What the NRC's report describes as only a "recommendation" for a sixty-day holding period for cheese was based on expert testimony provided during hearings way back in the 1950s. The report concedes, "[t]he scientific underpinnings of this recommendation are obscure, but appear to be derived at least partially from a study that investigated survival of B. abortus in Cheddar cheese." It then confesses that

"Unfortunately, many of the cheeses that were intended for examination in this part of the study were not tested for the presence of B. abortus as samples were lost. Further, initial cheese storage period lengths were not standardized but rather ranged from 41 to 84 days, making it very difficult to compare results among the cheese."

Despite their own laboratory results, the report says, the expert researchers

"believed that the epidemiological evidence suggesting a lack of association between cheese consumption and disease provided strong support for an aging period of approximately two months for commercial cheeses. The final stated conclusion was that "an aging period of sixty days is reasonable assurance against the presence of viable B. abortus organisms in Cheddar cheese."

The NRC report cites three outbreaks of cheese-related illnesses, involving Salmonellosis in mass manufacturing plants. The first was in 1976, traced to Cheddar manufactured in Kansas. The raw milk had been held without refrigeration in the processing plant for one to three days prior to pasteurization and cheese manufacture. "This outbreak resulted from numerous lapses in good manufacturing practices", it admitted, "and cannot be attributed solely to inadequacy of a sixty-day holding period for pathogen reduction." The second involved a series of outbreaks in Ontario between 1980 to 1982, when Salmonella muenster was isolated from raw milk Cheddar even after 125 days of curing at 41 degrees Fahrenheit. However, in 1985 a molecular profile was done of the cheese in that outbreak. It was found that workers sick with Salmonella had been handling cheese with their bare hands. In the third case, also in Canada and affecting over 2,700 people in 1984, Salmonella typhimurium was isolated at very low levels from Cheddar cheese that had been prepared from a mix of raw and pasteurized milk. It was found that two cows from two different milk herds had shed Salmonella and that one of the employees had manually overridden the pasteurizer, allowing the raw milk to be mixed in with the pasteurized. Each of these discoveries shows, says Dr. Donnelly, that pasteurization won't guarantee safety when workers can't be relied upon to maintain good production practices.

As to E. coli, "[t]here was a real problem [in the South Dakota study] with test design." If it were really such a threat in cheeses, she says, "We'd see people getting really sick." She believes mandating pasteurization in hard cheeses to be potentially more unsafe than insisting cheesemakers follow HACCP procedures. "Published studies show problems occur chiefly post-pasteurization." There is greater hazard, she will agree, in making young cheeses. Severe outbreaks of illness were associated with Mexican cheeses sold in California. But these were fresh soft cheeses made at home by amateurs for sale through street vendors without any proper attention to production hygiene.

"The issue is not pasteurized cheese versus raw", asserts Debra Dickerson. "It's about the standards under which cheese is produced. You can have pasteurized cheese that is lethal." According to the American Cheese Society--which, following publication of the South Dakota University report, formed the Cheese of Choice Coalition for the right of individuals to eat unpasteurized milk cheeses if they wished--between 1948 and 1988, over 100 billion pounds of cheese were produced in the United States. In that forty-year period of primarily mass-manufactured cheese, six food-borne illness outbreaks were reported. The highest cause was not raw milk but post-pasteurization or post-production contamination. In the UK, cheese of all types including unpasteurized accounts for just 0.1 percent of UK food poisoning outbreaks. The FDA goal, says Laura Werlin, is "an antiseptic food supply. But the ramification [of eating] food so sterilized is that when we catch anything, we won't have immunity."

Max McCalman is the maître fromageur of New York's Picholine restaurant, where cheese is taken as seriously as the other exceptional courses, and of Artisanal, a cheese bistro. Anxious to pass on his passion and knowledge, he has also established the Artisan Cheese Center for cheese maturing and education in Manhattan. But he is woeful about the current regulations. "Over the past ten years in all our dealings with cheese we have encountered hassles and frustration in securing rare gems from Europe. Sometimes it's been very bad, sometimes it's eased somewhat. [But] it doesn't look very good right now." Though the ban covers only a fraction of all the cheeses he offers, he cannot feature "those fresh, delicate lovelies. And it's our loss."

It could also become Europe's loss. With the ravenous "global market" jaw opening ever wider, what is legislated for cheese in the U.S. looks set to affect artisan cheese production worldwide if the who has its way.

There are a number of issues at play, McCalman thinks. "A little bit of isolationism in our world right now is part of what drives this. And there's hysteria." But, McCalman says, "cheese is probably the safest food out there. It has the most nutrition and is the least hazardous in any way. It's very free of any GMO [genetically modified organisms] opportunities. What is required to make real cheese is by and large organic." He goes on to list the vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants and good things galore that "these beauties" contain. Then he wonders why the same government research isn't going into the health properties of fast foods, canned foods, reconstituted foods or snack foods.

It is not unthinkable to imagine mass-production cheese manufacturers behind the FDA's focus on artisan cheeses. The U.S. Cheese Industry Association, which is against raw milk cheese labeling on the grounds that it undermines consumer confidence in dairy products, drafted a letter dated April 15, 2000, to its members and board members. Its aim was to rally them to support the inclusion of language in the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene's Code of Hygiene Practice for Milk and Milk Products that would require pasteurization for cheese, something which the Codex did not cover hitherto.

"If adopted as currently drafted, the Milk Code could result in international pressure on the U.S. government to remove or relax health and safety standards. Such action would put American consumers at risk and negatively impact our business. . . . If the standard adopted by Codex leaves out this language, the European Union will very likely initiate World Trade Association (WTO) dispute settlement proceedings against the United States. The Europeans will argue that U.S. standards are higher than those set internationally and must be justified. A WTO case would likely cost the U.S. cheese industry between $500,000 and up to several million [dollars]."

And it wouldn't be the first time that a U.S. government agency has introduced regulations which tend to favor big producers over smaller ones. As Rod Dreher documented in National Review, small producers not only have to compete in the market place; they must also swim upstream against government regulations. "State and federal regulations governing the nation's meat and dairy supply are supposed to guarantee safe, quality food products", he wrote. "But the rules are actually tailored to benefit mass agriculture producers at the expense of small farmers." It's no surprise that lobbyists for Big Cheese (as it were) would push for these regulations, even though they do it in the name of public health. K. Dun Gifford, founder and president of Oldways Preservation & Exchange Trust--founded in 1988 to promote healthy eating, encourage sustainable food choices and preserve traditional food ways--has also alleged that these large manufacturers, which already pasteurize their cheese, may be behind the FDA's testing regime.

But even if that sounds too Machiavellian, it still seems an awful lot of fuss about a food you can avoid, if you choose, without ruining a great meal. Unpasteurized cheese hasn't felled the French, who celebrate cheese as a course on its own, often twice a day. It's more likely that raw milk cheeses have contributed to a healthy build-up in their stomachs of usefully aggressive antibodies. The Surgeon General finds labels sufficient to warn consumers of the deadly hazards of cigarette smoke. Wouldn't it be simpler to allay the fears of anyone anxious about the safety of cheese by requiring informative labeling? "We would look at labeling as a possibility", says Smith DeWaal, pointing out that similar labeling has been discussed for ready-to-eat meats that carry the risk of Listeria.

In response to food safety hand-wringing, it's tempting to paraphrase TV producers' petulant retort to viewers complaining about television content: if you're worried about death by cheese, don't buy it. Because even that supermarket orange brick sealed in its sanitary vacuum pack may not be as innocuous as it looks.

Max McCalman would like to see American artisan cheesemakers allowed to make their own case for their product. "We have just gone through the best cheese times this country has ever known. All cheeses, not just 'uncompromised' cheeses, are selling at an all-time high. The number of makers of cheese has soared dramatically. This is their survival. So many of them will lose their jobs" if pasteurization becomes required for all cheese production. "I applaud the FDA", he says. "On a shoestring budget, they have watched out for our health by taking samples of many food types." He pauses, then states with some force, "But lay off the cheese!"

Julia Watson is a food writer and novelist living in Washington, DC.

Essay Types: Essay