Putting the RAW MILK debate to rest (with science)
- Michelle Adams
- 2 days ago
- 23 min read
You can check out the video version of this article here.
Every so often, some social media influencer makes the claim that raw milk is a panacea that will heal your allergies, heal your lactose intolerance and gut issues, and make you better than everyone else who isn’t daring enough to drink cow's milk straight from the udder.
No, I was not exaggerating - there are people out there who are really doing this.
This raw milk craze has even made it into our government. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), our new Secretary of Health and Human Services, is on a mission to “Make America Healthy Again,” and in doing so, he wants to make sure that the government stops suppressing raw milk.
There is a small but very vocal subset of people on social media making all sorts of health claims about raw milk, and some of their claims are, frankly, false. I have literally come across videos where people are just making things up about raw milk, and they put no references to scientific articles in the video, comments, or description of their video. I have also found that sometimes, content creators will list references that are completely unrelated to the points that they are making in their video in order to create a veneer of accountability.
The following videos are ones that I looked at to take a pulse of what "Team Raw Milk" has been saying on the internet:
Given that there is so much confusing information out there about raw milk, I decided to make a post to settle the debate on this topic with a proper analysis of the available scientific evidence. As always, this post will be driven by data, not just vibes and anecdotal evidence. My goal is to share the truth about what we know about raw milk - the good and the bad - so that you can make your own informed decision.
To accomplish that goal, I will be parsing through the scientific evidence relating to five of the health claims that raw milk drinkers often push, which are that:
Barely anyone has died from raw milk, therefore it is not really dangerous
Raw milk has more probiotics than pasteurized milk, making it better for gut health
Raw milk is easier to digest than pasteurized milk
Raw milk has more nutrients than pasteurized milk
Raw milk is better for your immune system
Before we analyze these claims, let’s cover some basic questions.
What is raw milk, and what is pasteurization?
Raw milk is basically milk that has not been heat-treated. It comes straight from the cow.
Pasteurization is a fancy word for heating milk up to a certain temperature and holding it there for a certain amount of time in order to kill any harmful bacteria in the milk while still preserving the beneficial qualities of the milk. This process is named for Louis Pasteur, who reportedly came up with this technique for use in wine preservation. There are two reasons why we pasteurize milk: to reduce the number of bacteria that can make us sick, and to reduce the number of bacteria that can cause milk to spoil quickly. Pasteurization makes milk safer to drink and helps it to last longer.
Several methods of pasteurization exist. These are the pasteurization guidelines in the Code of Federal Regulations of the U.S. government:
As you can see, pasteurization of milk can be carried out in a pretty short amount of time, and the milk does not even have to reach boiling.
In the United States (US), some states permit the sale of raw milk, while others prohibit it.
Since 1987, it has been illegal to sell raw milk across state lines.
Now, let’s get into the claims that people who like to push raw milk as “healthier,” a “superfood,” or “nature’s perfect food” like to make:
Claim 1: Barely anyone has died from raw milk, therefore it is not really dangerous
This claim is false.
Raw milk is not “very safe” or “inherently safe,” the good bacteria that it contains do not keep pathogenic bacteria from growing, and the risks are not being overhyped. Back in 1938, before federal mandates for milk pasteurization existed, milk was responsible for 25% of all outbreaks causes by contaminated water or food. Now, milk and milk products only account for under 1% of all outbreaks. According to this paper by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between 1993-2006,
“Non-pasteurized products caused a disproportionate number (≈150× greater/unit of product consumed) of outbreaks and outbreak-associated illnesses and also disproportionately affected persons <20 years of age.” - Langer et al 2012
This is why you will see in the CDC guidelines that there is an emphasis on raw milk being especially dangerous for children, as well as the elderly and people who have compromised immune systems. This table from the same paper linked above shows the total number of outbreaks caused by unpasteurized and pasteurized dairy products and the amount of illness, hospitalizations, and deaths that were caused by each of those outbreaks:
Keep in mind that very few people consume raw dairy and dairy products; at the time that this paper was published, less than 1% of the US population who drank milk reported drinking raw milk. More recent sources show that the number of people drinking milk straight from the cow’s udder at least once a week is still close to 1%. So, these numbers would really be more useful to us as percentages - that would allow us to see what fraction of each group got sick. Let's do some quick math:
Of the people who got sick from drinking raw milk:
71/930 = 8% were hospitalized
Of the people who got sick from drinking pasteurized milk:
20/2098= 1% were hospitalized
More recent data shows that the risk of being hospitalized as a result of getting sick from drinking raw milk may be even higher, around 15%. These numbers tell us that getting sick from drinking raw milk is more likely to get you sent to the hospital. In other words, the risk of getting severely sick is greater with raw milk compared to pasteurized milk.
Now you might be wondering, what is in raw milk that makes it so dangerous? It’s hard to imagine people just eating some cereal with their raw milk and then ending up in the intensive care unit, but it does happen. This is because consuming raw milk instead of pasteurized milk increases your chances of getting sick from bacteria such as:
Brucella
Campylobacter
Cryptosporidium
E. coli
Listeria
Salmonella
Last year, there was an outbreak of 61 human cases of bird flu (A H5N1), over half of which (37 to be exact) were linked to exposure to dairy cattle. The virus that causes bird flu has been detected in raw milk and fortunately, pasteurization is effective at destroying the virus.
The consequences of infections caused by consuming raw milk range from vomiting and diarrhea to loss of life. One severe illness that is linked to raw milk consumption is Guillain-Barre syndrome, which is a serious condition caused by Campylobacter infection (among other things) that can cause significant nerve damage, muscle weakness, and even paralysis. Another serious illness that can be caused by drinking raw milk is hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which is caused by E. coli which produce a certain toxin and can lead to kidney failure or even loss of life. Even if a person survives the infection, the consequences of HUS can be life-changing. HUS impacts the kidneys, and kidney failure is a disease that only gets worse with time. Once your kidneys fail, you either have to go on dialysis, get a kidney transplant, or prepare to leave the land of the living. For the parents out there, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that raw milk can not only harm you, but also your baby if you happen to be pregnant.
A Listeria infection from drinking raw milk can lead to a miscarriage, even if you do not feel symptoms.
While I appreciate that farmers may try to ensure that the raw milk that they produce is safe for consumption by following basic safety practices, the reality is that it is not reasonable to expect that farmers are checking every single batch of raw milk for every single possible bacteria or virus that could be lurking in the milk. This is why raw milk is inherently more dangerous than pasteurized milk, even with production standards that are intended to make the milk safe for consumption. The Raw Milk Institute, which is a major raw milk organization in the US, provides the following standards for raw milk production:
Standards two and three are to test for coliform and standard plate count, which are two measures of checking for microbes, at least once per month. This is good, but a lot can happen in the 29 days between tests. Standard four is to ensure that the milk is free of pathogens, specifically these four: “Salmonella spp., E. coli 0157:H7, Campylobacter spp., and Listeria monocytogenes.” Under this same standard, there is a bullet point where it is stated that small farms do not need to test for those specific pathogens if they do not have access to a pathogen testing lab. This means that some raw milk is getting into the hands of consumers without even having undergone testing for common pathogens.
Limiting testing to only certain bacteria also leaves room for other bacteria to go undetected. This is not surprising, because as I mentioned before, it is not feasible for farmers to test every single batch of milk for every possible bacterium that can get into the milk. At best they can spot check for certain bacteria, and at worse they may not check for specific bacteria at all. This is why statements to the effect that once you "trust your farmer" or "know that the farm is clean" are so misleading. Even with standards in place, raw milk production leaves a lot of room for pathogens (microbes that can make you sick) to run wild in the milk and infect the person that drinks it.
While they are well-intentioned, these standards make it possible for a farmer to do everything “right” and still sell a contaminated batch of milk, as you can see in this clip of Mark McAfee from MSNBC:
This is not an attack on farmers; their work is essential to society. Rather it’s a reminder that raw milk simply comes with more risks, even for someone with experience and who is RFK Jr.’s favorite dairy farmer.
Regarding the related claim that raw milk doesn’t spoil because it has antimicrobial components, and the other related claim that the antimicrobials in raw milk can keep bad bacteria from multiplying – neither of these things are true. Raw milk does contain antimicrobial substances like lactoperoxidase and lactoferrin, but not enough to combat all of the bad bacteria that can be found in raw milk. High levels of antimicrobials occur when the cow has an infection and its body is trying to fight off the infection by producing more antimicrobials. Now, do you really want to get your milk from a cow that is fighting off an infection?
Claim 2: Raw milk has more probiotics than pasteurized milk, making it better for gut health
This claim is false.
Fermented products like yogurt are rich in probiotics, but regular milk is not. These two foods are very different – yogurt is a fermented food, so it is rich in gut-healthy bacteria that are intentionally cultivated in the yogurt. Raw milk on the other hand is not a fermented food, and the bacteria that it contains end up there because of contamination, mainly due to the fact that the udder and the anus of the cow are not too far apart. Raw milk can also have high concentrations of bacteria as a result of the cow’s udder being infected (this is called mastitis) or contamination from the farm itself, be it the water, soil, or equipment.
As I mentioned earlier, pathogenic or disease-causing bacteria can be found in raw milk. These are not the type of bacteria that contribute to gut health, unless you consider vomiting and diarrhea to be signs of a healthy gut. Good bacteria like Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli are also found in raw milk, but in very small concentrations. If your raw milk happens to be high in Bifidobacteria, that is most likely an indication that some of the Bifidobacteria from the cow’s intestines made it into your milk – along with some of its feces. It should go without saying, but feces-contaminated milk is not a health food. All in all, high amounts of bacteria in raw milk is more so a marker of contamination than nutritiousness.
In two of the videos that I watched, this paper was used to bolster the claim that raw milk promotes the growth of good bacteria in the gut. This 2020 study by Butler and colleagues included 24 people who stayed at a cooking school on a farm for 12 weeks and all drank raw milk. At the end of the study, the participants had more Lactobacillus in their gut. However, this doesn't mean that raw milk has some special capacity to improve gut health; regular pasteurized milk also increases Lactobacillus in the gut.
Claim 3: Raw milk is easier to digest than pasteurized milk
This claim is false.
This claim is centered on the erroneous notion that things that are natural are automatically easier for our bodies to assimilate and better for our health. This idea falls flat, however, because that’s not how nature works. Cherry pits, apple seeds, and raw elderberries are all natural, yet they are not good for the body as they are all sources of cyanide. If humans were all that mattered in this world, then yes, perhaps everything on this earth would be tailored for our optimal health and well-being. The reality is that humans are just one of many living beings on this planet, and we have to respect nature and work with it, not act like it revolves around us. Bacteria exist; viruses exist; natural plant defenses exist; natural disasters exist.
There is no strong evidence that people who have trouble digesting pasteurized milk would have an easier time drinking raw milk. The main issue for a large portion of people who cannot tolerate cow's milk is that it contains lactose, a type of sugar. In order to break down lactose, your body needs to produce significant amounts of the enzyme lactase. Heat does not affect the quantity of lactose in milk, so if you cannot tolerate regular milk because of lactose intolerance, then you should not expect your body to tolerate raw milk. Raw milk supporters claim that there are bacteria in raw milk that produce the lactase enzyme and thereby make it possible for people who have lactose intolerance to drink raw milk without any digestive issues. The truth of the matter is that raw milk simply does not have a significant amount of these lactase-producing bacteria, so the effect on digestion would be null.
The idea that lactose intolerance can be curtailed by drinking raw milk has actually been tested in a handful of small clinical trials. In this randomized, double-blind, 3-way crossover study, 16 adults who reported lactose intolerance were instructed to consume 3 types of milk for 8 days each – raw milk, pasteurized milk, or soy milk. They were given 1 week in between each milk trial, and the milks were given in different orders to different people. At the end of the study, the participants reported that both the raw and the pasteurized milks produced the same uncomfortable lactose intolerance symptoms like flatulence, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea with the same level of severity. You can see the study results below.
In another clinical trial that compared symptoms produced by raw versus pasteurized milk, researchers found a slight difference, but it was not statistically significant.
If you have lactose intolerance and you want to be able to eat some really cheesy pizza without having to pay for it later, raw milk is not the answer. Instead of running the risk of getting an infection that could leave you paralyzed, it would be better to try any of the following options:
Lactose-free milk, e.g. Lactaid® milk
Plant milks like soy milk
Lactase enzyme tablets
Claim 4: Raw milk has more nutrients than pasteurized milk
Raw milk does not have a significantly greater amount of nutrients than pasteurized milk.
First of all, it’s important to understand that milk is high in some nutrients and low in others, so not every little nutrient that may or may not be affected by heat matters here. For example, milk only provides 1% of your Daily Value for vitamin E; it’s not a good source of vitamin E to begin with, so if pasteurization were to reduce that 1% to 0.5%, you really wouldn’t need to worry. It would be better to focus on eating other foods that actually have a substantial amount of Vitamin E, such as almonds. Based on these Daily Values,
Milk is an excellent source of:
Protein
Calcium
Phosphorus
Iodine
Riboflavin (B2), and
B12
It is also a good source of:
Zinc
Thiamin (B1)
Pantothenic acid (B5), and
Vitamin D – Although we can ignore that one because commercial milk in this country is generally fortified with it anyway.
Okay, so these are the nutrients that we care about. Let’s see what the data say about how heat affects them. Overall, there are very few studies out there that compare the nutrient content of raw versus pasteurized milk, and of those few studies, a major portion of them are, unfortunately, poorly designed. The authors of this paper noted that when trying to review the data on how pasteurization affects vitamins, they came across multiple studies where the sample size was not clear, the time and temperature used for pasteurization was not reported, and the results of the data analysis were missing basic measures of statistical significance.
Using the small amount of available data, we can say that of the nutrients that milk is an important source of, only B2 (riboflavin), appears to be significantly negatively affected by pasteurization. Fortunately, B2 is really easy to get from other foods, so drinking pasteurized milk is not going to give you a B2 deficiency. If you eat breakfast cereal, some of them are fortified with 100% of the Daily Value of B2. If you prefer a healthier option, 1 cup of oats will give you 85% of your Daily Value. Calcium and phosphorus are resistant to heat like most minerals and are not significantly affected by pasteurization (see here and here). Interestingly, some vitamins like vitamin A actually seem to get a boost from pasteurization. Regarding protein, pasteurization or any sort of heating can change the shape of protein in milk but not the overall amount, so raw milk does not have more protein than cow’s milk.
Aside from common nutrients, people who promote raw milk also talk a lot about heat destroying enzymes and healthy substances like CLA and MSM in raw milk. CLA is conjugated linoleic acid, and it has potential protective effects again excessive weight gain, inflammation, atherosclerosis, and other common conditions. According to this review paper, the concentration of CLA in milk varies widely and the effect of heat is not unidirectional. Some studies show that heating milk can increase CLA, while others show that very high heat used in ultra-high-temperature processing can reduce CLA, while others still show that heating milk does not affect its CLA content. Ultra-high-temperature processing happens at temperatures greater than 140 C (284 F), which you may remember from the table that I showed earlier as being much higher that what the US government even requires for milk pasteurization.
Instead of focusing on raw vs. pasteurized milk, it may be better to focus your attention on the differences between cows that are grass-fed versus cows that are fed corn and other filler foods. What the cow eats determines what types of fats they have in their tissues, so grass-fed cows do generally produce milk that is more nutritionally rich and potentially higher in CLA.
MSM stands for methylsulfonylmethane, which is a sulfur-based chemical that has been shown to have some antioxidant properties. I could not find any proper studies comparing the MSM content of raw vs. pasteurized milk; all that came up in my search was the same exact statistic that was just copy pasted everywhere. I could not find a clear source, so I won't repeat it in order to avoid spreading misinformation. This topic needs way more research before anyone can claim that we know how pasteurization affects MSM. Furthermore, there are so many other antioxidants out there – you don’t need to risk your life for this particular one.
Claim 5: Raw milk is better for your immune system
Now on to the final claim, the only one that really has any substance behind it.
At the center of claims about raw milk being good for your immune system or protective against allergies is the so-called “hygiene hypothesis.” You have probably heard about it before, but just in case you haven’t, lets talk a little bit more about it.
The hygiene hypothesis, developed in 1989, encompasses the idea that getting an infection in early childhood due to being in contact with lots of siblings in a large family could protect against allergies later in life. The man behind the idea, David Strachan, proposed that shrinking family size might have had something to do with the unexplainable rise in the prevalence of asthma and eczema among children living in Great Britain at the time. However, this hypothesis has been shown to be a bit of a misnomer.
Some experts in the fields of infectious disease and allergies have argued that there is no evidence that being “too clean” is causing more people to develop allergies. The real issue at hand seems to be a lack of exposure to good microbes – the ones that can help to strengthen our immune systems – not a lack of exposure to bacteria or viruses that can make us sick. Infectious diseases can be deadly, so it is best for us to avoid spreading them instead of trying to intentionally get sick with them.
Imagine an adult with tuberculosis sneezing on their child in order to intentionally get them sick. You would probably call that person crazy!
The main takeaway of this segue is that everyone should wash their hands and avoid sneezing on their children.
Now, let’s look at the research on raw milk and allergies. These studies have mainly been done in children, and there is a body of research which suggests that raw milk, particularly when consumed early in life, can help to reduce the risk of developing asthma and allergies. This is the famous GABRIELA study that was cited in multiple videos. This study was designed to determine what factors in cow’s milk could possibly explain the observation that children who grow up on farms often have a lower risk of developing asthma and allergies. The researchers found that raw, unboiled cow’s milk was associated with a lower risk of asthma and hay fever. Still, they cautioned that they do not recommend that children drink raw milk due to the risk of an infection.
This is cool to know, but here’s my opinion on that research: Even if raw milk can have a positive effect on a child’s developing immune system, the risk of your child needing a new kidney far outweighs any potential benefits. In addition, there are other ways to bolster your child’s immune system. Going back to the nuance of the hygiene hypothesis, exposure to good microbes in growing children is important for the development of their immune systems. Now, where do we get these good microbes? We get them from many places, such as from our mother's birth canal when are born naturally, from the milk of our mothers when we are breastfed, from the food that we eat, and from playing and spending time outdoors. I also want to highlight that misuse of antibiotics, such as when they are given for a viral infection (which they are ineffective against) may also reduce the amount of good bacteria in your gut microbiome; avoiding antibiotics unless they are absolutely necessary can be good not only for your child, but for the whole planet.
Nothing about this trend is new – time for a little history
I’m finished covering all of the claims that I wanted to cover in today’s post. Now, it's time for an obligatory look at the history of this debate. While doing my research for this post, it was interesting to observe first hand just how true it is that history so often repeats itself. You see, this debate about the safety of raw milk has been going on since pasteurization was introduced. Let's look at a brief historical timeline.
Pasteurization was first invented in the 1860s, and it wasn’t until 1908 that Chicago became the first US city to require that all commercial milk be pasteurized, unless the cow had been tested for tuberculin. In 1948, Michigan became the first state to put milk pasteurization into law statewide, and in 1987, the FDA prohibited the interstate sale of raw milk. While all this was happening, people who were opposed to the pasteurization of milk claimed that it was bad because they thought it would create a “false sense of security” and cause milk producers to become lax with their sanitation standards. They also believed that raw milk was healthier and better for the immune system, bones, and teeth. I came across this publication from 1984, over 40 years ago, titled “Unpasteurized Milk: The Hazards of a Health Fetish,” and it just blew my mind to see that these doctors and scientists were battling with the same false claims that we are today!
The promotion of raw milk is not really a trend – it’s something that has been going on for generations. What is unfortunate, however, is that this desire to cling to tradition in the face of scientific advancement costs lives. This is true not just in relation to raw milk, but also to many other things in this world. To add perspective, I am going to give an example from a totally unrelated field.
Whether or not you are a fan of NASCAR, you likely remember the tragic death of Dale Earnhardt in 2001. He crashed during a race and suffered a fatal basilar skull fracture.
The part of the story that is perhaps less widely known is that his death might have been prevented had he worn a safety device that was designed to prevent the very same type of skull damage that took his life. The device was growing in popularity and was already being worn by other drivers. The problem was that Earnhardt refused to wear it, stating that he found it uncomfortable and that it limited his range of motion. Since then, the head and neck support device (HANS) has become a requirement for all NASCAR competitive races.
This video shows a comparison of what happens in a crash without the HANS and then with the HANS. It's amazing to see what a difference this safety device makes!
The same story could be told for football helmets, seat belts, and countless other safety advancements. For some reason, humans often have an attachment to whatever seems to be the most natural, but natural is not always best. To be clear, I am not judging anyone for falling for this line of thinking – I am guilty of this too, sometimes. I’m human. Nevertheless, this is why doing an objective cost-benefit analysis is so essential, as opposed to leaning on what feels “right” or “natural.”
Anyway, that is it for today’s post. If you learned anything new, please comment down below and tell us what you learned! If you know someone in your life who could benefit from this information, please share the article with them as well. You might just save a life.
Take care.
References
About raw milk:
Raw Milk
CDC Food Safety
January 31, 2025
Raw milk: Questions patients may have and how to answer
Sara Berg
Dec 30, 2024
Raw Milk Misconceptions and the Danger of Raw Milk Consumption
FDA
03/05/2024
Food Safety and Raw Milk
Content current as of: 03/05/2024
The Dangers of Raw Milk: Unpasteurized Milk Can Pose a Serious Health Risk
FDA
05/30/2024
Headrick M, Korangy S, Bean N, et al. The epidemiology of raw milk associated foodborne disease outbreaks reported in the United States, 1973 through 1992. Am J Pub Health 1998;88:1219–1221.
Langer AJ, Ayers T, Grass J, Lynch M, Angulo FJ, Mahon BE. Nonpasteurized dairy products, disease outbreaks, and state laws-United States, 1993-2006. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012 Mar;18(3):385-91. doi: 10.3201/eid1803.111370. PMID: 22377202; PMCID: PMC3309640.
Lando AM, Bazaco MC, Parker CC, Ferguson M. Characteristics of U.S. Consumers Reporting Past Year Intake of Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk: Results from the 2016 Food Safety Survey and 2019 Food Safety and Nutrition Survey. J Food Prot. 2022 Jul 1;85(7):1036-1043. doi: 10.4315/JFP-21-407. PMID: 35333921; PMCID: PMC9241341.
Koski L, Kisselburgh H, Landsman L, Hulkower R, Howard-Williams M, Salah Z, Kim S, Bruce BB, Bazaco MC, Batz MB, Parker CC, Leonard CL, Datta AR, Williams EN, Stapleton GS, Penn M, Whitham HK, Nichols M. Foodborne illness outbreaks linked to unpasteurised milk and relationship to changes in state laws - United States, 1998-2018. Epidemiol Infect. 2022 Oct 25;150:e183. doi: 10.1017/S0950268822001649.
Beerens H, Hass Brac de la Perriere B, Gavini F. Evaluation of the hygienic quality of raw milk based on the presence of bifidobacteria: the cow as a source of faecal contamination. Int J Food Microbiol. 2000 Mar 25;54(3):163-9. doi: 10.1016/s0168-1605(99)00194-4. PMID: 10777066.
Butler MI, Bastiaanssen TFS, Long-Smith C, Berding K, Morkl S, Cusack AM, Strain C, Busca K, Porteous-Allen P, Claesson MJ, Stanton C, Cryan JF, Allen D, Dinan TG. Recipe for a Healthy Gut: Intake of Unpasteurised Milk Is Associated with Increased Lactobacillus Abundance in the Human Gut Microbiome. Nutrients. 2020 May 19;12(5):1468. doi: 10.3390/nu12051468. PMID: 32438623; PMCID: PMC7285075.
Fernandez-Raudales D, Hoeflinger JL, Bringe NA, Cox SB, Dowd SE, Miller MJ, Gonzalez de Mejia E. Consumption of different soymilk formulations differentially affects the gut microbiomes of overweight and obese men. Gut Microbes. 2012 Nov-Dec;3(6):490-500. doi: 10.4161/gmic.21578. Epub 2012 Aug 16. PMID: 22895080; PMCID: PMC3495786.
Mummah S, Oelrich B, Hope J, Vu Q, Gardner CD. Effect of raw milk on lactose intolerance: a randomized controlled pilot study. Ann Fam Med. 2014 Mar-Apr;12(2):134-41. doi: 10.1370/afm.1618. PMID: 24615309; PMCID: PMC3948760.
Nuora A, Tupasela T, Tahvonen R, et al. Effect of homogenised and pasteurised versus native cows' milk on gastrointestinal symptoms, intestinal pressure and postprandial lipid metabolism. International Dairy Journal. Volume 79, April 2018, Pages 15-23.
Macdonald LE, Brett J, Kelton D, Majowicz SE, Snedeker K, Sargeant JM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of pasteurization on milk vitamins, and evidence for raw milk consumption and other health-related outcomes. J Food Prot. 2011 Nov;74(11):1814-32. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-10-269. PMID: 22054181.
Weeks, C. E. and R. L. King. 1985. Bioavailability of calcium in heat-processed milk. Journal of Food Science. 50:1101-1105.
Williamson.S, E. Finucane, H. Ellis, and H. R. Gamsu. 1978. Effect of heat treatment of human milk on absorption of nitrogen, fat, sodium, calcium, and phosphorus by preterm infants. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 53:555-563.
CONJUGATED LINOLEIC ACID IN MILK AND FERMENTED MILKS: VARIATION AND EFFECTS OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Luis Felipe GUTIÉRREZ
Vitae vol.23 no.2 Medellín May/Aug. 2016
Ferreiro T, Gayoso L, Rodríguez-Otero JL. Milk phospholipids: Organic milk and milk rich in conjugated linoleic acid compared with conventional milk. J Dairy Sci. 2015 Jan;98(1):9-14. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-8244. Epub 2014 Nov 14. PMID: 25465571.
Butawan M, Benjamin RL, Bloomer RJ. Methylsulfonylmethane: Applications and Safety of a Novel Dietary Supplement. Nutrients. 2017 Mar 16;9(3):290. doi: 10.3390/nu9030290. PMID: 28300758; PMCID: PMC5372953.
Strachan DP. Hay fever, hygiene, and household size. BMJ. 1989 Nov 18;299(6710):1259-60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6710.1259. PMID: 2513902; PMCID: PMC1838109.
Bloomfield SF, Rook GA, Scott EA, Shanahan F, Stanwell-Smith R, Turner P. Time to abandon the hygiene hypothesis: new perspectives on allergic disease, the human microbiome, infectious disease prevention and the role of targeted hygiene. Perspect Public Health. 2016 Jul;136(4):213-24. doi: 10.1177/1757913916650225. PMID: 27354505; PMCID: PMC4966430.
Peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrating health benefits of unprocessed milk, 2001-2018
British Columbia Herdshare Association
March 2018
Loss G, Apprich S, Waser M, Kneifel W, Genuneit J, Büchele G, Weber J, Sozanska B, Danielewicz H, Horak E, van Neerven RJ, Heederik D, Lorenzen PC, von Mutius E, Braun-Fahrländer C; GABRIELA study group. The protective effect of farm milk consumption on childhood asthma and atopy: the GABRIELA study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011 Oct;128(4):766-773.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2011.07.048. Epub 2011 Aug 27. PMID: 21875744.
Steele JH. History, trends, and extent of pasteurization. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000;217(2):175-178. https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/javma/217/2/javma.2000.217.175.xml
Czaplicki A. “Pure milk is better than purified milk”: pasteurization and milk purity in Chicago, 1908–1916. Soc Sci History. 2007; 31: 411– 433.
Potter ME, Kaufmann AF, Blake PA, Feldman RA. Unpasteurized Milk: The Hazards of a Health Fetish. JAMA. 1984;252(15):2048–2052. doi:10.1001/jama.1984.03350150048020
Pasteurization standards:
Title 21 Chapter I Subchapter L Part 1240 Subpart D § 1240.61
Mandatory pasteurization for all milk and milk products in final package form intended for direct human consumption.
National Archives. Code of Federal Regulations
Title 21 last amended 3/31/2025
Ultra-high-temperature processing
Consequences of severe raw milk infections:
Guillain-Barré Syndrome
CDC: Campylobacter
May 10, 2024
Signs of Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome
CDC E. coli infection
May 14, 2024
Raw Milk Institute standards:
Nutrients in milk:
USDA FoodData Central Food Details
Milk, whole, 3.25% milkfat, with added vitamin D
FDC Published:12/16/2019
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements
Daily Values
Riboflavin
Fact Sheet for Health Professionals
Updated: May 11, 2022
Report on Mark McAfee:
RFK Jr. asked Fresno County raw milk producer to apply as FDA advisor
ABC 7 Eyewitness News
December 6, 2024
Images:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Louis Pasteur
Dale Earnhardt
More on Dale Earnhardt:
Death of Dale Earnhardt
Racing safety innovator: "95 percent" chance Dale Earnhardt would have lived with HANS Device
Steven Taranto
Feb 3rd, 2021
HANS DEVICE
Video clips:
Make Frying Oil Tallow Again
Channel: @robertfkennedyjrofficial
29 oct 2024
Benefits of raw milk
Channel: Paul Saladino MD
6 ago 2022
This SUPERFOOD is ILLEGAL?? All about RAW MILK
Channel: Paul Saladino MD
20 nov 2023
The Fascinating Benefits of RAW MILK Dairy
Channel: Dr. Eric Berg DC
17 jun 2022
Milk Can Kill You?!
Channel: Dr. Eric Berg DC
29 jun 2024
Raw Milk VS Pasteurized Milk: Health Benefits Explained
Channel: High Intensity Health
15 mar 2023
Raw Milk: Why Mainstream Health Experts Claim It's Dangerous
Channel: High Intensity Health
17 ene 2025
Why Is Raw Milk Healthier - Juli Bauer Roth
Channel: Juli Bauer Roth
24 may 2022
I drank raw milk every day for a year…
Channel: Lillie Kane
23 jun 2023
Despite bird flu concerns, RFK Jr. indulges raw milk interest
Channel: MSNBC
6 dic 2024
RFK Jr tweet about raw milk:
October 25, 2024
HANS (Head and Neck Support) demonstration
Channel: Van Svenson
28 feb 2014
Natural sources of hydrogen cyanide are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide
Play it safe when preserving elderberries: Why berry type matters
Nellie Oehler, Joy Waite-Cusic and Jared Hibbard-Swanson
November 2024
Comments