STUDY: Raw Milk Legalization ≠ Increased Illnesses

When researchers analyzed the CDC’s U.S. outbreak data for 2005–2020 from all transmission sources, they found that there is no trend of increasing raw milk illnesses associated with increased raw milk legalization. The analysis, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health, looked for trends in the burden of infectious disease and foodborne outbreaks.

---

Fatal Foodborne Illnesses From 2005-2020

Interestingly, the researchers found that fatal foodborne illnesses were dominated by fruits, vegetables, peanut butter, and pasteurized dairy. If government agencies were really concerned with targeting foods that cause the most illnesses, they would be banning cantaloupe! Instead, they continue to demonize raw milk.

Foods associated with U.S. outbreaks reporting more than 2 deaths (2005–2020)

---

Illnesses and Outbreaks from Pasteurized and Raw Milks

The researchers also compiled illness and outbreak data to compare pasteurized and raw milk. “A total of 3,807 illnesses were reported for fluid milk. Both raw and pasteurized milk were associated with outbreaks, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths over the 16-year period, with raw milk associated with 162 outbreaks, 1,696 illnesses, 170 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths in 37 of 50 U.S. states, and pasteurized milk associated with 18 outbreaks, 2,111 illnesses, 32 hospitalizations, and 4 deaths.”

Numbers illnesses, outbreaks, hospitalizations, and deaths by year for unpasteurized (raw) and pasteurized milk (2005–2020)

It is clear that pasteurization of milk is no guarantee of perfect safety. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe food.

---

Illnesses Do Not Increase with Legalization of Raw Milk

The researchers performed several different analyses to determine whether raw milk-attributed illnesses and outbreaks are increasing. Even though legalization of raw milk increased over the 16-year study period, “raw milk-attributed illnesses and outbreaks did not increase over the period.”

---

Raw Milk is Not Inherently Dangerous

According to the researchers, “Claims that raw milk is inherently dangerous appear founded in ideology and dogmas based on late 19th-century science, not the recent data.”

Furthermore, “CDC NORS data do not support the claim that raw milk is an inherently dangerous food. Nor do current microbiology data support this claim, as data from monitoring programs for raw milk produced for direct human consumption are rarely positive for the presence of any of the major foodborne pathogens (≤ 0.01% positive).”

---

RAWMI Method for Low-Risk Raw Milk

Here at the Raw Milk Institute, we know that raw milk can help people achieve robust health with strong immune systems and resistance to asthma and allergies. However, those benefits can be overshadowed if farmers aren’t diligent about managing the real food safety risks that accompany raw milk. Ethical farmers need to take these risks seriously and work actively to mitigate them. 

The three pillars of the Raw Milk Institute Method for safe, low-risk raw milk are:

• Farmer training and mentoring

• An individualized risk management plan for each farm

• Ongoing bacterial testing for Coliforms and Standard Plate Count, aiming for rigorous-yet-achievable standards

Although there is no way to guarantee perfectly safe food, the RAWMI Method dramatically reduces the risk of illness from consumption of raw milk.

Researchers from Canada and Europe have studied the safety of raw milk intended for direct human consumption. They found that raw milk can be a low-risk food when farmers are trained in risk management practices, implement careful production practices, and test their milk regularly. Researchers concluded that “raw milk can be produced with a high level of hygiene and safety.”

---

Where to Learn More

You can read the full study here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44197-024-00216-6

RAWMI extends thanks to Michele Stephenson, Peg Coleman, and Nicholas Azzolina for this important perspective on foodborne illnesses.

Why Farmers Should Test Their Raw Milk

Ongoing bacterial testing is a crucial part of raw milk risk management.

Consumer demand for raw milk is increasing, as people learn about the health benefits of raw milk and the negative effects of pasteurization. Raw milk farmers can thrive in this burgeoning market and help their customers achieve robust health with strong immune systems and resistance to asthma and allergies. 

Unfortunately, that service to humanity can be overshadowed if farmers aren’t diligent about managing the real food safety risks that accompany raw milk. Some people and organizations have asserted that raw milk is inherently safe because of the natural bacteria that is present. However, this is demonstrably not true. Pathogens can indeed be present in raw milk and those pathogens can make people sick. Ethical farmers need to take these risks seriously and work actively to mitigate them. 

Scroll or click below for information about the following topics:

• Top 4 Pathogens of Concern for Raw Milk

• “But My Family Drinks My Milk with No Problems”

• Careful Milk Production Isn’t Enough

• Which Tests to Perform

• Where to Test Raw Milk

• Testing is a Proven Part of Low-Risk Raw Milk

Top 4 Pathogens of Concern for Raw Milk

The four most common human pathogens that have been associated with raw milk-related illness are verotoxin producing Escherichia coli (VTEC, such as E. coli O157:H7), Salmonella enterica spp., Campylobacter jejuni, and Listeria monocytogenes. When any of these bacteria are present in the milk at levels that are sufficient to cause infection, susceptible people may experience intestinal illness that may include severe illness or death.

E. coli 0157:H7 is of particular concern because it can produce severe illness even with a low pathogenic load.  With even just a few bacteria present, E. coli O157:H7 can lead to hemolytic uremic syndrome (leading to kidney failure) or thrombocytopenic purpura (blood clots that can restrict flow of oxygen to the organs).

Thus, pathogens in raw milk need to be taken very seriously by farmers. Some of the most common sources of pathogens in milk are manure, mastitis, and improper cleaning of milking equipment resulting in biofilms of bacteria.

"But My Family Drinks My Milk with No Problems"

Farmers, please don’t make the mistake of assuming that, just because your family can drink your raw milk with no problems, there are no pathogens present.

We commonly hear farmers say they would know if there was a problem with their milk, because their own family drinks it without issues. However, this is not necessarily true. Farm families generally have more-robust immune systems than the population at large. Being around animals and the farm environment tends to build strong immune systems, but many raw milk customers have no such advantages.

Some people choose to drink raw milk specifically to help build up their immune systems. As such, they may have leaky gut, compromised immune systems, improper gut flora due to antibiotics, extreme vulnerability while recovering from chemotherapy, etc. These customers will have a much lower threshold for illness from pathogens than farm families. Just because the farm family can drink the milk with no issues does not mean that the raw milk consumers will be able to do so.

Careful Milk Production Isn't Enough

Important risk management strategies for low-risk raw milk include careful udder preparation, rapid milk chilling, thorough equipment cleaning, and much more. Our experience in mentoring hundreds of farmers has shown that these careful practices aren’t enough, though. They must be backed up with bacterial testing to ensure that nothing important is being missed.

We’ve seen it happen time and time again that farmers can get an unpleasant surprise when they first test their milk. Low-risk raw milk requires careful attention to a multitude of details, and even one little missed detail can turn into a big problem. Bacterial testing serves as a confirmation step to make sure the overall milk production process is working well to reduce the risks.

Farmers: if you don’t test your milk, you won’t know. As Raw Milk Institute Chairman Mark McAfee says, “What gets tested gets done.”  It could be that:

• the milk isn’t chilling as fast as expected, or

• there is a bacteria biofilm growing in the crevices inside the bulk tank valve, or

• one of the cows has a quarter that is developing subclinical mastitis, or

• the milk hoses didn’t dry out well in-between milkings, or

• the water heater is going out so the wash temperature of the pipeline is too low, or

• there is a crack in an inflation liner that is allowing bacteria growth in an area where the cleaning solution doesn’t flow, or

• the milk jars aren’t clean enough, or

• any of a multitude of other potential problems.  

All of these can lead to increased bacteria counts, so testing is a way to double-check that nothing important has been missed.

Which Tests to Perform

Pathogen testing of raw milk can be used to determine whether specific pathogens are present by testing for Escherichia coli VTEC, Salmonella enterica spp., Campylobacter jejuni, and Listeria monocytogenes. Pathogen testing can have both false positives and false negatives, so it is not a perfect guarantee of food safety. Additionally, pathogen testing can be cost-prohibitive and is only meaningful if it is performed frequently. Nonetheless, for farmers who can afford it, frequent pathogen testing can be helpful in determining whether any specific pathogens are present over time.

Regardless of whether or not pathogen testing is performed, Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) recommends that all raw milk farms perform bacterial testing at least monthly for coliforms and Standard Plate Count (SPC). The RAWMI Common Standards aim for a rolling three-month average of:

• <5,000 cfu/mL for SPC

• <10 cfu/mL for coliforms

Although these two tests do not directly detect the presence of pathogens, they serve as general indicators that the milk is being produced hygienically and in such a way that pathogens are less likely to be present.

NOTE: None of these tests are a perfect guarantee that there will never be a pathogen present. No food can ever be perfectly safe. Nonetheless, these tests can help dramatically decrease the risk of having pathogens present.

Where to Test Raw Milk

Depending on location, milk testing may be performed at a local university or independent testing lab.  Additionally, some labs have created specialized testing packages for raw milk. 

• Microbial Research lab in Fort Collins Colorado has a raw milk testing package that makes it more affordable for farmers to perform pathogen tests.  The standard tests which are included are Coliforms, Standard Plate Count, Salmonella, and E. coli O157. Other tests such as Campylobacter and Listeria are also available.  Additionally, there is a raw milk shipping kit available.

• MB Labs in British Columbia Canada has a testing package for raw milk. The test package includes Total Coliforms, Standard Plate Count, Fecal Coliforms, E. coli, Campylobacter, Listeria (Total & L. monocytogenes), Salmonella, and Shigella.

On-farm labs are a good option for many raw milk farmers. After an initial investment in equipment, on-farm labs can greatly reduce testing costs in the long-term because the testing cost is only $1-3 per test.

• On-farm labs can be used for coliform and Standard Plate Count testing, with results in 24-48 hours.

• On-farm labs make it easy and economical to test milk such that farmers can test more often, such as weekly or even daily. Testing more frequently allows farmers to identify and troubleshoot any problems much more quickly.

• We have a comprehensive guide to on-farm testing here.

Raw Milk Institute does not generally recommend on-farm testing for specific pathogens (such as E coli 0157:H7, salmonella, listeria mono, etc), due to potential hazards from accidental release of pathogens on the farm. However, specialized test systems are being developed for on-farm testing of pathogens. In those systems, the test samples are destroyed after each test. Those test systems are stand-alone and may be cost-prohibitive for some farmers. Nonetheless, these test systems may be a good option for farmers who want to perform more frequent pathogen testing.

• Spectacular Labs has developed a stand-alone pathogen test system with results in 6-12 hours (depending on which pathogen is being detected).

• The Spectacular Labs system is self-contained and destroys the sample once the test is completed (thereby eliminating the risk of pathogen escape).

Testing is a Proven Part of Low-Risk Raw Milk

It is important to note that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe food. A CDC analysis of foodborne illnesses from 2009-2015 showed that the top food categories commonly linked to illnesses were chicken, pork, and seeded vegetables. Multi-state foodborne illness outbreaks have been linked to foods ranging from unpasteurized apple juice to ground beef to soy nut butter to lettuce. Pasteurized milk is not perfectly safe, either, and is implicated in foodborne illnesses and outbreaks every year.

The three pillars of the RAWMI Method for safe, low-risk raw milk are 1) farmer training, 2) risk management plan for each farm, and 3) bacterial testing of raw milk at least monthly for coliforms and Standard Plate Count per the Common Standards.  Although there is no way to guarantee perfectly safe food, the RAWMI Method dramatically reduces the risk of illness from consumption of raw milk.

Researchers from Canada and Europe have studied the safety of raw milk intended for direct human consumption. They found that raw milk can be a low-risk food when farmers are trained in risk management practices, implement careful production practices, and test their milk regularly. Researchers concluded that “raw milk can be produced with a high level of hygiene and safety.” The evidence is clear that raw milk can be a low-risk food and ongoing milk testing is an important part of the overall risk management strategy.

Raw milk farmers have an ethical responsibility to take pathogens and food safety risks seriously. The production of safe raw milk is a long-term mission, never fully completed or fully perfected. There will always be something to learn and much to teach. Farmers can engage in our free mentoring program here: https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/how-to-become-rawmi-listed

Disclaimer: The Raw Milk Institute provides information for educational purposes only. Raw Milk Institute does not assume any responsibility or liability for the use of this information.

On-Farm Lab Testing for Raw Milk Farmers

On-farm labs are a valuable and economical tool for dairy farmers who want to produce low-risk raw milk

The three pillars of the Raw Milk Institute’s (RAWMI) Method for safe, low-risk raw milk are 1) farmer mentoring, 2) risk management plan for each farm, and 3) regular bacterial testing of raw milk.  This method works well and has been documented to lead to a significant reduction in raw milk-related illnesses and outbreaks. Researchers who have studied the safety of raw milk produced with the RAWMI Method have concluded that “raw milk can be produced with a high level of hygiene and safety.”

RAWMI’s farmer mentoring program and assistance in developing an individualized risk management plan are free for all farmers. However, milk testing costs can be an ongoing financial burden which make small-scale farmers hesitant to test their milk often. But there is a great solution to this: on-farm testing!

Scroll or click below for information about:

• What is an On-Farm Lab?

• Benefits of On-Farm Labs

• Which Tests You Can Perform in an On-Farm Lab

• Materials for Building Your Lab

• How to Test Your Milk

• How to Interpret Your Results

NOTE:  Raw milk can be a low-risk food and ongoing milk testing is an important part overall of risk management. Nonetheless, there is no way to perfectly guarantee the safety of any food. Pasteurized milk is not perfectly safe, either, and is implicated in foodborne illnesses and outbreaks every year. The Raw Milk Institute provides the information below for educational purposes only. Raw Milk Institute does not assume any responsibility or liability for the use of this information.

What is an On-Farm Lab?

Pioneered by Edwin Shank from The Family Cow dairy in Pennsylvania, on-farm labs are a tremendous resource for dairy farmers. On-farm labs can be set-up on the countertop in a small, clean workspace. Once the lab area is ready, farmers can easily test their milk for coliforms and Standard Plate Count with the use of a small incubator. 

Set-up costs for on-farm labs are in the range of $800-$1,000.  RAWMI is currently offering grants of up to $500 to offset lab costs for farmers who are Listed or going through our Listing program. After the initial set-up costs, raw milk testing costs are only $1-$3 for each test performed in the on-farm lab.

Benefits of On-Farm Labs

On-farm labs have numerous benefits for raw milk farmers. As RAWMI Chairman Mark McAfee says, “What gets measured gets done.”  Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to raw milk. Testing allows farmers to dependably produce low-risk raw milk with confidence.

With on-farm labs:

• Farmers can test their milk for coliforms and Standard Plate Count (SPC).

• Ongoing testing costs are only $1-$3 per test.

• Farmers can inexpensively test their milk as often as desired, so they can identify patterns in their bacterial counts which help in identifying trouble spots ahead of time.

• The effects of new equipment or procedures on bacterial levels can be evaluated.

• Farmers can test more often as needed for troubleshooting high bacteria counts.

• Annual water tests can also be performed.

Which Tests You Can Perform in an On-Farm Lab

The bacterial tests performed in an on-farm lab (coliform and Standard Plate Count) are used to provide a general indicator that the milk is being produced in a way that is unlikely to lead to pathogens and pathogen growth. 

The RAWMI Common Standards aim for a rolling three-month average of:

• <5,000 cfu/mL for SPC

• <10 cfu/mL for coliforms.

NOTE: RAWMI does not generally recommend on-farm testing for specific pathogens (such as E coli 0157:H7, salmonella, listeria mono, etc), due to potential hazards from accidental release of pathogens on the farm. Specialized test systems are being developed for on-farm testing of pathogens. In those systems, the test samples are destroyed after each test. Those test systems are stand-alone, may be cost-prohibitive for small-scale farmers, and are not discussed further in this article.

Materials for Building Your Lab

general list of supplies

1. Standard Plate Count and Coliform Count testing discs (either petri-films from Neogen or peel-plates from Charm Sciences)

2. Sterile pipettes (individually wrapped)

3. Sterile water

4. Incubator that will maintain at 90 F / 32 C

5. Lightbox, magnifier, and spreader (if using Neogen testing discs)

NOTE: Standard Plate Count (SPC) is also known as Rapid Aerobic Count (RAC), Aerobic Count (AC), and/or Aerobic Plate Count (APC).

Neogen vs Charm Sciences testing Systems

There are currently two different systems for performing on-farm testing, developed by Neogen (formerly known as 3M) and Charm Sciences.  Both of these systems work well for on-farm raw milk testing. The basic lab equipment (incubator, pipettes, sterile water, etc.) is the same with either system.

Neogen’s testing system uses petri-films and provides results in 24 hours for both coliforms and SPC. Unopened packages of Neogen petri-films are stored in the refrigerator or freezer for up to 18 months, with opened packages being stored at room temperature for up to one month.

Charm Sciences testing system uses peel-plates and provides coliform results in 24 hours and SPC results in 48 hours.  The peel-plates can be stored at room temperature for up to 12 months. Testing costs are currently a bit lower with Charm Sciences peel-plates than with Neogen petri-films.   

VIDEO COMPARISONS:

• Charm Sciences Peel Plates

• Neogen (3M) PetriFilms

• Neogen (3M) Petrifilms vs Charm Sciences Peel Plate side-by-side demo

NOTE: Charm Sciences has two options for coliform testing. The basic Coliform Count test peel-plates are fine to use, as are the E Coli and Coliform Count EC peel-plates (which have different colored dots for E. coli bacteria).

E. coli is a large family of bacteria of which most are NOT pathogenic. The Charm Sciences EC peel-plates do NOT give an indication of the presence of specific pathogenic bacteria. Furthermore, some pathogenic E. coli do not result in the color-change dots on the Charm Sciences EC peel-plates. Nonetheless, some farmers find these plates helpful to use as presence of E. coli on the plates can help with determining the source of the bacteria in the milk (such as environmental contamination).

Materials Lists for Testing with Charm Sciences or Neogen

Charm Sciences Peel-Plate Materials List from Kelsey Barefoot (RAWMI Board Member and owner of The Barefoot Cow Dairy): 2-page materials list for performing on-farm testing with Charm Sciences peel-plates

Raw Milk Lab Materials List from Edwin Shank at The Family Cow Dairy: Short 1-page list of materials required for performing on-farm testing with Neogen (3M) Petri-Films

How to Test Your Milk

GENERAL TESTING PROCEDURE

1. Turn on the incubator to 32 degrees C / 90 degrees F.

2. On a clean surface, prepare the milk samples for testing with petri-films or peel-plates.

   • For coliform count, you will test the milk “neat” (undiluted).

   • For SPC testing of clean, well-produced milk, a 1:10 dilution will generally work best.

3. Using a clean pipette for each test, squeeze the milk or diluted milk onto the peel-plate or petri-film.

4. Place the testing discs in the incubator for 24-48 hours (depending on which testing discs are used).

5. Remove the testing discs from the incubator and count the dots to determine your results.

Detailed Testing Procedures

RAWMI VIDEO: How to Test Raw Milk with Charm Sciences Peel Plates

Charm Sciences Peel-Plate Procedures from Kelsey Barefoot (RAWMI Board Member and owner of The Barefoot Cow Dairy): 2-page procedures for performing on-farm testing with Charm Sciences peel-plates

Raw Milk Lab Procedures from Edwin Shank at The Family Cow Dairy: Short 2-page list of procedures for on-farm lab testing with Neogen (3M) Petri-Films

On-Farm Lab Testing: A Guide to Raw Milk Bacteria Testing from Jenny Skelonc at Six S Dairy: Comprehensive 20-page guide to on-farm testing with Neogen (3M) Petri-Films, including materials list, procedures, results interpretation, and tips for success

How to Interpret Your Results

BASIC PROCEDURE FOR interpreting test results

1. Remove the testing discs from the incubator.

2. Count the dots on each plate.

   • For coliform count test, your result is the number of dots.

   • If you used a dilution for the SPC test, such as 1:10, make sure to multiply the number of dots by your dilution factor.

   • For example, if you counted 31 dots on your SPC test and used a 1:10 dilution, multiply 31 X 10 = 310 cfu/mL for your SPC.

3. Record your results.

Detailed Resources for Interpreting Your Test Results

• Charm Sciences coliform count interpretation guide

• Charm Sciences SPC interpretation guide

• Neogen (3M) coliform interpretation guide

• Neogen (3M) SPC interpretation guide

Raw Milk and Bird Flu: A Deep Look at the Lack of Evidence for Transmission Via Raw Milk

A new paper has been published which takes a deep dive into examining all the evidence related to transmission of bird flu via raw milk consumption.

There is a "lack of scientific evidence" that bird flu can be transmitted through drinking raw milk.

Despite this lack of evidence, "Serious errors in extrapolation are apparent in the treatment of evidence for H5N1 in the media and some journal papers that unintentionally or intentionally amplify risk."

The paper goes on to say that, when the "extensive body of experimental and observational evidence" is considered, it is clear that:

Transmission of H5N1 to humans is "rare and sporadic" and happens" by direct contact of dairy workers with infected animals, not by oral transmission."

The paper finds that, overall, the messaging about risks of raw milk are unbalanced and do not reflect the body of scientific evidence. “The wisdom of continuing to promote risk perceptions that raw milk is ‘inherently dangerous’ and there is no ‘downside’ to pasteurizing breastmilk and bovine milk also merits deliberation. These risk perceptions are based on factors other than the recent scientific evidence for benefits and risk of raw and pasteurized milks from humans and bovines.

“While concern about avian influenza A mutations and reassortments are warranted, the pandemic potential of H5N1, lacking person-to-person and aerosol transmission as main drivers of pandemic potential has not increased since the first avian cases were reported in 1996.”

The full paper can be read here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.70077

Thanks to RAWMI Advisory Board member Peg Coleman for continuing to analyze ALL of the evidence so that families, farmers, and lawmakers can make informed decisions.

Soil Fertility and Pastures for High Quality Raw Milk

Feeding dairy animals on green sunny pastures is the preferred way to produce raw milk.  Paddock rotations that provide a daily cycle of movement to fresh, sunny, green pastures provides an ideal environment for keeping dairy animals healthy, clean, and producing high-quality raw milk.  In many cases when dairy farmers transition from an industrial confinement feeding model to a pasture-based feeding system, they are pleased to find that animal health often improves.  

Soil fertility and rotational grazing are of prime importance to pasture management.  Fertile soil is the main source for minerals taken up by the forage plants which dairy animals graze upon.  Soils supplied with calcium and phosphorus fortify milk with these minerals which are needed by people to build strong bones.     

Besides soil being a source for mineral enrichment of milk, a substantial body of scientific literature reports that milk produced by animals on pasture has enhanced nutritional properties compared to milk produced by confinement operations.  Milk produced during the grazing season has a more favorable ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids.  Pasture raised milk also has higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid and fat-soluble vitamins that are beneficial to human nutrition.      

Whether soil fertility is managed or neglected can also influence the health of dairy animals.  Sometimes pasture lands are neglected and not managed to optimize soil fertility, forage quality, and health and productivity of grazing animals.  For example, an imbalance of the minerals calcium, magnesium, and potassium in soils can put animal health at risk.  When soil pH management and liming are neglected weedy plant species may be favored over the more nutritious leguminous forage species preferred by dairy cows.     

To produce raw milk of the highest quality, producers should make observations as they walk over the pastures grazed by dairy animals.  In weedy pastures where more desirable forage species are failing to thrive, it may be a sign of poor soil fertility or other mismanagement.  Soil sampling and testing for soil fertility status can be performed to help diagnose reasons for poor pasture performance.  Even on seemingly well performing pastures, regular soil fertility sampling and testing should be done about every three years to monitor soil pH and fertility status. 

Soil Fertility Recommendations for Pastures is available online from Rutgers University, New Jersey Agriculture Research Station (E364 Soil Fertility Recommendations for Pastures. Heckman, J. https://njaes.rutgers.edu/e364 ).  Although this publication was specifically designed for New Jersey much of the information is universal.  The main soil fertility guidelines are most applicable to Eastern and Midwestern states. Higher levels of precipitation in the Eastern states cause nutrients to leach and acidify the soil.  This increases the need to apply limestone more frequently. 

In other regions, soil fertility needs, and testing procedures may be different and based on the local geological and climatic conditions.  For instance, soils in the arid Southwest tend to be alkaline and as such the pastures may benefit from acidifying soil amendments. Also, different climatic regions may grow different forage species.  To account for regional differences, farmers should consult with local expertise for soil fertility recommendations. 

Image from Oregon State University

In summary, producers of fresh unprocessed milk are encouraged to make the best use of pastures as a major feed source during the grazing season.  When the soil fertility conditions are optimized for the health and productivity of dairy animals, farmers will be able to provide customers with nutritious dairy products of the highest quality.              

Advocating and Training for World-Class, Low-Risk Raw Milk for Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Beyond

Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) recently traveled to Pennsylvania and Delaware in support of low-risk raw milk. Through training farmers, meeting with regulators, and visiting farms, we’re aiming to help ensure that raw milk is safe, embraced, and accessible in the northeastern states. 

BUILDING BRIDGES WITH REGULATORS AND FARMERS IN DELAWARE

RAWMI President Mark McAfee and Vice President Sarah Smith met with Delaware Secretary of Agriculture Don Clifton, alongside dairy farmers Steph and Gregg Knudsen, to discuss Delaware's recent raw milk legalization, proposed regulations, and ways we can all collaborate to ensure accessibility to safe raw milk in Delaware.

The Knudsens were instrumental in getting the legalization Bill passed so that more farms can thrive in Delaware. Mark and Sarah visited their G&S Dairy Farm to talk about the path moving forward now that raw milk is legal.

EDUCATING FARMERS FOR A SUSTAINABLE PATH FORWARD

Mark McAfee, Sarah Smith, and Dr Joseph Heckman taught a 3-hour seminar on World Class Raw Milk at the PASA Sustainable Agriculture Conference in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Topics included

• History of raw milk

• Why raw milk farms are thriving

• Health benefits of raw milk

• Benefits of selling raw milk

• Safety and risks of raw milk

• Grass-to-glass raw milk risk management

• Raw milk testing

There were ~45 attendees from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Delaware. Attendees included farmers who are already producing raw milk, prospective farmers considering raw milk production, and students who were interested to know more about raw milk.

THANKS to Lancaster Farming newspaper for giving balanced coverage of this raw milk training class and the potential benefits of raw milk production for farmers. https://www.lancasterfarming.com/farming-news/dairy/demand-for-raw-milk-offers-opportunities-for-farmers/article_7b69a814-e401-11ef-93cf-b332916b01d8.html

PIONEERING FOR LOW-RISK RAW MILK

Edwin Shank, from The Family Cow dairy in Chambersburg Pennsylvania, is the farmer who pioneered on-farm bacterial testing for raw milk dairies. We're always happy to visit with Edwin and see how his multigenerational family farm is thriving. Edwin's farm is RAWMI Listed and we share his on-farm lab educational materials here: https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/updates/on-farm-lab-testing-for-raw-milk-farmers

CONNECTING WITH AMISH FARMERS

There are many dozens of Amish dairies, but they can't generally access RAWMI’s online training materials. We want to make sure they have access to the information they need for low-risk raw milk production, regardless of any barriers to technology.

Several Amish farmers attended our training class in Lancaster, and we visited several Amish farms that are thriving with the current cultural shifts towards food security, local producers, and healthier foods to nourish the gut microbiome and immune system.

Overall, this trip was a resounding success! We were gratified to train more farmers in low-risk raw milk production and look forward to future collaboration towards successful rollout of Delaware’s recent raw milk legalization.

Why Humans Drink (RAW) Milk

Why Did Ancient Humans Start Consuming Milk From Other Mammals?

10,000 years ago, early humans spent much of their time hunting, gathering, or fishing for food. Obtaining food was the dominant preoccupation of their lives. Imagine the reality for humans living prior to the advent of civilization. You can picture them living in crude shelters, wearing animal skins and using few tools. It was not like a 14-day survival challenge where they could call for a medic and be rescued. Eating and surviving were lifelong challenges.

You can hear the crying of babies and children that were hungry. Those cries are universal and have not changed over the millennia. The natural instinct to provide for the next generation was a compelling mandate which drove instinctual and natural innovation.

Early humans nursed their young, just as all mammals do. Nursing provided optimal nutrition for babies to survive and thrive. Breastmilk is a form of raw milk, serving as a complete food source that is perfectly designed to sustain life.

People observed animals in the wild nursing their young just as they nursed their own young. By capturing goats and aurochs (ancestral cow breeds), the people were able to collect their milk in pottery vessels. These humans would have learned quickly that milk from other animals was a complete, nutritious food. Being purposely designed to sustain life like no other food, this raw milk provided a steady source of readily available food for ancient humans.

Without refrigeration, any milk that wasn’t consumed quickly would naturally ferment into cheese curd and whey. The milk storage vessels likely contained bacteria cultures from previous milkings, and hence the culturing process was naturally reinforced with these bacteria.  The resultant curds could be stored and consumed over time. Curd contained a complete set of microbiome-friendly nutrients, and would be easy to digest due to its biodiversity. The humans could now bring along with them a portable supply of steady food. As long as they had sunshine, water, grass or shrubbery, and a mammal, they had food.  

Scientists have ample evidence that humans began drinking raw milk from animals at least 10,000 years ago. The evidence for the early use of animal milk is found in ancient clay pottery vessels, dental remains of Neolithic humans, and bone analysis of animal remains. Ancient baby bottles provide evidence that milk from animals was used to feed human infants at least 8,000 years ago.

The origin and dispersal of domestic livestock species in the Fertile Crescent. (Zeder, Melinda)

These agriculture-based civilizations were so successful that they spread across the Mediterranean region, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East over the next few thousand years. Humanity continued to domesticate additional species of animals; throughout history, many species have been utilized for their milk including camels, cows, goats, sheep, donkeys, horses, water buffalo, reindeer, and other mammals.

Those who consumed milk had a competitive advantage over those that did not have a steady source of readily available food.  This steady supply of food allowed for settlements and communities to develop. People no longer had to spend most of their time acquiring food, and could instead use their brain power to drive the development of sophisticated structures and towns. Domesticated animals became high value assets. As civilization advanced, those that owned milking mammals became wealthy and became the source of food for communities.

Selection of late Bronze/early Iron Age feeding vessels.(J Dunne, et al.)

Lactase and Genetic Adaptations for Milk

The domestication of mammals and consumption of their raw milk provided a source of biodiverse colonies of bacteria for the human gut. When people began drinking raw milk at least 10,000 years ago, these biodiverse bacteria began the genomic adaptation for lactase production and lactase persistence genes. Lactase is the enzyme responsible for breaking down lactose into digestible form. 

Humans who first began to consume milk from other mammals had not yet developed the lactase persistence gene. Nonetheless, they likely would have been able to readily digest raw milk because it facilitates the production of lactase enzyme in the intestinal tract. Archaeological evidence shows that humans were consuming raw milk for thousands of years before the widespread appearance of the lactase-persistence gene. This has led many researchers to the probably erroneous conclusion that Neolithic humans must have been fermenting or culturing milk to reduce or remove its lactose content.  

In reality, “lactose-intolerance” is primarily pasteurization intolerance.  Since raw milk facilitates the production of lactase, it is not likely that there were widespread issues with lactose intolerance in Neolithic populations. In all likelihood, these early populations would have been able to consume milk in its fresh form straight from the mammals, as well as in the lacto-fermented curds and whey which would form quickly without refrigeration.  

Stone carving at the ancient Sumerian temple of Ninhursag showing typical dairy activities. (Dorling Kindersley, The Visual Dictionary of Ancient Civilizations)

The competitive advantage provided by raw milk is not to be understated. Raw milk allowed humans to thrive in conditions where survival would have been difficult. It allowed them to migrate and proliferate from region to region with a steady supply of food. Those populations that consumed milk further adapted by developing lactase-persistence genes. Scientists now believe that the lactase-persistence genes were spread through natural selection. This means that the reproductive capacity and/or survivability of ancient raw milk drinkers was substantially increased compared to non-milk-drinking populations. The lactase-persistence genes would have facilitated the easy digestion of milk in many forms, including boiled or cooked milk. There is current evidence of lactase persistence genes in people from regions of Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. However, even those without the lactase-persistent gene can generally digest raw milk because of the raw milk bacteria that create lactase for the human gut. 

Pasteurization: A Technological Solution to a Manmade Problem

A 19th century illustration of "swill milk" being produced: a sickly cow being milked while held up by ropes. (Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Weekly)

By the mid-1800’s in America, some raw milk production had shifted away from farms and into highly-populated cities. Big cities did not have pastures or clean water, and the cows in city dairies were kept in filthy conditions with poor nutrition and poor animal health. Many of these cows were fed byproducts from alcohol distilleries, leading to illness in the cows. Raw milk, which had been safely consumed by humans for nearly 10,000 years, had become a source of deadly diseases such as tuberculosis, typhoid, diphtheria, and scarlet fever. 

In the late 1800's, it was recognized that raw milk being produced in these conditions was dangerous, and two solutions were proposed.  Pasteurization was one of the solutions which was proposed to eliminate pathogenic bacteria in the milk coming from these filthy conditions. The other solution was to actually produce the milk in hygienic conditions with healthy animals.  

It was known that raw milk was a superior source of nutrition for infants and children, so the American Association of Medical Milk Commissions (AAMMC) was established in the late 1800's to ensure a safe supply of hygienic raw milk. The AAMMC was in operation for nearly a century, certifying medical raw milk for use in hospitals and for feeding infants and children.  

Pasteurization was ushered in to address filthy conditions and unhealthy cows in cities.  It answered the question of how to commercialize dirty milk, rather than spending the time and energy it would take to produce clean milk from healthy cows. Clearly, over time, the pasteurization movement gained traction and became the standard for ensuring "safe" milk, yet pasteurization is known to degrade and damage many of the nutrients in milk. 

Raw Milk’s Role in the 2020’s

Now in the 2020’s, we are in a time of widespread immune depression, comorbidities, and compromised health. For most Americans, the competitive advantage of raw milk consumption has never been a reality. Raw milk’s immune-building properties and microbiome friendly traits have been forgotten. 

Instead, we live in the age of immune-destructive pharmaceuticals and antibiotics. Although life-saving in certain applications, these drugs also depress and damage the immune system and gut microbiome. Antibiotic resistance is now responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people every year in the USA alone. Furthermore, pasteurized milk is now recognized as a top food allergen and difficult to digest.  

Raw milk is an innate part of our healthy immune history, and is largely missing in our sterile, sugar-laden, preservative-laced, antibiotic-abusing modern diets and medical culture.  Safe raw milk has been rediscovered by those who study history and know the role of raw milk as a nourishing whole food.  Raw milk that is carefully and intentionally produced for direct human consumption is wholly different from milk being produced for pasteurization.  

So, the next time that someone says, “milk is for cows and not for humans,” share with them the intricate link between civilization and raw milk, and the competitive advantage that raw milk provided to humanity for 10,000 years. Many of these misinformed humans are in dire need of gut microbiome rescue like never before. Reach out to them with love, compassion and humanity. They need our support, nourishment, and education.    

Raw Milk, Asthma, and Lung Health

There are multiple peer-reviewed, scientific studies which correlate raw milk with improved lung health, both in childhood and adulthood.

Children Who Drink Raw Milk Have Less Asthma

Several large epidemiological studies of European children have found correlations between raw milk consumption and decreased rates of asthma.

PARSIFAL Study

The PARSIFAL study was designed to look at allergy risk factors in children. This large study of over 14,800 European children (from Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland) investigated asthma and allergic diseases in relation to children’s exposure to different environments (farms, rural, suburban) and farm-fresh foods (such as raw dairy products, eggs, and vegetables). The PARSIFAL data relating to asthma and raw milk were published in December 2006 in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Allergy [1].

The PARSIFAL study concluded that there is a "significant inverse association between farm [raw] milk consumption and childhood asthma." The study found that, regardless of which environment the children lived in, those children who drank raw milk had significantly lower rates of asthma than children who did not drink raw milk.

GABRIELA Study

The GABRIELA study was designed to investigate the genetic and environmental causes of asthma.  This study included over 8,000 European children (from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland), and was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in August 2011 [2]. In this study, raw milk consumption was compared to consumption of boiled/pasteurized milk, and the level of exposure to raw milk in utero through school age was also accounted for. The study also looked into the children’s exposure to farm environments as a possible variable related to rates of asthma.

The GABRIELA study found that raw milk consumption is associated with significantly lower rates of asthma, and that this beneficial effect is independent of other farm exposures. It was found that early exposure to raw milk (at <1 year of age) and daily consumption of raw milk increased the beneficial effect in children who drank a mixture of raw milk and pasteurized milk. The consumption of only pasteurized milk “was not associated with any health outcome.”

PASTURE Study

The PASTURE study followed children from birth to age 6 years in order to gain a better understanding of the effects of raw milk consumption on asthma. This study of over 900 European children (from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, and France) was published in January 2016 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology [3].

The PASTURE study concluded that, "Continuous farm [raw] milk consumption in childhood protects against asthma at school age." This study found that raw milk’s “beneficial effect on asthma increases over time. Recent consumption of farm milk seems to be more relevant than consumption in the first years of life, which extends the concept of early prevention to sustained prevention until school age and beyond.” 

It’s Not the “Farm Effect,” It’s the Raw Milk!

Some of the research correlating decreased asthma with raw milk consumption has been criticized as actually demonstrating that living on a farm is associated with decreased rates of asthma. However, several of the studies specifically analyzed the effects of living environments, and found that the beneficial effects of raw milk on asthma were indeed present even in children who did not live on farms.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of eight health studies related to raw milk was published in the November 2019 issue of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology [4]. A meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis which combines the results of multiple scientific studies, thereby allowing the researchers to derive overall conclusions about that body of research. The recent meta-analysis, written by a team of researchers from the Netherlands and Germany, concluded that when taken as a whole, the body of data from the previous studies shows that raw milk consumption in childhood has a protective effect on asthma “independent of other farm exposures and that children not living on a farm can theoretically profit from this effect.” 

Adults Who Drank Raw Milk in Childhood Have Better Lung Function

Agricultural Lung Health Study

There is evidence that raw milk’s beneficial impacts on lung health are not isolated to childhood. Evidence that raw milk has a beneficial effect on adult lung health is seen in the Agricultural Lung Health Study, which is part of the larger Agricultural Health Study that was designed to investigate how agricultural, lifestyle and genetic factors affect the health of farmers.  The Agricultural Lung Health Study data relating to lung health and raw milk were published in March 2018 in the journal Thorax [5].

This study investigated lung function in over 3,000 USA older adults, with a mean age of 63 years.   It was found that "raw milk consumption, particularly early in life, is associated with better pulmonary [lung] function in adulthood." This study found that childhood raw milk consumption was correlated with “higher forced expiratory volume” and higher “forced vital capacity”, leading the researchers to conclude that “the beneficial effect of raw milk is predominantly on lung growth.”

Low-Risk Raw Milk as a Therapeutic Tool

It is clear from all of this research that raw milk consumption is correlated with improved lung health.  Children who drink raw milk have lower rates of asthma, and childhood raw milk consumption leads to improved lung health that lasts into older adulthood. There is a growing body of evidence that raw milk is a low-risk food when it is produced carefully and intentionally [6, 7]. Thus, low-risk raw milk can be a powerful therapeutic tool for improving lung health.

References

[1] Inverse association of farm milk consumption with asthma and allergy in rural and suburban populations across Europe. Clinical and Experimental Allergy. 2007; 37(5):661-70. Waser M, Michels KB, Bieli C, Flöistrup H, Pershagen G, von Mutius E, Ege M, Riedler J, Schram-Bijkerk D, Brunekreef B, van Hage M, Lauener R, Braun-Fahrländer C; PARSIFAL study team. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456213

[2] The protective effect of farm milk consumption on childhood asthma and atopy: The GABRIELA study. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2011; 128 (4): 766-73. Loss G, Apprich S, Waser M, Kneifel W, Genuneit J, Büchele G, Weber J, Sozanska B, Danielewicz H, Horak E, Joost van Neerven RJ, Heederik D, Lorenzen PC, von Mutius E, Braun-Fahrländer C; GABRIELA study group. https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)01234-6/fulltext

[3] ω-3 fatty acids contribute to the asthma-protective effect of unprocessed cow's milk. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2016; 137 (6): 1699-1706. Brick T, Schober Y, Böcking C, Pekkanen J, Genuneit J, Loss G, Dalphin JC, Riedler J, Lauener R, Nockher WA, Renz H, Vaarala O, Braun-Fahrländer C, von Mutius E, Ege MJ, Pfefferle PI; PASTURE study group. https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/fulltext

[4] The Beneficial Effect of Farm Milk Consumption on Asthma, Allergies, and Infections: From Meta-Analysis of Evidence to Clinical Trial. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practcice, 2019. 8 (3): 878-889. Brick T, Hettinga K, Kirchner B, Pfaffl MW, Ege MJ. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31770653

[5] Raw milk consumption and other early-life farm exposures and adult pulmonary function in the Agricultural Lung Health Study. Thorax, 2018; 73:279-282. Wyss AB, House JS, Hoppin JA, et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5758444/

[6] Recent Trends in Unpasteurized Fluid Milk Outbreaks, Legalization, and Consumption in the United States. PLOS Currents. 2018; 10. Whitehead J, Lake B. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140832/#ref27

[7] Raw milk producers with high levels of hygiene and safety. Epidemiology and Infection, 2020; 148, e14, 1-7. Berge AC, Baars T. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32000877

Build Immune System Strength With Whole Foods: Drink Raw Milk!

America invested $3 billion dollars and spent 13 years between 1990 and 2003 to figure out what makes us genetically human. The research project focused on discovery of the genes and genetic code that makes us what we are.  This work was funded by Congress and led by the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. The findings were not quite as expected.  

Our parents gave us each about 20,000 genes that give us our basic structure and shape. That was the easy part.  That is our “hardware”. However, the “software” that runs our human machine gets a little tricky. It becomes very complicated and even inconvenient.

Rob Knight, founder of the Center for Microbiome Innovation and Professor of Pediatrics at the University of California San Diego, describes that,

“You’re more microbe than you are human.”

On a cellular level, we are only 43% human, with the balance of our cells being bacteria, viruses, and fungi. Genetically, our 20,000 human genes are vastly outnumbered by 2,000,000 to 20,000,000 microbial genes, which are mainly coming from bacteria. And most of these bacteria make their home in our gut.

At the cellular level, genetic information is shared between human cells and microbial cells. Genetic information is freely traded, exchanged and swapped around as an essential part of life and cellular function. The essential bacterial genetic information acts as “software” for the human cells, regulating the immune system, digestion, and manufacture of vital vitamins. This is how our human micro-biome functions.  

I like to say “we are Bacteriosapiens”.  What does this mean in real terms? How do we apply advanced science and use this information to better our lives? The bottom line is this:

We have great control over our optimal health.

We are not narrowly driven by the genes our parents passed to us. Those genes are important, but they are only a sliver of the genetics that truly drive our human machine. How we live our lives has tremendous impact on our microbiome and therefore our health. Were we breast fed, were we born by C-Section, did we receive heavy antibiotics early on? That’s just for starters. What we were fed as children and how do we continue to eat today? Don’t get into a guilt trip. That’s all old history. You can start fixing it today.

According to Dr. Anahid Jewett PhD at UCLA:

The healthy gut biome needs two things to reduce inflammation and keep you healthy:

• A load of biodiverse bacteria

• The whole foods that feed them

It comes down to nurturing our beneficial bacteria!  How do we get good bacteria to hang out, colonize our bodies, and become our very best genetic friends? How do we get and keep our genetic software so our human cells can make good decisions and keep us healthy?  Beneficial bacteria don’t hang around very long if we don’t offer them breakfast, lunch and dinner.

What nourishes our beneficial bacteria?  Whole foods do. What is a whole food? A whole food is a food that is unprocessed and complete. Nothing taken away and nothing added. Whole foods grow right out of good healthy soils which are teaming with earthworms, fungi, and bacteria. Whole foods come right out of the cow or straight from a well-nourished animal.

Americans don’t eat many whole foods. Instead we eat the Standard American Diet (SAD). In doing so, we starve and deprive our beneficial bacteria! In fact, we Americans love our antibiotics, pharmaceutical drugs, preservatives, sugar rich foods, long shelf life foods and GMOs. Highly processed foods and chemicals are destructive to our gut biome and the bacterial diversity required for genomic health. So what does that leave us? Its leaves us with “hardware and no software to drive it”. We become genetically inept at the cellular level.  We develop a whole range of diseases, including allergies, leaky gut, autoimmune disorders, depression, autism, and more. It’s really SAD.   

Nourishing and healing our gut microbiome requires moving away from processed foods and pharmaceuticals, and instead moving towards whole foods.

Raw milk, raw cheese, raw butter, raw cream and raw kefir are whole gut biome superfoods. They seed the gut with diverse beneficial bacteria, while providing the enzymes, proteins, minerals, and good fats that bacteria love to eat. They are whole foods with biologically active elements and protein systems that protect the gut, and build and maintain our immune system. They are the first foods of life!  Add fresh or fermented vegetables, grass-fed beef, chicken, eggs, and other direct-from-the-farm foods to make your bacteriosapien thrive!

Follow-on studies to the Human Genome Project continue today, including the Human Microbiome Project and the American Gut Project. It has become quite the clash of titans. The current medical and food processing establishments find this information to be extremely inconvenient. If bacteria are critical to life, then what are we doing with all the antibiotics? Sugars grow candida yeast and disrupt normal healthy bacterial colonization. Preservatives kill off bacteria in foods to extend shelf life and cause damage to the gut bacterial colonies. So does the widely-used glyphosate Round-up!

In the recent Coronavirus Pandemic, we witnessed lack of resilience in our gut biomes and immune systems.

While some people were not affected by Coronavirus others became deathly ill or worse.  We don’t know exactly why there was such a difference in these outcomes and pathways. We have been given a big hint, though: in general, COVID19 illness seriously affected those with compromised immune systems and poor health status.

New threats will continue to emerge. Viruses and bacteria continually evolve and adapt. Our immune system and gut biome must dynamically do the same. We must be adaptive and resilient to be able to address the ever present and evolving threats that will come to visit us. Will your immune system and genomics be up to the new threat?  Vaccines are always late, come after the fact, and don’t have the most effective track record. A healthy adaptive resilient immune system is with you and working all the time.

There is a long list of studies that confirm the health benefits of raw milk. These benefits include significantly fewer colds (which are viral illnesses), less asthma, fewer ear infections, reduction of eczema, less allergies, and stronger general health. These findings confirm that:

Those who eat a whole food diet and consume raw dairy products have more adaptive and resilient immune systems.

Get to know your bacterial self. You are not alone. Give your new best friends breakfast, lunch, and dinner. They won’t ever let you down if you feed them well.

Drink your raw milk and eat your whole foods! Cherish your new bacterial friends. They are the healthy you!

Two Types of Raw Milk

My family has been drinking raw milk for over 18 years. I drank raw milk through both of my pregnancies and raised both of my kids on raw milk since they were weaned from breastmilk as toddlers. I have purposely chosen raw milk for my family because of its exceptional health benefits and animal welfare.

Studies performed in Europe have shown that children who drink raw milk have decreased rates of asthma, allergies, eczema, ear infections, fever, and respiratory infections. Nonetheless, when I tell people that my family drinks raw milk, I often hear responses such as:

“Raw milk is dangerous!”

“Doesn’t raw milk make people sick?”

“I heard that raw milk was bad for you.”

The reason for raw milk’s negative reputation is that there are two types of raw milk!  Raw milk that is intended for pasteurization is quite different than raw milk produced for direct human consumption.

Raw Milk Intended for Pasteurization

When my family drives past a nearby dairy that produces milk for pasteurization, we are struck by the horrendous smell and filthy living conditions.  The animal yard is completely covered with manure. The cows have no choice but to lie and stand in manure all day. It is disgusting to think that this operation is producing food for families.

Raw milk that is “intended for pasteurization” is typically sourced from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). This type of milk is actually defined under the Federal Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO).  Such milk is being produced in conditions where animal health is often compromised and mastitis (udder infection) is common.  Antibiotics are often utilized in these herds, and hormones are used to stimulate higher levels of milk production. The animals are housed in an abundance of manure, and there is a corresponding high rate of pathogens.

This milk is intended to be pasteurized to kill pathogenic bacteria, and as such, it is often produced with little care towards preventing contamination with pathogens. Furthermore, this type of milk is generally commingled with milk from multiple dairies, which increases the risk of pathogenic exposure. Studies have shown that up to 33% of this type of milk tests positive for pathogens. This type of raw milk is clearly unsafe to consume. I would never feed this type of raw milk to my family.

Raw Milk Intended for Direct Human Consumption

When my family visits the dairy that produces the raw milk that we drink, we see a very different setting from the CAFO dairy. The cows at the raw milk dairy are happily grazing on lush pastures. The cows look clean and healthy. The milk is bottled on-farm, and we can see that the milk bottling room is clean and neat. There is a stark contrast between the CAFO dairy and this raw milk dairy.

Raw milk that is carefully and intentionally produced for direct human consumption is wholly different from raw milk being produced for pasteurization. Raw milk farmers carefully manage the cleanliness and hygiene of the farm from grass-to-glass, with much care to ensure that the animals are healthy and the milk is clean.

From the health of the herd, to cleanliness of the milking parlor, to the specific cleaning processes for the milk line, to ensuring rapid milk chilling, to regularly testing their milk, and everything in between, raw milk farmers are dedicated to taking their farm management to the next level in order to ensure that their raw milk is safe to consume.

Although there are no federal standards for raw milk, the Raw Milk Institute has established Common Standards for raw milk that is intended for direct human consumption.  This type of raw milk is tested often and held to rigorous standards to ensure that it is being produced in a way that discourages pathogen growth.

Where Do Pathogens in Milk Originate?

The four main pathogens in milk that can cause human illness are E coli 0157:H7, listeria mono, salmonella, and campylobacter. The two most common sources of pathogens in milk are manure and mastitis. It is estimated that one-third of CAFO dairy cows have mastitis, and the cows in CAFOs stand and lie in manure all day. Clearly, this type of dairy environment is primed for pathogen growth.

On the other hand, the raw milk dairy environment is carefully managed to prevent pathogens in the milk. These farmers manage the health of their herd to prevent mastitis. They ensure that the milk from any animals that are showing signs of mastitis is not used for direct human consumption. Raw milk farmers meticulously clean the udders before milking to ensure that no manure or other contaminants are present. They also rigorously and frequently clean their milking machines, milk lines, and milk tanks.

Take a look at the milk filters shown below.  Even with just a quick look, it is apparent that the milk being produced with the intent to be pasteurized is clearly not clean, whereas the milk filter from the intentionally-produced raw milk looks impeccable. (To be fair, there are some dairy farmers who produce milk for pasteurization that is much more hygienic than most others. However, that milk is still commingled with milk from other dairies, many of which are likely to not use hygienic practices.)

Comparison of Bacterial Test Standards for Two Types of Raw Milk

Okay, I’m gonna get technical here.  If reading about standards and looking at charts is not your thing, you can skip ahead to the last section. :)

Two important types of bacterial testing for milk are Standard Plate Count (SPC) and coliform count. The SPC is a measure of the total number of aerobic bacteria in the milk. High SPC numbers can indicate dirty milking equipment, poor milk chilling, and/or poor udder preparation.

Coliform count measures the amount of coliform bacteria present in the milk. Coliform counts measure the overall hygiene and cleanliness of the milk. High coliform counts generally indicate the presence of manure or other environmental contaminants on the udders or milking equipment. High coliform counts are likely to correspond to the presence of pathogens in the milk.

According to the PMO, pre-pasteurized milk is allowed to have up to 100,000 colony-forming units (cfu) of bacteria per mL in SPC testing. The PMO does not have a standard for how many coliforms are allowed in pre-pasteurized milk, but the state of California allows coliforms up to 750 cfu/mL of milk.

In comparison, the Raw Milk Institute Common Standards call for <5,000 cfu/mL for SPC testing, and <10 cfu/mL in coliform testing. As you can see in the chart below, intentionally-produced raw milk is measurably quite different from pre-pasteurized raw milk, and even meets stricter standards than pasteurized milk.

The Raw Milk Institute has been collecting monthly Standard Plate Count and Coliform Count data from its LISTED raw milk dairies since 2012.  This dataset of thousands of test results shows that raw milk farmers who have been properly trained can routinely meet the stringent standards set forth in the Common Standards.

Research on Raw Milk Safety

Researchers from Canada and Europe have studied the safety of raw milk intended for direct human consumption. They have found that carefully produced raw milk is a low-risk food which is fundamentally different from pre-pasteurized milk. 

The table below contrasts pathogen test data from pre-pasteurized milk vs. raw milk intended for direct human consumption.  As illustrated in the table, pathogen testing of pre-pasteurized milk samples has detected pathogens in up to 33% of samples.  In contrast, there were zero pathogens detected in thousands of milk samples from raw milk intended for direct human consumption. It is clear from this test data that pre-pasteurized milk is categorically different from raw milk intended for direct human consumption.

Data courtesy of the British Columbia Herdshare Association

Not All Raw Milk Is Dangerous!

It is clear that raw milk produced with the intention to be pasteurized is likely to contain dangerous pathogens. This type of raw milk is unsafe, and I would never feed it to my family. Unfortunately, this type of raw milk’s negative reputation has led many to believe that all raw milk is unsafe to consume.

It is important to note that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe food. An analysis of foodborne illnesses from 2009-2015 showed that the top food categories commonly linked to illnesses were chicken, pork, and seeded vegetables. Pasteurized milk is not perfectly safe, either, and is implicated in foodborne illnesses and outbreaks every year.  The CDC outbreak and illness data which is used to assert that raw milk is unsafe does not distinguish raw milk intended for pasteurization from raw milk that is carefully produced and intended for direct human consumption.

It is clear from the above-presented test data that intentionally-produced raw milk is a low-risk food. In my family, we purposely choose raw milk for its superior nutrition and significant health benefits over pasteurized milk.  Raw milk contains greater bioavailable nutrients than pasteurized milk, as well as a wide array of beneficial enzymes and probiotics which are known to have benefits on the immune system and gastrointestinal tract.