The microbiopolitics of artisanal cheese: a case study of Tasmania, Australia

ABSTRACT

This article investigates the “microbiopolitics” of artisanal cheesemaking as manifested in the use of pasteurized, raw (unpasteurized) milk, and plant-based varieties. Drawing on Heather Paxson’s study of artisanal cheese in the United States, it examines how the microbiopolitics of conventional and alternative milks are produced, challenged, and redefined by artisanal cheesemakers. The research is based on qualitative, empirical research conducted in Tasmania between mid-2022 and early 2023 that included literature review, site visits and semi-structured interviews with artisanal cheesemakers. The study finds that artisanal cheesemakers, regardless of the milk type they use, are deeply committed to producing cheeses that are of a high standard in terms of both art and science. However, in doing so, they must negotiate a complex “microbiopolitics” occurring at three levels: the level of the cheesemaking industry, the level of the state’s regulatory apparatus, and the level of the human microbiome.

KEYWORDS:

• Microbiopolitics
• raw milk
• plant-based milk
• artisanal foods
• cheese
• cheesemakers
• food safety

Introduction

“We are what we eat” is increasingly understood in a literal sense with the knowledge that 90% of what we consider to be the human organism is made up of microorganisms (Paxson 2008, 38). The human body is a diverse microbiome of a multitude of micro-organisms which have biological and social influences (Ogden, Hall, and Tanita 2013). Biologists have discovered that these microbes found throughout our bodies are transferring genetic data between species in various taxonomic categories, not just through vertical inheritance between generations (S.E. S. E. Kirksey and Helmreich 2010). “Microbes connect us through disease,” writes Bruno Latour, “but they also connect us, through our intestinal flora, to the very things we eat” (1988, 37; Paxson 2014, 120). People tend to not be conscious of the various bacteria, viruses, and fungi that take residence on their skin and inside our guts unless they result in sickness (E. Kirksey, Craig, and Stefan 2014). While some microbes associated with cheese, like Lysteria monocytogenes and species of Mycobacterium, can be harmful the beneficial starter bacterial cultures and cheese molds must also be included in accounts of food politics (Paxson 2014).

In addition to being active in the body’s daily biophysical processes, microbes are also a focus of regulatory bodies and food producers. Focusing on artisan cheesemaking using raw milk in the United States, Heather Paxson (2008) introduced the notion of microbiopolitics. Paxson (2008, 16) uses this term to “call attention to the fact that dissent over how to live with microorganisms reflects disagreement about how humans ought to live with one another … to frame questions of food ethics and governance.” Paxson highlights how the microbiopolitics of artisanal cheesemaking are being adopted, enforced, and challenged through milk selection. Framing microbiopolitics, Paxson (2008, 2012, 2014) extends Michel Foucault’s argument on the nineteenth-century rise of biopolitics (1978), by which social regulation is indirectly achieved through the exertion of governmental power to control overt sexual and reproductive behavior. Building on biopolitics, Paxson (2008; 2012; 2014; Paxson and Helmreich 2014) draws on Bruno Latour, in The Pasteurization of France (1988) to include microbial agents and the “social and regulatory repercussions” of their discovery by Louis Pasteur. Bringing the work of Foucault and Latour together, Paxson (2008, 17) introduces microbiopolitics to acknowledge the existence of such “microscopic biological agents; the anthropocentric evaluation of such agents; and the elaboration of appropriate human behaviors vis-à-vis microorganisms engaged in infection, inoculation, and digestion.”

Drawing on the microbiopolitics framework introduced by Paxson (2008) in conjunction with qualitative data gathered from Tasmania’s artisanal cheese industry, this article investigates the “microbiopolitics” associated with cheesemaking using pasteurized milk, raw (unpasteurized) milk, and plant-based varieties. This framework draws attention to how control over microbial agents can result in indirect control over human bodies and thus, using this framework, the paper addresses the question: How do artisanal cheesemakers negotiate the microbiopolitics of milk in Tasmania? The study finds that artisanal cheesemakers, regardless of the milk type they use, are deeply committed to producing cheeses that are of a high standard in terms of both art and science. However, in doing so, they must continuously negotiate a complex “microbiopolitics” occurring at three levels: the level of the cheesemaking industry, the level of the state’s regulatory apparatus, and the level of the human microbiome. It is important to explore such areas to ensure that the implementation of regulation does not go unchallenged when it is necessary. It is argued that promoting an awareness of the microbiopolitics of artisanal cheesemaking can encourage greater transparency and contribute to the development of a deeper knowledge and understanding by consumers of what they eat and how they are influenced. The research provides a theoretical contribution by examining the ways that scientific knowledge informing food choice and regulation is socially constructed and by elaborating Paxson’s concept of microbiopolitics by identifying three levels to which it can be applied.

The article structure commences by providing an overview of Paxson’s concept of microbiopolitics in relation to cheesemaking. It then situates the article with a methodological section outlining the Tasmanian case. This is followed by three sections detailing how microbiopolitics are negotiated by artisanal cheesemakers at the level of the cheesemaking industry, the level of the state’s regulatory apparatus, and the level of the human microbiome closing with a brief conclusion of the key findings.

Milk: a sea of microbiopolitics

Regulation and control of the microbes of cheese

The milk used for cheesemaking is a microbiopolitical sea of microbial agents, over which regulatory bodies assert their agency through microbial control. Paxson (2008, 2014) identifies two categorical positions on milk: Pasteurian and Post-Pasteurian. Pasteurians take a “hygienic” position whereas post-Pasteurians adopt a “probiotic” attitude toward the “microbial agents” in milk (Paxson 2008, 2012). Paxson (2008) asserts people live in a Pasteurian world. Thus, Pasteurianism establishes an “indirect control of human bodies through direct control over microbial bodies” (Paxson 2008, 36). This control is primarily exerted and expressed through regulations that affect norms and attitudes toward and subsequent methods of the pasteurization of milk used for cheesemaking.

Industrial cheese producers generally gather milk from multiple dairies, often distant, which increases the potential for contamination and pathogens (West 2013). Pasteurization is used by industrial cheesemakers as a method used to mitigate the potential hazard (West 2013). Additionally, they homogenize milk to ensure fat and protein levels are consistent (West 2013). Pasteurization is achieved by heating milk to the point it kills microorganisms that reside in milk, some harmful and some benign (Paxson 2008). Technological innovations encouraged the industrialization of food in nineteenth-century farms and factories spread rapidly throughout Europe, America, and Australia (Mennell, Murcott, and van Otterloo 1992). This included the proliferation of the pasteurization of milk, a process of heating and then cooling milk to destroy pathogenic microorganisms (Dairy Australia 2023d). The justification for the pasteurization of milk in cheesemaking is it will improve the consistency of a safe product with a longer shelf life (Dairy Australia 2023d). Many artisanal cheesemakers prefer to work with raw, un homogenized, milk (West 2013). Artisanal cheesemakers embrace the variability of cheeses, whereas industrial producers seek to eliminate it (West 2013).

Microbiopolitical domination

Pasteurian attitudes toward the microbes in milk, the socio-culture of the cheese industry, and the regulatory apparatus dominate the cheesemaking industry. “Pasteurian micropolitics has been criticized for taking a one-size-fits-all approach to food safety” (Paxson 2014, 118). This tends to be a focus on practices to suit industrial-scale production, assuming that pathogens will be present and need to be removed due to unsanitary agricultural practices (Paxson 2014). Further, the introduction of routinely pasteurized milk in the United States, free from bacteria that could result in the spread of diseases like tuberculosis and typhoid, coincided with economic growth in the areas of industrial processing and distribution from changes to the “technoscientific hygiene of automated manufacture” (Paxson 2014). It must be acknowledged that “modern discussion of food safety have never been removed from calculations of corporate profit” (Paxson 2014, 116). Paxson (2008) asserts that behind the Pasteurian position is the idea that morality and responsibility are key to “safe eating” and “eating well.” Others, however, do not agree that food safety should be determined by what is suitable for the “lowest common denominator” approach: rather, they lobby for potentially risky food to be made for the consumption of those that are able to do so (Paxson 2014, 119).

However, even after the pasteurization process cheese is still potentially at risk of becoming contaminated through improper hygiene (Nestle 2010, 49). Post-Pasteurians highlight that contamination occurs as a result of poor agricultural practice, not as a result of milk being inherently “dirty” (Paxson 2014, 119). “Whereas a Pasteurian approach treats the natural world as dangerously unruly and in need of human control. A post-Pasteurian view emphasizes the potential for cooperation among agencies of nature and culture, microbes and humans” (Paxson 2012, 161). This is not to be confused with anti-Pasteurian views, such as the antivaccine movement, as post-Pasteurianism “maintains epistemic and political faith in (some forms) of science and state activity” (Lorimer 2020, 107; Paxson 2012).

Kindstedt (2012) asserts that fears about raw milk cheeses proliferated after an outbreak of a cheese-borne pathogen, Listeria monocytogenes, in 1985 resulted in the death of fifty-two people, predominately in California. A subsequent investigation revealed that it was improperly pasteurized milk mixed with non-pasteurized milk that resulted in the contamination (Kindstedt 2012). While poor practices were ultimately blamed, the connection to raw milk, and therefore raw milk cheeses, placed raw milk practices under scrutiny (Kindstedt 2012). The negative light cast on raw milk cheese resulted in ongoing microbiopolitical tensions within and across national borders, pertaining to the rights and regulation of cheesemakers to make and sell their products (Kindstedt 2012; Paxson 2008, 2019, 2021; Paxson and Helmreich 2014).

Seeking balance

It is important to recognize that food is not rendered inherently good or bad through pasteurization. Food safety is relative, not a case of all foods being suitable for all people at all times (Nestle 2010; Paxson 2014). Paxson (2008, 32) asserts that the post-Pasteurian view is not one of romanticism of “pre”-Pasteurian times, rather it is an attitude that highlights that microbes in cheese are not “the invisible enemy lurking in cheese; they are cheese.” Paxson (2008, 17–18; 2014) refers to the post-Pasteurian movements promoting raw milk cheese as a “window into social and regulatory negotiations of hyperhygienic Pasteurian social order” where a post-Pasteurian micropolitics aims to move past the “antiseptic attitude” to see the potential benefits of mold and bacteria.

Paxson highlights that it is the task of post-Pasteurian cheesemakers to navigate “not necessarily manage, let alone steward” microbial ecologies, to sort microbial friends from foes (2014, 119–120). Post-Pasteurians “work hard to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ microorganisms and to harness the former as allies in vanquishing the latter” (Lorimer 2020; Paxson 2012, 161). Thus, they seek to expand notions of nutrition, acknowledging “microbes as ubiquitous, necessary, and even (sometimes) tasty” (Paxson 2008, 18; 2014). Through consumption, individuals subject themselves to the microbiopolitics to which the cheesemaker subscribes. Paxson (2014) asserts that microbiopolitics of food safety are also moral and social arguments, giving public health concerns as just one example of how this might be a barrier to “individual liberties of consumer choice and capitalist profit, and vice versa.” The control over cheese microbes, intended to suppress germs, and promote good human health, are therefore microbiopolitical positions informed by discourses and regulatory measures for food safety (Paxson 2008, 2014).

The Tasmanian case

Cheesemakers in Tasmania follow similar traditions and often utilize the same methods as cheesemakers in other parts of the globe. The foundational ingredient needed for making cheese is milk. Tasmania, the island state south of the mainland, is one of Australia’s eight dairy regions and is a major industry for the state (Dairy Australia 2023e; TDIA 2019a). The 412 dairy farms throughout the state produce 0.913 billion liters of milk, 10% of national production (Dairy Australia 2023f). The northern part of the state is a productive dairy region and is where the dairy industry is most intensified (Australia, Dariy 2022). The introduction of dairying to the landscape was a production of the early nineteenth-century colonial invasion by the British (Cassidy 1995). In the 1820s Van Diemen’s Land Company established a commercial cheese factory in Tasmania laying the foundations for the Australian cheese industry (Dairy Australia 2023e). Wealthy landowners, who could afford to import stud animals and modern equipment dominated the early cheese industry (Studd 1999). Tasmania has had a self-sufficient dairy industry since the 1850s, which was solidified in 1912 through technological advancements in refrigeration and industrialized through the adoption of the American factory system and pasteurization (Alexander, Jill, and Alexander 2006; Studd 2007). The Tasmanian cheese industry has grown to take the lead as the state’s largest dairy export over the past five years, with cheese exports for 2019–2020 producing AUD$82.45 (USD$ 53.55) million in revenue (Department of State Growth 2021).

Regulatory requirements for making cheese vary globally and locally. In Australia, each state has its own regulatory body that oversees the dairy industry and relates cheesemaking and products. In Tasmania, that role falls to the Tasmanian Dairy Industry Authority (TDIA) (TDIA 2019b). The pasteurization of milk before use for cheesemaking is the dominant practice in Tasmania, becoming common in the state during the First World War (Alexander, Jill, and Alexander 2006; Studd 2019). The TDIA outline the procedure and requirements of dairy processing as defined by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (Food Standards Australia New Zealand 2009). They provide standards and codes of practice that detail Pasteurization, or equivalent processes, to reduce any pathogenic micro-organisms that may be in milk to a safe level (Food Standards Australia New Zealand 2009). Standards are strictly enforced, and participants reveal that they keep detailed accounts of temperatures and times used during pasteurization to provide to the TDIA at their request.

Cheesemakers throughout Australia predominantly use cows’ milk, but milk from goats, sheep, and buffaloes is also employed (Dairy Australia 2023d). Additionally, plant-based artisanal cheese varieties are also being produced by cheesemakers. The classification of plant-based cheeses as artisanal, or even cheese, is contested. However, in the pursuit of providing a holistic understanding of Tasmania’s cheese scene, they have been included in this analysis. The types of cheese being crafted are highly diverse and include fresh un-ripened cheeses, white mold cheeses, cheddar style cheeses, hard cheeses, and blue cheese varieties (Dairy Australia 2023c). Commercial starter cultures are used by all cheesemakers. While major supermarkets are dominated by brands of industrial cheese, local artisanal cheeses across the state offer onsite tastings and hold stalls at the state’s popular weekly and monthly farmers markets. They are an important aspect of the state’s economy, promoted by independent grocers, the state’s restaurants, and a burgeoning food tourism industry. The microbiopolitics of cheese is thus playing a critical role as a food item that features in a number of Tasmanian industries.

To understand what is occurring, qualitative research was conducted in Tasmania from the middle of 2022 to early 2023. The academic and “grey” literature was reviewed, empirical data was gathered from observation during site visits to artisanal cheesemaking facilities, and semi-structured interviews held with artisanal cheesemakers (see Table 1). Semi-structured interviews were used to explore topic areas that participants themselves highlighted as important to artisanal cheesemaking (Longhurst 2003). The interviews investigated cheesemakers’ attitudes toward milk selection, pasteurization, and associated regulations. Utilizing Paxson’s microbiopolitics lens (2008; 2012, 2014; Paxson and Helmreich 2014), the data gathered from participants was distilled into three themes that highlight how microbiopolitics are negotiated by artisanal cheesemakers in Tasmania.

Table 1. Participant details.

Artisanal Company	Participant(s)	Location	Medium	Treatment
Artisa Cheese	J. Martyn	Prospect	Plant-based	Other
Ashgrove Cheese	R. Bennett	Elizabeth Town	Cow’s milk	Pasteurized
Bream Creek Dairy	J. Bignell	Bream Creek	Cow’s milk	Pasteurized
Bruny Island Cheese Co.	L. Jackson	Ranelagh	Cow’s milk	Raw & Pasteurized
Coal River Farm	T. Gadischke	Cambridge	Cow’s milk	Pasteurized
Grandvewe	E. De Souza	Birches Bay	Sheep’s milk	Pasteurized
La Cántara Cheeses	G. Velasquez	Smithton	Cow’s milk	Pasteurized
Lauds Plant-Based Foods	D. Wheatley & S. Paul	Mornington	Plant-based	Other
Tongola Cheese	I. Field	Copping	Goats milk	Pasteurized
Touchwood Goat Farm	S. & D. Thomasson	Strathblane	Goats milk	Pasteurized

Participants were selected to represent the diverse types of artisanal cheeses crafted in Tasmania. A categories search of Dairy Manufacturers on Dairy Australia’s database lists 17 cheese manufacturers in Tasmania (Dairy Australia 2023a, 2023b). However, this search does not account for plant-based cheesemakers, dairies contracting others to make cheese from their milk, or artisans that may be in the process of being registered as a cheese producer. To include them, participants were identified through a combination of site visits to artisanal farmers markets and snowballing through participants. Participants were selected from the northern and southern parts of the state and include artisanal cheesemakers that make cheese utilizing a variety of different methods. This has been done to provide a broad representation of artisanal cheesemaking methods used in Tasmania. As an island state, the artisanal “cheese scene” in Tasmania is relatively small and cheesemakers can often be easily identified by the cheese type in conversation. Thus, permission was obtained from participants and the University of Tasmanian’s Human Ethics Committee (Project Number − 26876) to refer to cheesemakers by first initial and last name, rather than adopting a pseudonym.

Negotiating the microbiopolitics of artisanal cheesemaking

Microbiopolitics of the cheesemaking industry

There is a microbiopolitical division within the cheese industry between those adopting Pasteurian attitudes and those taking a more post-Pasteurian position. Industrial and artisanal divisions are common throughout the world. This can be distinguished in cheesemakers’ attitudes toward the selection of milk for cheesemaking. While most artisanal cheesemakers in Tasmania do pasteurize their milk, they seek to do so in as “delicate” a fashion as possible. When pasteurizing milk artisanal cheesemakers tend to opt for lower temperatures over long times (see Box 1), gently and gradually, while the industrial process tends to be higher temperature for a shorter time (Paxson 2012). Industrial cheesemaking utilizes conglomerates of milk, “denaturing” it by killing off microbes through pasteurization and standardizing and homogenizing the fat and proteins (Paxson 2012) (See Table 2). Artisanal cheesemakers claim that it is the care in the selection and treatment of the milk that separates their cheeses from those made by large-scale dairies.

Box 1. TDIA milk treatment requirementsPasteurization requirements: At a minimum, milk must be pasteurized by being: (a) “heated to a temperature of no less than 72°C and retaining at such temperature for no less than 15 seconds; or (b) heating, using any other time and temperature combination of equivalent or greater lethal effect on any pathogenic micro-organisms in the milk; or (c) using any other process that provides an equivalent or greater lethal effect on any pathogenic micro-organisms; unless an applicable law of a State or Territory otherwise expressly provides” (Food Standards Australia New Zealand 2009, para. 15).

Thermization requirements: A compromise between pasteurized and raw milk is the process of thermizing (Paxson 2008, 21). Regulations in Tasmania state this requires milk to be heated at a minimum of 62°C for at least 15 seconds and requires cheesemakers to store the set curds for a minimum of 90 days at a temperature below 2°C; or at no less than 48°C and achieve a moisture content of less than 36% after storage at a minimum of 10°C for at least 6 months in accordance with guidelines for Primary Production and Processing Standard for Specific Cheeses (Food Standards Australia New Zealand 2009, para. 16).

Table 2. Generalized cheesemaking process (Dairy Australia 2023d).

STANDARDISATION	Adjusting ratios of proteins and fats in the milk
PASTEURISATION	Treatment of milk to destroy pathogenic microorganisms
ADDING STARTER CULTURES	Develop fermentation, flavor, and texture profiles
COAGULATION	Curding of milk to form a solid
CUTTING	Release of moisture/whey from the curd
STIRRING	Release of more whey, dependent on desired cheese type
COOKING	Removal of more whey, dependent on desired cheese type
SALTING	For flavor and restricts bacteria growth
HOOPING	Forms shape of the cheese
PRESSING	Fuse curds and remove more whey, dependent on desired cheese type
MATURING	Breaks down fats and proteins to create texture and flavor
WRAPPING/PACKAGING	For sale and distribution

By being more selective in what milk they use for cheesemaking, artisanal cheesemakers claim to produce unique products distinguishable from industrial products. Artisanal cheeses are considered by some as being more specialized than the mass-produced industrial cheese varieties (Studd 2007). While artisanal cheesemakers may potentially use pasteurized milk, they are less likely to subject it to standardization or homogenization, and will usually employ a closed seasonal breeding herd (Paxson 2012). Bream Creek Dairy, a local intergenerational dairy farm producing about five million liters of cow’s milk per annum, supplies several artisanal cheesemakers in the south of the state including Coal River Farm, Bruny Island Cheese Co., and Wicked Cheese Co., which currently make cheese on their behalf. Of the artisanal cheesemakers interviewed, Bruny Island Cheese Co. is currently the only company that produces raw milk cheese products in Tasmania. Owning their small herd has been a major factor in enabling the company to produce raw milk cheese. Sourcing additional milk from Bream Creek Dairy enables them to meet consumer demands throughout the year, even when their own seasonal herd is dry before calving.

In Tasmania, many artisanal cheesemakers produce cheese made from milk sourced solely from their own herds. Cheesemaker I. Field at Tongola, who makes cheese from goats’ milk, does not use milk from outside of their herd, which is located on the southern east coast. I. Field (Interview, 2022) considers himself to be a “purist” in his approach toward their milk and cheeses. It is with reluctance, and a rare occurrence, that he puts anything other than their own goats’ milk and commercial cheesemaking starter cultures into their products (Interview, I. Field, 2022). At Grandvewe, their sheep’s milk comes from their own breed, the “Grandvewe Dairy Sheep,” bred specifically to tolerate the conditions of southern Tasmania. Grandvewe cheesemaker E. De Souza (Interview 2022) stated the herd’s success was a result of maintaining close relations with surrounding sheep farms, some of which they had helped to establish. Grandvewe has a close-standing relationship with other sheep farms in the area which they purchase milk from, which helps them build their own business and maintain the genetic composition of the herd.

A select number of specialty cheesemakers, like plant-based cheesemakers Artisan and Lauds, opt to not use milk as a medium at all. While they do not need to use milk of any kind, they also seek to be recognized as standing out from industrial, plant-based, cheesemakers. The recent decision by the industrial dairy giant, Bega, to produce plant-based cheeses has encountered criticism, as some vegans would object to the dairy industry capitalizing on manufacturing these products while still engaging in unethical manufacturing of milk-based products (Rolfe 2023). The two plant-based cheesemakers interviewed utilize cashews, with Lauds additionally using oats for some products. Both plant-based cheesemakers are always looking to source ingredients as locally and ethically as possible but acknowledge that this is not always a possibility. J. Martin (Interview 2022) has tried various mediums from potatoes to chickpeas but has found imported cashews to produce the best results. Similarly, D. Wheatley and S. Paul (Interview 2022), founders of Lauds Plant-Based Foods, are focused on producing products that work in terms of form and function, asserting that definitions of what “cheese” is will expand to include the plant-based alternatives that fulfill that role for those that do not consume animal products. Whether considered a “traditional” cheese or not, plant-based cheesemakers tend to adopt the same position toward industrial giants as their dairy counterparts highlighting microbiopolitical divisions within the industry.

R. Bennett (Interview 2023), whose father and uncle founded Ashgrove Cheese, recalled the 1980s and 1990s as a time when consumers gravitated toward the big cheese brands produced by industrial giants. The Australian cheese scene was dominated by industrialized blocks of cheddar sold under names like “Tasty” and “Coon” (Studd 2007, 10). However, he felt presently the pendulum was swinging back, with demand being met with a diverse range of quality artisanal cheeses crafted in Tasmania. Several cheesemakers have been producing specialty cheeses in Tasmania since the 1980s, including Ashgrove Cheese and King Island Dairy (Alexander, Jill, and Alexander 2006). However, industrial microbiopolitics between alternative and large-scale industrial cheesemakers has not diminished, and the latter continues to dominate the industry. While there are more locally owned artisanal cheesemaking companies throughout the state the lush dairy pastures of Tasmania’s northwest remains dominated by the dairy manufacturing giants Fonterra and Saputo (Dairy Australia 2023b). In 2019 Canadian-based company Saputo completed a $280 million takeover of Lion’s Specialty cheeses in Tasmanians north, adding to their existing processing facility in Smithton (Bennett 2019; Dairy Australia 2023b). The deal included “iconic brands such as South Cape, Tasmanian Heritage, Mersey Valley, and King Island Dairy” as well as facilities at Burnie and on King Island where they make cheese (Bennett 2019; Dairy Australia 2023b).

The domination of the larger-scale dairy companies has provided some locally owned dairies with an opportunity to capitalize on both sides of the milk industry. In Tasmania’s northwest, La Cántara Artisan Cheeses has been able to take advantage of this by selling their excess milk to the multinational company Saputo. The current deal they have allows G. and R. Velasquez to decide how much milk they sell.

We have hundreds of trucks going past our gate every single day. It’s just an extra stop [along the way], they collect whatever we have. What benefits us is just the location. If we were 45 minutes out of town, in an area that they [Saputo] don’t pick up from anyone else, it’d be a different story. The factory is just 3 minutes up the road and it’s quite convenient (Interview, G. Velasquez, 2022).

Establishing La Cántara Artisan Cheeses in 2019, G. Velasquez felt that the flexibility to make the cheese in the amounts they can and sell any excess milk to Saputo, which the corporation uses as they need, has been helpful toward establishing themselves as cheesemakers in Tasmania. They have taken it as an opportunity to build their business, with the aim of eventually being able to process all their milk themselves as artisanal cheese. However, participants acknowledged that such situations could change. Multinational corporations are not always so accommodating to the demands of local companies. Presently, Bream Creek Dairies can provide milk to artisanal cheesemakers and larger companies, but corporations have put pressure on them in the past. J. Bignell noted that the current flexibility can be lost, and through domination, multinational corporations can potentially dictate milk prices to dairy farmers. “It’s always been a bit of a them and us sort of thing and they’re just dictating to you how much money you’re gonna lose each year basically and there’s nothing you can do about it” (Interview, J. Bignell 2022).

The Tasmanian cheesemaking industry is currently bifurcated with artisanal cheesemakers on one side and the industrial dairy giants on the other, each asserting their microbiopolitical position through the food they produce. While corporate giants and Pasteurian practices dominate the industry, artisanal cheesemakers can negotiate and even prosper alongside them. While there is a market for artisanal cheese products, regulatory barriers still pose a barrier to artisanal cheesemakers’ ability to maintain their point of difference in the market. This signals a need for regulations to be revised to allow for the diversity of cheesemaking methods and products.

Microbiopolitics and the state’s regulatory apparatus

When meeting with Bruny Island Cheese Co. Head Cheesemaker L. Jackson (Interview 2022) he stated, somewhat jokingly, that researching artisanal cheesemakers in Tasmania would amount to studying the “paperwork and washing up of cheesemaking.” As it turns out, this is a topic that is of the utmost importance to artisanal cheesemakers. A lot of time is spent handwashing, temperature recording, timekeeping, signatures, handwashing, cleaning of equipment and space, and more handwashing. Unsurprisingly, food safety is paramount in the highly regulated cheesemaking industry. During health and safety inductions, participants divulged that some of the larger cheese factories can have safety inductions that take up to 40 minutes, which may occur multiple times a day if required. The enforcement of regulations determines what processes can and cannot be negotiated by cheesemakers during the process of cheesemaking.

Master Cheesemaker T. Gadischke (Interview 2022) of Coal River Farm believes that while regulations have resulted in Australia having some of the safest food in the world, the regulatory requirements can be a barrier to creativity for an artisanal cheesemaker and inhibit the daily cheesemaking process. He notes that the paperwork involved with making a new cheese product is extensive and is a hurdle for getting new products produced. Requirements are time-consuming and include passing a nutritional panel, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) if there is potential for food allergies, and shelf-life testing for pathogens which can curb the opportunity or passion of cheesemakers to create new products. “I find it hard to find something new and cool and seasonal or come up with new innovations. It’s not impossible it just makes it slow” (Interview, T. Gadischke 2022). This is something that cheesemakers highlight as particularly restrictive in Tasmania. Cheesemakers like E. De Souza (Interview 2022) believe the TDIA’s auditing processes for artisanal cheesemakers are “stauncher” than in other parts of Australia. She feels that in other states cheesemakers have more freedom and are less burdened by “interrogation and paperwork” required by the Dairy Associations. “If all you want to do is turn milk into cheese and that’s where your skills and interests lie, then it’s going to be a bit of a challenge … ” (Interview, E. De Souza 2022).

The financial barriers associated with the regulatory process impact the way that cheesemakers and potential cheesemakers can use their milk by restricting what they are and are not able to craft. Touchwood Goat Farm produces a range of goat milk products, however, at the time of the interview, the ambitions of S. and D. Thomasson (Interview 2022) to make cheese had been halted. The financial barriers of the regulatory apparatus had stopped them in their tracks, they claimed, with tens of thousands of dollars needed to complete their current application, in addition to the thousands they had invested on testing, existing and potential infrastructure changes, years of time, and shifting regulatory benchmarks. Those who have made it through the regulatory barriers have heard comparable stories. L. Jackson (Interview 2022) commented that “some people just want to make yogurt, but regulations have changed so much that their costs alone make it completely impossible to do.” J. Bignell (Interview 2022) expressed the feeling that each year there is something new that you need to do to meet the regulations. “It’s just part of life at the minute, but it’s a big challenge” (Interview, J. Bignell 2022).

L. Jackson (Interview 2022) believes that cheesemakers and dairies are shutting down due to over-regulation. Over-regulation is not perceived as a purely Tasmanian problem and although participants are certainly more aware of the impact of the TDIA, they also recognize that cheesemakers on the mainland and in other countries face similar barriers. However, participants highlighted that a lot of the dairy industries testing facilities are on the mainland, which does pose an additional and expensive logistical hurdle for Tasmanian cheesemakers separated by the Bass Strait. While the dairy industry, and therefore cheesemakers, are focused on pasteurization, R. Bennett (Interview 2023) asserts that authorities need to be open to other methods to prevent unwanted pathogens in milk. The diversity of cheesemaking allows newcomers to create their own niche in the cheesemaking industry “find your little cog in the wheel … , maybe a big cog” (Interview, R. Bennett 2023). Artisanal cheesemakers are creating new “cogs” by opting for methods using plant-based mediums. As a relatively new cheesemaking method, J. Martyn (Interview 2022) sees lots of potential avenues to explore with plant-based cheesemaking. As they are not dairy products per se, plant-based cheeses tend to not be as heavily regulated as traditional dairy cheeses. J. Martyn (Interview 2022) feels that there is a lot more room to be creative with plant-based cheeses as a result.

Many of the artisanal cheesemakers interviewed expressed that they would like to produce raw milk cheese products. However, they claimed the state’s regulations to be a major financial burden and creative barrier for artisanal cheesemakers, which causes many to “conform” to the Pasteurian narrative of how cheese should be made. Tasmanian’s Bruny Island Cheese Co. was one of the first in Australia to officially produce unpasteurized raw milk cheese, having now done so for over a decade, adopting traditional methods to capture the local “sense of flavor” (Breen 2018). L. Jackson (Interview 2022) noted that Bruny Island Cheese Co. had aimed to produce the first raw cow’s milk cheese in Australia but had been “held back” by the regulatory processes. Technically, their C2 raw milk cheese, though not strictly pasteurized is not a “true” raw milk cheese, as it is subject to thermization as per the regulations enforced by the TDIA (See Table 2). However, they view it as a “step in the right direction” and are sold as raw as it is “close enough” as far as the regulatory bodies are concerned as milk has not gone through pasteurization. The food safety plan for Bruny Island’s facility making raw milk cheeses at Ranelagh required ten revisions over a period of two years. Their farm, which already had a pasteurized food safety plan, required rewriting for raw milk which, at the time of the interview, was on its seventh revision. L. Jackson (Interview 2022) believes that the financial nightmare and timeline deter most would-be raw cheesemakers and price out many. He stated,

If a small company was starting out and they only wanted to make raw milk cheese, there are so many barriers to entry … you wouldn’t even get passed the first page. The raw milk cheese is definitely us taking a gamble. It’s probably a very small subset of Australians that are “I must have raw milk cheese,” very small subset. Everyone else could quite happily live without it or don’t really know about it. (Interview, L. Jackson 2022)

D. Wheatley (Interview 2022) felt that the attention raw milk cheese at Bruny Island Cheese Co. has gained has been instrumental in getting people interested and talking about the possibilities of artisanal cheesemaking, but regulations are limiting, particularly as you move into “bigger business,” “most people give up.” The current regulations limit which types of cheeses cheesemakers can make using raw milk. While Ashgrove has “not yet” gone down the raw milk path, R. Bennett (Interview 2022) commented that some of their hard cheese products, like Parmesan, could potentially be made using raw milk quite safely. He highlighted that arguments have been made that it has been done successfully for thousands of years and that strict control of quality can make raw milk cheeses a safe option.

The post-Pasteurian push for raw milk cheeses, however, are not cheeses that artisanal cheesemakers are, or should, easily be able to add to their product lists. It can extend to all levels of cheesemakers, and indeed food production. R. Bennett (Interview 2023) expressed that it is important that people have the skills required, “and also make good products because the Tassie brand is important to everyone.” “Bad” cheese associated with any milk type and treatment could be potentially detrimental to the entire industry, as was the situation with the aforementioned 1985 Listeria contamination in the USA (Kindstedt 2012). “The problem is the ones selling it ‘on the edge’ are often the ones not that conscious of the risk” (Interview, R. Bennett 2023). Paxson (2014, 118) notes that who trade in raw milk cheese, far from being reckless, work hard to distinguish the “good” and the “bad” microorganisms, thus post-Pasteurianism adopts serious attitudes toward hygiene like Pasteurianism but on a more discriminatory level.

The unifying view among artisanal cheesemakers in Tasmania is that cheeses made and sold from the state should be diverse and of high quality. However, microbiopolitical domination through strict regulatory enforcement flattens the nuances of artisanal cheesemaking. While participants believe there is a growing demand for artisanal products, regulatory restrictions limit the extent, or freedom, of artisanal cheesemakers when crafting their cheeses to provide unique products. This causes many to fear that Tasmanian cheeses will become increasingly standardized, resulting in a loss of product and microbial diversity in the cheesemaking industry. Thus, narratives are not merely created to protect their businesses, but also to preserve the imagination of what is viewed as artisanal cheese.

Microbiopolitics and the human microbiome

While not always as visible as the larva of the notorious Sardinian cheese casu marzu, microbial agents are present and consumed in food. Artisanal cheesemakers use words like “living” and “breathing” to describe cheeses very literally. Popular views of microorganisms in the 20^th century have been dominated by fears of the devastation harmful germs might cause to human health and market expansion (Paxson and Helmreich 2014). The introduction of pasteurization to cheesemaking had as much to do with the cheese market as it did with food safety and health concerns (Latour, Sheridan, and Law 1988; McMurry 1995; Paxson and Helmreich 2014). Those responsible for the regulation of food safety see raw milk cheese as a “potential biohazard,” but advocates see the reverse: promoting the use “of ‘good’ microbes – bacteria, yeast, and mold – on proteins in milk” (Paxson 2008, 16; 2014, 116). The advocacy for raw milk products in Australia over the past two decades by Will Studd (2007, 11) has seen him labeled as a “food terrorist” by the Pasteurian opposition. However, a “one-size-fits-all” response toward pathogenic bacteria can cause it to adapt to stains that are stronger and more resistant, as has occurred in response to an overuse of antibiotics in agricultural practice (Paxson 2008). A growing number of consumers seek to consume foods that are believed to be healthy and promote trade with local, often family-based, businesses over the “agro-industrial giants partly responsible for the land’s environmental degradation (Paxson and Helmreich 2014, 172).

Some bacteria and viruses can make people sick, which is not the aim of food makers (Paxson 2014). As the natural bacteria are mostly killed through pasteurization, starter cultures are added to milk to start the process of fermentation (Dairy Australia 2023d). Those microbes deemed as potentially “bad” are eradicated through pasteurization and then “good” ones are added to produce the cheeses as desired. Regardless of their medium, participants are all limited to purchasing these starter cultures from one of two international companies. The limitations and commodification of cultures make raw milk cheeses appealing. L. Jackson (Interview 2022) feels that raw milk has been framed as a potentially “scary” food source for people. He attributes this to the dominance of the belief that pasteurization is the only safe way for milk to be used. Cheeses are microbial ecosystems cared for and cultivated by the cheesemakers (Paxson 2008, 2012; Paxson and Helmreich 2014). Artisanal cheesemakers consider unpasteurized raw cheeses as having the most diverse microbial life, reflective of their environments. Raw milk cheeses are the variety deemed by those adopting a Pasteurian view as carrying the highest potential of risk for the eater. While pasteurization can ensure consistency and predictability for cheesemakers, those interviewed expressed that it did result in the loss of the diversity and seasonality of the raw milk.

Paxson (2014) highlights that there are “under-informed enthusiasts” that potentially overestimate the breadth of the probiotic nature of microbial life forms, “pit[ting] a beneficent ‘nature’ supernaturally enlivened by microorganisms against a power-greedy ‘culture’ embodied by regulatory overreach.” Paxson (2014, 119) notes that she has discovered merchandise labeled as “post-Pasteurian” that claims them to be “A really smart person who understands that pasteurization kills all (yes, all) the good in food.” However, the nutritional value of cheese after pasteurization is not gone. Paxson (2008; 2014, 119) refutes this, highlighting that “Nutritive proteins, fats, and vitamins are unaffected by the pasteurization process. “The natural-cultural reality is that milk and fermented foods such as cheese, yogurt, miso, and beer are multispecies muddles that resist such simplistic parsing” (Paxson 2014, 119).

Post-Pasteurianism seeks to include the “good” microbes found in cheese as “friends and allies” while recognizing the risks by acknowledging and including hygienic practices (Paxson and Helmreich 2014, 173). Thus, some of the qualities of raw milk cheese that are of concern to regulatory bodies, are what makes them of particular desirability to some cheesemakers and customers (Paxson and Helmreich 2014). The view of Master Cheesemaker T. Gadischke (Interview 2022) is that the benefits of “seasonal variance” raw milk provides, while great, are only achievable by small-scale artisanal cheesemakers. Once cheeses are in the larger chained supermarkets, customers will tend to complain if there is variation in products, also, “raw milk would have to come from a very clean dairy, which also probably suits the small-scale farmers who can have the control of hygiene” (Interview, T. Gadischke 2022). At the scale of a large industrial dairy direct control over the quality of the cheesemaking process would be potentially lost (Paxson 2008). There could, very literally, be “too many hands in the pot.”

Raw cheesemaker L. Jackson (Interview 2022) finds the idea of pasteurization and post-pasteurization contamination terrifying. He notes that contamination of hard cheese which they make with raw milk in a customer’s fridge is highly unlikely, so a recall of products would be essential (Interview, L. Jackson 2022). Reducing the potential of pathogen growth is fundamental for cheesemakers of any kind. L. Jackson (Interview 2022) emphasized that an important part of mitigating the growth of pathogens is getting it from the cow to the cheesemaking process as quickly as possible. This was a contributing factor to placing the raw cheese facility at Raneleigh, rather than on Bruny Island, a short boat trip from the Tasmanian mainland. The short 15-minute drive between the farm and cheesemaking facility, along with a low farmer-to-cow ratio, is credited by L. Jackson (Interview 2022) as helping to ensure that there is minimal chance of pathogen growth, such as listeria or E. coli. The suggestion that his background in Economics may also influence his “risk adverse” approach to raw milk cheesemaking is something L. Jackson (Interview 2022) agrees helps.

While raw milk cheeses are held in “high regard” by artisanal cheesemakers, producing them is for nought if they do not reach consumer stomachs. Lauds’ plant-based cheese founder, D. Wheatley (Interview 2022), stated that she recognizes the appeal and value of raw milk cheese but believes that society has broadly moved away from it. An enthusiast could produce their own at home, but they would not be permitted to sell them under current regulations. At Tongola, I. Field (Interview 2022) recognizes the appeal of raw milk, noting that they “could claim the additional culture in the milk and provenance” of their cheeses, but not all their cheeses are allowed under current regulations and the consistency of pasteurization means they have a greater safety margin, and their cheeses can be enjoyed by almost everyone. I. Field (Interview 2022) views raw milk cheese as more natural, with greater biodiversity because of the cultures in the milk, making it a truer reflection of the landscape. We should not go as far as to view pasteurized food as void of nutritional goodness, nor should that be seen as the aim of post-Pasteurianism (Paxson 2014, 119). I. Field (Interview 2022) highlighted that good cheese can be made from pasteurized milk and awful cheese from raw milk.

The attention that raw milk cheeses in Tasmania receive puts all Tasmanian cheeses in the minds of potential customers, and therefore their stomachs, as desirable products. L. Jackson (Interview 2022) does not see the need for everyone to make raw milk cheeses. He believes that it would be good if Australians were more experimental and open to ranges of cheese away from the plastic-wrapped blocks. “I won’t say, you must try this. I’m very much for it, but it’s all up to personal choice. If you want to try it, awesome, if you like it, awesome” (Interview, L. Jackson 2022). Participants pointed out that the work of individuals like Will Studd and Bruny Island Cheese Co. founder Nick Haddow, as an artisanal producer and Chairperson for Brand Tasmania (Brand Tasmania 2023), have not only helped raw milk cheese gain some notoriety in Australia but shone a light on artisanal cheesemakers of all kinds in Tasmania. Decisions on how and what types of plant-based cheeses cheesemakers can produce are limited by the availability of suitable microbes to use during the cheesemaking process. Utilizing the same commercial cultures as their dairy counterparts, J. Martyn (Interview 2022) shares that she faces limitations when introducing bacteria to plant-based cheeses as not all bacteria are considered vegan and the lactic acid starter culture is introduced, as may have been raised using milk as a fermentation nutrient. Uniformity, through the use of commercial cultures, is something post-Pasteurians aim to counter by rescuing indigenous cultures, both microbial and human (Paxson 2008). Thus, it can open the industry to more possibilities and room for creativity while broadening concepts of what cheese is.

While regulating bodies, driven by Pasteurian attitudes, focus on the potential biohazard of “bad” microbes, post-Pasteurian sentiments expressed by artisanal cheesemakers highlight the potential benefits of “good” microbes. Artisanal cheesemakers see microbes as allies, not as enemies, and highlight that hygienic practice and experience are needed to make “good” cheese of any kind. Many artisanal cheesemakers in Tasmania express that microbial diversity, in the form of raw milk cheese, is desirable, however, Pasteurian views of microbes dominate the cheesemaking industry. Thus, artisanal cheesemakers seek to work within the regulatory boundaries to preserve the microbial life of their milk, keeping it in line with their individual and collective microbiopolitical views.

Conclusion

To be a successful artisanal cheesemaker requires not only knowledge and experience of the art and science of cheesemaking, but also, the ability to negotiate the microbiopolitics of industry, regulatory bodies, and the human microbiome. There are always those on the peripheries who advocate for a more fundamental position, but most artisanal cheesemakers are not “militant” on the sourcing of milk and its treatment. Instead, they seek to find ways to negotiate the microbiopolitics of milk that results in indirect control. Whether pasteurized, raw milk, or plant-based artisanal cheesemakers are interested in producing, and eating, products that taste good. The study finds that artisanal cheesemakers, regardless of the milk type they use, are deeply committed to producing cheeses that are of a high standard in terms of both art and science.

By drawing on the notion of microbiopolitics, introduced by Heather Paxson (2008) this paper has explored how artisanal cheesemakers in Tasmania negotiate a complex “microbiopolitics” occurring at three levels: the level of the cheesemaking industry, and the level of the state’s regulatory apparatus, and the level of the human microbiome. This reveals tensions between artisanal cheesemakers and the dominating industrial dairy companies. It shows how the enforcement of regulations results in a flattening of artisanal cheesemaking nuances, which limits the craft of artisanal cheesemaking. Further, the Pasteurian microbiopolitical domination is leading to a path of increased standardization of the microbial life that is the cheese. This research provides a theoretical contribution by examining the ways that scientific knowledge informing food choice and regulation is socially constructed. Exploring artisanal cheesemaking through a microbiopolitical lens demonstrates how such knowledge can be implemented, proliferated, and is used as a political tool to influence and control food producers and subsequently those who consume their products.

While participants do represent artisanal cheesemakers using different mediums and are from distinct parts of the State, it is recognized that a larger cohort may produce deeper insights into the different microbiopolitical positions that artisanal cheesemakers in Tasmania adopt. It is acknowledged that a comparative study between artisanal cheesemakers and multinational industrial cheesemakers may provide further insights into the microbiopolitics of cheese. This is seen as being a goal for future research tying this study to international research pertaining to cheese, other food items, and broader influences on food producers and consumers. Microbiopolitics is inherent to artisanal cheesemaking and drawing attention to it will encourage transparency from food industries and contribute to the development of a deeper knowledge and understanding of what we, as consumers, eat and how we are influenced both directly and indirectly.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge and pay respect to the Palawa people as the traditional and original owners, and continuing custodians of Lutruwita (Tasmania) where this research was conducted. We extend thanks to the participants of this research for their time and enthusiasm. Further, we express gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers of this paper for their suggestions and comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).