asked the Minister for Agriculture whether he is aware that tests carried out on milk for domestic consumption in this country showed that a much higher percentage of the samples of pasteurised milk examined had failed to pass the bacteriological plate count test than was the case in regard to the samples of loose, unpasteurised milk taken; and, if so, whether this is the reason he has decided to discourage the continued use of this test.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Milk Tests.
I presume the Deputy is referring to the results of tests of milk samples given in my reply to a question by Deputy Dr. Browne on the 5th March.
Under the relevant regulations under the Milk and Dairies Act, pasteurised milk is deemed to have failed the plate count test if the bacterial count exceeds 100,000 per cubic centimetre, whereas unpasteurised milk is not deemed to have failed the test unless the bacterial count exceeds 500,000 per cubic centimetre. Accordingly, there is no validity in the comparison the Deputy suggests between the results of the plate count test as applied to pasteurised milk and as applied to raw, unpasteurised milk.
As regards the latter part of the Deputy's question, I would point out that, as indicated in my reply to Deputy Hickey's question on the 5th March, the only change made in the use of the plate count test for milk was that local authorities were notified of the undesirability of basing legal proceedings against dairymen on that particular test. The use of the test otherwise was in no way discouraged and, in fact, local authorities were notified that the test should continue to be used as a guide to the quality of pasteurised milk.