New Zealand Milk Quality

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28133, 23 November 1956, Page 12

New Zealand Milk Quality

Two criticisms of the dairy industry in New Zealand made by overseas visitors this week deserve serious attention—not only because they point to real health dangers in this country but because a country depending heavily on exporting produce cannot afford a reputation for Door quality on its domestic market. First, Mr R. Dunlop, a Scottish judge of Ayrshire and Galloway cattle, drew attention to the failure of New Zealand to eradicate tuberculosis in its cattle, though it has an almost ideal climate. He might have gone further and deplored the sad truth that tuberculosis has not been eliminated from the herds producing liquid milk for mass consumption—milk, moreover, that may be sold without pasteurisation. How long can a country so careless of protection of its own people maintain the confidence of overseas buyers? No less significant was the criticism of Dr. W. D. Dunkley. associate-professor of dairying at the University of California. His comments on failings in cleanliness and sterility standards in New Zealand milk sheds were not altogether new; and, in fact, the marked improvement in these directions during the last generation appears to be a continuing process in which our farmers take some pride. What may surprise New Zealanders was his disbelief in the claim of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Holyoake) that in quality New Zealand milk was the best in the world. The high fat content (much, though wrongly, esteemed in many centres) was, he said, regarded as wrong nutritionally in the United States. This opinion is not confined to the United States and is generally held by doctors in New Zealand, who attribute much heart disease to diets over-rich in I fats. But little is done in New Zealand to encourage the distribution of better-balanced milk. For instance, the need to produce milk richer in the more valuable milk| solids in Christchurch is often discussed in terms of providing milk richer • in butterfat, which might very well be a poorer article of ' food.

i The initiative in the improvement of New Zealand foods is too often left to government departments, with the public and producers hesitantly following their lead. Is it not time that in these; particulars the great dairy industry,! which has all the powers and re-! I sources that it needs, should tackle! jits own problems? Indirectly they] | threaten the future of the industry, i ,If the Dairy Board set itself out to

I eradicate tuberculosis in dairy cattle it could do it, even without I help from the central government. And, of course, it will get that help. IThe production of better quality I liquid milk may be difficult; but with New Zealand’s advantages in soil and climate the farmers and (scientists could solve this problem. When this country can claim that it meets the highest standards lof health in milk and milk products 'distributed to its own people, it will have the best of selling points in dealing with other countries. More, lit will have made a contribution to 'the health and happiness of New Zealanders far outweighing the time and money it has spent in the process.