Is 60-Day Rule Still Valid for Raw-Milk Cheese?
© Food Safety News
More Headlines from Science & Research »© Food Safety News
More Headlines from Science & Research »"In countries such as France, Germany and England, sale of raw-milk cheese requires no minimum aging time. Instead, safety measures focus on animal health requirements, hygienic milk collection and storage, fast cooling, and microbiological criteria (a maximum acceptable concentration of coliform bacteria). As with raw milk products sold in the U.S., those sold in these countries carry a specific label that usually explains the health risks associated with consumption."
OK, so why not adopt the best parts of this approach in the U.S.? This seems to make perfect sense; effective modern equipment, intensive hygiene all along the chain from source to end product, intensive safety measures (inspected & enforced to help keep the honest producers honest) and clear labeling to alert the consumer to specifics of known health risks.
So, why not in the U.S.?
Simply because our precious 'small local producers' cannot and will not take food safety and consumer welfare seriously if it involves any cost or inconvenience.
Instead, these producers invest their profit, energy and talent in organizing activist groups who relentlessly lobby legislators and disseminate ridiculous propaganda to convince us the earth is flat and grubby, contaminated product is 'natural', a necessary feature of 'sustainable' production. Always vigilant to obfuscate any informed thought that might eventually cause small producers to become accountable for consumer safety.
We're getting to 'know our farmer' and beginning to realize we're being quite professionally misled and fleeced.
Please ignore Doc Mudd. Most small producers want to produce safe high quality food, they just sometimes lack the resources to fund the scientific research to validate and refine their practices.
There all sorts of sham studies out there, funded by huge milk marketing boards, trying to bash the supposed safety of raw milk cheese. Studies that have nothing to do with the actual practices used to produce most raw milk cheese.
If the FDA would actually put its resources towards helping small producers rather than trying to prosecute them, this wouldn't be a problem.
See my five part series on raw milk and the "60 day rule" - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5, as well as Outbreaks, illnesses and recalls linked to raw (unpasteurized) and pasteurized dairy products, United States, 2010.
http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/carpe-cheese---bravos-raw-milk-cheese-seized-by-the-fda/
I'd like to know whether E. Coli 0157:H7 is ever found in raw cheese (or other raw products) from cows that are entirely grass-fed. My understanding is that this bacteria has evolved to be extremely acid tolerant due to the (unnaturally) acidic conditions in a cow's stomach caused by a diet high in grain.
I also feel that taking aim at the small producers is a little off-base, in general. Seems like most of our disease outbreaks did not originate from our smaller producers. The more animals you cram into one area, the more likely you'll get rapidly spreading diseases and unsanitary conditions. It's just a lot harder to clean up after several thousand animals than, say, 50. And just like us, if you feed animals healthy foods, they are less likely to get sick.
I think Europe is right on in their focus on prevention, and the US is being its typical self in its treating of the symptoms. And, I've worked with small local producers all over the country, and it seems to me that if we provided a framework of standards for how our livestock is raised (provided the creation of this framework wasn't influenced by Big Ag lobbiests, and focused on the establishment of a healthy diet and pasture-based systems) most local producers would have relatively few changes to make, while the CAFOs would have to make some serious adjustments.
Nell: Yes, E. coli O157:H7 in raw milk products can come from cows that are entirely grass fed or grain fed, and outbreaks involving O157:H7 have come from small and large producers alike. Animals that carry the bacteria are not sick, they shed the bacteria in their feces. Preventing E. coli in raw milk or other foods, as you suggest, means making sure that the food does not become contaminated with fecal matter. That's the aim of the U.S. food safety laws.
Hi Nell. Here's your answer:
http://www.slate.com/id/2242290/
I think Bill Marler once wrote a factual literature review, as well. Maybe someone has the link?
The gist; nope, e coli doesn't discriminate among cows, what they prefer to eat, what color they are, or the political leanings of their caretakers.
E coli isn't very discerning, but you and I need to be when it comes to information and 'things that everyone knows' that we might encounter on the internet. Turns out your generic worries about CAFOs and herd size are basically Kool-Aid induced hallucinations, too. I will admit, the internet echo chambers sound remarkably convincing and strident, especially considering they eminate from ignorant duffers who are stuffed so full of silly poop they can't think straight.
Here is the original article:
I am in the process of updating it and in exploring the common belief that E. coli O157:H7 came from CAFOs.
Tune in.
Exhaustive laboratory studies since the mid 1990s indicate E. coli O157:H7 evolved from an ancestor coliform responsible for human infantile diarrhea. Along the way it has populated livestock; cattle have become an important reservoir and a common source of human exposure owing to the prominence of cattle in our food chain.
One can directly associate E.coli O157:H7 with livestock and can also, of course, directly associate livestock with CAFOs, but any association of E. coli O157:H7 with CAFOs would be indirect, at best. To conclude that "CAFOs caused E.coli O157:H7" would be incorrect - such a conclusion would amount to irresponsible junk science.
The 60-day aging minimum for raw milk cheese presents problems for stakeholders on both sides of the fence. Clearly, it doesn’t satisfy the “reasonable certainty” test required of die-hard safety advocates, and producers continue to chafe at the arbitrary restriction, particularly in light of recent FDA murmurings about increasing the aging time. It’s not simply a question of aging practices that would reduce the instance of foodborne pathogens, but rather a reevaluation of the cheesemaking process as a whole and assessing hazard points along the way. (See Bill Marler’s piece for a comprehensive overview of the literature and history associated with raw milk cheesemaking: http://www.marlerblog.com/uploads/image/cheese%20piece%20Final%20updated%2012_18_10.pdf ) As HACCP plans, safety education, herd management, environmental testing, record keeping, third party certification and active relationships with regulators and researchers is currently the approach of many cheesemakers producing raw milk cheeses (the American Cheese Society estimates that 63% of their members voluntarily follow these best practices http://www.cheesesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ACS-Statement-on-Safe-Cheesemaking-for-Web.pdf ), perhaps it would be best to transition these guidelines into enforceable policy, supplanting the 60-day regulation with a more targeted system of controls.
While I agree that the EU’s food system, and thus, approach to food safety differs from the model in the US, it does seem valid to take a comparative approach in order to assess potential ways in which to tailor any potential policy to supplant the aging minimum. (See the DBIC’s helpful comparative evaluation of international requirements for raw milk cheeses here http://www.dbicusa.org/documents/Raw%20Milk%20Cheese%20Legislation%20PDF.pdf ). From these regulatory trends, there are ample levels of risk-management to choose one adequate for the scale and concerns of our industry and consumers.
The raw milk dilemma is here to stay. Consumers are intrigued by the minimal amount of processing (perhaps as a result of a sense that large-scale processed food is of increasingly questionable safety), and are looking for “authentic” sensory experiences. Dairy producers see the non-commodity pricing of raw milk as a way to add value to a profession with high overheads and low rates of return. Cheesemakers see these cheeses as expressions of the product and the process, and many have won national and international awards doing so. Perhaps a thoughtful evaluation of the intent of 21CFR133 (especially under the “proactive” and “preventative” provisions of the new Federal Safety Modernization Act of last year) is merited in order to move forward with legislation that is current, effective and appropriately tailored to the problem.