SAVE THE DATE! August 11th - Let's Talk About Raw Milk - FREE Webinar

On Tuesday August 11th at 12pm Pacific / 1pm Mountain / 2pm Central / 3pm Eastern, the Raw Milk Institute will present a free 1-hour Let’s Talk About Raw Milk webinar. This presentation will be livestreamed, so that everyone can conveniently attend from their own locations.

About the Webinar

This RAWMI presentation will focus on:

• Top 5 reasons to drink raw milk

• History and benefits of raw milk

• Safety and risks of raw milk

• How to find a good raw milk farmer

• How to take care of your raw milk

How to Register

We will soon be accepting registrations for this event! In July, we will announce when you can register via our website, email list, and social media accounts.

Allergies and Raw Milk

Modern Lifestyles and Allergies

Although allergies were rare prior to the 1800’s [1], they are a common affliction in our modern lifestyles.  As people have moved further from their agricultural roots, allergies have become more prevalent.  Several studies have found that exposure to diverse bacteria and potential allergens in the environment makes a big difference in preventing the development of allergies.

For instance, in a study looking at allergies and asthma in northern Europe, allergy prevalence was much higher in Finnish people as compared to Russians, even though they lived in geoclimatically similar areas [2]. 27% of Finnish school children demonstrated allergic sensitization to pollen, as compared to only 2% of their Russian counterparts. In unraveling the causes for this disparity, the study found a striking result: “the epidemic of allergy and asthma results from reduced exposure to natural environments with rich microbiota, changed diet and sedentary lifestyle.” Basically, exposure to environments with high bacterial and microbial diversity is associated with lower rates of asthma and allergies.   

North Karelia in Finland and Pitkäranta region in the Republic of Karelia in Russia. The dashed lines are Finnish borders before 1944. Haahtela, et al, 2015.

Several other studies have found similar results, and have concluded that living in a farm environment provides protection from asthma and allergies. Contact with farm animals was found to be associated with lower rates of allergies [3], as was “exposure to stables and farm milk” [4]. Although several studies identified that consumption of raw milk (aka “farm milk”) was an integral part of the farm environment, it was argued that allergy protection was from the farm environment and not from raw milk consumption.  However, further research has revealed that raw milk is indeed a key factor in protecting against allergies and asthma.

Children Who Drink Raw Milk Have Less Allergies

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

PARSIFAL Study

The PARSIFAL study was designed to look at allergy risk factors in children. This large study of over 14,800 European children (from Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland) investigated allergic diseases in relation to children’s exposure to different environments (farms, rural, suburban) and farm-fresh foods (such as raw dairy products, eggs, and vegetables). The PARSIFAL data relating to allergies and raw milk were published in December 2006 in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Allergy [5].

The PARSIFAL study concluded that there is a “significant inverse association between farm [raw] milk consumption and childhood asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, sensitization to pollen, a mix of food allergens, and horse dander." The study found that, regardless of which environment the children lived in, those children who drank raw milk had significantly lower rates of allergies and asthma than children who did not drink raw milk. These effects were “most pronounced in children drinking farm milk since their first year of life.”

GABRIELA Study

The GABRIELA study was designed to investigate the genetic and environmental causes of asthma and allergies.  This study included over 8,000 European children (from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland), and was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in August 2011 [6]. In this study, raw milk consumption was compared to consumption of boiled/pasteurized milk, and the level of exposure to raw milk in utero through school age was also accounted for. The study also looked into the children’s exposure to farm environments as a possible variable related to rates of asthma and allergies.

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

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

The above-referenced studies specifically analyzed the effects of living environments, and found that the beneficial effects of raw milk on allergies and asthma were indeed present even in children who did not live on farms. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis of eight health studies related to raw milk was published in the November 2019 issue of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology [7]. A meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis which combines the results of multiple scientific studies, thereby allowing the researchers to derive overall conclusions about that body of research.

The recent meta-analysis, written by a team of researchers from the Netherlands and Germany, concluded that when taken as a whole, the body of data from the previous studies shows that raw milk consumption in childhood has a protective effect on allergies and asthma “independent of other farm exposures and that children not living on a farm can theoretically profit from this effect.” 

Why Does Raw Milk Protect Against Allergies and Asthma?

Although it was originally postulated that raw milk’s bacterial content was responsible for its allergy-protective effects, research has not found this to be the case.  For instance, the GABRIELA study found that, “Contrary to our expectations, we did not observe an association between total viable bacterial counts in milk and investigated health outcomes” [6].

More recent research has investigated whether the whey proteins in raw milk could be responsible for the beneficial effect on allergies. A study published in the June 2020 Food and Function Journal “aimed at achieving a better understanding of the underlying mechanism between heat damage to whey proteins and allergy development” [8]. In this study, “raw cow’s milk was heated for 30 min at 50, 60, 65, 70, 75, or 80 °C [122, 140, 149, 158, 167, or 176 °F]… The allergy-protective effect of differently heated milk samples were tested in a murine OVA-induced food allergy model.” 

Heat treatment at 65 °C or higher destroyed allergy-protective capacity of raw milk in murine OVA-induced food allergy model. Abbring, Xiong, et al, 2020.

This study found that allergy protection ceases when raw milk is heated to 149 °F, which is the same temperature at which the whey proteins are denatured.  It was concluded that the whey protein in raw milk provides protection from allergies, asthma, and inflammation.  When heated above 149 °F, these properties are dramatically reduced or eliminated. This finding is an important confirmation of the unique beneficial properties of whole, unprocessed raw milk. 

Low-Risk Raw Milk as a Therapeutic Tool Against Allergies

The research is clear that raw milk consumption is correlated with protection from allergies and asthma. Although a living environment that is rich in bacterial diversity is helpful, it has been demonstrated that the allergy-protective benefits of raw milk are present in both rural and urban environments.  The immunologically active whey proteins are likely the cause of this protective effect.  There is a growing body of evidence that raw milk is a low-risk food when it is produced carefully and intentionally [9, 10]. Thus, low-risk raw milk can be a powerful therapeutic tool for allergy and asthma protection.

References

[1] Hay Fever and Paroxysmal Sneezing: Their Etiology and Treatment. 1887. Mackenzie M. https://archive.org/details/b20406757/page/n7/mode/2up

[2] Hunt for the origin of allergy – comparing the Finnish and Russian Karelia. Clinical and Experimental Allergy. 2015; (45) 891– 901. Haahtela T, Laatikainen T, Alenius H, Auvinen P, Fyhrquist N, Hanski I, von Hertzen L, Jousilahti P, Kosunen T U, Markelova O, Mäkelä M J, Pantelejev V, Uhanov M, Zilber E, Vartiainen E. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cea.12527

[3] Farming exposure in childhood, exposure to markers of infections and the development of atopy in rural subjects. Clinical and Experimental Allergy : Journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology vol. 34,8 (2004): 1178-83. Radon K, Windstetter D, Eckart J, Dressel H, Leitritz L, Reichert J, Schmid M, Praml G, Schosser M, von Mutius E, Nowak D. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15298556/

[4] Exposure to farming in early life and development of asthma and allergy: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001;358(9288):1129-1133. Riedler J, Braun-Fahrländer C, Eder W, Schreuer M, Waser M, Maisch S, Carr D, Schierl R, Nowak D, von Mutius E; ALEX Study Team. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11597666/

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

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

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

[8] Loss of allergy-protective capacity of raw cow's milk after heat treatment coincides with loss of immunologically active whey proteins. Food and Function. 2020 Jun 24;11(6):4982-4993. Abbring S, Xiong L, Diks MAP, Baars T, Garssen J, Hettinga K, van Esch BCAM. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32515464/

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

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

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. 

STUDY: Raw Milk Legalization ≠ Increased Illnesses

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

---

Fatal Foodborne Illnesses From 2005-2020

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

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

---

Illnesses and Outbreaks from Pasteurized and Raw Milks

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

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

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

---

Illnesses Do Not Increase with Legalization of Raw Milk

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

---

Raw Milk is Not Inherently Dangerous

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

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

---

RAWMI Method for Low-Risk Raw Milk

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

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

• Farmer training and mentoring

• An individualized risk management plan for each farm

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

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

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

---

Where to Learn More

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

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

Why Farmers Should Test Their Raw Milk

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

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

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

Scroll or click below for information about the following topics:

• Top 4 Pathogens of Concern for Raw Milk

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

• Careful Milk Production Isn’t Enough

• Which Tests to Perform

• Where to Test Raw Milk

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

Top 4 Pathogens of Concern for Raw Milk

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

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

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

"But My Family Drinks My Milk with No Problems"

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

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

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

Careful Milk Production Isn't Enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• the milk jars aren’t clean enough, or

• any of a multitude of other potential problems.  

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

Which Tests to Perform

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

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

• <5,000 cfu/mL for SPC

• <10 cfu/mL for coliforms

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

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

Where to Test Raw Milk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Testing is a Proven Part of Low-Risk Raw Milk

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

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

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

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

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

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/ 

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

Why Humans Drink (RAW) Milk

Why Did Ancient Humans Start Consuming Milk From Other Mammals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lactase and Genetic Adaptations for Milk

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

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

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

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

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

Pasteurization: A Technological Solution to a Manmade Problem

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

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

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

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

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

Raw Milk’s Role in the 2020’s

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

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

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

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

Raw Milk, Asthma, and Lung Health

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

Children Who Drink Raw Milk Have Less Asthma

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

PARSIFAL Study

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

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

GABRIELA Study

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

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

PASTURE Study

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

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

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

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

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

Adults Who Drank Raw Milk in Childhood Have Better Lung Function

Agricultural Lung Health Study

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

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

Low-Risk Raw Milk as a Therapeutic Tool

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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