The Board was concerned, although there was no evidence of illness, it did not mean there was no risk. If the same rationale was applied to other types of food to be eaten raw, many foods would have to be cooked before sale and that would be unrealistic. Let’s hope the Board is never asked to consider this question.
For unpasteurised milk, the Board said further research was needed to convince it of the safety of the new rules. The Board seemed to be under the impression that the proposal would increase sales. This is unlikely because of the costs of the strict controls on production and the fact that the milk can only be purchased from the farm.
Supported
The Board made little mention of the views of raw milk consumers whose interests the Board is required to serve. One member questioned whether the views of non-drinkers of unpasteurised milk had been sought. The answer was that 77% of all those surveyed supported the continuation of sales.
An unprecedented event held in March by the FSA for stakeholders to hear and discuss both sides of the argument demonstrated strong support from existing consumers for it to be made easier to obtain supplies.
It is very rare to see such a strong demand among consumers for sales of a certain food to be less restricted. It is far more usual for consumer groups to call for tighter controls. None of the consumers who spoke at the event felt that they were at risk and they all had faith in the farmers from whom they bought their milk.
Confidence
I am not aware of any other examples where the FSA Board has disagreed with recommendations of both FSA officials and consumers of a particular food. The question arises as to the level of confidence the FSA Board should be expected to accord to the advice of officials who spent a considerable amount of time in investigating an issue from all possible angles and producing a detailed report.
Thirty minutes of discussion does not appear to do justice to the effort and costs involved to reach that stage. The system needs to be addressed.