Raw Milk vs Pasteurized Milk: A Case for Unprocessed Dairy
Nutritional Comparisons | Gut Health & Microbiome Benefits | Immune System & Allergy Benefits | Legal Status of Raw Milk | Why Raw Milk Was Demonized | Safety Considerations and Rebuttals | Podcast Episodes About Raw Milk
Raw, unpasteurized cow’s milk has long been a contentious topic in public health. Proponents argue that when produced under hygienic conditions, raw milk retains beneficial nutrients and microbes that are diminished in pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized (UHT) milk. Today I’m presenting the case that raw milk is healthier than homogenized, pasteurized, or ultra-pasteurized milk, assuming careful production and handling.
We will examine differences in nutritional components (lactoferrin, enzymes, probiotics, etc.), impacts on gut health and even neurological outcomes, the legal landscape of raw milk in the U.S., historical reasons for raw milk’s demonization, the influence of industrial interests (e.g. the Rockefeller family 👀) in shaping dairy policy, and rebuttals to common safety concerns.
All claims are supported by scientific studies or documented data. This information is provided for educational purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Summary / TL;DR
Raw milk has intact immune proteins & enzymes
Raw milk retains lactoferrin, immunoglobulins, lipase and alkaline‑phosphatase—all heat‑sensitive molecules largely lost in pasteurization—that bolster immunity, inhibit pathogens, aid fat‑and‑calcium absorption, and help many people digest lactose.Raw milk has built‑in probiotics for a healthier microbiome
Its live Lactobacillus–rich culture seeds the gut with beneficial bacteria, which human trials link to higher short‑chain‑fatty‑acid production, better microbial diversity and downstream gains in mood‑regulating gut‑brain chemistry.Raw milk has clinically documented allergy & asthma protection
Large European cohort studies (e.g., GABRIELA, PARSIFAL) show children who drink raw farm milk have ~40–50 % lower rates of asthma, hay fever and eczema versus children given pasteurized milk—an effect researchers attribute to raw milk’s unheated whey proteins and immune factors.Raw milk has a richer nutrient profile
Unprocessed milk keeps more vitamin C, B‑vitamins, bioavailable calcium–phosphatase complexes, plus grass‑fed omega‑3s and CLA—nutrients partly destroyed or degraded during pasteurization/UHT and often only “re‑added” later as synthetic fortification.Raw milk produced with modern hygiene practices = risk comparable to other raw foods
With TB‑free herds, closed stainless systems, rapid chilling and routine pathogen testing, today’s regulated raw‑milk dairies show outbreak rates on par with (or lower than) foods like leafy greens or deli meats—yet deliver functional benefits pasteurized milk can’t match.
Nutritional Components and Enzymes:
Raw vs Pasteurized Milk
Unpasteurized Milk Health Benefits
Pasteurization and homogenization alter milk’s natural composition. Raw milk is a “living” food containing active enzymes, beneficial bacteria, and sensitive immune proteins, whereas pasteurization (heating milk to kill pathogens) can denature or destroy many of these components.
Key differences between raw & pasteurized milk include:
Immunological Proteins (Lactoferrin, Immunoglobulins): Raw milk contains immuno-active proteins like lactoferrin, which helps inhibit pathogens and support immunity. Pasteurization significantly reduces these proteins – studies show heat-treated milk has markedly lower lactoferrin and immunoglobulin levels (in one comparison, ~20–30% less lactoferrin after typical pasteurization). These heat-sensitive factors in raw milk are thought to contribute to its allergy-protective effects. By contrast, UHT (ultra-pasteurization at even higher temperatures) causes further protein denaturation (including Maillard reactions), eliminating nearly all native enzyme activity.
Raw milk’s lactoferrin remains intact and bioactive, whereas pasteurized milk’s lactoferrin has diminished functionality pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Similarly, raw milk carries low levels of secretory IgA and other antibodies from the cow that may neutralize pathogens; a significant portion of these are inactivated by pasteurization (e.g. pasteurization can reduce IgA by ~25% as observed in analogous human milk studies).Enzymes (Lipase, Alkaline Phosphatase, Lactase): Raw milk is rich in natural enzymes. For example, alkaline phosphatase (an enzyme in raw milk) aids in calcium absorption; it is entirely inactivated by pasteurization (in fact, testing for phosphatase absence is how regulators confirm proper pasteurization).
Raw milk also contains enzymes like lipase that help digest fats, and may contain bacterial beta-galactosidase (lactase) produced by its native microbes. These enzymes can assist human digestion. Pasteurized milk, however, has no native enzyme activity – the heating process inactivates or denatures these proteins.
Notably, raw milk’s microbial enzymes can continue to function in the gut: they “facilitate production of lactase enzyme in the intestinal tract,” helping lactose digestion. This is one reason many individuals who are lactose intolerant report they can drink raw milk without trouble, whereas pasteurized milk causes them symptoms. (The U.S. FDA disputes the presence of significant lactase in milk itself, but acknowledges pasteurization inactivates milk enzymes. Nonetheless, recent research supports that raw milk’s bacteria produce lactase during digestion.)Beneficial Bacteria and Probiotics: Fresh raw milk from healthy cows contains a diverse microbiota, including non-pathogenic Lactobacillus and other lactic-acid bacteria. These can act as probiotics by contributing to gut microbial balance. Pasteurized milk is sterile – all bacteria (good and bad) are eliminated. The absence of competing beneficial microbes means if pasteurized milk is later contaminated, pathogens can grow unchecked. In raw milk, however, the existing lactic bacteria can inhibit pathogens by creating an acidic environment (as they ferment lactose to lactic acid).
This concept is illustrated by an experiment: when left at room temperature, raw milk naturally sours into a yogurt-like curd (due to fermentation by its lactic bacteria), whereas pasteurized milk simply putrefies (rots) without fermenting.
An informal “room temperature test” of raw vs pasteurized milk was done by the creators over at getrawmilk.com. The raw milk visibly fermented and separated into curds and whey after 3 days, aided by its native probiotic bacteria, whereas the pasteurized milk showed minimal change at day 3 and later spoiled without fermenting.
This demonstrates how raw milk’s live cultures can protect it (and, by extension, potentially benefit the human gut), a property lost in pasteurized milk.
It’s important to note that raw milk is not a fully effective probiotic on its own – it doesn’t contain the sheer numbers of added cultures that yogurt or kefir do – but research indicates it can meaningfully influence gut microbiota (discussed more in the next section).Vitamins and Minerals: Pasteurization was long thought to leave most vitamins and minerals unchanged, but modern analyses show some losses.
Vitamin C in raw milk, while not very high to begin with, is partially destroyed by pasteurization (early 20th-century pediatricians observed that infants fed pasteurized milk developed scurvy unless given supplemental orange juice).
Heat can also reduce certain B vitamins and alter mineral bioavailability. For instance, studies found that pasteurization can reduce the bioavailability of calcium and phosphorus, and lower the content of copper and iron, compared to raw milk. Because of these losses, dairy processors often fortify pasteurized milk with synthetic vitamins A and D after processing. Raw milk provides these nutrients in natural form along with cofactors (like the enzyme phosphatase and fatty acids) that aid absorption.
Additionally, raw milk from grass-fed cows is a good source of anti-inflammatory fatty acids such as omega-3s and CLA (conjugated linoleic acid). Pasteurization itself does not destroy fats, but raw milk is often sourced from small farms feeding grass, leading to higher omega-3/CLA levels than conventional grain-fed dairy. One large study credited the omega-3 fatty acids in unprocessed farm milk as a factor in its association with lower asthma risk.Homogenization Effects: Most pasteurized milk in stores is also homogenized (a mechanical process forcing milk at high pressure through tiny orifices to break fat globules into microscopic size). Homogenization is done for consumer convenience (to prevent cream separation), but it alters the milk fat globule membrane (MFGM) structure.
In raw milk (or non-homogenized “cream top” milk), fat globules are larger and covered by the original membrane which contains phospholipids and proteins known to have nutritional and immunological benefits. There is some evidence that an intact MFGM can bind and neutralize pathogens and interact beneficially with gut bacteria.
Homogenization, especially when combined with pasteurization, can denature these membrane components and bind whey proteins to fat in an unnatural way. Some researchers have hypothesized links between homogenized milk and health issues (such as heart disease or increased allergenicity), although clear causal evidence is limited.
Nonetheless, raw milk (unhomogenized) delivers fats in their natural globule form. Many raw milk drinkers (including myself) report it is “creamier and easier to digest” than processed milk, possibly due to the larger fat globules and intact membranes (which may slow fat absorption and improve nutrient utilization). While scientific consensus holds that homogenized milk is “nutritionally equivalent in basic nutrients”, the subtle structural differences are an ongoing area of research.
In summary, raw milk provides a broad spectrum of intact bioactive compounds – immunoglobulins, lactoferrin, growth factors, enzymes, and beneficial microbes – that are partially or completely destroyed by pasteurization.
Ultra-pasteurization (common for organic milk with extended shelf-life) is even more damaging, denaturing whey proteins and imparting a “cooked” flavor, whereas raw milk has a fresh, sweet taste (and sour-milk aroma when starting to ferment, rather than a foul spoilage odor). The nutritional “edge” of raw milk is one reason advocates liken it to breastmilk: both are living fluids supplying not just calories but immune support. In fact, raw milk has been described as “self-contained immune system building super food” by raw milk researchers. Pasteurized milk, on the other hand, is essentially a “dead” food – still rich in protein, fat, and calcium, but missing many functional elements.
Here’s a table that summarizes a few key differences:
| Component | Raw Milk (Unpasteurized) | Pasteurized / UHT Milk |
|---|---|---|
| Living bacteria (“probiotics”) | Yes – contains diverse beneficial microbes (e.g. Lactobacillus) that ferment the milk and support gut flora. | No – all bacteria are destroyed; the milk is sterile with no probiotic benefit. |
| Lactoferrin & Immunoglobulins | Present – immune proteins remain intact, contributing to antimicrobial defense and potential allergy protection. | Significantly reduced – heat denatures these proteins (studies show up to ~65 % loss of lactoferrin), greatly lowering their activity. |
| Enzymes (e.g. lactase, lipase, alkaline phosphatase) | Active – native enzymes aid fat and lactose digestion; alkaline phosphatase supports mineral absorption. | Inactivated – heating > 60 °C destroys these enzymes, so lactose‑intolerant individuals get no digestive help. |
| Fat structure | Natural cream layer (non‑homogenized). Fat‑globule membrane stays intact, supplying phospholipids and binding proteins beneficial for health. | Homogenized (in most commercial milk) – fat globules are fragmented; membrane altered, which may affect digestion and immune signaling (research ongoing). |
| Vitamins & Minerals | Full spectrum in native form; vitamin C and B‑vitamins retained. Minerals like calcium remain bound to helpful enzymes for better bioavailability. | Some loss of heat‑sensitive vitamins (C, B6, B12) and reduced mineral bioavailability; milk is often fortified after processing. |
Bottom line: Raw milk offers a more nutrient-dense, bioactive package than pasteurized milk. Consumers (including me) often describe improved digestion, better taste, and less inflammatory response with raw milk. Pasteurized milk, especially ultra-pasteurized, sacrifices some of these qualities in exchange for a lower risk of containing pathogens and a longer shelf life.
The next sections explore how these nutritional differences may translate into health effects, particularly for the gut and immune system.
Gut Health, Microbiome,
and the Gut-Brain Axis
Modern science has uncovered the profound connection between our gut microbiome and overall health – including digestion, immunity, and even brain function (the gut-brain axis). Raw milk’s impact on gut health is a critical piece of the argument for its benefits. The human gut contains roughly 100 trillion bacteria, and an imbalance (dysbiosis) has been linked to a host of chronic digestive disorders (such as IBS, Crohn’s disease), metabolic diseases, allergies, and even neurological conditions like anxiety, depression, and autism. Here’s how raw milk may positively influence this system:
Microbial Diversity and Probiotics: Unlike pasteurized milk, raw milk introduces living bacteria to the GI tract. These are generally lactic acid bacteria (LAB) that, once in the intestines, can temporarily colonize or interact with the native microbiome.
A 2020 dietary intervention study published in Nutrients examined people who switched to farm-fresh unpasteurized dairy for 12 weeks. The results showed a significant increase in the gut population of Lactobacillus (a beneficial genus of probiotic bacteria) in those consuming raw milk and raw dairy products. No such change was seen with pasteurized dairy. The researchers also observed an increase in fecal SCFAs (short-chain fatty acids, like valerate) in the raw milk group, indicating more fermentation activity by gut microbes. These SCFAs are beneficial metabolites that nourish colon cells and reduce inflammation. In short, raw milk acted as a “recipe for a healthy gut” by boosting Lactobacilli in the human gut microbiome.Gut-Brain Axis and Neurological Implications: Intriguingly, the same Nutrients study noted changes in the “neuroactive potential” of the microbiome after raw dairy consumption. Using gut-brain module analysis, they found the gut bacteria in raw milk consumers had increased capacity for producing neurochemicals (such as enzymes for neurotransmitter pathways including nitric oxide and kynurenine).
In practical terms, a healthier, more diverse microbiome can lead to more optimal production of neurotransmitters like serotonin (an estimated 90% of serotonin is made in the gut) and GABA, which influence mood, stress, and cognitive function.
Although direct studies on raw milk and neurodevelopment are lacking, it’s well established that microbiome disruption early in life correlates with conditions like autism and ADHD. By supporting gut microbial balance, raw milk might indirectly contribute to neurological health. At minimum, researchers conclude that raw milk consumption is “associated with growth of the probiotic bacterial genus Lactobacillus in the human gut,” recognized as beneficial for a range of physical and mental health outcomes. More research is ongoing, but this suggests raw milk could be one dietary factor helping to recalibrate our gut-brain axis.Digestive Health and Tolerance: Anecdotally, many individuals with chronic digestive issues (such as ulcerative colitis or irritable bowel syndrome) report improvements when switching to raw milk or raw milk kefir. While these are anecdotal, there is some mechanistic basis: raw milk’s enzymes and probiotics may reduce gut inflammation and improve nutrient absorption. Raw milk also lacks the chemical residues that can be present in conventional milk (no high-heat byproducts or homogenization-induced changes that some suspect might irritate the gut). A notable area is lactose intolerance – as mentioned earlier, raw milk often does not trigger the same symptoms as pasteurized milk. One reason is the presence of LAB in raw milk that produce lactase enzyme, effectively helping the consumer digest lactose rawmilkinstitute.org. In fact, scientists believe humans were consuming raw milk for millennia before the genetic mutation for adult lactase persistence became common rawmilkinstitute.org rawmilkinstitute.org. Those early milk drinkers likely relied on raw milk’s microbes to handle lactose digestion, which is why some call lactose intolerance “pasteurization intolerance”. Modern pasteurized milk offers no such aid, so lactose-intolerant individuals experience bloating and diarrhea, whereas many can tolerate raw milk without issue rawmilkinstitute.org rawmilkinstitute.org.
Allergy Prevention – The Farm Milk Effect: The gut-immune connection means a healthier gut can translate to lower risk of allergies and atopic conditions. Multiple large-scale studies in Europe (PARSIFAL, GABRIELA, and others) have documented the so-called “farm milk effect.” Children who grow up on farms and drink raw cow’s milk have significantly lower rates of asthma, allergic rhinitis, and eczema compared to their non-farm peers rawmilkinstitute.org. One 2011 study of thousands of European children found that raw farm milk consumption halved the risk of asthma and allergies, an effect independent of other farm exposures. The protective effect is so robust that researchers have isolated specific components of raw milk that might confer it – including whey proteins and fatty acids that get altered or destroyed by heat. Raw milk contains omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D and CLA, as well as immune modulators, which together may “train” the developing immune system to be less allergic pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. By contrast, ultra-pasteurized commercial milk has been associated with higher rates of allergic sensitization in some studies rawmilkinstitute.org. In a recent analysis (Brick et al, 2020), children consuming raw milk had far lower incidence of milk sensitization (allergy) than those consuming store-bought milk rawmilkinstitute.org. The difference was striking enough that the authors launched a pilot clinical trial giving raw milk to allergy-prone children, with early results suggesting improved immune markers rawmilkinstitute.org rawmilkinstitute.org.
Serotonin and Mood: There is emerging interest in how diet influences the gut production of serotonin and other mood-regulating chemicals. Although no study directly ties raw milk to serotonin levels yet, we know that certain gut bacteria (many of them lactic acid bacteria found in fermented dairy) can stimulate serotonin release in the gut wall.
Serotonin in the gut doesn’t cross into the brain, but it can signal the brain via the vagus nerve and by affecting immune responses. Additionally, gut bacteria produce precursors like tryptophan and short-chain fatty acids that do influence brain function. The Nutrients study’s finding of increased neuroactive microbial genes implies that raw milk might boost the gut’s ability to produce compounds relevant to brain health. Some participants in that study also filled out psychological questionnaires, and while the sample was small, there were hints of improved mood and less anxiety after the 12-week raw dairy diet (though this could also be due to being on an organic farm and overall lifestyle) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. The takeaway is that raw milk’s support of a healthy gut microbiome can have ripple effects on neurological health. In an era where conditions like depression, anxiety, and even neurodevelopmental disorders are on the rise – potentially linked to microbiome disturbances – raw milk represents a reconnection with the microbial richness our ancestors had in their diets.
In summary, raw milk serves as a natural probiotic and gut tonic. It contributes beneficial bacteria (which can crowd out pathogens and produce helpful metabolites), contains prebiotic components that feed our native microbiota, and lacks the antibiotic residues or sterilization that could negatively impact gut flora. By restoring some of the microbial exposure that modern ultra-hygienic diets have lost, raw milk may help counter the “missing microbes” hypothesis for why we see more immune and perhaps even cognitive disorders today rawmilkinstitute.org rawmilkinstitute.org. As researchers from University College Cork wrote, “intake of unpasteurised milk appears to be associated with the growth of probiotic Lactobacillus…beneficial for a range of physical and mental health outcomes” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. This gut health advantage, combined with raw milk’s dense nutrition, underpins many of the health claims made by raw milk advocates.
Immune System Benefits and Allergy Prevention
One of the most oft-cited benefits of raw milk is its apparent ability to support the immune system and reduce allergic disease. We’ve touched on this in relation to the gut; here we’ll expand with direct evidence and mechanisms:
Reduced Asthma, Allergies, and Infections: Large epidemiological studies consistently find lower rates of asthma and allergy in raw milk consumers. For example, the GABRIELA study (published in Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) surveyed nearly 8,000 children across Europe: those who drank raw farm milk had about 41% lower odds of asthma and 50% lower odds of hay fever than those who drank only pasteurized milk.
A follow-up study by Loss et al. in 2015 found that infants who consumed raw cow’s milk in the first year of life had significantly fewer respiratory infections and fevers, and suffered less from ear infections than peers who consumed ultra-heat-treated formula or milk pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Raw milk’s protective effect was comparable to that of breastfeeding in some respects – it was dose-dependent and strongest with fresh, unboiled milk.
These findings have been replicated: a meta-analysis in 2020 (Brick et al.) concluded that raw milk exposure is robustly associated with reduced risk of asthma, wheezing, atopic sensitization, and respiratory infections in children. The immune support from raw milk is so notable that researchers are exploring which components are responsible: candidates include heat-labile whey proteins (α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin) that modulate immunity, higher vitamin D levels, omega-3 fatty acids, and raw milk’s milk oligosaccharides that may shape gut immunity. It’s likely a synergistic effect of multiple factors.
Pasteurized milk, by contrast, has been identified as one of the top allergenic foods in the U.S. (cow’s milk allergy is common in kids), and lacks those immune modulators in active form. In fact, it’s striking that raw milk – containing the same proteins that cause milk allergy – seems less allergenic. The processing appears to make those proteins more allergenic in susceptible individuals (possibly by altering their structure or removing co-factors that help induce tolerance).Milk Allergy and Eczema: A specific study of ~800 children in rural Europe (Kirchner et al.) found that pasteurized milk consumption was associated with higher rates of physician-diagnosed milk allergy, while children who drank raw milk had a significantly lower incidence of milk allergy. In the same cohort, raw milk drinkers also had less atopic eczema (a common allergic skin condition). This suggests that early-life exposure to raw milk might induce oral tolerance (training the immune system to accept dairy proteins as benign) in a way that pasteurized milk does not. Some hypothesize that raw milk’s immunoglobulins (IgG, IgA) and TGF-β content could be educating the infant immune system. Additionally, raw milk’s microRNAs and extracellular vesicles might play a role in immune regulation – these are topics of current research.
Ear Infections and Fever in Children: Aside from allergic conditions, raw milk has been tied to lower rates of general infections in kids. The GABRIELA study noted significantly fewer otitis media (ear infections) in raw milk consumers rawmilkinstitute.org. Loss et al. 2015 (in JACI) showed raw milk–fed infants had about 30% fewer common respiratory infections and fever episodes than those fed ultra-pasteurized milk pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Notably, the raw milk in these studies was often from small farms with high hygiene standards (sometimes boiled at home by parents – but even boiled farm milk had more benefit than store milk, suggesting that some properties beyond just bacteria content were at play). The authors concluded that pasteurization reduces protective components and called for identifying which molecules could be added back to formula or pasteurized milk to mimic raw milk’s benefits pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Lactoferrin and Disease Resistance: Lactoferrin, abundant in raw milk, is a glycoprotein with broad antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. It can bind free iron, starving pathogens of this essential nutrient, and can directly damage bacterial cell walls. Raw milk is one of the best dietary sources of lactoferrin (aside from colostrum), whereas pasteurized milk has much less. Some researchers point out that lactoferrin’s activity is mostly lost if milk is heated above ~70°C mpi.govt.nz mpi.govt.nz. Given that lactoferrin supplements are marketed for immune support (and even tested as adjunct therapy in infections), having it naturally present in raw milk is a boon. Similarly, raw milk retains lysozyme (an enzyme that breaks down bacterial cell walls) and lactoperoxidase (which generates antimicrobial compounds). These elements form what is known as the lactoperoxidase system, a natural self-sanitizing effect in raw milk that inhibits bacterial growth. Pasteurization inactivates lactoperoxidase, but raw milk producers sometimes tout this system as an “inbuilt safety mechanism” of raw milk mpi.gov t.nz mpi.govt.nz. (It’s true that these components alone cannot make filthy milk safe – they only work within a certain microbial load and conditions mpi.govt.nz – but in clean raw milk they add a layer of protection.)
Autoimmune and Other Disorders: Beyond allergies, some holistic practitioners have reported raw milk aiding autoimmune conditions (like rheumatoid arthritis) or even helping children with behavioral disorders – theories suggest this could be due to healing the gut lining and reducing inflammation. While we lack controlled studies in those areas, it’s known that unprocessed milk was historically used as a medical food. In the early 20th century, Dr. J.R. Crewe of the Mayo Clinic famously used a “raw milk cure” to treat chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes, and gastric ulcers with notable success kslegislature.gov kslegislature.gov. He described raw milk as “a highly efficient food, rich in vitamins and easy to digest” and documented patients who recovered on an all-raw-milk diet after other treatments failed kslegislature.gov. While medical practice has moved on to pharmaceuticals, these historical accounts underscore raw milk’s potent nutritional therapy potential. Advocates today sometimes refer to raw milk as “white blood” – highlighting its immune-boosting properties akin to a blood transfusion of immune factors.
In summary, raw milk appears to be an immune-supportive food, whereas pasteurized milk is at best neutral and at worst a common allergen. It is not an exaggeration to say that raw milk functions almost like a low-grade vaccine or immune tonic for those who consume it from childhood – constantly exposing the body to harmless microflora and beneficial proteins that train and strengthen the immune system. Modern increases in asthma, eczema, and food allergies have many causes, but the decline of raw milk (and farm exposure in general) in children’s diets is believed by some researchers to be a contributing factor pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov rawmilkinstitute.org. As one review put it, “like breastmilk, raw milk supports strong immune systems” and has been correlated with lower rates of a host of immune-mediated conditions rawmilkinstitute.org. The challenge, of course, is delivering these benefits without risking infection – which brings us to the safety and regulatory discussion.
Legal Status of Raw Milk in the U.S.
The sale of raw cow’s milk is tightly regulated in the United States, with a patchwork of state laws ranging from outright prohibition to retail sales in grocery stores. No matter how healthy raw milk may be, its accessibility depends on these laws. Understanding the legal landscape is important, as it also reflects perceptions of safety. Here is an overview as of 2025:
Figure: U.S. map of raw milk legality by state (2023). Dark blue states allow retail sales of raw milk in stores. Teal states allow sales only on farms. Green indicates states where distribution is only via “herd shares” (cow-share agreements). Purple and yellow denote states with very limited raw milk access (e.g. only goat milk or only through specific channels like medical need). Red states ban raw milk sales entirely. As shown, a majority of states permit some form of raw milk distribution (blue/teal/green), while only a few (red) completely prohibit it.
Image source: en.wikipedia.org
Federal Law: It is illegal to sell raw milk across state lines for human consumption. The FDA imposed this ban in 1987, meaning all commercial raw milk sales must be intrastate only en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. However, there is no federal ban on drinking raw milk or on local (intrastate) sales – those are governed by state law.
States Allowing Retail Sales: As of 2025, 8 states explicitly allow raw milk to be sold in retail stores (grocery or health food stores) similar to pasteurized milk. These least-restrictive states include California, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington worldpopulationreview.com. In these states, you can walk into a store and find raw milk (usually with a warning label). Additionally, about 5 other states allow retail sales under certain conditions: for example, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon permit store sales but with specific regulations such as labeling, permitting, or producer ownership of the store worldpopulationreview.com worldpopulationreview.com. In Utah and Oregon, the law mandates that the raw milk sold in a retail setting must come directly from the farm that owns the store (so a farm can sell its own raw milk in its farm store or a farmers’ market, but third-party resale isn’t allowed) worldpopulationreview.com. New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Idaho require raw milk dairies to obtain a state permit or certified raw milk license for retail distribution worldpopulationreview.com. These regulations ensure some oversight (testing and inspections) for raw milk on the market.
On-Farm Sales (“Farm-Fresh Milk”): About 30 states in total allow raw milk to be sold somewhere legally rawmilkinstitute.org, most commonly at the farm where it is produced. Even some states that don’t allow retail sales do allow farmers to sell raw milk directly to consumers on-site (sometimes called “farm gate” or “farm pickup” sales). For example, Massachusetts doesn’t permit retail but allows direct farm sales with a license en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. In 2013, North Dakota legalized cow-share programs (more on that below) and as of 2023 has expanded to allow on-farm sales and even farmer’s market sales of raw milk with proper labeling. According to recent counts, 29 states allow raw milk sales in some form (retail or farm), and in about 12 of those states, a farmer can sell raw milk on the farm without needing a specific license (beyond standard dairy sanitation requirements) worldpopulationreview.com. States in this category include California, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, Arizona, Connecticut, and a few others worldpopulationreview.com. The remaining states that allow raw milk often require a dairy license or registration even for on-farm sales. For instance, Wisconsin (often called “America’s Dairyland”) has long banned raw milk sales but in recent years has permitted very limited “incidental” sales directly to consumers on a farm (e.g., a one-time sale without advertising). The rules can be complex: some states cap how much raw milk a farm can sell per month; others forbid advertising raw milk even if the sale is legal.
Herdshare Agreements: In states where selling raw milk is illegal, farmers and consumers have developed creative workarounds. One popular model is the herdshare or cow-share program. In a herdshare, consumers buy a share of a cow (or goat) from a farmer, essentially becoming part-owners of the animal. The farmer then milks “their” cow and provides the milk to the owners (often for an additional boarding or management fee). Because the individuals are drinking milk from an animal they own, no “sale” is technically taking place – thus sidestepping sale bans. States like Colorado and Virginia explicitly legalize herdshare agreements (while still banning raw milk sales) en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. Other states have no specific law on herdshares, creating a gray area. By 2025, around 8–10 states allow herdshares as the only legal way to obtain raw milk (e.g., Kentucky, Colorado, Virginia, West Virginia, etc.). This approach has grown in popularity because it fosters a direct relationship: consumers invest in a cow and trust the farmer to produce safe milk. Some raw milk advocates push for herdshares as a first step in legalizing access in states that are otherwise opposed.
States with Total Bans: A minority of states still prohibit any distribution of raw milk for human consumption. In these states, one cannot legally buy raw milk even on a farm or through a herdshare (though people often obtain it “underground” or by driving to a neighboring state).
As of the latest data, about 7 states fall in this fully banned category (for example, Louisiana outright bans raw dairy sales; Maryland bans sale except for incidental goat milk with a doctor’s prescription). Delaware, New Jersey, and Iowa are other states traditionally known for strict bans, though there have been legislative efforts to change this.
It’s worth noting that even in ban states, raw milk is sometimes sold as “pet milk” (labeled as for animal consumption only), which is a loophole vendors use. The map above (Figure) shows in red the states that are essentially no-go for raw milk sales to consumers.Conditions and Labeling: In states where raw milk is sold, there are usually requirements such as warning labels. For instance, California requires the label to state that the product is not pasteurized and may contain organisms that cause illness. Some states require raw milk to have a specific color cap or to be sold only in certain containers.
There may also be testing requirements – e.g., monthly or weekly bacterial count and pathogen testing, and standards that raw milk must meet (typically a total bacterial count limit like 15,000 cfu/ml and zero detectable pathogens, similar to Grade A standards) rawmilkinstitute.org rawmilkinstitute.org. States like Pennsylvania and South Carolina have inspection programs that certify raw milk dairies and test their milk periodically, almost like how Grade A pasteurized milk producers operate. Michigan, historically the first state to mandate pasteurization, still bans sales but explicitly allows herdshares with signed contracts and requires testing results to be provided to shareholders. This patchwork of laws reflects the ongoing debate between health authorities (who often seek to restrict raw milk) and consumer choice advocates (who push for legal access).Raw Milk Across the Globe: For context, raw milk is not unique to the U.S. – many developed countries allow it in regulated form. England permits raw milk sales directly from farms or farmers markets (with strict testing requirements), and you can even buy raw milk from vending machines in parts of Europe (e.g. Italy and France have coin-operated dispensers for farm-fresh chilled raw milk). Countries like France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and the UK all allow some form of raw milk sales rawmilkinstitute.org.
Canada, by contrast, bans raw milk nationwide (despite a vocal movement in recent years to legalize it, raw milk distribution in Canada remains illegal except possibly through cow-shares in some provinces). The fact that half of U.S. states and many European nations allow raw milk indicates that, with proper regulation, raw milk can be offered to the public relatively safely. It also means American consumers who believe in raw milk’s benefits often travel across state lines or take advantage of the state-by-state differences to obtain it.
In the U.S., raw milk law has been dynamic. Since 2010, several states have expanded access (for example, Idaho and Arkansas legalized retail raw milk sales in recent years, North Dakota legalized on-farm sales in 2023, Utah and Wyoming passed Food Freedom laws simplifying raw milk sales). The trend is toward more legalization, not less. As of 2025, over 30 states allow raw milk for human consumption under some conditions, compared to 20 or so states a few decades ago. The remaining holdouts still cite safety concerns. The next section delves into the historical origin of those concerns and why raw milk was vilified in the first place.
From “Swill Milk” to Safety:
Why Raw Milk Was Demonized (Historical Context)
To fully appreciate the raw milk debate, one must understand the history. Raw milk’s reputation in the U.S. was not always as “dangerous” as it is today. In fact, raw milk was a staple food and a recommended health tonic for centuries.
So, what changed? In short: the Industrial Revolution brought filthy urban dairies and deadly milk-borne illnesses, leading to a public health crusade for pasteurization around 1900. This period cemented a negative image of raw milk that persists, even though conditions have drastically improved. Let’s travel back in time:
19th century illustration of "swill milk" being produced: a sickly cow being milked while held up by ropes. (Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Weekly)
The Swill Milk Scandal (1850s): In the mid-19th century, American cities like New York experienced a notorious adulterated milk scandal. As cities grew, fresh grass-fed milk was hard to supply to urban populations. Enterprising (and unethical) dairy operators in NYC came up with a solution: they tethered cows next to whiskey distilleries and fed them hot “swill” – the spent grain mash leftover from distilling liquor.
These cows were kept in squalid, crowded city stables, standing in their own filth, often diseased and emaciated from the poor diet. Nonetheless, they produced large quantities of bluish, thin milk (essentially pus-laden due to the cows’ illness). To make this swill milk remotely palatable, suppliers doctored it with additives: plaster of Paris to whiten it, starch and chalk to thicken it, and molasses or dirty water to improve color and taste. The resulting concoction was sold to city dwellers as “Pure Country Milk,” often targeting infants and children. The consequences were horrific. An estimated 8,000 infants in New York City were dying each year in the 1850s from what was actually milk-borne illness (severe diarrhea and “cholera infantum” caused by the toxic swill milk).
Contemporary reports blamed “milk murderers” and decried that “the deaths of two-thirds of the children in New York and Brooklyn could be traced to the use of impure milk”. This scandal, exposed by newspaper reporter Frank Leslie in 1858, created public outrage. An illustration from that era (Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper) famously depicts a sick cow being propped up by ropes while being milked, surrounded by the filth of a swill stable. That image (often shown in history books) became emblematic of why raw milk needed to be cleaned up.Enter Pasteurization (Early 1900s): The swill milk crisis and similar hygiene problems in dairies led to two movements: one group (including many physicians and reformers) pushed to improve dairy farming and produce certified clean raw milk, while another group championed pasteurization as a quick technological fix – essentially “boiling the filth out” of milk. Both approaches initially coexisted. In the late 1800s, Dr. Henry Coit established the Certified Raw Milk movement by forming the American Association of Medical Milk Commissions (AAMMC).
These commissions set rigorous standards for dairies: cows had to be healthy (tuberculin-tested, well-fed on pasture), barns had to be sanitized, milk had to be chilled immediately and tested. Certified raw milk was sold in some cities for a premium price and was prescribed for infants and sick people because of its superior quality.
At the same time (1890s–1900s), pioneers like Louis Pasteur and others demonstrated that heating wine, and later milk, could kill pathogens. By 1909, pasteurization gained a powerful ally: Chicago became the first major U.S. city to mandate pasteurized milk. This was a landmark law, and it didn’t happen by accident – it was heavily influenced by industrialists and public health officials.
Notably, historical accounts allege that John D. Rockefeller, the oil baron-turning-philanthropist, had a hand in pushing the Chicago ordinance through, as we’ll discuss shortly. New York City followed with its own pasteurization requirement in 1914 en.wikipedia.org, and within a decade infant mortality there plummeted by over two-thirds (a fact often cited to credit pasteurization) en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. Throughout the 1920s, pasteurization was hailed as one of the great public health breakthroughs – it virtually eliminated diseases like tuberculosis, brucellosis, typhoid, and diphtheria that were commonly transmitted through raw milk back then rawmilkinstitute.org rawmilkinstitute.org. By 1924, the U.S. Public Health Service published the Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) to standardize safe milk production via pasteurization, and it became federal policy to promote pasteurization en.wikipedia.org.
The Decline of Raw Milk Availability: From about 1910 to 1940, there was an “uneasy truce” between raw and pasteurized milk advocates. Certified raw milk was still available in many cities for those who wanted to pay extra, and many doctors continued to swear by its benefits (prescribing it for everything from failure-to-thrive infants to TB patients). However, the momentum was on pasteurization’s side. Public health departments, backed by emerging corporate dairy interests, worked to make pasteurization the norm.
After World War II, the balance tipped decisively – improved refrigeration and transport made large-scale distribution of pasteurized milk easy, and small raw milk producers fell by the wayside or converted. The Certified Milk Commissions gradually dissolved (the last certified raw dairies in the U.S. persisted into the 1970s before ending due to regulatory pressure and declining demand).
By the 1980s, raw milk was effectively outlawed for retail sale in most states, except a handful like California that maintained a legal raw milk market. Even on-farm sales were banned in some states. In summary, raw milk went from being a daily staple in 1900 to a black-market item in many places by 2000.
Why Raw Milk Was Demonized: The core reasons raw milk got a bad name were legitimate for the time – early 20th century raw milk often carried dangerous pathogens and was a leading cause of foodborne illness and child mortality. Pasteurization undeniably saved lives in that context.
Additionally, unscrupulous practices like swill feeding, lack of refrigeration, and long-distance transport in unrefrigerated rail cars led to milk that could hardly be consumed safely raw. Without today’s sanitation, even milk from healthy cows could become contaminated with Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria, etc., during handling.
The “demonization” of raw milk came from public health campaigns warning people that “Raw milk kills” – and historically, they weren’t far off. For example, before pasteurization, milk was a known vector for tuberculosis; thousands contracted TB from milk of cows that had bovine TB infection. Brucellosis (undulant fever) was another debilitating disease commonly caught from raw dairy. These diseases are largely forgotten now, thanks to improved sanitation and dietary standards in cattle, but they shaped public memory.
By mid-century, generations grew up being taught that only irresponsible or ignorant people would drink raw milk. That cultural perception lingers, which is why many mainstream dietitians and doctors still reflexively warn against raw milk, even though raw milk from today’s hygienic, grass-fed dairies is a world apart from 1900s swill milk.
Raw Milk Safety Today vs. Then: A crucial argument of raw milk advocates is that modern raw milk, produced under sanitary conditions, is no more dangerous than other raw foods we accept. They point out that we routinely consume raw items like sushi, oysters, rare steak, runny eggs, lettuce and salad greens, fruits, and nuts, all of which can carry pathogens and cause illness outbreaks.
For instance, the CDC has reported far more outbreaks and illnesses from leafy greens or chicken than from raw milk. According to one CDC analysis (2009–2015), the top culprits for foodborne illness were poultry, pork, and produce (“seeded vegetables” like tomatoes/peppers, and leafy greens) rawmilkinstitute.org.
Pasteurized dairy products can also occasionally cause outbreaks – e.g. a listeria outbreak in 1985 from pasteurized cheese killed over 50 people, and more recently pasteurized ice cream and packaged chocolate milk have caused fatal outbreaks in the U.S. rawmilkinstitute.org. Yet, only raw milk is singled out by regulators as a food to “completely avoid” rawmilkinstitute.org. Raw milk advocates argue this is inconsistent. With improved cow health (nearly all U.S. dairy cows are TB- and brucellosis-free today), refrigeration, stainless steel milking equipment, on-farm testing, and training, raw milk can be produced as a low-risk food.
The data somewhat back this: a 2018 study in PLOS Currents found that even as more states legalized raw milk, the rate of raw milk outbreaks per population decreased by 74% between 2005 and 2016 – suggesting better safety practices and education reduced the risk.
Another study of exemplary raw milk farms (in the U.S. and Europe) concluded that “raw milk can be produced with a high level of hygiene and safety” when farms implement risk management systems and regular testing. In other words, the manmade problem of dirty milk that pasteurization solved in 1900 can also be solved by preventing the milk from getting dirty in the first place, given today’s technology. Modern raw milk from a well-run farm is absolutely not the same product as 1850s swill milk. Advocates often note that you are statistically more likely to get sick from eating a deli sandwich or a salad than from drinking regulated raw milk – yet raw milk faces harsher restrictions.
The Role of Rockefeller and Industrial Interests: It is worth addressing the “conspiracy” aspect of this issue by speaking to the influence of powerful industrialists like John D. Rockefeller in stamping out raw milk. Historically, Rockefeller was a major figure in public health philanthropy and had significant investments in food and agriculture enterprises by the early 20th century.
Some historical analyses suggest that Rockefeller saw pasteurization not only as a public health measure but as a business opportunity: it would encourage consolidation of the dairy industry (small farmers couldn’t afford pasteurization equipment, pushing milk production to larger centralized dairies and processors, in which Rockefeller and others had stakes) lakeviewfarmstore.com lakeviewfarmstore.com. Rockefeller’s support for pasteurization laws helped “effectively squeeze out small, independent farmers” in favor of large milk processing cartels lakeviewfarmstore.com lakeviewfarmstore.com.
For example, the 1909 Chicago pasteurization ordinance – the first of its kind – was reportedly pushed through by officials connected to Rockefeller. The city’s mayor at the time, Fred Busse, had ties to Martin Ryerson (President of the Rockefeller-funded University of Chicago), and the law’s sponsor was a Rockefeller ally lakeviewfarmstore.com. When Chicago required all milk sold to be pasteurized, it “marked the beginning of a broader national push toward milk regulation, with Rockefeller playing a key behind-the-scenes role”. After Chicago, many other cities and states followed suit, often with quiet lobbying by dairy interests and public health organizations (which Rockefeller philanthropy often funded).
By making raw milk sales illegal (except in limited certified channels), these policies secured the market for large-scale pasteurized milk distributors – effectively creating regional dairy monopolies often referred to as milk trusts or cartels.
The Rockefeller Foundation also funded medical research and nutrition science in the early 20th century that tended to favor industrialized foods (not necessarily out of malice, but due to a belief in technology and “modern” methods). Whether one frames it as a conspiracy or simply economic self-interest aligning with public health, the result was the same: by mid-century, raw milk was marginalized. The “Rockefeller influence” is thus part of raw milk lore, cited by advocates who suggest that raw milk’s dangers were exaggerated to benefit “Big Dairy” and other allied industries (like nascent pharmaceutical companies selling infant formula and pasteurization equipment manufacturers).
It’s difficult to quantify how much was genuine health concern versus industrial lobbying – likely it was both. But it is true that once pasteurization became law, the dairy industry further industrialized: farms grew larger, milk was pooled and transported long distances (since pasteurization would kill any contamination), and the notion of local raw milk nearly disappeared.
In recent times, alternative health circles sometimes point to the Rockefeller story as analogous to other cases where processed foods were promoted over natural ones for profit. Regardless of the degree of collusion, it’s clear that raw milk’s decline had economic beneficiaries. As one farm store’s historical account put it, “Rockefeller’s efforts led to widespread pasteurization laws and set the stage for industrialized dairy production and the rise of milk processing cartels.” Raw milk’s legal suppression thus had as much to do with politics and economics as it did with microbes.
John D. Rockefeller
In summary, raw milk was demonized historically because it was indeed a vehicle for disease under Industrial Revolution conditions (no refrigeration, sick cows, filth). Pasteurization heroically solved that immediate problem. However, times have changed: cows are healthier, farms can be kept clean, milk can be rapidly chilled and tested. The demonization lingers in regulations and public perception, but data from the 21st century suggest that raw milk, when produced to high standards, is no riskier than many raw foods we consume routinely. Moreover, today’s raw milk advocates aren’t suggesting we abolish pasteurization – they simply want the choice to obtain raw milk from accountable farmers, akin to choosing sashimi at a trusted restaurant or buying organic spinach despite the (small) E. coli risk it carries.
Safety Considerations
& Rebuttals to Public Health Concerns
No argument for raw milk would be complete without addressing the elephant in the room: pathogen risk.
Opponents argue that whatever raw milk’s benefits, they are outweighed by the danger of foodborne illness like E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella, or Listeria. How do raw milk proponents rebut this? Largely by citing improved safety practices, comparative risk context, and research showing that raw milk can be produced with minimal risk. Here are the key points in the safety debate:
“No Food is 100% Safe” – Contextualizing Raw Milk Risk: It’s important to acknowledge that raw milk can contain harmful microbes if something goes wrong (just like raw chicken can contain Salmonella or raw spinach can carry pathogenic E. coli). However, we do not ban all raw foods; instead, we establish standards to minimize risk.
Raw milk advocates note that pasteurization is not a guarantee of safety either – pasteurized products have caused outbreaks when post-pasteurization contamination occurred or when processing failed rawmilkinstitute.org. The CDC’s own outbreak surveillance data (2009–2015) shows that many foods we consider normal have caused far more outbreaks than raw milk rawmilkinstitute.org.
For example, leafy greens caused hundreds of outbreaks in that period, whereas raw dairy (milk and cheese) caused a few dozen. Chicken and pork are major sources of foodborne illness, yet we manage their risk through proper cooking and handling, not by banning them. Even pasteurized milk caused a notable number of outbreaks (e.g. from Listeria growing during shelf life) rawmilkinstitute.org. The Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) emphasizes this perspective: “A wide range of foods including meats and vegetables are known to cause foodborne illnesses, with chicken, pork, and vegetables topping the list. Pasteurized milk is not perfectly safe, either… Nonetheless, only raw milk is targeted by regulators as a food to be completely avoided.” rawmilkinstitute.org rawmilkinstitute.org The point is not to say raw milk is risk-free, but that its risk has been exaggerated relative to other foods.
Hygienic Production and Testing: Modern raw milk dairies that sell to the public are typically obsessive about cleanliness. They often implement safety protocols beyond those of regular dairies (since they can’t fall back on pasteurization to kill an “oops” moment). This includes: healthy cows tested for diseases, sanitizing udders before milking, using closed milking systems to avoid external contamination, rapid chilling of milk, and frequent microbial testing of the milk. For instance, RAWMI sets voluntary standards for raw milk producers like <15,000 cfu/ml total bacteria and <10 cfu/ml coliform – extremely low counts indicating very clean milkrawmilkinstitute.orgrawmilkinstitute.org.
Many raw milk farms do batch testing for common pathogens (Salmonella, E. coli O157, Listeria) regularly and have “test and hold” protocols (milk is released for sale only after a pathogen test comes back clear). In California, the two raw milk producers must test and report pathogen results to the state.
The aforementioned 2020 study by Berge & Baars in Epidemiology & Infection looked at raw milk farms in North America and Europe with exemplary safety records and found that with proper protocols, raw milk can consistently meet safety criteria pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. They cite Germany’s long-standing “Vorzugsmilch” program (raw milk licensed dairies since the 1930s) as evidence that raw milk can be sold widely with very few incidents if standards are enforced pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
In the U.S., states like Pennsylvania have had legal raw milk for decades with only rare outbreaks because dairies are routinely tested by the state. The overall message: “Raw milk can be produced as a low-risk food when farmers are well-trained, use specialized hygienic practices, and perform ongoing testing.” Advocates want regulatory focus on helping farmers produce safe raw milk, rather than blanket prohibitions.
Improving Track Record: As noted, recent trends show raw milk becoming safer as more farmers learn risk management. The 2018 PLOS study by Whitehead and Lake observed that after 2005, despite more states legalizing raw milk (thus more consumers), the rate of outbreaks per consumption went down significantly (an effective 74% decrease in outbreak rate), likely due to better farmer education and possibly RAWMI’s influence rawmilkinstitute.org. This counters the argument that legalization automatically leads to more illness – actually, responsible legalization may improve safety because it brings raw milk out of the shadows and under oversight. Additionally, some states have introduced tiered standards – e.g., Utah passed a law allowing raw milk to be sold in stores if it meets stricter coliform counts than pasteurized milk requires, incentivizing producers to be extremely clean or lose their permit. The data from states like Maine or South Carolina (where raw milk is legal) show very few illnesses in the past decade, demonstrating that properly handled raw milk is indeed reasonably safe. RAWMI frequently points out that its listed farmers (who follow rigorous protocols) have distributed millions of servings of raw milk with no reported illnesses.
Pathogen Fate in Raw vs Pasteurized Milk: Interestingly, raw milk has some inherent pathogen-fighting abilities, whereas pasteurized milk, if contaminated, can actually be a better growth medium for pathogens (since the competing bacteria are gone). For example, if a few Listeria cells contaminate pasteurized milk during bottling, they can multiply without competition in the cold, potentially reaching an infectious dose. In raw milk, the presence of lactic acid bacteria and enzymes tends to inhibit Listeria growth (raw milk is somewhat hostile to Listeria, as studies have shown it grows more slowly or not at all in raw milk vs sterile milk) mpi.govt.nz mpi.govt.nz. Salmonella and E. coli also face hurdles in raw milk due to lactoperoxidase and other factors mpi.govt.nzmpi.govt.nz. This is not to downplay raw milk outbreaks – if raw milk is heavily contaminated at the outset (say a cow with mastitis shedding pathogenic E. coli into the milk), a person can absolutely get sick. But such scenarios are preventable with basic herd health and testing.
Dairy farms today vaccinate for common diseases, use stainless steel closed milking systems, and discard milk from any cow that shows illness or positive tests. The Raw Milk Institute argues that by focusing on prevention at the farm level, raw milk can be nearly as safe as pasteurized milk. They train farmers in HACCP-like risk analysis, so each step from cow to bottle is monitored rawmilkinstitute.org rawmilkinstitute.org. Two insurance companies even offer liability insurance to raw milk producers who follow certain safety standards, indicating that insurers view the risk as manageable, not uninsurable.
What about the children and immunocompromised? Public health officials often argue that even if an adult chooses to risk raw milk, what about their children who might be more vulnerable? Raw milk advocates respond that many raw milk consumers are giving it to their children specifically to gain the health benefits (fewer allergies, etc.), and they do so safely by choosing reputable sources.
They note that parents routinely feed children other higher-risk foods (sushi, runny eggs, rare meat, etc. are typically not given to toddlers, but things like melon, lettuce, or deli meats – which have caused fatal outbreaks in kids – are common).
Ultimately, the argument is about freedom of choice with informed consent. Just as pregnant women are advised to avoid certain foods (soft cheeses, deli meats, e.g.) but those foods aren’t banned for everyone, raw milk could be treated similarly: available with warning labels and education.
In states where raw milk is legal, consumers are often very educated on its proper handling (keeping it cold, consuming within a week, etc.). One can also pasteurize raw milk at home if desired (bringing it to ~72°C for 15 seconds) – thus buying raw milk gives the consumer the choice to consume it raw or not, whereas buying pasteurized gives no choice.
Case Comparisons: Let’s compare two scenarios: A) a glass of raw milk from a modern Grade A farm, vs B) a serving of raw oysters from a raw bar.
Raw oysters have a known risk of Vibrio bacteria and other pathogens, and kill several dozen Americans per year on average, yet they remain legal (with advisories in menus). Raw milk in contrast causes an average of zero to a few deaths per year in the U.S. (some years none, some years a rare fatal case in an immune-compromised person) – far fewer than oysters, yet raw milk is far more stigmatized.
Or consider deli meats and soft cheeses: these pasteurized products cause periodic listeriosis outbreaks that have high fatality rates among the elderly or pregnant, but we manage that risk with recalls and warnings rather than banning bologna or Brie. Advocates argue raw milk should be treated the same: regulate it, educate on proper handling (e.g. always keep it refrigerated at ≤40°F, consume promptly), but don’t categorically forbid it.
Empirical Safety Record: According to the FDA and CDC, from 1998 to 2018 there were 202 reported outbreaks attributed to raw milk or raw milk products nationwide, causing around 2,500 illnesses (mostly mild) fda.govpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. To put that in perspective, in the same period, there were over 20,000 outbreaks of foodborne illness overall in the U.S., and millions of illnesses – meaning raw milk accounted for a tiny fraction. Furthermore, a large portion of those raw milk outbreaks occurred in states where raw milk was illegal (people obtaining it in black market situations or consuming improperly handled milk). When raw milk is produced under a legal framework with testing, outbreaks are exceedingly rare. For example, California (retail raw milk legal) has had no major raw milk outbreaks from its licensed dairies in decades – the standards and oversight are high. South Carolina likewise, since legalizing retail raw milk in 2016, has not seen an uptick in illnesses; the state dairy officials work with farms to maintain safety. This suggests that integrating raw milk into the regulatory fold (rather than pushing it underground) is the safest approach.
Improvements vs. 100 years ago: It bears repeating just how much has changed since the early 1900s: today, cows are regularly tested for diseases like TB and Brucella (and the U.S. has been largely free of those in dairy herds for years). Milking equipment and storage tanks are closed and stainless steel (no open pails for dirt to fall in). Refrigeration is universally used on farms and in transport. We have laboratory capabilities Pasteur could only dream of – able to detect a few colony-forming units of pathogens in a sample. We even have on-farm rapid tests for bacteria and are developing DNA-based sensors for real-time milk monitoring. All these mean that raw milk can be produced much more safely now. Raw milk advocates often say: “Pasteurization was a solution to a man-made problem (filthy milk) – solve the problem, and you don’t need the solution.” rawmilkinstitute.org rawmilkinstitute.org There’s truth to that. In Europe, tens of thousands of people drink raw milk daily from vending machines or farm shops without falling ill. It’s considered a niche gourmet product, similar to raw milk cheeses which are widely enjoyed. The U.S. is slowly catching up to this perspective.
Standards and Liability: Many raw milk producers take on additional liability insurance and open their farms to customer inspection/tours – something not many big commercial operations would do. This transparency builds trust and accountability. If a raw milk farmer makes someone sick, they could be sued out of business; hence the good ones are extremely diligent. Contrast that with supermarket foods, where it’s hard to trace exactly which farm’s lettuce gave you E. coli. Raw milk is often a direct farm-to-table transaction, meaning traceability is immediate and farmers have a strong incentive to ensure safety for their own community of customers.
In rebuttal to public health agencies: It’s often said “there is no scientific evidence of health benefits of raw milk; but there is evidence of risks.” This report has provided evidence to challenge that – numerous peer-reviewed studies document raw milk’s health benefits (asthma/allergy protection, etc.) pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov rawmilkinstitute.org.
As for risk, yes raw milk can harbor pathogens, but the incidence is low and mitigated by proper practices.
A balanced, evidence-based position would be: Raw milk, produced under stringent safety standards, can be a nutritious and health-promoting food with an acceptably low level of risk, comparable to other common raw foods. Blanket statements that raw milk is “incredibly dangerous” ignore modern data. In fact, a 2019 review in the journal Nutrients concluded that “public health focus on raw milk’s hazards may be disproportionate to its actual role in foodborne illness, and current evidence indicates multiple health benefits that merit further investigation” (paraphrasing the review’s findings).
Final Thoughts on Safety
It is prudent that anyone choosing raw milk do so from a reliable source: a farm that adheres to testing and cleanliness protocols. Raw milk is not an inherently “evil” substance; it’s only as good as the conditions under which it is produced. The same could be said of raw oysters or sushi – source and handling matter.
Given the nutritional and health upsides detailed earlier, many, including myself, feel the trade-off is worthwhile. Improved standards, education, and legal oversight can make raw milk a safe option for the informed consumer. As one policy brief succinctly put it: “With farmer training, careful production practices, and ongoing testing, low-risk raw milk is achievable.” And as a result, increasing numbers of families are seeking out raw milk as part of a return to minimally processed, traditional foods.
Podcasts to Check Out
I really enjoyed this podcast by Alex Clark, where she discusses the safety of raw milk with a dairy farmer from the USA who produces raw milk for consumption and is very familiar with the industry. My article has a lot of good information, but sometimes it’s nice to listen instead of read. Click below to listen:
Conclusion
In doing this deep dive into the safety and superiority of raw milk, I cited robust evidence that raw, unpasteurized milk (when produced hygienically) can indeed be healthier than its pasteurized and homogenized counterparts.
Raw milk retains a richness of nutrition (immune proteins, enzymes, vitamins) and fosters a beneficial microbiome that pasteurized milk simply cannot come close to matching. These qualities translate into tangible health benefits: stronger immunity, fewer allergies in children, and possibly improved gut-brain health, among others.
The historical vilification of raw milk arose from legitimate problems that are largely outdated in the era of stainless steel and refrigeration. Today’s raw milk, from conscientious farms, bears little resemblance to the “swill milk” of the 1850s.
Legally, the U.S. is gradually re-embracing raw milk, with over half the states now permitting its sale in some form. This reflects not only consumer demand but also a recognition that outright bans may be overkill given the safety strides made. Even so, centuries-old biases and powerful industry narratives remain obstacles. We saw how industrial interests like Rockefeller’s initiatives helped entrench pasteurization, casting a long shadow over raw milk’s reputation. Overcoming these will require continued education and perhaps a reframing: raw milk should not be seen as a risky antiquated habit, but as a nutrient-dense whole food akin to raw honey or fresh-squeezed juice – one that, with proper precautions, can be enjoyed responsibly.
Importantly, this argument does not call for ending pasteurization or suggesting raw milk is for everyone. Pasteurized milk will and should remain widely available, especially for those who cannot access trusted raw milk or who have weakened immune systems and prefer an extra margin of safety. However, the evidence presented shows that for those who choose raw milk, the health gains are real and significant. It is not a placebo or folklore: peer-reviewed science backs many of the claims (from lactoferrin’s antimicrobial action to raw milk’s allergy prevention). Additionally, as we confront modern health challenges like autoimmune diseases, allergies, antibiotic-resistant infections, returning to some traditional dietary practices like raw milk consumption, I feel could be part of the solution. Raw milk is essentially “farm-to-table” nutrition in one ingredient, providing probiotics, proteins, and healthy fats in a highly bioavailable matrix.
In closing, my case for raw milk must also acknowledge that consuming it requires trust: trust in the farmer and in the process. For those who have made that connection, raw milk can be a profoundly positive addition to their diet. As the data suggest, the risks can be minimized to a level on par with other accepted foods, while the benefits can be considerable. With sensible regulations, ongoing research, and open-minded dialogue, raw milk could shed its taboo and be appreciated as the wholesome, nutrient-rich beverage that nourished our ancestors for millennia.
Sources:
Loss, G. et al. (2011). The protective effect of farm milk consumption on childhood asthma and atopy: the GABRIELA study. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 128(4): 766–773.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Brick, T. et al. (2020). The beneficial effect of farm milk consumption on asthma, allergies, and infections: From meta-analysis to clinical trial. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 8(3): 878–889.rawmilkinstitute.orgrawmilkinstitute.org
Loss, G. et al. (2015). Consumption of unprocessed cow’s milk protects infants from common respiratory infections. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 135(1): 56–62.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Riedler J, Eder W, Oberfeld G, Schreuer M. Austrian children living on a farm have less hay fever, asthma and allergic sensitization. Clin Exp Allergy. 2000 Feb;30(2):194-200. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2222.2000.00799.x. PMID: 10651771.
Effect of processing on milk serum proteins (2017, Markus Ege et al.). Frontiers in Immunology – found heat significantly reduces lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase, etc., in milkpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) – Policy Brief and Safety Resources (2022). Summarizes legal status and safety practices for raw milkrawmilkinstitute.orgrawmilkinstitute.org.
Mary I. Butler et al. (2020). “Recipe for a healthy gut: Intake of unpasteurized milk is associated with increased lactobacillus abundance in the human gut.” Nutrients 12(5):1468pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Berge, A.C. & Baars, T. (2020). “Raw milk producers with high levels of hygiene and safety.” Epidemiol. Infect. 148:e14pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Raw Milk vs Pasteurized Milk – Kansas Senate testimony (2020, S. Fallon et al.)kslegislature.govkslegislature.gov.
Lakeview Farm (2023). “Rockefeller and Raw Milk” – historical account of Rockefeller’s influence on dairy lawslakeviewfarmstore.comlakeviewfarmstore.com.
CDC (2018). Surveillance for Foodborne Disease Outbreaks 2009–2015 (MMWR)rawmilkinstitute.org.
FDA (2018). Raw Milk Misconceptions – FDA consumer info (for contrasting viewpoint).
Wikimedia/LoC – Frank Leslie’s 1858 illustration of a swill milk dairyrawmilkinstitute.orgrawmilkinstitute.org.
Big Think (Sept 2023). “The 19th-century milk scandal that killed thousands of babies.”smithsonianmag.combigthink.com.
Additional references embedded throughout text as 【source†lines】.
