HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RAW MILK

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:52): I rise to speak today to speak about the ongoing controversy over the consumption of unpasteurised milk in South Australia. The current debate was triggered by a raid on the Moo View Dairy at Willunga last month by officers from Biosecurity SA, the Dairy Authority of South Australia and SA Police. According to a statement made in parliament yesterday, the Hon. Gail Gago, in her capacity as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, stated that this visit was in response to information that raw cow's milk was being distributed to the public in contravention of a law that prohibits the sale of raw cow's milk.

I previously asked a question about this during Question Time, and also had the opportunity to be briefed by government officials. At the heart of the dispute are three critical questions: first, the safety or otherwise of drinking unpasteurised milk, and balancing that against the claimed health benefits of raw milk; secondly, the legality of the arrangements put in place by Moo View Dairy, and in particular the cow share scheme; and, thirdly, the role of government in dictating to consumers what they can and cannot consume, the so-called nanny state question.

I would like to address all of these, but also make the observation that the business of Moo View Dairy and its cow share scheme must have been known by public officials for many, many years, yet they turned a blind eye to it until quite recently. I am told that they did not officially know about it until recently, when complaints from unknown persons (unknown to me, that is), most likely trade rivals, were received, and when it became apparent that the cow share scheme was actually quite popular and growing.

So, the state has acted and now the community is responding. I attended the cow shareholder meeting last week, along with the Hon. Ann Bressington and the Hon. Dennis Hood. What became apparent very quickly was the large number of very loyal consumers who swear by the benefits of unpasteurised milk and the beneficial effects it has on a range of medical and other conditions. There were many testimonials given both publicly and privately. Also, a lot of information was presented about the pathogens that may or may not be present, and the role of bacteria in both human health and illness. Here are some of the things people have written to me about. One constituent wrote:

I myself, have chosen to obtain raw milk as I have had auto-immune problems including celiac disease, thyroid issues, iron deficiency, joint problems, mal-absorption and gut issues. With the diet I have been able to heal most of the issues I have had and am still seeing improvement with others. I believe a large part of this is being able to use raw milk, which I mostly culture and make kefir, a type of yoghurt. I believe that I would be worse off if I was not able to obtain raw milk.

Another constituent wrote:

I suffer from fructose mal-absorption which encompasses an intolerance to lactose...We have never been sick or had any adverse reaction from the milk. On the contrary our health has improved.

The minister makes a great deal of the things that can go wrong, and infrequently do go wrong, with consuming unpasteurised milk. The horrific diseases the minister warns us of make for grim reading, until you put it in perspective.

Smoking kills 15,000 Australians every year. Alcohol kills about 3,000 Australians every year. If the government's job really was to save us from ourselves, then it would ban driving motor cars, it would ban walking, it would ban sex and it would certainly ban people using ladders at home, which kills about 20 people every year.

In relation to the legalities of the cow share scheme, I have sought some advice and so far have not been able to determine that Moo View Dairy is doing anything wrong. Ultimately, it may end up having to go to court, but is this really necessary? I have no doubt that, if the government stomps on this scheme, then another scheme is certain to replace it, whether it is the distribution of pets milk or even the iconic Cleopatra's Bath Milk that is already sold around Australia and labelled 'not for human consumption'. Other people have written to me, saying:

The cows belong to us, the shareholders, we are NOT purchasing the milk. Mark and Helen Tyler simply look after our cows for us.

Another person wrote:

We have never gotten sick from drinking our own cow's milk. What I do get sick of is being told what I can and can't eat.

Yesterday, the minister complained that, in some cases, there was no label or health warning on the milk and no use-by date. How ridiculous is that? Surely the minister does not want a use-by date on a product that she does not accept should be consumed at all, but if that is the only sticking point—labels and health warnings—then bring it on. That could be the solution.

My plea to the government is to work with this sector rather than having a shootout at the OK Corral. Why not work with the producers and consumers to bring this industry inside the tent in relation to testing, safety and labelling rather than acting in a heavy-handed way that brings the law into disrepute and the nanny state into our dining rooms. I conclude by reminding people that, in New Zealand, whilst they are happy to vote in relation to our laws, they do allow raw milk to be sold from the farm gate in that country.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT