I must declare an interest. I do not purchase raw milk but I would defend to the death the right of others to do so provided there are controls and standards of production to address the risks. This opinion did not seem to be shared by the FSA Board, judging by their discussion of a very reasonable paper prepared by FSA officials to request Board approval for a review of the risks associated with raw drinking milk and statutory controls in the light of new developments.
The Board was asked to acknowledge that consumers prefer to exercise choice. Board members who spoke seemed reluctant to do that. They sounded as though they had already decided that all milk should be pasteurised regardless of consumer demand, or the fact that there had been no cases of illness in England for the last 10 years. The paper was not asking for opinions on safety because the purpose of the proposed study was to examine this.
Instead of congratulating all concerned that the absence of cases showed controls and standards were working, the Board said "absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence" and that the absence of cases was probably due to low consumption and if consumption increased they might get some cases. With the same breath they agreed that they should go with the science. But judging by the comments made, their definition of 'science' seemed to give greater weight to the evidence that suited their preconceived idea that all milk should be pasteurised.
I advise all readers to watch the recording of the Board's discussion of this agenda item (meeting March 20) and draw their own conclusions as to the quality of the debate in terms of rationality and independence because, whether or not you are interested in the subject, there are points of principle to consider, including the extent to which emotions and bias might affect the Board's decision-making process in general and the degree to which consumer choice should be considered.
If there is a collective mindset in favour of the nanny state where could it go from here? How many other foods might suffer the same treatment? True, it is the FSA's responsibility to ensure consumers are aware of risks and vulnerable groups are advised not to eat certain foods, just as they are in the case of soft cheese whether it is pasteurised or not but is it not also their responsibility to enable people to buy food they enjoy?