HAL Id: hal-00895758https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00895758

Submitted on 1 Jan 2010

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.

World wide traditional cheeses: Banned for business?Giuseppe Licitra

To cite this version:Giuseppe Licitra. World wide traditional cheeses: Banned for business?. Dairy Science & Technology,EDP sciences/Springer, 2010, 90 (4), �10.1051/dst/2010016�. �hal-00895758�

Viewpoint

World wide traditional cheeses:Banned for business?

Giuseppe LICITRA1,2*

1 CoRFiLaC, Regione Siciliana, 97100 Ragusa, Italy2 DACPA, University of Catania, Italy

Received 17 June 2009 – Revised 20 December 2009 – Accepted 7 January 2010

Published online 7 April 2010

Abstract – Traditional cheeses are characterized by strong links to their territory of origin and aretestimonial of the history and the culture of the community that produces them. Every traditionalcheese originates from a complex system which results in unique organoleptic characteristics. Thedevelopment of these unique characteristics is linked to several biodiverse factors: the environment,the climate, the natural pasture, the breed of the animals, the use of raw milk and its naturalmicroflora, the cheesemaking technology with the unique role of human beings rather thanautomated technology, historical tools as well as the natural aging conditions. In many countriestraditional products are almost banned, even in Europe, despite Article 8 of the Directive 92/46 ofthe EEC, which grants derogations for the manufacture of cheese with a period of aging or ripeningof at least 60 days. Issues relating to “food safety” are frequently given as a “false” argument toexplain the banning of traditional products. Reviews of food safety outbreaks have demonstratedthat raw-milk cheeses do not pose any greater risk than industrial cheeses made from pasteurizedmilk. Improper pasteurization, post-processing contamination, storage and cross-contamination arethe main contributing factors that are responsible for these outbreaks. Traditional cheeses cannot beidentified simply by the use of “raw milk”; there are a “multiplicity of practices” that have thepotential to make safe products. The challenge for the research community is to demonstrate therole and the importance of those practices to deliver the maximum safety benefits to the consumer.Eliminating the production of traditional cheeses would make it much easier to market industrialproducts. However, consumers would lose the opportunity to compare the natural aroma, the healthbenefits, the cultural background as well as the biodiversity of traditional products.

traditional cheese / food safety / health property / biodiversity / raw milk

摘要 – 全世界传统干酪的贸易禁令○ 传统干酪与其生产地域、历史、文化内涵息息相关的○ 每种传统干酪特有的感官特性与其形成的多种生物因素有关，如环境、气候、自然放牧、动物的种类、生鲜乳及其自然的微生物菌落、特定人群采用的手工加工技术、原始的加工工具以及自然成熟的条件等因素○ 在许多国家传统干酪是禁止生产，甚至在欧洲也是如此，尽管欧共体 92/46 指南中条款 8 中不包括成熟期在 60 d 以上的干酪○ 传统干酪被禁止的原因主要是食品安全问题○ 大量的研究文献证明由生鲜乳生产的干酪与巴氏杀菌乳干酪一样不存在食品安全的危险○ 不适当的巴氏杀菌、后处理过程中污染、贮藏和交叉污染是病原菌爆发的主要原因○ 传统干酪不能简单的定义为由生鲜乳制成的干酪，实际上所采用的“多重性加工技术”能够保证干酪产品的安全性○ 科研人员通过大量实验证明这些加工过程可以最大程度地保障消费者的食用安全性○ 取消传统干酪也许会扩大工业化生产

*Corresponding author (通讯作者): licitrag@corfilac.it

Dairy Sci. Technol. 90 (2010) 357–374© INRA, EDP Sciences, 2010DOI: 10.1051/dst/2010016

Available online at:www.dairy-journal.org

Article published by EDP Sciences

干酪的市场需求，但对消费者来讲将没有机会去品尝美味、有益健康、赋予文化内涵和丰富多彩的干酪○

传统干酪 / 食品安全 / 有益健康 / 生物多样性 / 原料奶

Résumé – Les fromages traditionnels dans le monde : bannis des affaires. Les fromages tra-ditionnels sont caractérisés par un lien fort avec leur terroir d’origine et attestent de l’histoire et de laculture de la communauté qui les produit. Chaque fromage traditionnel provient de systèmes com-plexes qui lui donnent des caractéristiques organoleptiques spécifiques. Ces caractéristiques sont liéesà divers facteurs de biodiversité, comme l’environnement, le climat, la prairie naturelle, la race desanimaux, l’utilisation de lait cru et de sa microflore naturelle, la technologie fromagère s’appuyant surle savoir-faire unique des hommes et non pas sur une technologie automatisée, les outils historiques etenfin les conditions naturelles d’affinage. Dans de nombreux pays, les produits traditionnels sontpresque interdits, même en Europe, malgré l’article 8 de la Directive 92/46 de la CEE qui accorde desdérogations pour les fromages affinés plus de 60 jours. La « sécurité alimentaire » est fréquemmentutilisée comme prétexte pour interdire les produits traditionnels. Les travaux de synthèse concernantles toxi-infections alimentaires collectives ont démontré que les fromages au lait cru n’apportent pasplus de risques que les fromages industriels fabriqués à partir de lait pasteurisé. Les principauxfacteurs impliqués dans les toxi-infections alimentaires sont une pasteurisation incorrecte, unerecontamination après traitement, les conditions de stockage et des contaminations croisées. Lesfromages traditionnels ne peuvent pas être simplement définis d’après l’utilisation de lait cru pour leurfabrication ; une multitude de pratiques ont un potentiel pour faire de ces fromages des produits sûrs.Le défi pour les chercheurs est de démontrer le rôle et l’importance de ces pratiques pour apporter lemaximum de bénéfices sécurité au consommateur. Éliminer les fromages traditionnels faciliterait lacommercialisation des produits industriels. En revanche, les consommateurs perdraient l’opportunitéde comparer la saveur, les propriétés santé, le contexte culturel et la biodiversité des produits.

fromage traditionnel / sécurité alimentaire / propriété santé / biodiversité / lait cru

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent decades raw-milk cheeses havebeen categorized as “risky” foods. In manydeveloped countries, traditional productsare almost banned, even in Europe, despitethe exceptional derogation of Directive92/46 Article 8 of the EEC [14]. Article 8of the Directive grants derogations for themanufacture of cheese with a period of agingor ripening of at least 60 days, laying downthe health rules for the production and plac-ing on the market of raw-milk, heat-treatedand milk-based products. Member statesmay grant individual derogations frommilk-based products requirements (includingmilk quality control, preparation in process-ing establishments, wrapping, packagingand labeling), provided that milk used inthe manufacture of such products is obtainedfrom cows which do not show symptomsof tuberculosis or brucellosis or any other

infectious diseases communicable to humanbeings and which are in a good general stateof health.

We believe that most of the time, even inthe scientific community, there is a lack ofunderstanding of what “traditional cheeses”are, how they are produced, whether theyare microbiologically risky foods, what theyrepresent and why many governments havetried to ban them. This paper attempts togive some answers to these questions basedon the review of scientific publications andon CoRFiLaC’s research activity during thelast two decades.

CoRFiLaC is a dairy research centerbased in Ragusa, Italy. CoRFiLaC’s mainactivity is the study of traditional Siciliandairy products with a chain approach thataims “from the farm to the fork” (i.e. fromanimal nutrition to consumers’ behavior)to evaluate the peculiarity of each traditionalcheese under study.

358 G. Licitra

2. TRADITIONAL CHEESES:THE REAL VALUE

To emphasize the importance of worldwide traditional cheeses does notmean a lackof support for industrial products. There isneed to educate consumers, the press andopinion leaders to distinguish the difference.These products represent two differentworlds. Industrial cheeses have reached con-siderably good quality, but the meaning ofthe term “quality” must be interpreted in adifferent way when we talk about traditionalor industrial cheeses. The industrial onesdeliver nutritious food (i.e. protein and cal-cium) and offer convenience at an economi-cal price to the majority of consumers. Theseproducts are standardized, deliver consistentquality every day and most of the time arefresh cheeses with mild flavors. The indus-trial cheeses are usually produced on a largescale by big companies at any place in theworld, and producers are able to obtainalmost the same final product. Instead, thetraditional cheeses are niche products thatare usually handmade and produced at thefarm or village level. These products have astrong linkage to the territory of origin(i.e. orography, landscape, rural architectureand human resources) and therefore are testi-monial of the history, of the culture and of thelifestyle of those communities that producethem. Traditional products are neither nostal-gia nor simply food, but a unique expressionof the symbiotic interaction between humanresources, the culture of rural communitiesand nature. Traditional cheeses are character-ized by intense and different flavors, withreasonably high variability even within thecheese variety. These products could eitherbe consumed after few days (e.g. buffalomozzarella cheese) or aged even for years(e.g. Parmigiano Reggiano and Beaufort).Every traditional cheese originates fromcomplex systems that draw on the peculiarbio-organoleptic characteristics tied to sev-eral “biodiversity factors”, such as: theenvironment; the macro- and micro-climate;

the natural pasture; the breed of the animals(often native or heritage breeds); the use ofraw milk and its natural microflora; the useof natural coagulants; the use of naturalingredients (e.g. saffron, sugar, flour andspice); the cheesemaking technology withthe unique role of the cheesemaker and nota computerized machine; the historical tools;and natural aging conditions including theancestral practice of sun-drying.

Every traditional production system ischaracterized by the sequence of countlessbiological and natural processes, each onemarked by its natural rhythms. The cheese-maker has to understand, support and coor-dinate the delicate harmony of the sequenceof actions and timing of the cheesemakingand aging process in order to produce themost exciting form of milk, the “cheese”.

Every biodiversity factor involved in theproduction system of a specific traditionalcheesewill represent the specificity of the ter-ritory and the cheesemaking culture that hasbeen handed down from generations. Thesefactors will synergically influence the qualityof the final products. Considering that tradi-tional cheeses are obtained with full respectof nature, their quality must be evaluatednot just in terms of nutrient (i.e. protein, fat,etc.) but for their health properties, aromaand sensory profiles and for the social impactin the communities and for the role they playas protectors of the environment.

From the economic point of view, wemust also consider that milk price, for dif-ferent reasons, in many countries is drop-ping down, and small size farms will soonbe out of business. Making traditionalcheeses with low investment on new equip-ments appears to be one good and effectivesolution to continue to be on the market.Furthermore, producing high-quality tradi-tional cheeses may give the opportunity togain higher value for milk that is used formaking traditional cheeses compared tothe price of milk that is sold to the industriesto produce fluid milk or standard cheeses.The farm organization will be completely

World wide traditional cheeses 359

different, but we strongly believe that it is agreat opportunity for the small farmers tocompete successfully on the market.

At the present time, thousands of tradi-tional cheeses are produced world wide,and these products have fedbillions of peoplefor centuries, but very little scientific workhas been done for investigating these kindsof cheeses. Grant for studying these nicheproducts has been difficult to obtain. How-ever recently, the European Commissionhas financed an integrated project to improvethe quality and safety of Traditional Euro-pean Food (TRUEFOOD) by introducinginnovation into traditional food industry.Governments and public institutions shouldsupport these studies because the actualimportance of these cheeses goes beyondtheir commercial value, and is much higherfor the social and environmental protectionroles. The challenge for researchers is todemonstrate that traditionally producedcheeses are “different” and characterize themfor their health and aromatic properties, fortheir food safety qualities and further estab-lish criteria for territory markers (geographicindications and geographic protections).

3. TRADITIONAL CHEESESIN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT

The era of globalization has almostaccelerated the demise of small-scale foodproduction systems. Stiglitz affirms thatglobalization is mainly an economic phe-nomenon [58]. The market fundamentalistsand the multinational companies play a cru-cial role in any world wide decision, theybelieve on the business for business, with-out due respect to the social, cultural andhistorical origins of traditional foods.

The multinational companies work fol-lowing the rules of the market which isfinalized to the profit, without any obliga-tions for the states, for the parliaments andfor the general interest of the communities.The actual world wide condition is that

“territories are without power and aredepending on the power of multinationalcompany without territory” [30].

The multinational companies work underglobalization by standardizing products,erasing the influence of territorial peculiarity(e.g. pasteurizing the milk and delocalizingthe production), introducing high technologyand low labor cost, cutting the costs thanks tothe delocalization, producing large quantitiesand mass qualities and positioning the prod-ucts on the market as “low quality – lowprice”. It is easy to understand that small-scale, handmade production systems cannotcompete in the market for price: the onlychance for them is to compete for high-qual-ity certified products that is consequence ofthe scientific characterization and control.

Globalization has destroyed the “local”production system. In the last decade, thenew generation of anthropologists, sociolo-gists and economists began to argue on thereal meaning of globalization and to encour-age doubts on the free market fundamental-ism and on the paradigm “the economicdevelopment for the economic develop-ment” which considers only the profit mar-gin achieved by the owner of the capital[30]. Consequently, it is time to understandthat “the development finalized to the devel-opment” will depauperate the planet. Theplanet space is limited, the expected areais 51 billion hectares (ha), with “bioproduc-tive” space accounting for 12 billion ha,equivalent to 1.8 ha per planet inhabitant [6].A citizen of the USA utilizes 9.6 ha, aCanadian 7.2 ha, a European 4.5 ha on aver-age, a French citizen 5.26 ha and an Italian3.8 ha. Most of African citizens use up0.2 ha of bioproductive space and furtherthey produce food for the animals of devel-oped countries [4]. The super economicgrowth will destroy the planet, the environ-ment, because the waste produced is muchhigher than what the planet can support.In the era of globalization, it is urgent toconsider new strategies for development,where the economic value must no longer be

360 G. Licitra

at the center of the system and must becomejust a simplemeans to improve the life qualityand not achieve the only final objective [9].

It is absolutely necessary to reconsiderthe social and cultural aspects of the commu-nities of developed and developing countriesand hence of the planet, and to define anoverall strategy to save the environment.

The importance of the real economy, andnot the financial bubble, deriving from natu-ral agriculture must come back to save theplanet and to give dignity to millions of ruralfarmers. For the developed countries, it willbe impossible to stop the processes of glob-alization, but it is possible to reconsider thestrategy and the fundamental approach byswitching from business to the social princi-ples as Stiglitz suggests using the positiveopportunities that the globalization undoubt-edly offers [59]. As well, it will be crucial togive back reasonable space to the “local-ism”, to open a direct connection betweenproducers and consumers, to use localseasonal products (recently denominated“km 0”) and to appreciate the culture ofthe communities that from generationshanded down their specialty products.

The defense of world wide traditionalcheeses has been based on the above consid-erations, their recognition representingmuchmore of their intrinsic economic value, evenif it were crucial. To give economic opportu-nities to rural farmers producing traditionalcheeses in less favored environments willhelp save it, and more importantly it willgive cultural and social recognition to com-munities that are under the risk of disappear-ance with unbelievable consequences onsocial justice and on global peace.

4. CONSUMERS’EXPECTATIONS

The defense of world wide traditionalcheeses has also been encouraged by theresults of several studies on consumer pur-chasing behavior. A CoRFiLaC survey

based on 933 Sicilian consumer interviews(Fig. 1) suggests that the first seven criteriaon cheese purchase intention are: foodsafety, use of natural ingredients, healthproperties of the products, local products,protected denomination of origin (PDO),artisanal production and typical flavor [46].

Similar results were found in a Californiafocus group response to sociopoliticalquestions about specialty cheese pur-chases, method of production and productbenefits [49].

In France, the Sofres survey (http://www.fromages-de-terroirs.com/marche-fromage1.php3?id_article=652, 2005) “les Français etle fromage” on 3000 people interviews inmetropolitan area indicates that adults over36 years old (representing the 36% of thesample) base their cheese preference on thefollowing criteria: quality, PDO certification,sustainability and naturalness. Whereasyounger people look for functional productsgiving importance to price and accessibility.

West affirms that “the expanding marketfor raw milk cheeses in recent years hasbeen associated with consumer desires forgreater traceability in the food system andproduce accountability. The corollary of thisis that raw-milk cheese makers survive onlyon good reputation” [66].

The true traceability that CoRFiLaC pro-poses to define cultural traceability (avail-able at http://www.corfilac.it) is possibleespecially for these traditional products.For each cheese it will be possible to keeptrack of each biodiversity factor that isinvolved in the production system (i.e. ani-mal breed, animal nutrition, milk treatment,cheesemaking and aging technology) andto follow the human influences on the pro-cess (i.e. family story, recipes that the tradi-tion suggests, etc.). These are conditionsunthinkable for mass productions, for whichconnections no longer exist among farmers,territories and final products due mainly tomass milk collection and application of highstandardized technology (e.g. pasteurizationand membrane technologies).

World wide traditional cheeses 361

5. BIODIVERSITY FACTORSON TRADITIONALCHEESEMAKING

To report a well-documented scientificreview of the above-mentioned list of biodi-versity factors would need a specific paper;therefore, we are going to present only theresults from few relevant studies.

5.1. The importanceof traditional tools

The importance of traditional toolssuch as the “tina wooden vat”, to supportEU decisions Directive 92/46 EEC [14],852/2004 [50] and 853/2004 [51], has beenstudied. Member states may grant individ-ual or general derogations insofar as certainrequirements of this directive are likely toaffect the manufacture of milk-based prod-ucts with traditional characteristics, thatshould cause the leveling off of typicalflavors, aromas and smells, conferred bynatural dairy microflora which should fail.

The presence of a bacterial biofilm wasfound on the surface of “tina wooden vat”that is used in the Ragusano PDO cheese-making process, where no starter culturesare allowed to be used [33]. In fact, the bac-terial ecosystem of the tina biofilm quicklyand efficiently releases lactic acid bacteriainto the raw milk, thereby making the acidi-fication process faster. Thus, tina’s use iscrucial especially for raw milks with low ini-tial counts of lactic acid bacteria. Theamount of yeasts, molds and enterococciwas extremely variable from one tina biofilmto another, confirming the farm specificityregarding the microbial profile and conse-quently the strong linkage with the territory.It was further demonstrated that Salmonella,Listeria monocytogenes and E. coliO157:H7 were totally absent in the 15 tinasstudied, which represented 37% of the activetinas in the Hyblean region. These resultsstrongly reinforced the idea of the safety ofwooden vat system [35]. The main factorsthat prevent pathogens from adhering to orsurviving in these biofilms are: the acidic

65.90%

2.70%

14.90% 4.10% 12.40%

67%

3.60%

8.40% 4.60% 16.40%

68.20%

2%

8.20% 12.70% 9%

72.80%

2.80%

8.20% 3.40% 12.80%

75%

2%

5.90% 8.2% 9.1%

81.40%

1.50%

3.60%6.60% 6.90%

92.30%

4.30%

0.40%

3.00%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Typical Flavour

Artisanal Product

P.D.O.

Locally Produced

Healthy Properties

Natural Raw Ingredients

Safety Food

Very Important % On Average Important % A little bit important % I don't know % Missing %

Figure 1. The first seven consumers’ criteria in cheese selection of 933 Sicilian consumers(CoRFiLaC, data).

362 G. Licitra

conditions measured at the surface of thebiofilm (pH < 5) and the competition amongthe nutrients, as well as the cooking temper-ature above 40 °C. Further studies arenecessary to evaluate the influence of thenative microbial ecosystem of the tina bio-film delivered on the raw milk, on the aromaand the flavor of the final product.

5.2. The influence of native pastureon the aroma and sensory profileof the product

The linkage with the territory has beendemonstrated in a study concerning the influ-ence of native plants in Sicilian pastures onthe aroma compounds that are present inRagusano cheese [8]. Cheeses that areobtained from milk produced by cows fedwith native pasture plants presented moreodor-active compounds. In 4-month-oldcheese made from milk of pasture-fed cows,27 odor-active compounds were identified,whereas only 13 such compounds weredetected in cheese made from milk of cowsfed with total mixed ration (TMR). The pas-ture cheeses were much richer in odor-activealdehyde, ester and terpenoid compoundscompared to cheeses from milk produced bycows fed with only TMR. A total of eightunique aroma-active compounds (i.e. notreported in other cheeses evaluated by gaschromatography-olfactometry)were detectedin the Ragusano cheese that was made frommilk by cows fed with native Sicilian pastureplants. Furthermore, sensory analysis bytrained panelists confirmed the differencebetween the two experimental treatments [7].This research demonstrated clearly that someunique odor-active compounds found inpasture plants can be transferred to the cheeseand identified by human beings.

5.3. Health propertiesof milk components

In the last two decades, scientists haveincreased their interest in studying health

properties in foods and also focused theirresearch in milk components with antican-cer potential [34, 43–45]. Whey products(i.e. whey protein concentrate, lactoferrin,α-lactalbumin and β-lactoglobulin), pep-tides, nucleotide, conjugated linoleic acid(CLA) and antioxidants may positivelyaffect many aspects of human health,including antiatherogenic action, enhance-ment of immunology function, reductionof body fat and anticancer activities.

Cheeses are, further, a rich source of bio-active peptides that are produced duringsecondary proteolysis through the actionof proteinases and peptidases. The bioac-tive tripeptides valyl-prolyl-proline (VPP)and isoleucyl-prolyl-proline belong to themost potent angiotensin-converting enzymeinhibitory effect with a positive action onhuman health as antihypertensive [63].

The lipid fraction of dairy products hasoften been treated as a health concernbecause of the relatively high content of sat-urated and trans-fatty acids that adverselyinfluence plasma cholesterol. However, stud-ies have shown that whole milk was moreeffective in protecting against cardiovasculardisease (CVD) than skimmed milk [57].Thismay imply thatmilk fat contains compo-nents that may positively influence riskfactors for CVD. Among them, the CLA,eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexae-noic acid (DHA), fat-soluble antioxidants,such as α-tocopherol, β-carotene and retinol,could be envisaged as main players.

5.3.1. The importance of feedinganimal fresh pastureon health properties

It has been shown that grazing cowsresulted in CLA concentrations 5.7 timeshigher in milk compared with milk fromcows fed with diets containing preservedforage and grain at 50:50 ratio [13]. Grass-based diets, especially pasture, also lead tohigher milk β-carotene concentrations thandiets rich in concentrates or corn silage.

World wide traditional cheeses 363

Degradation of carotenoids and retinol isaccelerated by increasing temperature andis catalyzed by mineral ions; therefore,pasteurization of milk will be detrimentalfor these components.

The α-tocopherol concentration in freshpasture is 4 to 5 times higher than that foundin a typical TMR according to NationalResearch Council values [41]. Nevertheless,pasture is unique in terms of increase ofpolyunsaturated fatty acids and fat-solubleantioxidants. Furthermore, cows fed withfresh pasture produced milk with increasedamounts of CLA [26].

In agreement with the above-mentionedresearch, it was found that CLA, vac-cenic acid, EPA and DHA significantly(P < 0.05) increased in plasma and in milkas a function of the proportion of pasture inthe diet [29]. Such changes in fatty acid com-positionwere accompanied by a concomitantincrease in the concentrations of α-tocoph-erol and β-carotene both in plasma andmilk. No change in the retinol content wasfound in the plasma and milk samples. Theincrease in EPA, DHA and CLA, β-caroteneand α-tocopherol in plasma may have a ben-eficial impact not only for milk and meatquality, but also for animal andhumanhealth.

The level of CLA also increases in thecheeses when they are obtained from rawmilk produced by a grazing animal (Fig. 2).

6. FOOD SECURITY ISSUE

6.1. Mandatory pasteurization

In many developed countries homemadetraditional products are almost bannedunder the “false” reason of protecting theconsumers in the name of “food safety”.

In 1998, a trade group representingAmerican industrial cheesemakers beganactively lobbying the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) [62] to require thatall cheeses produced and marketed in theUS be pasteurized [21, 28]. Big cheesemak-ers also lobbied the EU to ban raw-milkcheese production and sales [31].

Pasteurization ostensibly allows theindustrial producers to eliminate the exter-nal risk factors and to focus on factors undertheir control. In addition, pasteurized milkalso affords predictability and controllabil-ity in the production process, allowingindustrial cheesemakers to reduce wastage,to maximize output and to insure price

0

5

10

15

20

25

Rag

usan

o PD

OPe

cori

no P

DO

Mai

orch

ino

Piac

entin

uPr

ovol

a N

ebro

di

Fior

e Si

cano

**C

anad

ian

chee

ses

***C

heed

dar c

hees

es

Average of CLA in Cheese *5.0 + 0.13

mg

·(g o

f fat

)−1

[*11, **36, ***65]

Figure 2. CLA content in the traditional Sicilian cheeses (CoRFiLaC, data) obtained from rawmilk produced by grazing animals ( ) compared to USA Cheddar and Canadian cheeses ( ).

364 G. Licitra

competitiveness. These fears, and relatedvalues, explain why industrial producerswork with pasteurized milk, but not whythey seek to make pasteurized milk manda-tory for all cheesemakers [66].

Furthermore,weneed to consider that veryfew raw-milk cheesemakers (small and/orone-man cheese factories) could afford thepurchase of pasteurization equipment evenif theywished to acquire it [28, 31].Offsettingsuch investment costs would require theexpansion of volume, effectively transform-ing them into industrial producers [31].

Mandatory pasteurization would elimi-nate the highly distinctive aromas, textures,colors and flavors that raw-milk cheesesafford, all made possible by the biodiversityfactors [66].

Under the false objective of food safety,the multinational industries and/or compa-nies try to overlap the traditional productionswith the excuse of protecting the consumers.

David Grotenstein asserted: “We knowfor a fact that the streets of Europe wouldbe litteredwith bodies and [European] hospi-tals would be filled to capacity if there were aproblem with unpasteurized products”, citedby Soref [56]. It seems to be just business,forgetting the real meaning of traditionalcheeses that represent: culture, history, life-style, sustainable agriculture and respect ofthe environment. In few words: “banned forbusiness”. In 1998, the US FDA initiatedthe “Domestic and ImportedCheese Compli-anceProgram”with the objectives of inspect-ing domestic cheese firms during 1998–June2004 and examining the samples of domesticand imported cheeses for microbiologicalcontamination [62]. The targeted patho-gens were: L. monocytogenes, Salmonella,E. coli (and if 104 or above: enterotoxi-genic E. coli, enterohemorrhagic E. coli(0157:H7)) and Staphylococcus aureus.The FDA tested a total of 17 324 domesticand imported cheese samples and con-ducted 1619 total inspections during theperiod January 1, 2004 to December 31,2006. The results revealed that only 3 out

of 3360 (0.09%) samples tested werepositive for E. coli 0157:H7; only 52 out of2181 cheese samples (2.4%) were positivefor L. monocytogenes; only 1.3% (45 out of3520) samples tested were positive forSalmonella; and out of 3449 cheese sam-ples tested, 239 (6.9%) were positive forS. aureus. Contamination rates were similarfor domestic and imported cheeses, rangingfrom 5.5% to 7.4% (Dr. Catherine Donnelly,University of Vermont, personal communi-cation). Donnelly concluded that: “Theresults reaffirm the microbiological safetyof domestic and imported cheese. Thesedata highlight the low incidence of food-borne pathogens in cheeses, in general,and suggest that current regulations (pas-teurization/60 days rule) are working toprotect public health. Increased regulatoryfocus should be given to Mexican-stylesoft cheeses, particularly those producedin Mexico/Central America” [15].

6.2. Outbreak linkedto dairy products

Many researchers have reviewed pub-lished outbreaks associated with dairy prod-ucts, and results indicate that raw-milkcheeses are no more riskier than industrialcheeses made from pasteurized milk. Impro-per pasteurization, post-process recontamina-tion, storage and cross contamination are themain conditions responsible for outbreaks.

A review of raw-milk cheese safety fromthe epidemiological literature (1948–1988)revealed that: six outbreaks of illness wererelated to US produced cheeses; post-pas-teurization contamination was cited as themost frequent cause of outbreaks; onlyone outbreak in US and Canada involvedthe use of raw milk; and no outbreaks werelinked to hard Italian cheese varieties(Parmesan, Romano and Provolone) [25].

Another review on all cheese-associatedoutbreaks reported to Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC) withonsets during 1973–1992 concluded that

World wide traditional cheeses 365

in 132 cheese-associated outbreaks just 11could be attributed to contamination at thefarm level, during manufacturing orprocessing. No outbreaks reported to theCDC during 1973–1992 were associatedwith raw-milk cheese aged for 60 days [2].

A study in 1976 reported 339 clinicallyconfirmed cases from a cheese-related out-break and 28 000–36 000 additional sus-pected cases due to seven lots of Cheddarcheese manufactured “from pasteurizedmilk” that was contaminated withSalmonella heidelberg [17]. The authors’indications were: the cheeses had been agedfor < 60 days, and the pHwas relatively high(5.6),whichmay have influenced the survivalof the pathogens. Improper pasteurizationwas cited as cause of this outbreak. Further-more, poor manufacturing practices coupledwith inadequate control programs at thecheese plant were cited as causative factors.

Genigeorgis et al. [20] stated that: “Cross-contamination of certain cheeses withL. monocytogenes originating from rawfoods (i.e. meat, poultry, fish and vegetables)after opening of packages, may lead tosignificant growth of the pathogen duringrefrigerated storage. Cross-contaminated inplants, supermarkets, restaurants, or homedue to on inappropriate handling”.

In the Canadian province of Quebec,a Listeria outbreak in late August 2008through beginning 2009was traced to unpas-teurized cheese [5]. One death over 39 caseswas confirmed. Several tons of cheese wererecalled and monthly inspections were insti-tuted to help producers take proper precau-tions. Several cheese producers and retailersaccused the government of “excessively”reacting, driving artisanal cheese producersout of business [5]. Quebec’s governmenthad imposed severe rules regarding microbi-ologic requirements, although the reason andsource of implicated products were nottotally clear. Consequently, many traditionalcheeses cannot be commercialized anymore,although they are perfectly safe according toEuropean standards.

A large outbreak of Shigella sonneigastroenteritis was associated with theconsumption of fresh pasteurized milkcheese. Research suggested that an infectedfood handler at the cheese factory mighthave been the source of contamination andthat the processing method might haveallowed cross-contamination to occur [19].

Several authors affirmed that outbreaks ofmilk-borne diseases have occurred despitepasteurization, caused either by improper pas-teurization or by recontamination [2, 12, 23].

6.3. The 60 days aging role

Relevant studies for the US FDA showedthat Cheddar cheese produced from pasteur-ized milk inoculated with the followingpathogens can survive for up to: 434 daysfor healthy Listeria monocytogenes, inocu-lated to contain 5 × 102 cells·mL−1 [55];270 days (with an average of 195 days forall the experimental condition) for mixedspecies of Salmonella (S. typhimurium,S. senftenberg 775W, S. New brunswick1608 and S. Newport) inoculated with3–5 × 102 cells·mL−1 [22]; and 158 daysfor E. coli O157:H7 inoculated with1 × 103 cells·mL−1 [52]. These studies putin the question the adequacy of the 60-dayholding period at ≥ 1.7 °C [37].

Most studies on pathogenic organisms’survival in cheese have been based on theinoculation of pathogenic organisms intopasteurized milk prior to the cheesemakingprocess and on the measurement of thesurvival during and after cheesemaking.Inoculation of pathogenic organisms intopasteurized milk appears to be the weaknessof these studies. Given the fact that the inhib-itory factors in rawmilk on pathogen survivalmay have yielded different results if rawmilk were used for cheesemaking [48].The authors showed that the growth ofS. aureus, Salmonella enteritidis andL. monocytogenes was slower in raw milkheld at 37 °C for 72 h, than in pasteurizedmilk held for the same time at 37 °C.

366 G. Licitra

The inhibitory effects of raw milk on thesurvival of these three pathogens in milkare of great importance for cheesemakingfrom rawmilk. The authorshypothesized thatthe inhibitory effect of rawmilk in their studywas due to activation of the lactoperoxidasesystem by hydrogen peroxide producingbacteria naturally present in raw milk thatwere growing at 37 °C.

Thus, pasteurization may inactivate thelactoperoxidase in cheese and make it easierfor pathogens to grow in cheese during andafter cheesemaking, if they are present inthe milk or cheese due to post-pasteuriza-tion contamination. This fact is probablyone of the major points that researchershave ignored. The “pasteurization dilemma”has also been debated in other studies [15].Furthermore, according to Patrick Rance:“Pasteurizing milk doesn’t kill all the Liste-ria bacteria. Some of them are merelystunned. And because other kinds of bacte-ria have been killed by pasteurization, theListeria bugs have a free run to breed”, citedby Jeffrey [24]. Competition between theraw-milk microorganisms and pathogens,even if inoculated, will end up in com-pletely different results compared to patho-gens inoculated in pasteurized milk.

In France, in a study on Saint-Nectairecheese made from raw milk inoculated withtwo strains of Listeria monocytogenes(5–10 CFU·25 mL−1) it was demonstratedthat there was no growth of the pathogenin cheeses with pH < 5.2 and lactate contentaround 14 mg·g−1 [38].

In Switzerland, approximately 80%of cheeses made are manufactured fromraw milk. Eight pathogens includingSalmonella spp., L. monocytogenes andE. coli were inoculated to raw milk(104–106 CFU·mL−1) and no detection ofpathogens was found beyond 1 day in thehard cheeses [3].

Similar results were obtained on Parmi-giano Reggiano cheese made from raw milkvoluntarily inoculated with pathogenicbacteria. After inoculation, the number of

pathogenic germs in milk was between13 × 104 CFU·mL−1 (in curdling withS. aureus) and 55 × 104 CFU·mL−1 (in cur-dling with S. typhimurium). In this studypathogenic bacteria became undetectableafter 24 h from manufacture [42].

Pellegrino and Resmini worked on thecheesemaking conditions and compositivecharacteristics supporting the safety of theraw-milk cheese Italian grana [47]. Theyconfirmed undetectable pathogens after24 h following in-vat curd cooking 52–55 °C for 60–75 min. More importantly,the subsequent holding of molded cheeseat temperatures up to 56 + 2 °C heat devel-oped the growth of lactic acid bacteria, for10 h at least in the presence of a pH valueclose to 5, conditions having an effect com-parable to that of pasteurization. Absorptionof a high amount of NaCl in brining resultedin high osmotic pressure in the peripheralpart of cheese, the only one which is stillalkaline phosphatase positive. After mold-ing, prolonged ripening brings a furtherdecrease of water activity (aw) on the rindof the cheese up to a final value which inhib-its the growth of pathogens, including thosederiving from post-contamination.

Information on Ragusano cheesemakingand aging technology was used for a spe-cific experimental design (data unpublished)to identify critical points, in the cheesemak-ing and aging process, where the time andlevel of pH, the temperature (Fig. 3) andaw (Fig. 4) may influence the survival con-ditions of pathogens at 60, 90 and 120 daysof aging. The parameters applied were:cooking the curd at 43 °C for 2 h at pH 6;stretching conditions at 49 °C for 30 minat pH 5.1 and salting the cheeses in satu-rated brine for 2 or 3 days per kg ofcheese [32]. The targeted pathogenswere: coliforms spp., E. coli, S. aureus,Streptococcus agalactiae, Salmonella,L. monocytogenes and Pseudomonasaeruginosa.Despite their presence in the rawmilk samples, none of these pathogens weredetected at 60, 90 and 120 days of aging.

World wide traditional cheeses 367

We consider these results the synergicactions of the different multiplicity of prac-tices mentioned above. At 60 days of aging,the effect of the aw in combination with lowpH 5 was crucial. The lowest aw values, onaverage 0.85, were observed close to the rindof the cheese (Fig. 4). These considerationsare in agreement with other studies where“The repair of heat-injuredL.monocytogenesoccurred under a wide range of pH valuesand several levels of high aw (aw > 0.93).Therefore, an environmentally inhospitablecondition using a combination of a low levelof aw, low pH, and other hurdles must beconsidered to effectively prevent the repairand growth of the pathogen” [10].

6.4. Equivalence of pasteurization

We might then ask: Why have there notbeen more safety problems with aged raw-milk cheeses?

This apparent enigma indicates that theremay be a significant gap in our knowledgeabout the influence of the characteristics ofraw milk, the cheesemaking process andthe chemical composition of cheeses onpathogenic bacteria. A multiplicity of prac-tices beyond pasteurization or heat treat-ment significantly contribute to themicrobiological safety of cheese [25].

From the above consideration we pro-pose that “Raw milk vs. Pasteurized milk”

pHtemperature

4.85.05.25.45.65.86.06.26.46.66.8

hours

pH

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

tem

pera

ture

Stretching

Coagulation

pH5.2p

Aging the curd2nd

Cooking

1st Cooking

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Figure 3. Mean pH and temperature of Ragusano cheese during cheese-making process(CoRFiLaC, data).

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

Rind

Cheese portion

a w v

alue

s

Sub-rind Medium Internal

Figure 4. Mean values of aw in Ragusano PDO after 60 days ( ), 90 days ( ) and120 days ( ) of aging (CoRFiLaC, data).

368 G. Licitra

is a false problem or at the least it is not“The Problem”.

The real issue to determine the “foodsafety” is to take into account the overalltraditional systems and not just the use ornot of raw milk. Finally the FDA recentlyhave also introduced the concept of “equiv-alence of pasteurization”, to consider otherfactors that could make the cheese safe.

Many factors are influencing microbialactivity during raw-milk cheesemakingand aging process generating synergiceffects for microbial inhospitality, injuryof microbial cell and generation of bacte-riostatic and/or bactericidal actions. Themain factors in synthesis are: time andlevel of pH and acidity, temperature, oxy-gen, redox potential through the overallprocess, antimicrobial activity from freshraw milk (content and activity of keyenzymes including lactoperoxidase, lyso-zyme, lactoferrin, xantinoxidase and thelevel of sulfhydryl groups and carbon diox-ide) [18]; competition for nutrients due tothe elevated number of different microor-ganisms in raw milk; microbial productionof bacteriocin in situ or bacteriocin-likesubstances [1, 16, 20, 25]; speed of curdacidification (fast curd acidification toreach pH 5–5.5 is unfavorable to patho-genic microorganisms); time and level ofthe temperature of the curd at cooking,molding and stretching stages; cheesecomposition throughout the overall process(aw and osmotic pressure, moisture andingredients’ concentration (salt, sugar andspice)), free fatty acid and monoglycerides[60, 64], casein fragment α and β casein-derived peptides released in water-solubleextract [53].

7. TRADITIONAL CHEESESIN THE DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES

In developing countries, agriculture isstill the biggest production system often

covering more than 60% of the employmentand even in the presence of a very lowavailability of technology, these countriescontinue to produce food in the centuries-old traditional way. Everybody hopes thatpeople living in these countries couldhave a reasonable and sustainable develop-ment to improve their quality of life withoutlosing their identity. But at the same timethey can offer an incredible opportunity tounderstand their culture in cheesemaking.These countries produce safe food, even ifalmost zero technology is available. Fewexamples may help to understand our inter-est in their culture. In Benin, the ethnicgroup Peuhl produces the Wagashi cheese.They use the latex of Calotropis procerato coagulate the milk and produce a cheesewith very low proteolytic activity thatallows them to boil the cheese over and overagain, every 2 days, for about 1 month sinceit has been produced. This simple practiceof prolonged heat treatment makes thecheese safe. Alternatively, cheese can besun-dried to extend shelf life. A similartechnique is used in Morocco for the Lakilacheese, in Burkina Faso for the Gapalcheese, in Mali for the Gashi cheese andin Niger for the Takumart cheese. In Indiacheesemakers add about 40% of sugar inthe Penda cheese. It is also common touse spices in cheese production (honey, gar-lic, thyme and cumin) for their antimicrobialproperties and in specific for their ability toslow down degradation processes, allowinga better food conservation and a naturalreinforcement of the immune system.

8. FOOD SAFETY:AN ETHICAL ISSUE

Nestle stated: “Safety is relative; it is notan inherent biological characteristic of food.A food may be safe for some people but notothers, safe at one level of intake, but notanother, or safe at one point in time butnot later. Instead, we can define a safe food

World wide traditional cheeses 369

as one that does not exceed an acceptablelevel of risk. Decisions about acceptabilityinvolve perceptions, opinions, and values,as well as science. When such decisionshave implications for commercial or otherself-interested motives, food safety entersthe realm of politics” [40].

“To decide what is an acceptable level ofrisk of death or sickness require an ethicaljudgment, so too does the very question ofwhat counts as a risk at all! There is anindefinite set of risks associated with anyhuman activity; we take some seriouslyand ignore others” [54].

In the newspaper USA TODAY(March 17, 2005), Mitchell published thatin five years the ranks of those who are100 or more pounds overweight hadgrown by 2.6 million people in theUSA [39]. At that time 16% of kids in theUS are overweight and another 15% are atrisk of becoming too heavy. They could live2–5 years less due to the overweight.

In the US, National Vital StatisticsReport [27] stated that the incidence ofdeath for foodborne disease did not appearin the first 15 causes of death, where the lastone was 0.7%. Data were not aggregated forfoodborne disease and presumably theyaccount even lower percentages.

Rollin continues to affirm “The publicmust be made to understand that there areno risk-free environments and that to live isto take risks. Furthermore, people need tounderstand that it is unseemly for a freepeople to expect to be totally protected fromall risks by the government. These reflectionslead us to a plausible ethical principle con-cerning responsibility for food safety” [54].And what about Genetic Modified Organ-isms (GMO) or the use of bovine somatotro-pin in dairy production systems? Consumersare taking the risk; they should at least havea choice in doing so, and thus labeling seemsto be a moral necessity. Then, consumersmust morally be free to choose or to rejectthe products and this in turn militates at leastin favor of labeling food as “GMO” [54].

What is the real meaning of “foodsafety”? In many developing countrieswhere billions of people (more than 50%of world wide population) live, it means“to hope that they can get food every day”.

Most recent data indicate that about11 million children die from preventablediseases [61]. In the world 1 child out of12 dies before the fifth birthday. Malnutri-tion contributes for more than 50% of thetotal causes of the child mortality. Thismeans that 21 children die every minute.

Food safety for consumers of developedcountries is an important conquest butshould not be used for business objectives.Actually, food safety is a complicated“Ethic Issue” that should become not onlythe main objective of any political decisionbut also the scientific community shouldwork hard to underline this evidence.

We cannot stop globalization; we cannotstop development; we cannot stop business;and we cannot stop competition. But, wecan decide the priorities of our values. Wecan try to move from the business actionsdictated by globalization to the world widesocial and cultural interrelationships. Busi-ness represents a part of the system andshould be used to support the interests ofpoor people and not of multinationalcompanies of oligarchic countries.

9. CONCLUSIONS

World wide traditional cheeses shouldnot be considered just “food” but testimo-nial of the history, of the culture and ofthe lifestyle of the producer communitiesthat make them. World wide traditionalcheeses have strong linkage to the terri-tory of origin and are unique expressionof the symbiotic interaction of humanresource, culture of the communities andthe nature.

Traditional cheeses are not riskier thanindustrial cheeses made from pasteurizedmilk. Improper pasteurization, post-process

370 G. Licitra

recontamination, storage and cross-contami-nation are the main conditions responsiblefor outbreaks. In any production systemraw-milk screening, good manufacturingpractices and post-production control systemable to avoid environment contamination ofcheeses may be the most effective strategy toimprove and control products safety.

A debate over raw milk vs. pasteurizedmilk for cheesemaking is not the issue.Overall production systems must guaranteecheese safety.

To give dignity to rural populations andto protect traditional cheeses will contrib-ute to save the environment. But, moreimportantly it will give cultural and socialrecognition to communities that are goingto disappear with an unbelievable conse-quence on social justice and on planetpeace.

It is the time to develop and coordinatean international scientific network througha “World Wide Traditional Cheeses Associ-ation” in order to protect traditional cheesesand to work together to demonstrate scien-tifically: the characteristics of traditionalcheese and cheesemaking technology; theimportance of traditional tools; the healthproperties of traditional cheeses; the aro-matic and sensorial profiles of traditionalcheeses (importance of biodiversity factors);the effectiveness of food safety of cheesesproduced with traditional systems.

Public institutes of research, even univer-sities, must certify the quality of world widetraditional cheeses and contribute to educatefarmers, consumers and researchers to thereal meaning of these cultural products.

Food safety is an “Ethical Issue” and notjust a business decision.

Acknowledgments: The author thanksM. Caccamo, P. Campo, S. Carpino, S. La Terra,C. Pasta, C. Pediliggieri, L. Tuminello andM. Manenti for their support. This research wasfunded by the “Assessorato Agricoltura e Forestedella Regione Siciliana”, Palermo, Italy.

REFERENCES

[1] Abee T., Krockel L., Hill C., Bacteriocins:modes of action and potentials in foodpreservation and control of food poisoning,Int. J. Food Microbiol. 28 (1995) 169–185.

[2] Altekruse S.F., Timbo B.B., Mowbray J.C.,Bean N.H., Potter M.E., Cheese-associatedoutbreaks of human illness in the UnitedStates, 1973 to 1992: sanitary manufacturingpractices protect consumers, J. Food Prot. 61(1998) 1405–1407.

[3] Bachmann H.P., Spahr U., The fate ofpotentially pathogenic bacteria in swiss hardand semihard cheeses made from raw milk,J. Dairy Sci. 78 (1995) 476–483.

[4] Bologna G., Italia capace di futuro, EditriceMissionaria Italia [Italy able of future],Bologna, Italy, 2001.

[5] Brenhouse H., Raw milk sales could rein-vigorate U.S. dairy farms, New York Times,November 16 (2009).

[6] Brown L., Fundanga C., Lash J., Latouche S.,Martinez-Alier J., Masullo A., Musu I.,Wackernagl M., Economia e ambiente. Lasfida del terzo millennio [Economy andenvironment. The challenge of the thirdmillennium], EMI, Bologna, Italy, 2005.

[7] Carpino S., Horne J., Melilli C., Licitra G.,Barbano D.M., Van Soest P.J., Contributionof native pasture to the sensory properties ofRagusano cheese, J Dairy Sci. 87 (2004)308–315.

[8] Carpino S., Mallia S., La Terra S., Melilli C.,Licitra G., Acree T.E., Barbano D.M.,Van Soest P.J., Composition and aromacompounds of Ragusano cheese: nativepasture and total mixed rations, J. DairySci. 87 (2004) 816–830.

[9] Castoriadis C., La montée de l’insignifiance.Les carrefours du labyrinthe IV [The climbof the insignificance. The crossroads of thelabyrinth IV], Éditions du Seuil, Paris,France, 1996, p. 245.

[10] Chawla C.S., Chen H., Donnelly C.W.,Mathematically modeling the repair ofheat-injured L. monocytogenes as affectedby temperature, pH, and salt concentration,Int. J. Food Microbiol. 30 (1996) 231–242.

[11] Chin S.F., Liu W., Storkson J.M., Ha Y.L.,Parizà M.W., Dietary sources of conjugateddienoic isomers of Linoleic acids, a newlyrecognized class of anticarcinogens, J. FoodCompos. Anal. 5 (1992) 185–197.

World wide traditional cheeses 371

[12] Delgado daSilva M.C., Hofer E., Tibana A.,Incidence of Listeria monocytogenes incheese produced in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,J. Food Prot. 61 (1998) 354–356.

[13] Dhiman T.R., Satter L.D., Patriza M.W.,Galli M.P., Albright K., Tolosa M.X., Con-jugated linoleic acid (CLA) content of milkfrom cows offered diets rich in linoleic andlinolenic acid, J. Dairy Sci. 83 (2000) 1016–1027.

[14] Directive 92/46/EEC of the European Com-mission of 16 June 1992, OJEC L. 268,14.09.1992.

[15] Donnelly C.W., The pasteurization dilemma,in: Kindstedt P. (Ed.), American farmsteadcheese: the complete guide to making andselling artisan cheeses, White River Junction,Chelsea Green Publishing Company, USA,2005, pp. 173–195.

[16] Elotmani F., Revol-Junelles A.M.,Assobhei O., Milliere J.B., Characterizationof anti-Listeria monocytogenes bacteriocinsfrom Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcusfaecium and Lactococcus lactis strains iso-lated from Raib, a Moroccan traditionalfermented milk, Curr. Microbiol. 44 (2002)10–17.

[17] Fontaine R.E., Cohen M.L., Martin W.T.,Vernon T.M., Epidemic salmonellosis fromCheddar cheese: surveillance and preven-tion, Am. J. Epidemiol. 1 (1980) 247–253.

[18] Fox P.F., Guinee T.P., Cogan T.M.,McSweeney P.L.H., Fundamentals ofcheese science, Aspen Publishers, Inc.,Gaithersburg, USA, 2004.

[19] García-Fulgueiras A., Sánchez S., Guillén J.J.,Marsilla B., Aladueña A., Navarro C., A largeoutbreak of Shigella sonnei gastroenteritisassociated with consumption of fresh pasteur-ized milk cheese, Eur. J. Epidemiol. 17 (2001)533–538.

[20] Genigeorgis C., Carniciu M., Dutulescu D.,Farver T.B., Growth and survival ofL. monocytogenes in market cheeses storedat 4 to 30 °C, J. Food Prot. 54 (1991)662–668.

[21] Halweil B., Setting the cheez whiz standard,World Watch 13 (2000) 2.

[22] Hargrove R.E., McDonough F.E., MattinglyW.A., Factors affecting survival of Salmo-nella in Cheddar and Colby cheese, J. MilkFood Technol. 32 (1969) 480–484.

[23] Hartman P.A., The evolution of food micro-biology, in: Doyle M.P., Beuchat L.R.,Montville T.J. (Eds.), Food microbiology:

fundamentals and frontiers, ASM Press,Washington, USA, 1997, pp. 3–13.

[24] Jeffrey F., Listeria hysteria cools off-foodspy: cheese, The Times (1992).

[25] Johnson E.A., Nelson J.H., Johnson M.,Microbiological safety of cheese made fromheat treated milk. Part II. Microbiology,J. Food Prot. 53 (1990) 519–540.

[26] Kay J.K., Mackle T.R., Auldist M.J., ThomsonN.A., Bauman D.E., Endogenous synthesisof cis-9, trans-11 conjugated linoleic acid indairy cows fed fresh pasture, J. Dairy Sci. 87(2003) 369–378.

[27] Kochanek K.D., Murphy S.L., AndersonR.N., Scott C., Deaths: final data for 2002,National Vital Statistics Report 53 (2004)1–116.

[28] Kummer C., Craftsman cheese, The AtlanticMonthly 286 (2000) 109–112.

[29] La Terra S., Carpino S., Banni S.,ManentiM.,Caccamo M., Licitra G., Effect of mountainand sea level pasture on conjugated linoleicacid content in plasma and milk, J. Anim. Sci.84 (Suppl. 1) (2006) 277–278.

[30] Latouche S., Survivre au développement.De la décolonisation de l’imaginaire écono-mique à la construction d’une société alter-native [Survive the development. By theeconomic decolonization of imagination tothe construction of an alternative society],Mille et une nuits, département de la LibrairieArthème Fayard, Paris, 2005, p. 105.

[31] Lichfield J., Liberté! fraternité! fromage!:a new crisis is dividing France [Freedom!Brotherhood! Cheese!], Cheese, TheIndependent (1999).

[32] Licitra G., Portelli G., Campo P., Farina G.,Carpino S., Barbano D.M., Technology toproduce Ragusano cheese: a survey, J. DairySci. 81 (1998) 3343–3349.

[33] Licitra G., Ogier J.C., Parayre S.,Pediliggeri C., Carnemolla T.M., Falentin H.,Madec M.N., Carpino S., Lortal S., Variabilityofbacterial biofilmof the “Tina”woodvats usedin the Ragusano cheese-making process, Appl.Environ. Microbiol. 73 (2007) 6980–6987.

[34] Lock A.L., Parodi P.W., Bauman D.E., Thebiology of trans fatty acids: implications forhuman health and the dairy industry, Aust. J.Dairy Technol. 60 (2005) 134–142.

[35] Lortal S., Di Blasi A., Madec M.N.,Pediliggieri C., Tuminello L., Tanguy G.,Fauquant J., Lecuona Y., Campo P.,Carpino S., Licitra G., Tina wooden vat

372 G. Licitra

biofilm: a safe and highly efficient lactic acidbacteria delivering system in PDO Ragusanocheese-making, Int. J. Food Microbiol. 132(2009) 1–8.

[36] Ma D.W.L., Wierzbicki A.A., Field C.J.,Clandinin M.T., Conjugated linoleic acid inCanadian dairy and beef products, J. Agric.Food Chem. 47 (1999) 1956–1960.

[37] Mathew F.P., Ryser E.T., Competition ofthermally injured L. monocytogenes with amesophilic lactic acid starter culture in milkfor various heat treatments, J. Food Prot. 65(2002) 643–650.

[38] Millet L., Saubusse M., Didienne R.,Tessier L., Montel M.C., Control of Listeriamonocytogenes in raw-milk cheeses, Int. J.Food Microbiol. 108 (2006) 105–114.

[39] Mitchell J., USA TODAY, Thursday,March 17, 2005.

[40] Nestle M., Safe food: bacteria, biotechnol-ogy, and bioterrorism, University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, USA, 2003.

[41] NRC, 7th edn., Revised National Academyof Science, Washington, 2001.

[42] PanariG.,PecorariM.,MerialdiG.,DottoriM.,Il comportamento dei batteri potenzialmentepatogeni nella produzione di Parmigiano-Reggiano [The behaviour of potentiallypathogenic bacteria in the production ofParmigiano-Reggiano], Sci. Tecn. Latt.-Cas.55 (2004) 137–146.

[43] Parodi P.W., A role for milk proteins incancer prevention, Aust. J. Dairy Technol.53 (1998) 37–47.

[44] Parodi P.W., Cow’s milk components withanti-cancer potential, Aust. J. Dairy Technol.56 (2001) 65–73.

[45] Parodi P.W., Anti-cancer agents in milkfat,Aust. J. Dairy Technol. 58 (2003) 114–118.

[46] Pasta C., Licitra G., Tradition or technology?Consumer criteria for choosing cheese,7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium,12–16th August, Minneapolis, USA, 2007.

[47] Pellegrino L., Resmini P., Cheesemakingconditions and compositive characteristicssupporting the safety of the raw milk cheeseItalian grana, Sci. Tecn. Latt.-Cas. 52 (2001)105–114.

[48] Pitt W.M., Harden T.J., Hull R.R., Investi-gation of the antimicrobial activity of rawmilk against several foodborne pathogens,Milchwissenschaft 55 (2000) 249–252.

[49] Reed B.A., Bruhn C.M., Sampling and farmstories prompt consumers to buy specialtycheeses, California Agric. 57 (2003) 76–80.

[50] Regolamento (CE) N. 852/2004 del Parla-mento Europeo e del Consiglio del 29 aprile2004 sull’igiene dei prodotti alimentari,Gazzetta Ufficiale Unione Europea,L. 226/3, 25.6.2004 [Regulation (EC) No.852/2004 of the European Parliament and theCouncil of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene offoodstuffs, European Union Official Journal].

[51] Regolamento (CE) N. 853/2004 del Parla-mento Europeo e del Consiglio del 29 aprile2004 che stabilisce norme specifiche inmateria di igiene per gli alimenti di origineanimale, Gazzetta Ufficiale Unione Europea,L. 139/55, 30.04.2004 [Regulation (EC)No. 853/2004 of the European Parliamentand the Council of 29 April 2004 layingdown specific hygiene rules for food ofanimal origin, European Union OfficialJournal].

[52] Reitsma C.J., Henning D.R., Survival ofenteropathogenic Escherichia coli O157:H7during the manufacture and curing of Ched-dar cheese, J. Food Prot. 59 (1996) 460–465.

[53] Rizzello C.G., Losito I., Gobbetti M.,Carbonara T., De Bari M.D., Zambonin P.G.,Antibacterial activities of peptides fromthe water-soluble extracts of Italian cheesevarieties, J. Dairy Sci. 88 (2005) 2348–2360.

[54] Rollin B.E., Ethical issues surrounding food-borne illness: who is responsible?, J. Anim.Sci. 83 (Suppl. 1) (2005) 359.

[55] Ryser E.T., Marth E.H., Behavior of Listeriamonocytogenes during the manufacture andripening of Cheddar cheese, J. Food Prot. 50(1987) 7–13.

[56] Soref A., Culturing taste and tradition withraw milk cheese, The Natural Foods Mer-chandiser, 2000.

[57] Steinmetz K.A., Childs M.T., Stimson C.,Kushi L.H., McGovern P.G., Potter J.D.,Yamanaka W.K., Effect of consumption ofwhole milk and skim milk on blood lipidprofiles in healthy men, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 59(1994) 612–618.

[58] Stiglitz J.F., The globalization and itsdiscontents, W.W. Norton & Company,New York, USA, 2002.

[59] Stiglitz J.F., Making globalization work,W.W. Norton & Company, New York,USA, 2006.

World wide traditional cheeses 373

[60] Sun C.Q., O’Connor C.J., Roberton A.M.,The antimicrobial properties of milkfat afterpartial hydrolysis by calf pregastric lipase,Chem. Biol. Interact. 140 (2002) 185–198.

[61] UNICEF Report, Progress for Children,New York-Ginevra, October 2004.

[62] U.S. FDA, Food compliance program.Domestic and imported cheese and cheeseproducts, available at: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/-comm/cp03037.htlm, 1998.

[63] Walther B., Schmid A., Sieber R.,Wehrmüller K., Cheese in nutrition andhealth, Dairy Sci. Technol. 88 (2008) 389–405.

[64] Wang L.L., Johnson E.A., Inhibition ofListeria monocytogenes by fatty acids andmonoglycerides, Appl. Environ. Microbiol.58 (1992) 624–629.

[65] Werner S.A., Luedecke L.O., Shultz T.D.,Determination of conjugated linoleic acidcontent and isomer distribution in threecheddar-type cheeses – effects of cheesecultures, processing, and aging, J. Agric.Food Chem. 40 (1992) 1817–1821.

[66] West H.G., Food fears and raw-milk cheese,Appetite 51 (2008) 25–29.

374 G. Licitra