Revealing Raw Truths about Milk: Scientific Advances in Understanding the Health Impacts of the Milk Microbiota

Raw milk has long been at the center of passionate debate, with public health concerns often clashing against emerging research on its microbial complexity and potential benefits. A recent American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) commentary appears to overlook a growing body of peer-reviewed evidence. This review highlights key scientific advances that challenge outdated assumptions and call for a more balanced, evidence-based conversation.

This article is reprinted with permission from the ACSH. The original article is here.

Thank you to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) for the opportunity to present a body of scientific evidence available in peer-reviewed studies that Dr. Billauer appeared unaware of in her post about raw (unpasteurized) milk. Our concern is that the November post is at odds with the growing corpus of scientific evidence from the peer-reviewed literature. Here are six claims unsupported by the current body of evidence, each with a brief bulleted description of the evidence and a hyperlinked citation. A more comprehensive documentation can be found here.   

1. Dr. Billauer claimed that percentages of raw milk outbreaks compared to all outbreaks associated with food and water had decreased from ~25% in 1938 to ~1% in 2005, but that ‘of late’, ‘the figure has blossomed’. 

• Raw milk outbreaks and illnesses as a percentage of foodborne and waterborne outbreaks and illnesses have not increased from 2005-2020 (Stephenson et al., 2024).

• 1% of outbreaks associated with food and water for this period (162/15,430) were attributed to raw milk.

• 0.6% of illnesses associated with food and water for this period (1,696/304,491) were attributed to raw milk.

2. The November post claimed that the ‘predominant diseases associated with raw milk consumption today are Salmonella, Listeriosis, and avian influenza H5N1’ associated with ‘escalating [raw milk] outbreaks throughout the country’. No references were cited.

• The 2024 epidemiologic study (Stephenson et al., 2024) documents:  campylobacteriosis accounting for 1,570 illnesses, >90% of raw milk illnesses from 2005-2020 (see Table 1 below); 162 cases of salmonellosis associated with raw milk of the total 22,943 cases; no confirmed cases of listeriosis associated with raw milk (though 5 cases associated with pasteurized milk). 

• No evidence supports the claim that influenza H5N1 caused illness among raw milk consumers (see Coleman, 2025) based on the framework for assessing influenza transmission Killingley and Nguyen-Van-Tam, 2013). Although oral transmission of H5N1 in humans has been simulated based on ‘what-if’ extrapolations at three levels of evidence (Chen et al., 2025), no epidemiologic or experimental evidence for oral disease transmission exists for H5N1 in primates, including humans.

• A recent outbreak study (Weinstein et al., 2025) reported 9 initial cases of salmonellosis associated with raw milk in California in October of 2023. A Salmonella Typhimurium sequence isolated from raw milk was retrospectively matched to strains from 145 other clinical cases in 5 states between September 2023 and March 2024, identified through the national network of public health laboratory databases, PulseNet. No deaths and 22 hospitalizations were associated with this outbreak. Some of the cases reported consuming raw milk. 

• Regarding the claim of an escalating number of raw milk outbreaks nationwide, no increasing trend was documented in numbers or rates (Figure 13 from Stephenson et al., 2024) of milkborne outbreaks, illnesses, hospitalizations, or deaths involving raw milk in the US or any state. The lack of increasing trends was consistent over multiple studies using established epidemiologic methods of analysis (Whitehead and Lake, 2018; Koski et al., 2022; Stephenson et al., 2024).

3. The November post claimed that ‘The White Plague’ (tuberculosis or TB) ‘Returns’ with increasing access to raw milk. 

• No evidence links Mycobacterium bovis to human TB cases in the US in recent years, a statement supported by peer-reviewed studies cited in our comprehensive document and the following relevant AI summaries. 

4. The November post cited an outdated reference from 2015 claiming no evidence of benefits for raw milk consumption and further claimed that ‘This has not changed [since 2015],’ without any reference. 

• Thirteen peer-reviewed studies provide clinical evidence on the benefits and risks of raw and pasteurized milks, which merit deliberation by ACSH readers.  The studies in bold are US cohorts. 

 Study Authors and Titles

1. Loss et al., 2015 - Consumption of unprocessed cow's milk protects infants from common respiratory infections

2. Brick et al., 2016 - ω-3 fatty acids contribute to the asthma-protective effect of unprocessed cow's milk

3. House et al., 2017 - Early-life farm exposures and adult asthma and atopy in the Agricultural Lung Health Study

4. Schröder et al., 2017 - A switch in regulatory T cells through farm exposure during immune maturation in childhood

5. Muller-Rompa et al., 2018 - An approach to the asthma-protective farm effect by geocoding: Good farms and better farms

6. Wyss et al., 2018 - Early-life farm exposures and eczema among adults in the Agricultural Lung Health Study

7. Abbring et al., 2019 - Milk processing increases the allergenicity of cow's milk—preclinical evidence supported by a human proof-of-concept provocation pilot

8. Sozanska, 2019 - Raw cow's milk and its protective effect on allergies and asthma

9. Brick et al., 2020 - The beneficial effect of farm milk consumption on asthma, allergies, and infections: from meta-analysis of evidence to clinical trial

10. Butler et al., 2020 - Recipe for a healthy gut: Intake of unpasteurised milk is associated with increased Lactobacillus abundance in the human gut microbiome

11. Järvinen et al., 2022 - Biomarkers of development of immunity and allergic diseases in farming and non-farming lifestyle infants: design, methods, and 1-year outcomes in the “Zooming in to Old Order Mennonites” Birth Cohort Study

12. Wyss et al., 2022 - Early-life farm exposures and eczema among adults in the Agricultural Lung Health Study

13. Pechlivanis et al., 2023 - Continuous rather than solely early farm exposure protects from hay fever development

• Also relevant is an evidence map analysis on the benefits and risks of raw and pasteurized milks. This study incorporated evidence from the first 10 studies and mechanistic studies that illuminate the underlying processes and pathways linking the natural milk microbiota to gastrointestinal, respiratory, neural, and immunological systems. 

5. Dr. Billauer’s post claimed that ‘some 20 states explicitly prohibit access’ to raw milk; state rights (allowing constituents seeking raw milk the freedom to purchase it legally) versus ‘wrongs’ (‘likely responsible for the deaths of others’).

• This claim is inaccurate and misleading. Thirty-four states permit either retail or on-farm sales to consumers, according to the map (last updated in September 2025).

• Further evidence of the safety record of raw milk included consideration of limited data on raw milk production as a surrogate for consumption. Retail production data for a large California dairy (Raw Farm, personal communication, Aaron McAfee) are reported in millions of annual servings for 2005-2024, with annotations for estimated annual illness rates per 100,000 servings from the CDC. Over the past 20 years in California, there have been no deaths, and annual illness rates have been <0.45 per 100,000 servings, despite increasing production. For 12 of the past 20 years, no reported illness was associated with raw milk consumption in California.

• The Stephenson study reports that increasing legal access was not associated with increased illness, based on statistical comparisons across 7 states with data available before and after the increase. Additionally, over the period 2005-2020, a single death associated with raw milk was confirmed in an adult with underlying chronic illness. Death is thus unlikely, according to epidemiologic evidence. 

6. The November post cited a series of essays and speeches by businessman and philanthropist Nathan Strauss, compiled by his wife, Lina Gutherz Strauss, and published in book form between 1913 and 1917. 

• This afforded ACSH readers an incomplete perspective at best, dominated by outdated opinions that do not reflect a comprehensive, coherent, and transparent body of evidence that includes knowledge of the milk microbiota and other 21st-century scientific advances.

• The post’s ‘Short History’ overemphasized the portion of history that reflected Mr. Straus's ‘crusade to promote pasteurization’. Excluded is a rich history from the 1850s onward, documented in the peer-reviewed literature on adulterated ‘swill milk’ from sick cows confined in urban environments versus Certified Raw Milk from healthy pastured cows overseen by medical professionals. [1]

• To address this excluded portion of history, we note the following references:

  • The Human Superorganism: How the Microbiome is Revolutionizing the Pursuit of a Healthy Life provides context on our microbiota as our partners in health and the importance of ‘seeding and feeding’ the gut microbiota to reverse the current epidemic of noncommunicable diseases in the US

  • Blind Spots:  When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health: Dr. Markary cautions that his fellow physicians and their institutions created and maintain ‘blind spots’, unquestioningly believing entrenched dogma and defending it by suppressing or excluding emerging scientific evidence for many decades 

  • The Germ in the Dairy Pail: The 200-year War on the World’s Most Amazing Food-Milk: meticulous research identified extensive evidence from medical, social, industrial, and agricultural drivers that prioritized economic and political interests over public and animal health; provided quotations from physicians, veterinarians, scientists, and businessmen including John D. Rockefeller and author and investigative journalist Upton Sinclair (The Jungle) that have been largely ignored or suppressed for nearly a hundred years.

    “Certification of milk by medical commissions [Certified Milk Program] offers the best solution to our milk problem. Not through heat, which destroys vital elements, but through cleanliness and careful monitoring” - Dr. Henry Coit, founder of the Certified Milk Program, 1893

Taken together, the scientific evidence presented here reveals that the risks and benefits of raw and pasteurized milk are far more nuanced than portrayed in the November post. Contemporary epidemiologic studies show no national trend of increasing raw milk outbreaks, while a substantial and growing literature documents potential protective effects linked to the natural milk microbiota—particularly for immune and allergic disease outcomes. By relying on outdated historical narratives and incomplete references, the post misses critical 21st-century advances in microbiology, risk analysis, and food science. A truly informed public health dialogue must move beyond entrenched dogma and engage transparently with the full scope of current peer-reviewed evidence. We welcome comments, particularly with links to additional evidence for further deliberation. A bibliography for 50 references cited in the comprehensive documentation of this work is also provided for interested readers who prefer this format to the hypertext-linked references provided herein. 

D. Warner North is a decision science scholar and risk analysis consultant with over 50 years of experience. He served as President of the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) and as area editor for decision analysis for the SRA journal Risk Analysis. Dr. North has received several awards recognizing his extraordinary leadership and achievements in both SRA and the Decision Analysis Society.

Margaret E. (Peg) Coleman is a medical microbiologist and consultant in microbial risk analysis with over 30 years of experience. Ms. Coleman served on the editorial board of the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) journal Risk Analysis. She was selected as an SRA Fellow in 2020 and elected to the SRA Council (2022-2024). Ms. Coleman serves as an unpaid advisor to the Raw Milk Institute and the Canadian Artisan Dairy Alliance. 

Remembering the Walker-Gordon Dairy, an Innovator in Safe Raw Milk from 1897-1971

Did you know that the science of producing safe raw milk was flourishing way back in the late 1800’s?  Read on for an interview with Dr Edward Tindall DVM, who worked at the Walker-Gordon Certified Raw Milk dairy in New Jersey.

Aerial view of Walker Gordon Laboratories and Dairy in Plainsboro, New Jersey.

Certified Medical Milk

Humans have had a long and successful history with raw milk for at least 10,000 years. Ancient peoples who consumed milk had a competitive advantage over those that did not have a steady source of readily available food, such that the reproductive capacity and/or survivability of ancient raw milk drinkers was substantially increased compared to non-milk-drinking populations.

After numerous millennia flourishing with raw milk, mankind’s relationship with raw milk took a wrong turn. 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 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 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. 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 by Dr Henry Coit to ensure a supply of safe 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.  

“The requirements of the New York Commission at that time were: ‘That the milk should contain 4 to 4.5 percent fat; that it should be free from pathogenic germs; and that the total number of bacteria should not be excessive. The milk was to be delivered in bottles and not over 24 hours old. It should be from healthy cows.”

~Walker-Gordon: One of a Kind

Walker Gordon’s Rotolactor in operation. School buses, tour buses, and families accounted for approximately 250,000 visitors annually.

Walker-Gordon Dairy and Dr Edward Tindall DVM

The Walker-Gordon dairy farm was a preeminent source of Certified Raw Milk for over 70 years.  Edward Tindall’s father worked at the Walker-Gordon farm, and he himself worked at the farm for several summers.  Edward went on to become a practicing veterinarian in New Jersey for nearly 40 years, and also developed implantable microchip technology for animals. The Raw Milk Institute is pleased to have Edward Tindall DVM on our Advisory Board.

In the late 1990’s, Edward co-authored a book about the Walker-Gordon farm titled Walker-Gordon: One of a Kind. Edward was kind enough to share more information about this extraordinary farm in a written interview. 

1.      Can you tell us about what made Walker-Gordon dairy farm so special?

Walker-Gordon was never intended to be just a dairy. The actual name was Walker-Gordon Laboratory Company, imprinted on their bottles and responsible for numerous innovations in the field of dairy. Among these were the first rotary centralized milking parlor, milking 1650 head. 50 cows were milked at a time (every 12 and a half minutes or one revolution) on the ʻRotolactorʼ.

The milk was immediately refrigerated, and if intended for the Philadelphia, New York or Boston market, shipped within hours from a refrigerated box car of the Pennsylvania Railroad on a siding adjacent to the milking parlor.

The cows were attended 24 hours a day by herdsmen in 50 cow barns with constant attention to keeping the cows bedded on fresh peanut shell bedding and groomed, with ever present fresh water on demand, fed grain and excellent alfalfa hay year-round.

Other innovations were the addition of irradiated yeast to feeding regimens to enhance vitamin D (prophylaxis against childhood rickets), production of acidophilous milk for enteric health, harvesting crops at prime time for storage regardless of weather conditions, use of byproducts (fecal waste) for garden fertilizers, artificial insemination, crop production by cooperative farms under control and supervision of central organization, and extensive record keeping of health and productivity of each cow.

Bottling was done immediately adjacent to the Rotolactor. The milk, "certified and unpasteurized," was not exposed to anything but sterilized stainless steel and glass.

2.     What production and milking practices were used to keep the milk safe for people?

Cleanliness was ever a constant protocol. The cows were pre-washed with warm water prior to entering the milking parlor. There they were toweled by attendants in white uniforms, attached to sterilized stainless steel milkers, and the milk fed to Pyrex glass containers and delivered through stainless steel pipes to the bottling plant adjacent to the milking platform.

All milking personnel had weekly examinations and throat cultures by the local physician. Milk was routinely cultured in an on-site laboratory for bacterial counts and pathogens.

3. Since you were employed there for a time, tell us about what you did and what it was like to work there?

My employment was several summers working on maintenance and the storage of alfalfa hay. During haying season the crop was harvested at prime time regardless of the weather. Chopped in the field, blown into stake bodied trucks and delivered to the massive dehydrators, it was compressed into 110 to 130 pound bales around the clock. Starting a 7:00 am, the hay was stored in large barns, often in 120 degree summer temperatures.

Hay being delivered to the dehydrator for preservation. In later years, it was chopped into more manageable size for compression and baling.

4.    What kind of milk did this dairy produce?

Walker-Gordon produced Grade A, whole milk, unpasteurized of the highest quality the industry has ever known, from its inception in the earliest years of the twentieth century until it stopped production in 1971.

“For those of us who grew up with the taste of fresh, really fresh, whole milk, unadulterated in any manner except to chill it ice cold, today’s milk is a sad replacement…

 The unequaled taste of an ice cold half pint of milk, the cream layered on the top, after working several uninterrupted hours in excessively hot temperatures… I have yet to equal that flavor…”

~Walker-Gordon: One of a Kind

5.     Who were the usual customers for this milk?

The customers were the general public locally, with home delivery, and public markets from Washington, DC to Boston, Ma. A renowned quality product hailed for freshness and longevity, it had a very loyal consumer base. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when traveling abroad by ship, insisted that Walker-Gordon milk and cream be available, on board, for the trip.

6.    What was the safety record of this dairy that operated for about 8 decades up until 1971?

The safety record of Walker-Gordon milk and milk products was above reproach and I can find no instances (nor have I heard of any) of any untoward or adverse instances of health problems or lawsuits. Safety of personnel was extremely good. Farm accidents are ever present and WG had some, but fewer than would be expected.

“Cheaper milk from the heartland of America, increased labor costs, higher taxes, wages, and insurances, difficulty in attracting farm labor, the sky-rocketing value of land, and pressure for housing for an increasing and increasingly affluent population all contributed to the demise of farming in general, in New Jersey and elsewhere, and in particular to Walker-Gordon with its emphasis on high quality, first and foremost.”

~Walker-Gordon: One of a Kind

7.     What future potential do you see for raw milk dairy farming?

Prognostications of the future of raw milk dairy farming is fraught with the same magnitude of variables as the future of the country. I would like to believe that the future is positive, for indeed, I can think of no more beneficial product than clean, wholesome, properly handled raw milk that is fresh from the cow and unaltered by pasteurization or other untoward handling.

The vicissitudes of government and the legal profession, swayed by propaganda and functioning under ignorance of biology and a mindset that excludes information that does not align with biased public opinion is a very large hurdle to clear. As long as there is a discerning public with the economic wherewithal to acquire a quality product, the market is assured. I admire the efforts of individuals such as Dr. Joseph Heckman and Mark McAfee that take up the torch, live and advocate the premise, and forward such a noble cause.

Paving the Way with Safe Raw Milk

The Walker-Gordon dairy was certainly an exceptional dairy. Walker Gordon’s eight decades of safe raw milk production are an imminent example of what can be achieved through dedication and innovation.  At its peak, the Walker-Gordon dairy was producing 6,500 gallons of milk daily. Through hygienic practices and regular bacteria testing of its milk, Walker Gordon dairy was able to provide safe raw milk for thousands of people over several generations.

The last Certified Medical Milk dairy in the USA was Alta Dena dairy in Los Angeles, California.  Alta Dena produced its last quart of raw milk in May of 1999. With the end of the American Association of Medical Milk Commissions and their certification of raw milk dairies, there was a great need for leadership in safe raw milk.

The Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) was created to fulfill this need.  RAWMI teaches well-established scientific principles and good production methods to assist farmers in producing hygienic, safe raw milk. Through its LISTING program, RAWMI assists farmers in developing risk analysis and management plans (RAMP) for their unique farms. RAWMI’s Common Standards have set an international benchmark for bacterial testing of raw milk.

Edward Tindall’s book, “Walker-Gordon: One of a Kind” is available from Covered Bridge Press, 39 Upper Creek Road, Stockton, New Jersey 08559 at $25 dollars per copy, plus USPS shipping. Covered Bridge Press can be reached at 908-625-6527.

Walker-Gordon: One of a Kind. Book by Edward Tindall, DVM.

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.

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.

10 Important Facts about Raw Milk and H5N1 Avian Flu

Let's cut through the media hype. Here's what you need to know about raw milk and avian influenza (also known as H5N1, bird flu, or HPAI).

1. Avian flu is a respiratory illness and NOT a foodborne illness.

2. There have been NO known cases of bird flu in humans from drinking raw milk.

3. There have been a small number of bird flu cases in farm workers working in direct contact with sick animals. Illness is generally mild, with conjunctivitis (pinkeye/eye inflammation) as main symptom.

4. In cattle, this illness is generally mild. Most of herd shows no signs of illness.

5. Ill cattle generally recover within a couple weeks. First symptom in cows is generally fever a few days prior to becoming clinically sick.

6. Symptoms include weakness, diarrhea, fever, lower milk production, poor appetite, and yellow-tinged, thick milk. Rarely, cattle can die from HPAI.

7. Affected cows respond well to drenching treatment with 5 gallons of water, antipyretic, probiotics, and a gut stimulant (i.e. yeast) for a few days.

8. HPAI directly affects the udder and milk production. Recovering animals may not fully regain milk production until next lactation.

9. In general, a dairy will move through bird flu and achieve “herd immunity” in ~6 weeks from start to finish.

10. Common sense precautions, just as for all other illnesses: Monitor your herd for illness. Quarantine animals who are ill and ensure that milk from unhealthy animals is NOT used for direct human consumption. Quarantine any new animals brought onto the farm to ensure they are healthy before joining the herd.

Here are some references for more detailed information:

• https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/updates/h5n1-avian-flu-and-raw-milk-where-is-the-evidence

• https://www.colemanscientific.org/blog/2025/1/30/more-on-h5n1-and-cats-the-case-for-worrying

• https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08166-6

• https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00971

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.

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.