RAW MILK

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:27): I direct my questions to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries:

1. Has Mark Tyler from Moo View Dairy been charged with an offence?

2. If so, what offence has he been charged with, under what act and what is the maximum penalty for this offence?

3. Does the minister think that the penalty is appropriate for, essentially, providing milk to willing consumers?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (16:27): I have discussed this matter previously in this place. I have made very clear in this place before that a South Australian dairy is supplying raw cow's milk to the public through a cow share scheme. The dairy farm is near Willunga and it is called Moo View. As I have put on the record before, the government is continuing to require that Mr Tyler from Moo View become accredited and have his milk pasteurised to protect consumers from pathogens that may be present in the milk. The matter is obviously now before the courts, and it would be inappropriate for me to make further comment at this particular point in time.

However, I can discuss raw milk and the health dangers that exist in drinking raw milk. Even extremely good hygiene procedures will not ensure that dangerous pathogens are not present. Therefore, raw cow's milk is not permitted for sale because there is a safer and simple alternative readily available, namely, pasteurised milk, and more vulnerable individuals in the community may not be aware of the increased risk if they consume unpasteurised milk.

As I have said, a national standard has been put in place by FSANZ, our Food Standards Australia New Zealand authority. They conducted extensive public consultation on raw milk and milk products. I think their study took around five years or so, so it was an extremely exhaustive study on raw milk, which included a thorough scientific assessment on the public health risk and the specific consumer research about community views on raw milk.

It was not just the scientific evidence; it was also consumer attitudes. Their public discussion papers are all publicly available on their website. After weighing up all the evidence and public submissions, the final report of FSANZ in May 2012 concluded that raw drinking milk presents too high a risk to consider any permission in the national Food Standards Code. FSANZ said that:

For raw drinking milk, even extremely good hygiene procedures won't ensure dangerous pathogens aren't present. Complications from bacteria that can contaminate these products can be extremely severe…

In fact, there is a great deal of evidence in terms of health incidents that have occurred related to unpasteurised milk here in Australia, but particularly overseas, where standards are not as high. One of those is haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) and of course we have seen the results of that previously here in a processed meat incident when a child died.

FSANZ also said that people with increased vulnerability to diseases caused by these bacteria include young children, elderly people, people with compromised immune systems and obviously pregnant women and their foetuses. As the unpasteurised milk supply chain becomes more and more complex, there is less and less control over ensuring that people are aware of the dangers and are aware of the product that they are drinking and the risk that might be associated with that. Because of these things FSANZ determined to exclude unpasteurised milk from the standard. As I said, there is a simple, cheap, readily available alternative—and that is pasteurised milk. South Australia, along with every other jurisdiction here in Australia, has incorporated the same standard.