 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Universal pasteurisation of milk would not of itself quell the increasing
incidence of salmonella infections in this country as has become apparent from
recent outbreaks which were not attributed to milk. More attention should be
paid to the primary sources of this disease in cattle - the increased movement
and mixing of calves to auctions, intensive methods of calf husbandry,
contamination due to imported concentrates and other feedstuffs, increased
production of slurry - as well as the contamination of streams and watercourses
with town and agricultural effluents and wider areas of milk distribution which
may well all have contributed to the increased incidence of salmonellosis (40).
For example, increased sewage pollution increases the chances of viral
contamination of fruit and vegetables, which can then act as transmitters of
viral disease (41). Until these fundamental issues are addressed, together with
more education in the handling of food, salmonella will continue to increase.
Progress lies not in banning unpasteurised milk but in trying to ensure that the
milk's total bacterial count is always less than 10,000 per ml, when it is
highly unlikely that pathogenic organisms even if present, could represent a
significant hazard to health under normal conditions. Pasteurisation is, and
will continue to be, of great value for lower quality milks but there is no
reason to deny the consumer the enjoyment of high quality unpasteurised milk. As
pointed out in 1965 in an authorative book on cheese "when milk can be produced
generally with a low bacterial count and with no fault-producing or pathogenic
micro-organisms pasteurisation can be abandoned" (42).
That it is possible for farmers to produce clean milk has been amply
demonstrated recently. The introduction of the bonus incentive scheme for milk
of low bacterial counts produced an unprecedented response from dairy farmers.
The majority of dairy farmers are now producing clean milk. Many of the larger
dairies have also achieved excellent systems of hygiene.
The mere installation of pasteurisation equipment is not necessarily a guarantee
of immediate success in terms of microbiological quality. One notable example
was on the farm of an ex-minister with special responsibility for Scottish
agriculture, when 12 of 22 samples of pasteurised milk were unsatisfactory (43).
When the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) sampled
pasteurised milk from 53 producer processors in Northern England, 10% had a
total bacterial count of more than 100,000 per ml (unsatisfactory) and 26% were
in the range 10,000 to 100,000 (Also classed as unsatisfactory) (44).
9
However, the majority of producer/processors (64%) produced bottled pasteurised
milk with total bacterial counts of less than 10,000 per ml (32% were less than
2,000 per ml). Such results can also be achieved with untreated milk: in a small
study of bottled untreated milk, 42% of the samples were below 10,000 per ml,
with 6% less than 2,000 (45).
If some farmers and dairies can consistently produce and market milk with a very
low bacterial count, then all should be able to do so. This will happen if the
financial incentives and the penalties for failure are sufficient.
Already, because of the problems of post-pasteurisation contamination and/or
inadequate pasteurisation, some producer/processors have conducted their own
regular quality control tests and have been able to effect a marked improvement
(only 15% with counts of more than 10,000 per ml) (44). Improved methods of
quality control for Green Top producers should also be seen as a progressive
rather than a restrictive step.
 |