Glyphosate in Feed May Impact Food Safety and Health

Synthetic pesticides and herbicides pose a number of problems, so raw milk farms are advised to minimize their exposure for soils, crops, water, feeds, and livestock. While there are numerous synthetic pesticides and herbicides of concern used in conventional agriculture, glyphosate-based herbicides (often sold under the brand name Roundup) are by far the most widely used.  Glyphosate residues are slow to degrade and can accumulate in the soil, manure, water, and feed. 

Common Feed Sources of Glyphosate on the Farm

Cows and goats should ideally obtain most of their feed from pasture during the growing season. When purchasing feed, beware that alfalfa, corn, wheat, canola, and soybean are crops most likely to be engineered to tolerate glyphosate herbicide.  Because of these and other genetically-engineered (GMO) crops, global usage of glyphosate has proliferated to billions of pounds annually[i].  Besides use on herbicide-tolerant crops, glyphosate is also often sprayed on many small grains and other crops as a desiccant applied shortly before harvest.  When sprayed on wheat, oats, legumes, sugar cane, and barley, glyphosate residues will then be present in the grain and other plant parts.[ii]   

Harms of Glyphosate Exposure

Livestock exposed to glyphosate in feed or as bedding are more likely to have serious animal health disorders causing loss of production.[iii]  Glyphosate is a strong mineral chelator that binds tightly to essential minerals to render them non-functional physiologically.  Exposure of crops and livestock to glyphosate can intensify mineral deficiencies of Ca, Cu, Co, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, and Zn. 

Besides interfering with mineral nutrition, glyphosate has antibiotic properties that disrupt the gut microbiome. An in-vitro study looking at potential impacts of glyphosate found that some pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella and Clostridium botulinum are “highly resistant to glyphosate. However, most of beneficial bacteria as Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus badius, Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Lactobacillus spp. were found to be moderate to highly susceptible.”[iv] This raises concerns about the potential for glyphosate to kill beneficial microorganisms while allowing pathogenic bacteria to proliferate. 

Weeds Can Be Beneficial in Pastures

On the farm, pasture and forage feed sources for ruminants can be produced without pesticides through intentional management practices.  Beneficial pastures are composed of a mix of diverse species including nitrogen-fixing legumes.  Pastures and hay fields do not need to be perfectly weed-free for feeding livestock.  In fact, some “weed” species are palatable and can serve as acceptable feed.  In general, weeds can be controlled by good rotational grazing management and by sometimes clipping pastures immediately after grazing. Beware that a few weed types, such as pokeweed, hemlock, and nightshade, are poisonous. 

Other Potential Sources of Glyphosate on the Farm

It is not enough to just avoid using glyphosate and synthetic pesticides on your own farm. To minimize exposure to glyphosate, dairy farmers need to be aware of potential sources such as well water, imported feeds, bedding materials, drift from neighboring farms, and soil fertility inputs.  Ideally, feeds and bedding materials for the dairy herd should be produced on-farm.  Feeds and bedding materials obtained from common commercial sources are generally suspect for glyphosate contamination.[ii]

Grain Supplementation Can Be Important for Dairy Herds

Although milk can be produced from entirely grass-fed animals through high quality forages, it can be challenging to supply enough energy to dairy animals without feeding some grain in order to maintain good health and body condition.  For small dairy farms, it may be more economical to purchase grains rather than becoming grain producers. Feed sources that commonly have glyphosate residue include alfalfa, canola, corn grain or silage, soybean, wheat, oats, barley, sugar beets, cottonseed meal, sugar cane, molasses, and distillers grain. 

Purchasing pesticide-free, non-GMO, and/or certified organic feeds is one approach to minimizing exposure to pesticides and genetically engineered feed crops. Certified organic feeds are typically more expensive; however, farmers can search for feed sources from reputable producers who farm with ecological practices, even if they are not certified organic.  Questionable feeds and materials can be tested for the presence of glyphosate, such as with the testing supplies available from Health Research Institute in Fairfield, Iowa.

Reducing Glyphosate Exposure on the Farm

It is recommended for farmers to look holistically at all aspects of their environment for ways to reduce exposure to glyphosate and pesticides. Bedding materials such as soybean hulls and straw from small grain crops may also be contaminated with glyphosate or pesticides.  Additionally, poultry and other livestock manures, such as those imported from conventional farms to build soil fertility, often contain glyphosate residues.[v] 

Raw milk customers often ask raw milk dairy farmers pointed questions about production practices.  Many customers are discriminating in food quality and purposely seek out farms that avoid the use of GMO’s and free of pesticides and herbicides. Fortunately for dairies, pasture and forages can be relatively easy to manage without the use of synthetic pesticides or herbicides. Farms that implement good production practices can answer such customer questions directly.  They can honestly report on how they use ecological farming practices to manage pests without using synthetic pesticides. 

References

[i] Wilson, C.L. and D.M. Huber. (Ed.) 2021. Synthetic Pesticide Use in Africa, Impact on People, Animals, and the Environment.  Chapter 2: Glyphosate’s Impact on Humans, Animals, and the Environment. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Boca Raton, London, New York. 2021 https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.1201/9781003007036/synthetic-pesticide-use-africa-charles-wilson-huber

[ii] Jingwen Xu, Shayna Smith, Gordon Smith, Weiqun Wang, Yonghui Li. Glyphosate contamination in grains and foods: An overview. Food Control, Volume 106 (2019) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956713519302919

[iii] Wilson, C.L. and D.M. Huber. (Ed.) 2021. Synthetic Pesticide Use in Africa, Impact on People, Animals, and the Environment. Chapter 8: Animal Health Issues with Increased Risk from Exposure to Glyphosate-Based Herbicides. Chapter 9: Agricultural Pesticides Threats to Animal Production and Sustainability. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Boca Raton, London, New York. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.1201/9781003007036/synthetic-pesticide-use-africa-charles-wilson-huber

[iv] Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Aldin AA, Hafez HM, Krüger M. The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro. Curr Microbiol. 2013 Apr;66(4):350-8. doi: 10.1007/s00284-012-0277-2. Epub 2012 Dec 9. PMID: 23224412. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23224412/

[v] Harle, D., McNeill, M. J., Huber, D. M., Maney, M., Cano, R. J., & Carlin, M. (2024). Saga of Soggy Sauerkraut. HortScience, 59(11), 1618–1628. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI18041-24

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.

RAWMI Annual Report for 2024-25

The Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) is on a mission to improve the safety and quality of raw milk and raw milk products through farmer training, rigorous raw milk standards, raw milk research, and improving consumer education. In 2024, RAWMI received a grant for $42,500 from the Regenerative Agriculture Foundation (RAF) to further our work. RAWMI accomplished the following in the last year.

• Presented a 3-hour seminar on World Class Raw Milk at the PASA Sustainable Agriculture Conference in Lancaster, Pennsylvania to 45 farmers from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Delaware  

• Trained hundreds of farmers, families, legislators, university professors, and consumers on raw milk benefits and risk management via our internet-based video resources, for a total of 6,432 views of our videos with over 808 hours of watching time

• Presented about raw milk benefits and risk management to students at Rutgers University in class on “Fertile Soil to Fresh Milk, Science, Standards, and Policy”

• Attended the International Milk Genomics Consortium Symposium and were cordially invited to speak at the 2026 conference in Oregon

• Served as the raw milk hotline for farmers in need across the USA and Canada

• Developed guidance for farmers to safely navigate avian influenza affecting dairy herds

• LISTED thirteen farms in who we mentored through the process of developing individualized Risk Assessment and Management Plans (RAMP) for managing the health and hygiene of their unique farms

  • Bells Bend Farms in Tennessee

  • Canaan Farm in Missouri

  • Mini Mosaic Acre in Missouri

  • Mountain Heritage Farm in Tennessee

  • Raising Arrows Creamery in Nebraska

  • Raspberry Lane Ranch in Idaho

  • Westerlook Farm in Oregon

  • Blueberry Dairy in Tennessee

  • Milk Creek Dairy in Tennessee

  • Towering Oaks Farm in North Carolina

  • Redmond Heritage Farms in Utah

  • Atkins Raw Milk Dairy in Iowa

  • Anonymous Farm in Wisconsin

• Provided one-on-one mentoring in the production of low-risk raw milk to over 55+ additional farms in 25 states (Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming), New Brunswick Canada, Azores in Portugal, and Lebanon

• Provided 40+Essential Principles for Low-Risk Raw Milk booklets to farmers in 30 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming), British Columbia Canada, Queensland Australia, and United Kingdom

• Hosted quarterly meetings for LISTED farmers, which allow the farmers to stay up-to-date on the latest lessons learned for safe raw milk

• Amassed hundreds of raw milk test data from LISTED farms to further raw milk research

• Provided educational support towards increased legal access to raw milk in North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin

• Published 17 articles on raw milk benefits, testing, legalization, and risk management strategies

• Provided $500 on-farm lab sponsorships to 9 family farms in Iowa, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming

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.

Welcoming Three Farms in Utah, Iowa, and Wisconsin to RAWMI Community

The Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) sends a warm welcome to three more farmers who have completed our Listing program!

RAWMI offers free mentoring to all dairy farmers. Whether they are milking one cow, a handful of goats, or a large herd, the principles of safe raw milk production form a foundational toolset that benefits all dairy farmers and their customers. 

Some of the farmers we mentor choose to keep it casual, and are satisfied to just ask us a few questions before continuing their raw milk journeys. There is another set of farmers, though, that is not content to just dip their toes in the water; they want to dive right in and take their entire milk process to the next level. 

For these farmers, we offer our (free) RAWMI Listing program, wherein we assist farmers in developing their own unique on-farm Risk Analysis and Management Plan, documenting their processes with written Standard Sanitary Operating Procedures, and identifying the Critical Control Points that are essential to their production of safe raw milk. RAWMI Listed farmers test their milk at least monthly for ongoing assurance that their processes are working well to produce low-risk raw milk. RAWMI Listing is the gold standard for raw milk producers.

Three raw milk farms have recently completed the RAWMI Listing process, and we extend them a warm welcome into our growing community!

• Redmond Heritage Farms - Redmond, Utah

• Anonymous Farm - Wisconsin

• Atkins Raw Milk Dairy - Atkins, Iowa

---

Redmond Heritage Farms - Redmond Utah

In 1958, brothers Milo and Lamar Bosshardt started mining the salt under their farmland in Redmond, Utah—and Redmond®, Inc. was born! Through innovation and a deep respect for people and the land, Redmond grew.

In the early 1990s, the Bosshardts brought Rhett Roberts onto their team.

Growing up on a farm, Rhett was used to eating natural, nutrient-dense food, but as an adult he found out how truly challenging it was to find in stores. So he and his team started a raw dairy farm on the same property as the salt mine and opened the first Redmond Marketplace in Orem in 2003.

Today, Redmond Marketplace is the main outlet for our A2/A2 raw dairy, pastured eggs, farm-fresh meat, and House Made foods. Their Farm Kitchens are also a fast-casual dining option that provides nourishing and delicious meals.

Redmond exists to elevate the human experience in body, heart, mind, and spirit. At Redmond Farm Market and Kitchen, they nourish the body with high-quality, nutrient-dense foods from their land and local partners.

You can check out Redmond Heritage Farms’ Risk Management Plan and test results here: https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/listed-farmers/#redmond

---

Anonymous Farm - Wisconsin

Due to the legal situation with raw milk in Wisconsin, this dairy chooses to be anonymous on the RAWMI website.

Their raw milk journey started with dairy goats which quickly transitioned to a jersey cow to fulfill a childhood dream of owning a family milk cow. While they initially planned to produce clean raw milk solely for their own consumption, they quickly realized the desire for it in our local community. What was once a single milk cow homestead has grown into a farm with a small herd of A2A2 jerseys. 

They believe that raw milk is a perfect food that has unjustly gotten a bad reputation. They are passionate about breaking that incorrect thinking. They strive to provide milk that is both healing, and low risk. Their cows are primarily grass-fed and exclusively organic. They do their best to care for both their jersey girls and milk with the utmost care ensuring both the health of cows and customers. 

You can check out Anonymous Wisconsin Farm’s Risk Management Plan and test results here: https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/listed-farmers/#wisconsin2

---

Atkins Raw Milk Dairy - Atkins Iowa

J and Barb Schanbacher have been dairy farming their entire married life together. J grew up dairy farming and graduated from Iowa State with a degree in Dairy Science. When Iowa changed its law in 2023 to allow the sale of raw milk, the couple wanted to be a part of it. They felt using their decades of knowledge could provide a safe and great tasting product to their community. While the couple still operates their commercial dairy on another site, they select their healthiest animals to be milked at Atkins Raw Milk Dairy LLC.

Producing raw milk for human consumption has given the couple a new purpose. Their goal now is to provide their customer families with safe and delicious dairy products from their select herd of A2/A2 cows. The Schanbacher’s pride themselves on the transparency of their operation and welcome conversations on all things dairy.

You can check out Atkins Raw Milk Dairy’s Risk Management Plan and test results here: https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/listed-farmers/#atkins

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.

The Fascinating History of Milk Kefir

Milk kefir is a fermented probiotic drink that is renowned for its healthful properties. Studies have shown that milk kefir is correlated with a wide range of health benefits, including improved digestion [1], lower blood pressure and cholesterol [2], cancer prevention [1], improved immune systems [3], and reduced asthma and allergies [2]. Milk kefir is a thick and slightly effervescent drink, with a sour, creamy taste.

Milk Kefir is Unique

Although there are many different types of fermented milk around the world [4], milk kefir is unique because it is made with kefir “grains.”  Kefir grains are not true grains, but are actually symbiotic colonies of bacteria and yeast in a protein and lipid matrix. Kefir grains resemble pieces of cauliflower, and they ferment the milk through breaking down the lactose into lactic acid and other beneficial components.

Milk kefir is now widely known and consumed in many countries throughout the world, but for many centuries, milk kefir was a closely-guarded secret of the Northern Caucasus region in Russia. The people of the Northern Caucasus region are renowned for their longevity, with one of the highest proportions of centenarians in the world. Milk kefir is a dietary staple in this region. 

Traditionally, milk kefir was made by combining fresh milk and kefir grains inside goatskin bags. During the daytime, the goatskin bags were hung in the sunshine of the doorways, and prodded or pushed by each person who went through the doorway. As the milk kefir was consumed, more fresh milk was added to the goatskin bag, forming a continuous fermentation cycle.

Grains of the Prophet

The people of the Caucasus mountains have been making kefir for hundreds (or even thousands) of years. In this region, kefir grains are known by the name “Grains of the Prophet” [5]. Their traditional legend about the origin of kefir grains is that the prophet Mohammed gifted kefir grains to the Orthodox Christians in this region [6]. Mohammed is said to have taught the people how to make kefir, and the people revered kefir as a health-promoting food.  

The kefir grains and methods for making kefir were kept secret by people in the Caucasus mountains for many generations. Owning kefir grains was equated with wealth in this region. The people believed that the benefits of kefir would somehow be diminished if the secrets of making kefir were shared outside of their region. Marco Polo is said to have tried kefir, and kefir was prized as a medicinal food, yet the keys to making kefir were not shared until the early 1900’s.

A True Tale of Deceit, Capture, and Retribution

Since milk kefir was a closely guarded secret, how did it ever become more widely known? This is where the story of milk kefir gets even more interesting.

The Russian immunologist Dr. Ilya Ilyich Metchnikoff (who received the Nobel Prize for his work on immunity in 1908) became interested in learning about the causes of the exceptional longevity of the people in the Caucasus region and other regions. Metchnikoff came to the conclusion that soured milk, including milk kefir, was one of the keys to longevity and well-being. Following the publication of Metchnikoff’s book, The Prolongation of Life, in 1907, the All Russian Physicians’ Society became determined to use milk kefir as a medicinal treatment for their patients.

Caucasus Region. Image from freeworldmaps.net

The Blandov brothers, from Moscow Dairy, were commissioned by the All Russian Physicians’ Society to obtain kefir grains from the tribes in the Caucasus mountains. However, the tribes refused to sell any kefir grains to the Blandov brothers. Undaunted, the brothers came up with a scheme to obtain the kefir grains: they would send a beautiful woman to the court of tribal Prince Bek-Mirza Barchorov, and with her allure she would obtain the kefir grains. Irina Sakharova, an employee of the Blandov brothers, was chosen for this important mission [5].

Irina Sakharova and Prince Barchorov, 1908. Image from Revolution Fermentation

Although Irina succeeded in attracting the interest of Prince Barcharov, he refused to give her any kefir grains. Irina departed from the Prince, but tribesmen were sent to capture her with the intention of forcing her to marry the Prince. The Blandov brothers mounted a rescue of Irina before the forced marriage could take place.

When Irina presented her grievance before the Czar, Prince Barcharov was ordered to make retribution to Irina. Although she was offered gold and jewels, Irina refused. She could only be compensated for what she had endured in one way: with kefir grains. The Czar ordered Prince Barcharov to give Irina 10 pounds of kefir grains!

Kefir as Medicine

Once the Blandov brothers had the milk kefir grains, they began making kefir for the All Russian Physicians’ Society. Kefir was used in Russian hospitals to treat a wide variety of conditions including digestive disorders, cancer, artherosclerosis, and tuberculosis [5]. Even now, kefir is routinely used for hospital patients, infants, and infirm people in Eastern Europe [7].

By the 1930’s, kefir was being produced on a large scale to meet widespread public demand in Russia. It took several decades for the commercial process of making kefir on a large scale to be perfected. Milk kefir was introduced to the western world by the 1960’s. Recently, milk kefir has become a much sought-after food with a rapidly growing global market.

Currently, many health-conscious consumers use kefir grains to easily produce their own milk kefir at home. Unlike the commercial kefir that was developed in Russia, most of the commercially-prepared kefir on the market today is made with direct-set powdered kefir cultures. These powdered cultures contain considerably fewer probiotic strains than kefir grains, but they produce a more consistent commercial product. From its ancient origins to today, milk kefir is a superfood that has enriched the health of humanity. 

References

[1] Zeynep B. Guzel-Seydim, Tugba Kok-Tas, Annel K. Greene & Atif C. Seydim. "Review: Functional Properties of Kefir." Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 51:3, 261-268, 2011. doi: 10.1080/10408390903579029

[2] Bourrie, Benjamin C T et al. “The Microbiota and Health Promoting Characteristics of the Fermented Beverage Kefir.” Frontiers in microbiology vol. 7 647, 2016. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.00647

[3] de Oliveira Leite, Analy Machado et al. “Microbiological, technological and therapeutic properties of kefir: a natural probiotic beverage.” Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] vol. 44,2 341-9, 2013. doi:10.1590/S1517-83822013000200001

[4] “Fermented milk products”, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, August 11 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermented_milk_products

[5] Shavit, E. “Renewed Interest in Kefir, the Ancient Elixir of Longevity.” Fungi, vol. 1-2, 2008. http://www.medicinabiomolecular.com.br/biblioteca/pdfs/Doencas/do-1175.pdf

[6] Seifi, P. “Magical Kefir.” Russian Life website, 2016. https://russianlife.com/stories/online/magical-kefir/

[7] Nielsen B, Gürakan GC, Unlü G. “Kefir: a multifaceted fermented dairy product.” Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 6:123–135, 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25261107/ 

Facts Left Out of Raw Milk Discussions

Pasteurization has evoked a serious ‘blind spot’ among many journalists, scientists, and industry and professional organizations who believe that there is no ‘downside’ to pasteurizing milk.

Pasteurization is falsely perceived as a silver bullet, killing pathogens and causing no adverse effects. However, neither raw nor pasteurized milks are ‘risk-free’. Communications by pro-pasteurization advocates commonly leave out evidence, limitations, and inconvenient truths, in order to perpetuate pro-pasteurization myths and maintain status quo to preserve the dominance of pro-pasteurization ‘blind spots’. Beware of entrenched beliefs masquerading as scientific facts that in reality are not supported by scientific evidence.

FACTS LEFT OUT BY PRO-PASTEURIZATION ADVOCATES

Below are some relevant facts that are often left out of public communications about milk, each with supporting evidence and references that you are encouraged to review and fact-check.

1. Neither pasteurized nor raw milk is ‘risk-free’.

a. See Table below for summary of the burden of illness from CDC outbreak data for 2005-2020 and the peer-reviewed manuscript on this dataset (Stephenson, Coleman, and Azzolina 2024).

1b. FDA/FSIS assessed pasteurized milk as high risk of severe listeriosis per annum and unpasteurized milk as high risk per serving (FDA/FSIS, 2003); however no listeriosis outbreaks associated with raw milk were confirmed in the CDC dataset for 2005-2020 (Stephenson et al., 2024).

c. More deaths are reported from leafy greens (23), pasteurized milk (4), and oysters (2) than the death of an adult with severe underlying illness associated with consumption with raw milk (Davis et al. 2016). Note that another death in an adult with severe underlying illness reported in this time period could not be attributed to raw milk consumption.

d.  Higher burdens of illness are reported from leafy greens (16,434 illnesses), oysters (2,408), pasteurized milk (2,111), and many other foods than for raw milk (1,696).

2. Pasteurized milk is a highly processed food that is linked to adverse health effects.

a.  Significantly higher outbreaks, hospitalizations, and deaths were associated with listeriosis in pasteurized dairy from 2007-2020 compared to raw dairy (Sebastianski et al. 2022).

b.  Stillbirths, miscarriage, premature delivery were reported for pasteurized dairy, not raw dairy (Sebastianski et al. 2022).

c.   Heating milk (boiling and pasteurization) denatures milk proteins, increasing allergenicity and contributing to inflammatory disease (Abbring et al. 2019; 2020).

d.  Allergy to and intolerance of pasteurized milk is estimated to have a substantial public health burden in the US, with 30-37% intolerance of thermally treated milk from recent US surveys (C. M. Warren et al. 2022; C. Warren et al. 2024). Approximately 15 million US consumers (4.7% or nearly 1 in 20) are affected by thermally-treated/pasteurized milk.

e.  Industrial processing of milk (heating, filtration, pressure, drying, freezing) causes denaturing, aggregation, and loss of function of cow milk antigens (α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin, serum albumin, caseins, bovine serum albumins, and others), reductions in concentrations of bioactives (immunoglobulins, cytokines, peptides, lipophilic components, and microbiota), and impairs immunologic tolerance mechanisms (Jensen et al., 2022).

3. Approximately 15 million raw milk consumers benefit from access.

a.  A recent government survey estimated 4.4% of US population consumes raw milk (Lando et al., 2022).

b.  Multiple sources report consumption of raw milk is increasing, not decreasing (NielsenIQ figures cited by (Aleccia 2024; Lyubomirova 2024); Figure below included in Coleman manuscript under review in Risk Analysis).

c.  CDC reported 1,696 raw milk illnesses for 2005-2020 (Stephenson et al., 2024) but not inflammatory disease (Dietert et al. 2022).

d.  Raw milk was tolerated by children with allergy to pasteurized milk, and pasteurized milk induced adverse effects (Abbring et al. 2019).

e.  Raw milk has a dense and diverse microbiota, similar to the breastmilk microbiota, both inducing benefits to gut microbiota, immune system function, and suppressing growth of pathogens (Coleman et al. 2021; Dietert et al. 2022; Coleman et al. 2023; Coleman, submitted).

f.   Raw milk was associated with increased functional richness of the gut microbiota (notably genus Lactobacillus and Lactococcus and the short chain fatty acid valerate) and participants with higher than median anxiety scores showed significant score reduction for stress and anxiety (Butler et al., 2020).

4. Illness associated with raw milk is not increasing in the US or any US state based on recent CDC data.

a.  No significant increase was reported for illnesses associated with raw milk outbreaks from 1998-2018 or numbers of outbreaks from 2005-2018 (Koski et al. 2022).

b.  No significant increase was reported for outbreaks or illnesses associated with raw milk, nor are rates by state increasing for any US state (Stephenson et al., 2024, Figures 12 and 13).

5. Regarding children, consuming raw milk complete with intact natural microbes (microbiota) is beneficial to health.

a.  Just as children benefit from raw breastmilk and its protective microbiota, children (and adults) also benefit from raw cow milk complete with its protective microbiota that enhance health of gut, immune, nervous, and respiratory systems (Coleman et al., 2021; Dietert et al., 2022).

b.  No child has died in the US from consuming raw milk in recent decades based on CDC data for 2005-2020 (Stephenson et al., 2024).

c.   Children with allergies to pasteurized milk tolerated raw milk consumption with no adverse effects while smaller volumes of pasteurized milk triggered adverse effects (Abbring, 2019).

d.  Children consuming raw milk in multiple large studies developed no diarrheal illness, significantly fewer respiratory and ear infections, protection from inflammatory disease including atopy, asthma, and eczema, and improved immunologic and lung function later in life (Perkin and Stranchan, 2006; Depner et al., 2013; Loss et al. 2015; von Mutius 2016; Wyss et al., 2018; Brick et al., 2020; Dietert et al. 2022).

6. Claims that raw milk is ‘inherently dangerous’ and that ‘risks exceed benefits’ are unfounded and not supported by the body of scientific evidence.

a.  Recent trends in unpasteurized fluid milk outbreaks, legalization, and consumption in the United States (Whitehead and Lake, 2018). CDC data from 2005-2016 documents 1,903 illnesses associated with pasteurized milk and 1,735 illnesses associated with raw milk. The rate of raw milk related outbreaks is decreasing, meanwhile the consumption of raw milk is increasing. The authors concluded that, “Controlling for growth in population and consumption, the outbreak rate has effectively decreased by 74% since 2005.” The study suggested that the improving food safety record is the result of expanded safety training for raw milk dairy producers.

b.  Examining Evidence of Benefits and Risks for Pasteurizing Donor Breastmilk (Coleman et al., 2021). Seventy-one studies were cited documenting evidence for benefits and risks of raw breastmilk for infants. Evidence of benefits was clear, convincing, and conclusive, while evidence for infectious disease risks to infants consuming raw breastmilk was limited. Supporting studies provided evidence of plausible mechanisms of benefits of ‘seeding and feeding’ the infant gut ecosystem, notably providing ‘colonization resistance’ or protection against pathogens and stimulating balanced development of infant immune systems.

c.   Nourishing the Human Holobiont to Reduce the Risk of Non-Communicable Diseases: A Cow’s Milk Evidence Map Example (Dietert et al., 2022). The study cited 135 studies illuminating raw bovine milk as a superfood complete with its natural microbiota intact and chosen by humans for 12,000 years. Study noted consistent evidence of raw bovine milk benefits (promotion of gut, immune, and lung health; protection from infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases) but limited evidence of risks of infectious disease.

d.  Trends in Burdens of Disease by Transmission Source (USA, 2005–2020) and Hazard Identification for Foods: Focus on Milkborne Disease (Stephenson et al., 2024). The study assessed trends for CDC data from all transmission sources for 2005-2020 and found that the burden of illness and mortality was dominated by person-to-person transmission. Foodborne disease accounted for 21% of the disease burden with no increasing trend. Foods representing the greatest hazards were identified for campylobacteriosis (pasteurized and raw milk), illness from Shiga toxigenic E. coli (leafy green vegetables and beef), listeriosis (melons and pasteurized solid dairy products), and salmonellosis (poultry and leafy vegetables). Fatal foodborne disease was dominated by fruits, vegetables, peanut butter, and pasteurized dairy. No increasing trend of raw milk illnesses were observed overall or for any state, nor did rates of illness increase after legislation to allow greater access to raw milk.

This is an excerpt from Peg Coleman’s article, “'Dread Reckoning' And 'Blind Spots' for Oral Transmission of H5N1”. Peg Coleman is a medical microbiologist, microbial risk analyst, and a Fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis. Peg Coleman is on the Advisory Board for Raw Milk Institute. You can view Peg’s full article here: https://www.colemanscientific.org/blog/2025/5/21/dread-reckoning-and-blind-spots-for-oral-transmission-of-h5n1

References

1.      Abbring, Suzanne, Daniel Kusche, Thomas C. Roos, Mara A. P. Diks, Gert Hols, Johan Garssen, Ton Baars, and Betty C. A. M. van Esch. 2019. “Milk Processing Increases the Allergenicity of Cow’s Milk-Preclinical Evidence Supported by a Human Proof-of-Concept Provocation Pilot.” Clinical and Experimental Allergy: Journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology 49 (7): 1013–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.13399

2.      Abbring, Suzanne, Ling Xiong, Mara A. P. Diks, Ton Baars, Johan Garssen, Kasper Hettinga, and Betty C. A. M. van Esch. 2020. “Loss of Allergy-Protective Capacity of Raw Cow’s Milk after Heat Treatment Coincides with Loss of Immunologically Active Whey Proteins.” Food & Function 11 (6): 4982–93. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0fo01175d

3.      Aleccia, JoNel. 2024. “Raw Milk Sales Are up despite Bird Flu Outbreak in Dairy Cows.” Fast Company. May 14, 2024. https://www.fastcompany.com/91124899/raw-milk-sales-rise-bird-flu-outbreak-dairy-cows

4.      Brick T, Hettinga K, Kirchner B, Pfaffl MW, Ege MJ. 2020. The beneficial effect of farm milk consumption on asthma, allergies, and infections: from meta-analysis of evidence to clinical trial. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 8:878–889 DOI 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.11.017

5.      Butler MI, Bastiaanssen TF, Long-Smith C, Berding K, Morkl S, Cusack AM, Strain C, Porteous-Allen P, Claesson MJ, Stanton C, Cryan JF. 2020. Recipe for a healthy gut: intake of unpasteurised milk is associated with increased lactobacillus abundance in the human gut microbiome. Nutrients 12(5):1468 DOI 10.3390/nu12051468

6.  Coleman, M. E., T. P. Oscar, T. L. Negley, and M. M. Stephenson. 2023. “Suppression of Pathogens in Properly Refrigerated Raw Milk.” PLOS ONE 18 (12): e0289249. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289249

7.  Coleman, Margaret E., D. Warner North, Rodney R. Dietert, and Michele M. Stephenson. 2021. “Examining Evidence of Benefits and Risks for Pasteurizing Donor Breastmilk.” Applied Microbiology 1 (3): 408–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol1030027

8.  Davis, Kenneth R., Angela C. Dunn, Cindy Burnett, Laine McCullough, Melissa Dimond, Jenni Wagner, Lori Smith, Amy Carter, Sarah Willardson, and Allyn K. Nakashima. 2016. “Campylobacter Jejuni Infections Associated with Raw Milk Consumption—Utah, 2014.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 65 (12): 301–5.

9.  Depner M, Ege MJ, Genuneit J, Pekkanen J, Roponen M, Hirvonen M-R, Dalphin J-C, Kaulek V, Krauss-Etschmann S, Riedler J. 2013. Atopic sensitization in the first year of life. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 131:781–788 DOI 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.11.048

10.  Dietert, Rodney R., Margaret E. Coleman, D. Warner North, and Michele M. Stephenson. 2022. “Nourishing the Human Holobiont to Reduce the Risk of Non-Communicable Diseases: A Cow’s Milk Evidence Map Example.” Applied Microbiology 2 (1): 25–52. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol2010003

11. FDA/FSIS. 2003. Quantitative assessment of relative risk to public health from foodborne Listeria monocytogenes among selected categories of ready-to-eat foods. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodScienceResearch/UCM197330.pdf

12. Jensen SA, Fiocchi A, Baars T, Jordakieva G, Nowak-Wegrzyn A, Pali-Schöll I, Passanisi S, Pranger CL, Roth-Walter F, Takkinen K, Assa'ad AH, Venter C, Jensen-Jarolim E; WAO DRACMA guideline group. 2022. Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines update - III - Cow's milk allergens and mechanisms triggering immune activation. World Allergy Organ J. 15(9):100668. doi: 10.1016/j.waojou.2022.100668. PMID: 36185551; PMCID: PMC9483786.

13.  Koski, Lia, Hannah Kisselburgh, Lisa Landsman, Rachel Hulkower, Mara Howard-Williams, Zainab Salah, Sunkyung Kim, Beau B. Bruce, Michael C. Bazaco, and Michael B. Batz. 2022. “Foodborne Illness Outbreaks Linked to Unpasteurised Milk and Relationship to Changes in State Laws–United States, 1998–2018.” Epidemiology & Infection 150:e183.

14. Lando, A.M., Bazaco, M.C., Parker, C.C. and Ferguson, M., 2022. Characteristics of US Consumers reporting past year intake of raw (Unpasteurized) milk: results from the 2016 food safety survey and 2019 food safety and nutrition survey. Journal of food protection, 85(7), pp.1036-1043.

15.  Loss, Georg, Martin Depner, Laurien H. Ulfman, R.J. Joost van Neerven, Alexander J. Hose, Jon Genuneit, Anne M. Karvonen, et al. 2015. “Consumption of Unprocessed Cow’s Milk Protects Infants from Common Respiratory Infections.” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 135 (1): 56-62.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2014.08.044

16.  Lyubomirova, Teodora. 2024. “Bird Flu Latest: FDA Raises Raw Milk Risks Awareness, Studies Pasteurization Effectiveness.” Dairyreporter.Com. June 26, 2024. https://www.dairyreporter.com/Article/2024/06/26/FDA-tells-consumers-to-know-the-risks-of-raw-milk

17.  Mutius, Erika von. 2016. “The Microbial Environment and Its Influence on Asthma Prevention in Early Life.” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 137 (3): 680–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2015.12.1301

18.  Perkin, M.R. and Strachan, D.P., 2006. Which aspects of the farming lifestyle explain the inverse association with childhood allergy?. Journal of Allergy and clinical Immunology, 117(6), pp.1374-1381.

19. Whitehead, J. and Lake, B., 2018. Recent trends in unpasteurized fluid milk outbreaks, legalization, and consumption in the United States. PLoS Currents, 10, pp.ecurrents-outbreaks.

20.  Wyss AB, House JS, Hoppin JA, Richards M, Hankinson JL, Long S, Henneberger PK, Freeman LEB, Sandler DP, O’Connell EL. 2018. Raw milk consumption and other early-life farm exposures and adult pulmonary function in the Agricultural Lung Health Study. Thorax 73:279–282 DOI 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210031.

21.  Sebastianski, Meghan, Natalie A. Bridger, Robin M. Featherstone, and Joan L. Robinson. 2022. “Disease Outbreaks Linked to Pasteurized and Unpasteurized Dairy Products in Canada and the United States: A Systematic Review.” Canadian Journal of Public Health 113 (4): 569–78. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-022-00614-y

22.  Stephenson, Michele M., Margaret E. Coleman, and Nicholas A. Azzolina. 2024. “Trends in Burdens of Disease by Transmission Source (USA, 2005–2020) and Hazard Identification for Foods: Focus on Milkborne Disease.” Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health, March. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44197-024-00216-6

23.  Warren, Christopher, Ruchi Gupta, Arpamas Seetasith, Robert Schuldt, Rongrong Wang, Ahmar Iqbal, Sachin Gupta, and Thomas B. Casale. 2024. “The Clinical Burden of Food Allergies: Insights from the Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) Patient Registry.” World Allergy Organization Journal 17 (3): 100889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2024.100889

24.  Warren, Christopher M., Avni Agrawal, Divya Gandhi, and Ruchi S. Gupta. 2022. “The US Population-Level Burden of Cow’s Milk Allergy.” The World Allergy Organization Journal 15 (4): 100644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2022.100644

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.