Tag: pasteurized milk
Century of PMO and interagency collaboration
By Miquela Hanselman, Director, Regulatory Affairs
For decades, the National Conference of Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) has served as a model cooperative program between the U.S. Public Health Service/Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the states, and the dairy industry. NCIMS brings together all dairy stakeholders to maintain and update the Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), which provides uniform regulations for the dairy industry.
The 39th National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments met April 11 to 16 in Minneapolis, Minn., to deliberate many important issues facing the FDA’s National Grade A Milk Program and the PMO. Delegates representing 49 states and Puerto Rico attended, along with representatives from the FDA and industry organizations. Attendees reviewed and discussed 81 different proposals for changes to the PMO, eight of which were submitted by National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) on behalf of its members.
The conference provides a unique forum for the industry and its regulators to come together. Sometimes the most valuable advances at the conference do not come from the proposals that pass but from issues that are raised for conference-wide attention.
One issue NMPF brought forward at the conference was the confusion caused by the “Dear Veterinarian Letter” the FDA published October 11 regarding the use of aspirin products in lactating dairy cattle. In the letter, the FDA stated that veterinarians and dairy farmers should stop the use of unapproved aspirin in lactating dairy cattle and use FDA-approved products to control pyrexia and pain. This letter has perplexed the industry for the past six months, so NMPF used the conference as an opportunity to gain clarity from the FDA on its position and ensure that federal regulators are on the same page as the states and industry. Though the proposal that NMPF submitted didn’t pass, NMPF is pleased that the issue was thoroughly discussed and that NCIMS voted in favor of creating a study committee to engage the FDA, USDA, industry, and other appropriate stakeholders in exploring drug and chemical storage requirements and the administrative procedures for unapproved animal drugs, homeopathic/all natural drugs, and medical devices.
NMPF also had favorable outcomes for other proposals it submitted, including a proposal clarifying language around animal treatment record requirements and a proposal updating the rules for cleaning on-farm bulk tanks to be consistent with the rules for bulk milk hauling trucks and trailers.
Leaders from NMPF and its member cooperatives are very involved in NCIMS, and many serve on the NCIMS executive board or on committees between conferences. Brad Suhling of Prairie Farms was elected to the open industry from the central region for the NCIMS board. Suhling previously served on the Single Service Committee, and that vacancy will be filled by Charlie Mack (Prairie Farms). Amanda Rife (Land O’ Lakes) was elected the open industry from the eastern region for the NCIMS board and will serve as chair for Council I, Dave Kedzierski (United Dairymen of Arizona) will serve as the chair for Council II, Damon Miller (Dairy Farmers of America) will continue his term as the chair for Council III, and Clay Detlefsen will continue to serve in the NMPF staff representative seat. Finally, by unanimous vote, Antone Mickelson (Darigold/Northwest Dairy Association) will continue as vice chair of NCIMS executive board.
This year, attendees at NCIMS also celebrated the centennial of the PMO in 2024. The FDA ran a campaign throughout the past year to showcase what 100 years of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance has done for milk safety in the United States. Other industry partners also celebrated the centennial in different ways, including an award-winning feature story in New York Archives and a deep dive about the PMO in the “Food Safety Matters” podcast.
Protecting milk quality and safety is crucial for public health. The PMO has done that effectively for 100 years, and with continued collaboration through NCIMS, it will continue for many more.
This column originally appeared in Hoard’s Dairyman Intel on May 1, 2025.
Raw Milk Doesn’t Define Dairy
The activist claims are unfounded. The proposed laws endanger public health. And raw milk does not define dairy.
Much like the anti-vaccination movement (with whom it shares many advocates), raw milk proponents make various claims that may seem at least somewhat plausible but fall apart on closer scrutiny. The arguments, and the suspect reasoning behind them, have popped up in state legislatures for years, and for the most part they may not seem to require that much scrutiny – until someone gets sick, which happens all too often.
But with new laws being considered in more states, the tiny niche of raw milk has the potential to disrupt the dairy industry far beyond its actual market. Long touted by its devotees as superior to pasteurized milk and the key to saving dairy farms, in practice it undoes generations of public health success that has won consumer trust and made commercially sold milk one of the safest products available.
To cite the science: Raw milk does not contain more or superior nutrition to pasteurized milk. Raw milk’s record on gut health shows how greater harm works against any perceived benefits. Raw milk does not “cure” lactose intolerance. And so on, and so on.
What raw milk does do is contain pathogens that make people sick. The current patchwork of local regulations has proven why raw milk is a public health threat: Places where raw milk sales are available to the public see much greater milk-related illness outbreaks than places where such sales are prohibited. That’s why pasteurization was invented in the first place – not as a conspiracy against consumers or farmers, but as a public health measure that has saved thousands of lives over generations.
Those are just a few of the reasons why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration support raw milk restrictions. As with routine vaccinations, in which a decline has led to deadly, and absolutely unnecessary, illness outbreaks, pasteurization has been so effective, for so long, that many people no longer remember how this technology improved lives in the first place.
Another popular raw-milk argument is that what consenting adults choose to buy and sell is their own business. With all due respect to absolutist libertarians, the world doesn’t work that way, as every consumer-safety regulation in the universe attests. The world especially doesn’t work that way when a product bought by consenting adults is then given to children. The vaccination comparison holds: Even though personal-conscience and religious belief exemptions exist, good luck enrolling children in a public school without a polio vaccine. There’s a reason for that. Ask your grandparents.
Another argument in raw milk’s favor is that it will “save the farm.” It’s certainly possible that revenues from small-scale sales may help a dairy farm here and there. But it’s even more certain that foodborne outbreaks that weaken consumer confidence in milk (and unfortunately, many consumers won’t distinguish between raw and pasteurized milk when hearing a radio news report on a highway) harm the tens of thousands of dairy farmers who sell in the commercial marketplace.
Dairy farmers have spent generations building a reputation for safety and quality. No “alternative” testing protocol will ensure the same level of safety as decades of experience with pasteurization, and no assurance that raw milk sellers will do the right thing and ensure safety on their own will take the place of a surefire technology that is universally applied.
So, to any state legislator who is contemplating loosening restrictions on raw milk sales: The National Milk Producers Federation, the largest organization of dairy farmers in the United States, representing small, medium and large farms, more than 95 percent of them family-owned and operated, in every region of the country, stands opposed to the legislation you are considering. It’s bad for families, it’s bad for farmers, and it’s based on bad science.
The suspect evidence and faulty reasoning has gone on long enough. It needs to stop.
