.

Business opportunities, including export opportunities, in the dairy industry would be enhanced.

Points made opposing the framework included:

• Food safety/public health concerns.

• There is insufficient and/or no evidence that raw milk products confer health benefits.

• There is a lack of scientific knowledge/data about raw milk products, including data on the proportion of New Zealanders who would be at higher risk from raw milk products (the young, elderly, pregnant and immune-compromised).

• Technology is available to enhance the flavour and textures of pasteurised dairy products, without introducing risks by allowing the sale of products made from raw milk.

• The proposed framework puts an unnecessary burden on the consumer to make the right choice from a food safety perspective.

4.2.3 Proposed framework for raw milk products

Many submitters did not state a clear preference for any of the options set out in the discussion document (see Section 2 above for an explanation of the options).

However, of those in favour of raw milk products being made available in New Zealand, eleven submitters stated that they preferred Option 3. Nine of these respondents were from industry, one was in the “other” category, and the remainder were consumers. Three industry submitters indicated that more information was needed before they could make an informed decision as to which option they would support. A further three respondents stated they preferred Option 4; one of these was from industry.

Labelling was seen as the most effective means to inform consumers that a product was made with raw milk. Many submitters considered that labelling should be clear and simple and that larger fonts should be used when informing the elderly. Of the few who suggested wording for labelling, incorporating the term “raw milk” was the most favoured option. Several respondents considered that consumers are already sufficiently knowledgeable about raw milk products to understand potential risks.

Most respondents saw consumer education as very important if consumers are to be made aware of the potential risks associated with the consumption of raw milk products. Some cited instances where they considered that other food safety consumer education initiatives had been successful e.g. pregnant women being offered food safety information pamphlets when visiting general practitioners, midwives, hospitals and Plunket carers. However, two respondents considered that the NZFSA proposals to develop initiatives for consumer education for raw milk products would be less than adequate, citing reasons including that people do not read or cannot read published information on food safety, and that food safety controls at the industry level, such as pasteurisation of milk, are far more effective than education initiatives as a mechanism for risk management.

4.2.4. Alternative options

Two submitters put forward alternative options that were not canvassed in the discussion document, namely:

• The government should rescind the decision to allow the importation of Roquefort cheese, and do not allow further domestic manufacture or importation of any other raw milk products not already available in the New Zealand market; and

• The proposed framework for raw milk products should allow for the domestic manufacture of raw milk products only, and not for the importation of similar products.

4.2.5 Other

Other general points made by submitters included:

• opposition to NZFSA placing controls on the choice of foods available to consumers. Comments such as “smacks of a Nanny state approach” were noted with regard to the proposed framework for raw milk products. Alternatively, some respondents suggested that the prime aim of NZFSA should be to protect public health and that the proposed framework for raw milk products would not meet this aim.

• concern that damage to the reputation of the entire New Zealand dairy industry could result if, in future, food safety issues were to arise relating to locally made raw milk products.

• an observation that domestic manufacture of raw milk products may confer an environmental advantage, e.g. by reducing food miles and increasing sustainability relating to food consumed in New Zealand.

• comments that for a country renowned for high quality dairy products, “New Zealand is sending out the wrong message by not allowing access to simple natural raw milk”.

• concern that the discussion document suggests that NZFSA has already formed a view about the framework for raw milk products and the parameters that will be required.

• interest in seeing New Zealand producers of raw milk products being given the opportunity to develop export markets for these products, including in markets where such products form part of the traditional diet, such as France.

• concern that risk management should favour the elimination of risks.

• queries about the testing requirements and measures for managing cross contamination risks that will be needed if raw milk and heat treated milk products are made on the same site.

5 Next steps

NZFSA is now considering the issues raised by submitters. NZFSA will use the feedback received from submitters to formulate policy advice to the government about whether the proposed framework for raw milk products should be advanced. An announcement about the outcome of any future government decision relating to the proposed framework will be made in due course.

If a decision is taken to advance the proposed framework, then NZFSA will initiate a second round of public consultation in 2009. This consultation would cover developments since the August 2008 publication of the discussion document, including any changes that may be needed to the framework made as a result of submissions on this document, further details of the proposed categorisation tools and process, additional technical and legal requirements, labelling and implementation details.