We have a real treat for raw milk supporters! Enjoy!
A generous donor, who shall remain anonymous, gifted us a scrapbook collection of newspaper clippings. It is about the dairy industry and is dated between 1965 and 1973 - the time Tasmania had raw drinking milk access, eventually regulated with quality controls in place.
This was before the internet. This was before the days when the corporate media presented a unified front and a set narrative on raw milk for human consumption. Readers may be quite taken aback by the enthusiastic support for
raw milk during the 60s and 70s. Have a read, and don’t be surprised if your jaw drops in amazement. The insights that can be gained from the articles can be powerful perception changers, that may cause you look at history very differently.
Some aspects are quite humorous, because the odds of them being printed and framed in the same way - in a public newspaper today - is quite slim. The honesty and innocence with which certain topics and shenanigans had been approached, are in a way also fascinating. Back then these topics did not carry the same weight of accumulated history or gravity as they do today.
It was also quite the revelation to discover in the 50+ year old articles, a lot of evidence of the same predicaments that plague the dairy industry today. Here are a few brief examples:
Low milk prices for many dairy farmers.
Long delays and stern resistance to milk price increases.
Giving the customer “more for his money” by keeping retail prices as low as possible (article 21/5/1969).
Panels of experts to continually survey the economics of the milk industry seems to have started back then, or were still in infancy.
Dairy farmer and consumer disputes with an authority called ‘The Milk Board’.
Global oversupply (17/7/1969 - Image 17).
Curtailing production due to overproduction (24/7/1970).
Discriminating against small-scale farmers in favour of larger operations.
Small dairymen being forced out of the industry because they are “uneconomic” (article 14/10/1965 - Image 19).
Price warfare instead of price control.
Local discontent because other countries, like in parts of America, have farms that are “regularly and rigorously inspected and licensed to sell raw, whole milk” (article dated 5/4/1965). Raw milk has never been illegal in California.
“The nutritional ruination of this most fragile food [raw milk]” (article dated 5/4/1965)
Here are some of the most interesting subjects discovered in the articles, and organised according to date:
1. Neither the consumer nor the producer had been getting a “fair go”.
According to an article dated 3/4/1965 (Image 23), this had been a statement made by a Mr M.H.A. McDonald. Other statements, and the ones on 5/4/1965 also showed that dairy famers and consumers were not getting a good deal under the leadership of the time. There were allegations that middlemen had been making a considerable profit, some were accused of being “well versed in the take-over method of acquisition”, and the creation of monopolies.
It is curious that the Milk Board reported that the quality of milk available to consumers had been “second to none in Australia”, yet
some articles would reveal that milk quality had been very poor in some parts of Tasmania, to the point where it had led to compulsory pasteurisation in Hobart and suburbs in 1964 (and later in Launceston and suburbs in 1968).
In an opinion letter dated 7/4/1965 (image 21), COCKY FARMER from Port Arthur, had suggested that: “As it is a protected industry many business men, highly paid executives and public servants seeking ways and means of investing capital to avoid punitive taxation are buying up farms and milk contracts at high prices, thus adding to the smaller producer’s difficulties.”
Image 21
2. Real value: Raw Milk
In a letters to the editor column, K.G. from New Norfork (article dated 5/4/1965 - Image 21) wrote about raw milk: “In parts of America, dairy farms are regularly and rigorously inspected and licensed to sell raw, whole milk. It goes by machine directly from the cow into sterile containers, sealed and distributed immediately to local consumers. The farmer receives economic reward for his work, the expensive monopoly in the middle is eliminated, and the consumer gets fresh nourishing milk. Is there any reason why the same system could not operate here?” K.G. also said that pasteurisation was a big advantage in the days of dirty dairy farms and contaminated milk, but it was an anachronism at the time. Pasteurisation had become almost a “sacred ritual” destroying enzymes and other things in the milk. See the full article to the right.
3. Small scale uneconomic
Image 23
In an article dated 7/10/1965 (Image 20), a Mr. Brown said the following: “It is not right that milk prices should be fixed politically.” “Producers should receive at least sixpence more a gallon for their milk.” “Milk is harder to produce in Tasmania than in Sydney and yet the milk price up there is higher.” “The small dairyman is being forced out by the increasing competition. Is it the policy of government to force the little man out?” he asked. A Mr. L.C.C Murray said, according to another article of the same date: “The Government, by its present policy, was forcing small farmers and vendors out of business and encouraging the formation of larger units in all sections of the industry.” He had also said the whole milk industry was “seething with discontent” at the delay in implementing price increases. If relief was not forthcoming, many small vendors would be forced to sell out. Mr. Murray was president of the Southern Dairymen’s Association at the time.
Image 22
4. Low retail prices
In a Victorian Weekly Times article dated 21/5/1969 (image 18), the Victorian Milk Board recommended that the dairying industry investigate the economics of nine or 10 month contracts to keep milk’s retail price as low as possible. Several other articles also describe the dynamics behind the push for low prices.
5. Global oversupply
A The Tasmanian Farmer article dated July 17, 1969 makes reference to a 1968 report by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) that reportedly said” the world’s dairy industry continued to produce far more butter and skimmed milk powder than could be sold at home or abroad, mainly because of developments in Western Europe.”
6. Price warfare rather than price control.
An article dated (4/5/1970) described how the secretary of the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council (Mr. R. W. B. Harradine) “advocated for price warfare rather than price control”. A resolution expressing concern at statements of the time on a possible increase in milk prices, had passed unanimously, saying increases in milk prices would affect people would could least afford it. According to the article, Mr Harradine had said that the government would create an untenable situation for the TTLC if it decided to increase the milk price.
7. Financial health of the dairy farmers had been poor
Image 24
An article (14/4/1970 - Image 24) described how discussions on the form of an enquiry into the Tasmanian dairy industry were already underway. Also briefly discussed, was the progress of the projected Commonwealth dairy farm reconstruction scheme, which was still in a fluid state of negotiation.
A month later (15/5/1970), the Federal Government introduced legislation to make available $25 million to “improve the health of the dairy industry” in Australia, to be divided among the states. Mr Antony, Minister for Primary Industry, had said that as well as improving the health of the industry, it would directly assist a sector of the industry where living standards had been and still were “unacceptably low in relation to the high standard of living enjoyed by most people in Australia.” “It will help alleviate regional and social problems,” he said. “Above all, this scheme will add strength to the family farms that are the backbone of the dairy industry.” Mr Antony described various ways in which the bill laid down that the states could repay half of it. He had also said:
“During the two years that the scheme has been under negotiation, over 5,000 dairy farmers have ceased to operate.”
.
8. The Milk Board and the proclamation that all milk be pasteurised
The Milk Board was created under the Milk Act of 1947 at a time when production was not meeting consumption requirements, but the opposite had been achieved by the 70s.
From the year 1965, there were several articles criticising the Milk Board. There had been three public inquiries into the board in the 11 years prior. An article dated (30/6/1966 - Image 22) described that the State Milk Board was in no sense a Government department, nor was it a Crown instrumentality. “It is an independent corporation exercising its own powers and responsibilities. This was the description applied in Parliament by the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Atkins, when it was stated that the Government would not answer any more parliamentary questions on the powers and functions of the board.”
From the start of July 1970, there were several articles about curbing the powers of the Milk Board, because there had been ‘anomalies’, and it was said that it had become too powerful. The Milk Board had the power to fix maximum
prices. The articles made for interesting reading, but will not be discussed in detail. However, at the start of July 1970, the Milk Board had made a bold proclamation that all milk sold in jurisdictions had to be pasteurised. According to an article (1/7/1970 - Image 15), Mr H.R. Blacklow, who was managing secretary of the board said that pasteurisation was necessary to make a “highly perishable product pure and safe.”
According to the Milk target for footballers of politics? article (image 11), Mr Blacklow had said: “Pasteurisation is a natural development from a health and keeping point of view. You just can’t handle milk quickly enough in its raw state to get it to the consumers in a sweet enough form for them to drink,” he said. “Nothing happens except the milk, instead of going straight to the vendor, goes to a processing factory before it gets to him.”
Mr Blacklow also mentioned that the quality of milk was controlled by health authorities, and his field had been marketing the product. This proclamation was met with resistance.
Click on the images to enlarge. If the images are not readable by enlarging, download the images in high resolution by clicking here. Each image is roughly 1MB. Some of the print is minute, and providing readers the option to download the images is the best way to ensure access to the information.
Image 17
Image 18
Image 19
Image 20
9. Raw Milk: Milk vendors face losing their livelihoods
In the article Milk ban to be challenged dated 10/7/1970 (Image 10), two milk vendors had said that they would defy the board if they had to, and sell unpasteurised milk because it was their livelihood. Mr D.J. Gatenby had been supplying 150 customers on the West Tamar, sourcing his milk from his dairy farmer brother. Mr D.G. Gatenby said: “It is a matter of my customers’ choice.” He laid out that he simply could not continue to sell bottled milk (pasteurised milk), as it is far less profitable, and he had been certain that illicit sales would continue anyway.
10. Raw Milk Blackmarket
According to the article titled Raw Milk ban to be enforced (Image 13), anyone found breaching the new zoning proclamation may have been prosecuted by the board, however, Mr Blacklow had reportedly said that the little man selling a few gallons in out-of-the-way areas would not be bothered by the ban.
In two different articles, there were mention of concerns for the potential for “backyard sellers” and a black market that could not be controlled. According the article titled Warning of illicit milk trade, (Image 12) a Mr Costello wanted Dr Abbott, who was the Minister for Health, to advise the public whether, during the last decade, any deaths in Tasmania had been established as being caused by the use of non-pasteurised milk, and if any fatalities had occurred, what were the circumstances. He said that Dr Abbott had up until that point been silent. “There is no source of information available to me which indicates that milk from our approved dairies is detrimental to the health of consumers,” Mr Costello said. “Until the recent decision, non-pasteurised milk from sources approved by the department was in some communities available at 9c a pint.“
Image 10
Image 11
Image 12
Image 13
11. Government steps in to ‘clip the wings’ of the Milk Board
A (9/7/1970 - Image 14 & 16) article talks about the Legislative Council passing unanimously a (hastily prepared) bill going against the Milk Board. Reportedly, The Milk Board had a monopoly and “virtual complete control of all milk drunk in Tasmania”. The bill, at the time, ensured that the future rulings around the treatment of milk, should be taken away from the board, and put in the hands of Parliament, by Government regulation. At the time, a ban on raw milk sales in Launceston and suburbs (since March 1968) and Hobart and suburbs (since 1964) were already in force.
The article Future of Milk Board may be decided (14/7/1970 - Image 9) described that the board had met behind closed doors, and that some board members were against pasteurisation. From this date in time, the articles that followed had a flurry of activities probing the dairy industry. Barrie Balfe wrote that he believed that it was pointed out at a meeting that the pasteurisation
order was made on the recommendation of public health authorities, and to suspend it would place both the authorities and the board in an invidious position. A storm sure followed, with many details not really worth elaborating on, but some can be found in the articles posted. One article said: “This is not a storm in a tea cup as Mr Blacklow claims - it is a serious matter as far as producers and consumers are concerned.”
The article Milk row: Now veiled threat (14/7/1970 - Image 8) stated that:
“ An overwhelming majority of members of the Legislative Council had supported the bill aimed at preventing compulsory pasteurisation and curbing the powers of the board. There were people who preferred unpasteurised milk because of its taste, quality, and keeping properties.”
12. Working towards solutions for the ‘Milk Crisis’
According to the article Milk crisis over, temporarily (15/7/1970), a meeting of the Milk Board and Cabinet members struck a compromise over the board’s order extending pasteurisation throughout Tasmania. “The Government capitulated on its “request” to the board to suspend the order. The order will stand, but the board may not enforce it for licensed vendors until Parliament has a change to discuss a Legislative Council private member’s bill which would transfer the boards’ power on milk treatment orders to Parliament.” A very brief statement were given with vague information about the showdown between the Government and the board, and activities that were to follow. From here on there were much talk about emergency meetings, curtailing milk production, a cheap milk campaign, price restructure, price uniformity, to “freeze” milk prices and generally, a deep probe into the dairy industry. On the 16th Minister for Agriculture Mr Beattie had said that a committee to inquire into aspects of the dairying industry would be set up immediately.
13. Consumer articles supportive of raw milk
Letter 1:
In a Support for “fresh milk” (15/7/1970 - Image 7) letter to the editor, BOO-BOO wrote: “As raw milk often cannot be handled quickly enough for the supply of big cities, and as not all farmers care about having their cows tested, pasteurisation may be necessary. But - for those who want it - why cannot tested raw milk be sold and delivered at a slightly higher price to make up for the extra handling? This is done in European cities. Why should a farmer not be allowed to sell raw milk from tested healthy cows? Surely health is not the reason for that!”
Letter 2:
ANTI-BOTTLED MILK wrote: “May I express my strongest possible opposition to the Milk Board’s attempt to force everyone to drink bottled milk? My family consumed gallons of raw milk per week, but none of us will have a bar of bottled milk. Its flavour is aborted, and vitamins destroyed. We have used raw milk for 20 years with no harmful effects traceable to it. Why cannot we have free choice in a country which is supposedly democratic, especially in such an all-important food as milk? I know of people who have stopped using milk because bottled milk is the only kind available to them”
Image 25
Letter 3:
In a letters to the editor (17/7/1970 - image 25) POWDERED MILK from Risdon Vale wrote: “Milk can be pasteurised by only one firm in Tasmania. Why should one firm be given control of every consumer of milk, and not only of the consumers but also of the producers of milk. Pasteurised milk must be of certain butterfat quality. It is stupid to state that every cow gives the same amount of butterfat, so the big question is what happens to the butterfat above that which the pasteurised milk must contain. It is certainly not in the milk sold in the bottle. It is time the door was opened for the Legislative Council to fully investigate the milk industry and to rid us of the monopoly on milk. Let us have our choice of good fresh milk.”
14. Raw Milk: Tourist attraction
Unpasteurised milk - it’s the ‘in’ thing now (24/7/1970 - Image 6) was the title of an article about raw milk “rapidly replacing scenery as the major tourist magnet at picturesque Boat Harbour.” Sales had been steadily building up since it had gone on sale at 8c a pint. The raw milk was sold by storekeeper Mrs M.D. Smith, and being supplied by Australian Farmers’ Union. People were coming from as far as Burnie and Wynyard just to buy it.
“They recon it [raw milk] is terrific milk - and it is. It’s got cream inches thick on it.”
Image 6
The storekeeper had sold three times the normal, and had expected sales to increase as word got around. According to the article, the AFU president Mr M Radford had claimed the sale of the milk is designed to test the validity of “this arrogant action” by the Milk Board, which prohibits raw milk. “We will continue to supply this milk as long as it its wanted,” he said.
“The reaction at Boat Harbour clearly shows milk sales could be boosted substantially if the right type and quality were made available. And surely this is the most important thing to the industry at a time it is being asked to curtail production.”
An article from the previous day (23/7/1970 - Image 6) stated that Boat Harbour retailer Mrs M.D. Smith had been selling raw milk with 5 per cent butterfat at 8c a pint, undercutting approved milk retail prices by 3c. She had also said that she would sell the milk ”because we have always had unpasteurised milk on sale. People have been buying it for years - and they want it.” “A person should be able to choose what he wants to drink.” “Ample milk of similar quality is available and sold in Tasmania for human consumption at this price. Hundreds of Tasmanian consumers have recently complained about Milk Board action…” The article also mentioned the sale of pet’s milk from a Beaconsfield farmer. He had advertised the raw milk the previous day in an issue of The Examiner and had said there was a great demand. “But whether they feed it to their pets is up to them.”
Image 5
Image 7
Image 8
Image 9
15. Dairy probe for Tasmania
According to an August article (7/8/1970), the Government had appointed a Launceston man as chairman of an advisory committee to examine all aspects of the dairy industry. He was Mr C.A. Holland, who at the time had recently retired as chief extension officer for the Department of Agriculture. Mr Beattie had said that the committee’s terms of reference would be to investigate the structure of the dairy industry and particularly the marketing of liquid whole milk and manufactured dairy products. They had hoped for a report to be completed before the end of that year (1970).
Needless to say, many more articles followed describing delays, compromises, proposals, investigations etc that are not important to mention for this article.
An article (8/9/1970 - Image 4) talked about a petition signed by 300 people in Davenport protesting against compulsory pasteurisation and what they called “this invasion of the rights of individuals”.
16. A compromise: Raw milk can be sold in Tasmania
An article by Barrie Balfe (10/9/1970 - Image 3) announced that Raw milk can be sold in state. It said that the Milk Board acceptance of a Government motion on pasteurisation will mean that raw milk can legally be sold throughout Tasmania - under strict health conditions. However, the article also said that it was unlikely to mean that much, if any, raw milk will be offered for sale in the cities and large towns. This was because of economic difficulties - a person wanting to sell raw milk would have to ensure he had the customers, a vendor’s license, and the necessary plant to package the milk.
Minister for Agriculture Mr Beattie had said that: '“Anyone found selling raw milk that is not up to standards will lose his license.” In a statement Milk Board managing secretary Mr H.R. Blacklow warned that the board “cannot be directly held responsible for the risks that may be involved in drinking any milk that has not been subjected to the rigid and continuous testing that takes place in respect of all milk that is supplied to the milk processing factories for pasteurisation.”According to the article, Mr Blacklow had also said that it was reassuring that both the Ministers for Health and Agriculture had assured the public that any suspect raw milk would be quickly and effectively dealt with if it were found not fit for human consumption.
17. Reasoning behind pasteurisation order
An article that is not dated titled Pasteurisation health (Image 27), said that the Premier, a Mr Bethune, had asked the board to give detail, and Mr Blacklow finally made clear the board’s reasons for the pasteurisation order. It was on recommendation of Director of Public Health Dr A.D. Ross. It also was revealed that back in 1967, Dr Ross had submitted to the board samples of raw milk offered for sale in Launceston. They had shown the bacteriological quality had been “dangerously poor”, which it seems, had led to the ban of raw milk sales in Launceston and suburbs in 1967. Mr Blacklow revealed that it was Dr Ross who wrote to him in February 1970, asking why it would be undesirable for all milk in the mainland of Tasmania to be pasteurised before sale.
18. School Milk quality poor
According to several of the articles, the quality of pasteurised milk were found to be very low in some areas of Tasmania, compared to others, see image 3. “And homogenised milk for schoolchildren is sometimes of lower standard that that consumed by the public. These claims are made in the latest issue of “Price and Value”, published by the Hobart Consumers Group.” The magazine had said that samples of Hobart school milk and Hobart homogenised milk, bottled on the same day, were tested by two laboratories. The tests showed a disparity which the consumer group said needed explaining. Many raw milk supporters have written on our social media pages over the years about their unpleasant memories of school milk.
19. The first public switch-over to milk cartons and homogenised milk
An article (22/7/1970 - Image 26) revealed interesting tidbits: “Today, milk cartons will be available in cartons for the first time in Hobart - and it will be homogenised. Formerly, homogenised milk had been supplied only to children at school.” According to the article, a Mr Sinclair, who was a Hobart Company director, had made his way through the room-full of news men (most of the clenching beer-filled glasses), demonstrated how to “crack a carton”, poured out a generous serve of homogenised milk, patted his stomach, and said: “Great for people with stomach disorders - and babies. And when you’ve finished with the cartons, they burn beautifully - great for igniting fires.”
He reportedly had also said that homogenised milk “…contains exactly the same elements as the ordinary pasteurised milk that comes (and will continue to come) in the bottles - but the cream content has been broken up. The cream remains right through the milk - not on top.” The cartons had polythene inside it, not wax.
20. Real Value and consumer preference
A letter to the editor (3/8/1970) revealed that EX MILK VENDOR had said: “why should consumers foot the costs of the change-over from bottled milk to cartoned milk, because in my opinion this is what is happening? The consumer did not ask for this change and when the facts are openly weighed, the rise in the price of milk cartoned is not warranted. Time on deliveries would be cut because there being no empty bottles to be collected. The milk company’s loss on empty bottles would no longer be. Paper work in the company’s office would also be cut. There would be no bottles to be washed and stacked, and no one would be needed to be bottle spotter to spot foreign bodies in bottles after washing. So overall the company has everything its way. If anything, the price of milk should drop, not rise.”
“On the consumer’s right to purchase pasteurised milk or fresh milk [raw milk], what they should be seeking is the right to purchase full cream milk.”
Image 2
21. Regulations for raw milk in Tasmania gazetted
An article published in February 1971 (11/2/1971 - Image 2) described the long-promised regulations governing the sale of raw milk. They are a sequel to a row between the Tasmanian Milk Board and Parliament the previous September. The regulations, under the Food and Drugs Act, lay down strict biological standards for the sale of raw milk. The raw milk would have to be specifically treated on farm in equipment approved by the Department of Agriculture. If a producer could satisfy the rigid equipment and the health safety checks, he could be licensed by the Milk Board to sell it to the public.
22. Raw milk regulations affect pasteurised milk standards
According to the article, the new regulations also considerably stiffen the standards that have to be met by suppliers of whole milk for pasteurisation - but they are not as high as those for the supply of raw milk to the public. The standards cover handling, packaging, and storage temperatures of whole milk, and require the date of packaging to be stamped on specified containers leaving dairies. See the article for more information.
23. A Commonwealth plan - Dairy Industry Authority of Tasmania (TDIA)
An article (2/2/1972 - Image 1) announced a year later a Commonwealth plan for a national regulative body to control milk and milk product quotas throughout Australia. The scheme were to tie in with Commonwealth dairy reconstruction plans, and the idea behind it had been that it would prevent gluts in the market.
Under the proposed scheme there would be strict controls on production. In Tasmania, a recommendation for such an authority was made by a board of inquiry into the dairy industry which had reported to Mr Beattie the previous April. The board recommended the dissolution of the Milk Board, and suggested the new authority consist of seven members and be known as the Dairy Industry Authority of Tasmania.
“Apart from a full-time chairman appointed by the Minister, there would be six part-time members, including representative of the manufacturers
of milk products, processors of market milk, primary producers in the dairy industry, consumers, and the Tasmanian representative on the Australian Dairy Produce Board.
“The authority would have the power to take over the ownership of all milk, to fix prices and define grades of milk and cream, to appoint agents, to license and register all sections of the industry, impose quotas if required, and impose and collect any necessary levies.”
Many more articles followed, on subjects such as protecting the consumer against proposed price increases, cost disparities in different areas, drought, making milk cheaper etc. The last article was dated February 1973.
The Tasmanian Dairy Industry Authority (TDIA) started on 1 January 1977 and is still in existence today regulating and controlling the dairy industry. The Milk Board ended in September 1977
Image 1
Image 3
Image 4
Image 30
24. Milk prices continued to be unsatisfactory
There had been parties who wanted the prices to stay low, and parties who wanted it to rise, and the lines on who wanted what appear very blurred.
Image 30 (dated 16/2/1973) shows that even after unpasteurised milk under quality control was made available, the prices were controlled (something that is unheard of today with regards to raw drinking milk sales). Many articles showed that there were considerable upheaval at this particular stage, with price at the centre, for a surprising variety of reasons…
A Government backbencher Mr Le Fevre had reportedly said profits of a monopoly pasteurising company were exorbitant, and attacked the make-up of the Milk Board, which he had reportedly said had been producer dominated and had no concern for consumers, see Image 28.
In an article published 1/2/1973 (Image 29), Mr Le Fevre who had been a Labour MP at the time, had reportedly said that members of the Milk Board “had made fortunes out of consumers”. According to the article, he had said that “The Processing company is making exorbitant profits - for every $1000 invested in the company annual profits are approaching that amount (nearly 100 per cent profit).”
“The processing company leases milk rounds for 15 per cent of gross receipts (a good return for nothing). So allowing for the near slave labour of the vendor the profit margin on delivery is exorbitant. I understand that members of the Milk Board have made fortunes out of the consumers and now lease their milk businesses for handsome returns.”
According to the article, Mr Le Fevre had been so outspoken, that there had been mention of his potential expulsion. He had also labelled the State Government “useless and negative” for allowing a milk retail price rise. Read the article for more details.
Image 26
Image 27 (article found in July 1970 order of arrangement)
Image 28
Image 29
Last words…
The yellow/brown stained 50+ year old articles were pasted onto blank paper and came in an equally old-fashioned red binder, with a distinct smell of old books and dust. It was with awe that the editor perused through the worn pages, feeling privileged to have been present for the revelation of its secrets - that carry such a unique frankness - delivered with words not seen or heard in decades.
The book and its articles highlighted that there had always been those who controlled milk since industrialisation started, for complicated reasons. And that the presence of raw milk for human consumption, do have a significant impact on how pasteurised milk is valued, viewed and managed, because it allows consumers to make value judgements, based on personal experience. The reading of these articles brought home a renewed understanding as to why the presence of raw drinking milk would always be like a nemesis hovering in the background for the milk industry. Consumer preference is not the friend of the dairy industry. These 50 year old articles describe the very same issues the dairy industry has today, and highlights just how broken The System is, and may continue to be.
ARMM posted many present day stories showing what happens as raw drinking milk makes not only a comeback, but availability creates an explosion in sales. In America, the drop in pasteurised milk sales has been so brutal that the largest milk producer Dean farm filed for bankruptcy earlier this month. “Despite our best efforts to make our business more agile and cost-efficient, we continue to be impacted by a challenging operating environment marked by continuing declines in consumer milk consumption,” CEO Eric Berigause said in a statement.
How many more years is Australia’s dairy industry going to try to maintain the status quo, and ignore the elephant in the room: regulated raw drinking milk?
It’s been 20 years since a coalition government, led by John Howard, deregulated Australia's dairy industry. A mandatory code of conduct is supposedly just around the corner. The Code is supposed to level the playing field for dairy farmers. It is supposed to protect farmers from the power of the big processors while still allowing farmers to negotiate the best price for their milk - though no less than the price set by the regulator.
On Ag Day, Thursday 21 November 2019, Minister for Agriculture Senator Bridget McKenzie, announced just over $1 million in funding for the Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) “to deliver projects to benefit #dairy, including $560,00 for a milk trading platform, $300,000 for blockchain technology and $150,000 to develop a standard form contract.” In this tweet, Senator McKenzie talked about the use of blockchain technology through the supply chain, making sure that farmers have choice by investigating the use of different trading platforms, and securing “transparency and consistency when they have to negotiate with their processors by having a standard form contact.” Will this finally be the panacea dairy farmers are looking for? Doubtful.
Until the dairy farmer can set his/her own price, be able to produce a valuable product, become an entrepreneur and sell directly to the consumer, the dairy industry may continue to decline.
22,000 dairy farms operated in Australia in 1980, while currently there are less than 6,000. As the fear of more dairy farms closing down builds up, the forecast for the country’s milk production also looks bleak.
Today, proponents of pasteurised milk would like us to believe that raw milk was phased out in the 1940s. In fact, raw milk remained legal until much more recently, as ‘town milk.’ In Victoria, it was available until 1990. In South Australia, a farm held a town milk licence until 2003 (source). In places like California, USA, raw milk has never been illegal, and high quality raw milk had been available since the early 1900s until this very day. We already know that regulated raw milk with the right set of quality controls in place can be a great success.
Video: read the article here.
Disclaimer:
The purpose of this article is three fold:
to show that there was once a time when many Tasmanians wanted raw milk,
they were able to distinguish real value based on personal experience and having a choice,
they did have access to raw milk, and were eventually able to secure raw milk produced under quality controls, amid a turbulent time for the dairy industry.
There is a possibility that we may be accused of the cherry-picking of information, but the way this article is structured, is the best method to organise the information for presentation. Many readers don’t like overly long articles compiled with too much detail.
There are many details not mentioned in this article, that can be found in the original articles attached.
We received a vast amount of information that had to be sifted through painstakingly and carefully. It took a lot of time, and to write more broadly on what transpired 50 years ago is simply not practical.
There is also the potential pitfall of attaching too much personal interpretation to the 50+ year old events, which may have led to some level of deception in the presentation. The copying of sentences word for word in many places, ensures that there is little room for misinterpretation. Again, we encourage readers to inspect the original articles for a broader picture. This article was compiled based on information sent to us. If anything significant is missing, it may be because we did not have that information, or may not have understood its significance.
Today there is an understanding that there are two kinds of raw milk: one is intended to be pasteurised, and another is intended to be consumed in the raw state. Raw drinking milk can be done responsibly. If you don’t understand what raw milk is, see this article.
Related Articles:
‘We’re doing dairy different’: West Jordan farm finds way to keep their dairy business growing
Hunter MP Joel Fitzgibbon speaks up about Mandatory Code of Conduct to protect farmers
Murray-Darling water and farmland is being bought up big by corporate business goFARM
No. 1 milk company declares bankruptcy amid drop in demand
