Raw milk, or unpasteurized milk, has garnered increasing attention in recent months, fueled by high-profile advocates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and a surge in concerns over its safety. While some continue to champion raw milk for its perceived health benefits, experts warn of significant risks, including potential disease transmission, particularly in light of bird flu concerns.
Raw milk, which has not undergone pasteurization—a process that heats milk to kill harmful pathogens—poses health dangers, particularly for children, the elderly, and those with weakened immune systems. Marion Nestle, a professor emerita at New York University, stresses that while infections from raw milk are rare, they can be deadly when they occur. Pathogens such as E. coli, salmonella, and H5N1 can be present in raw milk, posing severe risks to consumers.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) all advise against consuming raw milk. These agencies point out that dairy farms are not sterile environments, and cows can easily pick up bacteria and viruses that can be transmitted through their milk. Pasteurization, which involves heating milk to temperatures between 145°F and 280°F, is an effective method for eliminating these pathogens.
Although the CDC has not reported any cases of bird flu being transmitted through raw milk, experts warn that the virus could potentially pose a risk. A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated that pasteurization can eliminate H5N1 in milk, highlighting the importance of the process in preventing the spread of infectious diseases.
Despite these risks, some consumers are drawn to raw milk for its perceived natural benefits. Meghan Davis, a professor of environmental health at Johns Hopkins, notes that while there is some evidence linking exposure to diverse microbes—such as those found in farm environments—with lower rates of allergies and asthma, drinking raw milk is not a controlled form of exposure. Davis points out that raw milk is a “hit or miss” product, where consumers may not experience illness for weeks or months, only to fall ill suddenly due to contamination.
Proponents of raw milk also claim that it can alleviate conditions like lactose intolerance and osteoporosis, and provide superior nutrition. However, experts such as Davis and Ethan Balk, an associate professor at New York University, argue that these claims are unfounded. Lactose intolerance is caused by a deficiency in the enzyme lactase, which is not impacted by raw milk, and pasteurized milk contains the same nutrients as raw milk, including calcium and vitamins.
While some raw milk advocates argue that skipping pasteurization boosts immune function and improves milk’s nutritional content, the FDA dismisses these claims, stating that the beneficial compounds in milk are not present in sufficient concentrations to have any meaningful impact.
As the debate continues, experts urge consumers to consider the risks carefully and make informed choices, particularly when it comes to the health of vulnerable populations. The potential dangers of raw milk may be difficult to ignore, but for many, the facts are clear—pasteurization is the safest option for protecting public health.