Michael - as you probably know, you coud hardly call Jindi an industrial size facility - pretty well hand made.

But the other interesting aspect of this is that Jindi, like all Australian cheese, is made from pasteurised milk. And the authorities keep us away from unpasteurised milk because of the higher risk of - listeria.

That's what I don't quite get here.

And on a side note, a French cheesemaker who moved to Australia having learnt to make cheese in France (like the cheese maker at Jindi but not him who I don't know) once told me he prefers to work with raw cheese because it is easier to detect a tainted batch.

John, pasteurisation of milk kills the live enzymes that fight the bad bacteria.Raw milk has good and bad bacteria bu the live enzymes keeps refrigerated milk for a long time. When I lived in Switzerland we always bought raw milk and raw milk cheeses often from local artisans and never once we got sick our children were always very healthy and enjoyed raw cheese.Here in Australia we buy raw milk and raw cheese from a farm we own a cow herd share. The raw milk in the fridge lasts for 17-18 days and when it starts to be a bit off I use it to make cakes or bread where the dough rises beautifully. We never get sick! Pasteurised milk from the shops however even in the fridge goes off in 3-4 days . Cheers

According to a paper in the Journal of Dairy Science 2006 ("Influence of raw milk quality on fluid milk shelf life."), it is the microbial count and somatic cell count in raw milk that determines the level of heat-stable enzymes (proteases and lipases - which break down protein and fat respectively).

Once the milk is pasterurised and refrigerated, the bacterial counts are low, and the proteases and lipases that are heat stable survive pasteurisation and contribute to the spoiling of the milk - not through infection, but through breakdown of protein and fat.

According to this paper, only certain cows in a herd might have high somatic cell counts (SCC) - which contribute to eventual spoiling of the milk (reduced shelf-life) int he way described above. Quoting: "Most healthy cows in a dairy herd have a milk SCC < 50,000 cell/mL. Bulk tank SCC > 200,000 cell/mL are usually due to the contribution of high SCC milk from a small number of cows in the herd. Technology to identify these cows and keep their milk out of the bulk tank could substantially increase the value of the remaining milk for use in fluid milk processing."

So, the "live enzymes" in raw milk are not directly beneficial human health or nutrition. If there are low bacterial counts in the milk, the enzymes will break down the milk protein and fat, leading to spoilage.

"There are about 60 reported cases a year in Australia"

Is that enough?

According to a 2008 paper in the journal Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynaecology " Listeriosis in Pregnancy: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention", some US statistics:

"Listeriosis is a rare infection, but is about 20 times more common in pregnant women than in the general population. Pregnant women account for 27% of all listerial infections, which can cause mild illness in mothers, but can be devastating to the fetus, in some cases leading to severe disease or fetal death."

According to the same paper, "The incidence of listeriosis in pregnancy is 12 per 100,000, compared with a rate of 0.7 per 100,000 in the general population."

"Is a healthy pregnant women eating ham really at a worrying risk of listeria infection?" No. The two main culprits are unpasteurised milk or milk products (like soft cheese) or processed meat products like hotdogs or pate'. Ham is different because it is salted or smoked as an intact whole leg - so contamination is highly unlikely unless there is cross-contamination by direct contact of already sliced meat.

What evidence is there that unpasteurised milk is a Listeria risk?
High bacteria count would surely be a better indicator of risk.
Lister proved that clean raw milk in sterile containers could last six months (on a shelf in his library), and be still sweet and drinkable. The vilification of raw milk is impossible to justify using any scientific data. Only politics and law uphold the fairytale dangers of raw milk and raw milk cheeses.

"What evidence is there that unpasteurised milk is a Listeria risk?"

Assuming that this is not a rhetorical question, and that you are unable to look up the evidence, here is a reference:
"Listeria monocytogenes, a Food-Borne Pathogen" Farber and Peterkin, Microbiolgocial Reviews, Sept 1991.

An extract:
- Listeria has been found in "silage, sewage, slaughterhouse waste, milk of normal and mastitic cows, and human and animal feces (278). L. monocytogenes has been isolated from cattle,
sheep, goats, and poultry..." (that's how it gets into milk).

Fresh raw milk could not possibly remain "sweet and drinkable" for six months, even bacteria-free, because the protease and lipase enzymes break down the milk proteins and fats.

Sue, so Listeria is found in many places and from this you assume that clean raw milk from healthy cows, placed in a sterile container could not remain sweet for six months.
That is a faulty assumption. Joseph Lister died in 1912. So his experiment was done more than a hundred years ago. But that should not render it invalid. If an experiment is invalid just because of the passage of time, then the whole of science is invalid. Isn't science about building up a body knowledge through observation and repeatable experimentation?

Joseph Lister proved that milk and meat and all body products from healthy animals and humans are sterile until they are contaminated by dirty instruments, dirty containers etcetera. He fought the medical establishment and many eminent scientists.
From his experiments and his assertions flow our practices today.
He was not the first person to have these ideas, but he was the first to get the message through to a sceptical, angry and dismissive male dominated society. Women knew a long time before this that clean hands and general cleanliness predicts good health.
Today society is dominated by strong international political interests and by the laws passed under their influence.
Do not confuse these interests and their associated pressures with science.

Sue,
Then how do you explain Joseph Lister's well documented experiment? You are making an assumption based on what you know. But what you know is information produced to support an industry, the milk processing industry.The only difference I can see is that Lister made his experiment with the milk of one cow, not mixed milk from a herd.
Milk from healthy cows does not have an improved shelf-life if it is pasteurised. It is not improved nutritionally either. That was proved in 1944 when experiments were conducted on calves. They were fed pasteurised milk and became so ill that the experiment was stopped. To really go off target. Why doesn't the blood bank pasteurise blood? Because it would be useless.
So is pasteurised milk.

Rotha Jago - I don't have any contact at all with the milk processing industry.

Lister experiment showed that "bacterium lactis" caused spoiling in milk. He did not have the technology to isolate the protease and lipase enzymes that cause protein and fat breakdown.

"Why doesn't the blood bank pasteurise blood? " Very amusing, Ms Jago. Let's guess - because coagulated blood doesn't flow very well?

Pasteurised milk is useless? Tell that to all the latte lovers.!

Sue Ieraci
I thought we were talking about public health, and the fact that healthy milk and blood if uncontaminated are safe. Lister's detractors thought that infection came from something in the blood and that spoilage came from something in the milk. His experiments showed conclusively that introduced elements were to blame. The cheese which killed people recently was made from pasteurised milk. Nothing in clean healthy raw milk or cheese made from it presents a threat to public health. I have recently read "Bad Pharma"by Ben Goldstein. It caused me to check the sources of 'information', no matter how expert and modern it seems.

ROtha Jago - you seem to have a couple of things confused there.

Collected and transfused blood generally has no bacteria at all as it is collected and transfused in a sterile manner. (It can contain viruses, however). During storage, it is mixed with citrate and kept refrigerated under tight temperature control.

Cows' milk is not collected in a sterile chain - bacteria are already in the milk at the time of collection from the udder.

It's not enough to check the sources of information, you also need enough scientific understanding to evaluate the validity.

Pasteurisation is all about public health - accepting that only a tiny minority of the population can get fresh milk direct from the cow prior to spoiling - and ensuring that diseases such as Brucellosis are not transmitted. Raw milk is about choice and taste - not public health.

As far as Lister goes, I suggest you read the original transcript of the actual experiment - you might find what he did and what he found is different to what you thought. The transcript is available on the net.

Do You have evidence that raw milk is dangerous to health?
It is certainly financially damaging because sellers can be prosecuted and fined. But is it dangerous to human health?
Milk from sick cows is not going to nourish healthy humans. If processing increases the possibility that treated milk from sick cows is rendered acceptable-is that in the consumer's interest?
Women withTB do not feed their children on medical advice
because TB is carried in milk. A healthy tested cow, if it's udder is
cleaned will give clean, nutritious milk. That milk will last well if it is not contaminated. When pasteurisation was forced upon the population milk consumption went down. Of course farmers' incomes went down too. I have never heard of contaminated cheese
made from raw milk because the contamination would be quickly obvious and the batch could be discarded.
Pasteurisation masks deterioration caused by contamination. The pressure on farmers to produce more and more milk at declining prices reduces milk quality, makes contamination more likely simply because of financial and time pressure. The answer is smaller herds and those who wish it can pay the price for quality raw milk.

Why do you keep asking questions, Rotha Jago, if you are impervious to the answers?

Pasteurisation doesn't "mask" contamination - it kills micro-organisms that cause contamination. The treatments that killed bovine TB and Q fever were developed in the 1950's (essentially, the temperature and duration of heating).

You say " That milk will last well if it is not contaminated." And how would you ensure that it was not contaminated? Give all the cows antibiotics? No - I think most of us prefer heat treatment.
Milk is a commercial product, sold to an enormous mass market. It is consumed by children and the elderly. That;s why it is regulated.

It is because we are talking about 2 slightly different things.
Firstly I remember that my parents (both medical professionals)
consciously chose to buy raw chilled milk, delivered by the farmer.
He had a notice outside his farm which advertised that his cows were TB tested. Universal TB testing for dairy herds in Queensland became available in 1944-45. There is no need to treat milk to kill TB
if the cows are clear. I know that temperature treatment kills various unwanted pathogens and bacteria in milk, and it also destroys enzymes. In Brisbane you can buy "Cleopatra's Bath Milk". It is raw milk from Jersey Cows and it is delicious. You have to get to the shop around delivery time, because it sells out so quickly. It lasts very well in the refrigerator, longer than Pasteurised Milk.

Pasteurisation became legal in around 1952 from memory. All milk was then sold by one of two milk factories.
Homogenisation was forced on the Brisbane market in the mid 1960's.
Only after some years and a lot of customer resistance was choice introduced.
A couple of years ago a shop owner was fined $30,000 because a new assistant made the mistake of admitting that Cleopatra's Bath Milk tasted delicious and was very popular with customers. It is against the law to sell raw milk for human consumption, but I no longer live in Brisbane. I know that clean raw milk CAN be produced, is being distributed, sold and safely consumed. I am not trying to prevent Pasteurisation, I would just like the choice.

AND that dangerous cheese was made from Pasteurised milk.

You keep talking about impossibilities which are in fact possible. And it is worth remembering that it is much easier to rear orphaned calves or lambs on raw milk. If calves and lambs benefit from milk enzymes wouldn't babies benefit too?