bigstockphoto_Cheese_4052029_2Back in late 2012, the president of the American Cheese Society wrote a flowery letter to John Sheehan, the chief dairy regulator at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, about “our goal to work in partnership with FDA…” The ACS president, Greg O’Neill, concluded by thanking Sheehan “for your continued recognition of the unique nature of the artisan and specialty cheese industry.”

Now, nearly three years later, the flattering talk of partnership is pretty much gone, and in its place the ACS is pushing back hard against the FDA’s seemingly endless inspections of raw milk cheese producers and requests for information concerning raw milk cheese—all clearly geared toward finalizing a policy restricting raw-milk-cheese availability.

In a new 12-page document issued by the ACS to its membership, entitled “Response to U.S. FDA Request for Information Regarding Safe Production of Cheese from Unpasteurized Milk,” the organization at long last expresses a sense of frustration over yet a further inquiry by the agency into raw milk cheese. The frustration is expressed diplomatically, but it is clear, such as in this statement at the start of the report: “ACS seeks to understand FDA’s renewed focus on the production and sale of cheese made from unpasteurized milk.” As in, why do you guys keep asking us the same questions over and over, when we’ve told you over and over that American made raw milk cheeses are one of the safest foods out there?

Based on the FDA’s questions and ACS pushback in its answers, there’s clearly a failure to communicate. Here are questions and concerns the FDA presented to the ACS, and the ACS response:

*The FDA seeks an explanation from ACS regarding a 2012 survey of food borne illnesses between 1993 and 2006 in which, the agency says,  “forty-two percent of the 65 cheese-associated outbreaks (i.e., 27 outbreaks) were attributable to products manufactured from unpasteurized milk…”

To which ACS says raw milk can’t be identified as the culprit, that “the issue is not so much the use of unpasteurized milk, but the illegal, unlicensed production and importation of cheese in general….A broad spectrum of problems unrelated to the milk itself may be erroneously attributed to lack of pasteurization.”

*The FDA questions the entire premise of the 60-day aging period for  raw milk cheese, in place since the late 1940s, saying, “The aging period for cheese manufactured from unpasteurized milk was presumed to act as a control measure to reduce the risk that pathogens would be present when the cheese was consumed. However, the available data and information raise questions about the safety of cheese manufactured from unpasteurized milk, even when aged. …” 

The ACS isn’t having any of it, noting, “Recent recalls and outbreaks linked to dairy products clearly show that post-production contamination poses a significant risk. The aging period for most cheeses does act as a control measure to reduce the risk of pathogens that could be present in cheese.”

*The FDA probes further into whether cheese producers are relying unduly on the 60-day aging rule to reduce risk of pathogens: “To what extent do producers of cheese manufactured from unpasteurized milk solely rely on an aging period to significantly minimize pathogens that may be present in unpasteurized cheese? If such producers rely on control measures other than the aging process, what are those control measures and what is the prevalence of those control measures among such producers? How effective and practical are these control measures?”

To which the ACS suggests that, of course, cheese makers use other control measures besides the aging: “No manufacturer should rely solely on one process to ensure the safety of food. Cheese producers rely on the full cheesemaking process to control potential contaminating organisms. This includes efforts to ensure a clean milk supply; control acidity, salt and moisture; and careful time and temperature control; among others. Some producers use antimicrobial treatments (where allowed) and varying levels of heat treatment.”

*The FDA persists, wondering about the 60-day aging for pathogens other than listeria monocytogenes. “Research and a literature review show that pathogens can survive the 60- day aging process for cheeses manufactured using unpasteurized milk. For pathogens other than L. monocytogenes, is a 60-day aging period effective in adequately reducing a broad spectrum of pathogens that could be in cheese manufactured from unpasteurized milk?”

The ACS pushes back, essentially saying the question is ridiculous. “Substantial research indicates that, for most cheeses and most pathogens, aging contributes to food safety. Given the body of scientific research on the fate of pathogens in various cheeses, FDA’s question is unclear.”

*The FDA switches gears, and inquires about alternatives to the 60-day aging period for controlling listeria monocytogenes. “Determine whether, consistent with modern international approaches to food safety, a performance objective (or standard) for L. monocytogenes should be used as a replacement for the 60-day aging requirement and whether a second performance standard for Gram-negative enteric pathogens should also be used.”

The ACS shows irritation on this one, as if to suggest, we’ve already answered this question. “FDA’s continued focus on Listeria monocytogenes with regard to cheese manufactured from unpasteurized milk remains unclear. This organism is a known post-processing contaminant that has historically, and very recently, affected pasteurized products. Listeria is rarely associated with the use of unpasteurized milk for the manufacture of cheese.”

*Finally, the FDA inquires into “testing for pathogens of each lot of cheese manufactured from unpasteurized milk and of bulk shipments of unpasteurized milk. If testing is not currently being used, how practical would such testing be?” 

The ACS seems to throw up its arms in frustration: “FDA’s practice of using test results as an indication of production problems has been counter-productive, actually discouraging product and environmental testing. …Changes in FDA culture will be needed to encourage producers to conduct and share testing results. The practicality of testing each batch, or at frequent intervals for continuous process operations, would depend on the size of the producer. Small processors would find too much damaged product and prohibitively high costs relative to their sales if they were to test every batch.”

*The FDA concludes by trying again to put the ACS on the spot about raw milk cheese, with these questions: “To what extent are consumers aware that an aging process has had (and may continue to have) a role in food safety as well as a role in the particular type of cheese produced? To what extent do consumers consider whether a cheese is made from pasteurized or unpasteurized milk in making purchase decisions?”

The ACS reminds the FDA of the outpouring of consumer upset when the agency threatened cheese aged on wood boards: “We do know that many consumers have a strong preference for cheese made using traditional cheesemaking practices, as evidenced by the outpouring of support from consumers, media, and elected officials when the practice of aging cheese on wood surfaces was jeopardized in 2014. Based on sales of such cheeses, consumers do appreciate cheeses made from unpasteurized milk, and often choose raw over heat-treated milk cheese when given the choice. The experience of our membership is that many customers are aware that cheese made from unpasteurized milk in the U.S. must be aged for 60 days.”

Will the ACS pushback make a difference? Probably not.  The FDA has been on this anti-raw-milk cheese crusade for 11 years, and shows no sign of stopping till it enacts restrictions, perhaps eliminating the 60-day aging rule and substituting something much more onerous. At least the ACS has learned something about partnering with the FDA—that it’s a give-and-take relationship: ACS gives and the FDA takes.