Script
Chapter 1: Some people online claim raw milk is GREAT for you
Hi, I'm Wendy Zukerman, and this is Science Vs. After this episode we're taking a quick break to work on future episodes – if you've got ideas let us know in the comments! And we want to let you know you can now find us on youtube, @ScienceVsPodcast… there's a link in the show notes, plus you can catch us on insta.. tiktok… but now… let's jump in…
<<Audio Cue>>
WZ: I'm on an illegal mission today. Legal gray area would be more accurate, but for a cold open like this, we're gonna say illegal. No, we're gonna say gray area. There's no way that would get through fact check. The point is I'm doing something naughty.
A couple of weeks ago... I went on a secret mission …
WZ: Okay. Here I go. I'm going into the store. There's plants out the front, plants inside. Organic bananas to my left.
I'm here to buy something that some say is dangerous... and could even kill me …
WZ: Chocolate milk drops. I bet there's carob somewhere around here. God only knows. Oh my gosh, there's an empty ... It's a completely empty fridge. GASP There's one left. One left.
I found it!! It's a white substance... in a plastic bottle...
WZ: There's one left. There's one left. One raw milk.
Raw milk …
I've got it. I've got it. I've got it.
but should I drink it?
Hello … thank you … on the card? Yes, please …
A lot of people are saying yes, I should. That milk I bought … that hasn't been pasteurized. It's straight from the teat, has heaps of benefits … they say - just look at the science…
<<No matter how you get it, getting raw milk, raw dairy in your diet is definitely going to improve your health.>>
<<Raw milk protects kids from asthma, eczema and allergies>>
<<It is packed full of gut-healthy bacteria>>
<<You heal your microbiome>>
<<God intended milk to be raw - if he didn’t, he would have put a pasteurization chamber on the udder of a cow>>
Raw milk fandom has hit the udder echelons of society… Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a huge raw milk fan[1][2] … And it's not just the RFK Jrs of the world… It’s pretty common to drink raw milk in some countries, and you can even find it in some vending machines around Europe.[3]
BUT of course there's a flip side to this story... because some say raw milk movement is dangerous. In Australia it's ILLEGAL to sell raw milk for humans to drink[4][5] … and that’s true in some US states too..[6] I actually had to find it in the "pet food" section of the store… So … why are some people worried here?
<<Some people keep trying to act like drinking raw milk is unlocking some secret level of health … well I want to say congratulations. It unlocked diarrhea, fever, stomach cramps, nausea and vomiting>>
<<The only reason to drink raw milk is if you ever wondered, hey, I wonder what it’s like to die from having too much diarrhea?>>
So who's right here? Could drinking raw milk be the thing you need to help your microbiome, your allergies, your asthma? Or are you gonna die from having too much diarrhea? Today on the show, we're gonna squeeze the teat of science until we've filled our bucket with facts around raw milk. Because, you know, there's a lot of-
<<God intended milk to be raw>>
And then there's science.
Science Vs raw milk is coming up just after the break
BREAK
WZ: Welcome back. Today we are guzzling down the science of raw milk, and I'm here with our editor, Blythe Terrell. Hello, Blythe.
BT: Hello, Wendy.
WZ: So I've got it in my hot little hands.
BT: Ooh, I'm so nervous.
WZ: Um, it’s, I should say, so it says, "Pet milk only."
BT: Mm.
WZ: And what's funny about the health food store that I bought it at is, so you go to the milk section with the, the regular pasteurized milk, and then they have a sign that says, "If you want raw milk, go to the pet food section." But there is no other pet food sold in the, quote-unquote, pet food section. Across the store there's just a fridge with raw milk- ... and that's it.
BT: Wow, that is cheeky.
WZ: Yeah. Okay, so let's open, let's open this raw milk.
BT: And once it's open, it's open, Wendy. Then, then it really becomes, like, Chekhov's raw milk.
WZ: Yeah. Okay, here we go. There it is.
BT: So you're just gonna put it there next to you, right? You're not having it now.
WZ: Nope. The question is, Blythe, am I gonna drink this?
BT: It sounds like maybe you need some science before you can make that call.
Chapter 2: What is pasteurization?
WZ: I believe so. So tell me, Blythe, let's start here. What is different about this raw milk compared to regular milk that you would buy at the store?
BT: Okay. So the key difference is that it has not been pasteurized.
WZ: Mm-hmm.
BT: Right? And I can tell you a little bit about pasteurization.
WZ: Thank you.
BT: So what we do when we pasteurize milk is basically we heat it up, usually to 161 degrees Fahrenheit, 72 degrees Celsius- Thank you ... for you and those like you, um, for, like, 15 seconds or less.[7][8] And when we started doing this at scale, it was about 100 years ago.[9]
WZ: Okay.
BT: And that, Wendy, was partly because milk was making people sick. Actually, a lot of the time with things like tuberculosis, like the cows would get tuberculosis.[10]
WZ: Oh.
BT: And like it would come out in their milk, and people would drink the milk and get TB.
WZ: Wow. Oh, I didn't realize TB. Yeah. Okay. So they s- so they start pasteurizing the milk, and it, it works. I- it kills- Right ... the bugs. Kills
BT: the TB.
WZ: Yes.
BT: It becomes the thing we do in the US, right, and in a lot of other places.
WZ: And so I guess now the movement is saying we're killing too much in the milk.
BT: Right. Perhaps it's overkill.
WZ: Mm-hmm. Overkill.
BT: Like, a big argument is that we're getting rid of microbes that actually like would make our guts stronger if they hung around.[11]
WZ: Right. We're getting rid of the bad microbes and the good.
Chapter 3: Is raw milk good for your microbiome?
BT: And that's where I wanna start, with this argument about the microbiome. And so to find out if that is true, I called up this guy in the dairy capital of the United States.
JL: My name is John Lucey.[12] I'm a professor in the Food Science Department here at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and I'm also the director of our Center for Dairy Research.
BT: And that is not all. John is from Ireland, and also...
JL: I grew up on a farm, too, so a dairy farm as well, so. And I also worked for a couple years in New Zealand, um, another dairy country.
BT: So Wendy, I brought you the dairy king.
WZ: Yeah, this- he's perfect. He's perfect.
BT: And so I asked John about this argument, that raw milk is good for your gut. That it's kind of a probiotic, basically.
WZ: Yeah.
BT: And so John told me out of the gate that there is a really good reason to be skeptical of this.
WZ: Mm.
BT: And it comes down to the fact that generally, if you've got a healthy cow, the milk doesn't pop out of the teat chock full of bacteria.
JL: There's very little bugs of any description, good, bad or indifferent, in milk.[13] That's, that's where the science is right now, is not that there's a really important good bacteria flora in the raw milk.
BT Hmm
JL That's just, that's just not where we're at right now. Just the science isn't supportive of it.[14]
WZ: That's interesting, though, because it definitely suggests that this raw milk in front of me isn't that dangerous, right?
BT: We're gonna get into the details of that later.
WZ: Mm-hmm. Okay.
BT: But, like, basically, the scientists tend to agree that when it, when it comes out initially, like, it doesn't really have a bunch of bacteria in it. And this actually makes intuitive sense because if you think about, like, the dairy that we eat that we know has good probiotic stuff in it, like yogurt, that stuff is fermented, which means that you've added that bacteria to it.[15]
WZ: Hmm. Of course. You're thinking about yogurt, kefir, things like that.
BT: Mm-hmm.
WZ: Hmm.
BT: Yeah. And, and even if there were, like, a tiny bit of, of good gut bugs for the microbiome-
WZ Yeah
BT it, it wouldn't be there in the amount- That it needs, that it would need to be in order to actually do anything inside your gut.
WZ: Mm, yeah.
BT: Because for a probiotic to work, scientists generally think that, like, it has to have a lot of these bugs. Here is John on that.
JL: So if you, like, buy a probiotic supplement- Mm-hmm and you look in the f- fine print, they'll say, "Contains per gram," millions and billions and whatever of bugs. And because numbers are important for these benefits.[16] It's not like- Mm ... 'cause your own gut microbiome is in the bazillions, you know? Numbers off the chart.
WZ: Mm, yeah. The analogy that I always hear from researchers talking about the microbiome is that if you imagine your gut like a rainforest-
BT: Mm-hmm
WZ: and then y- you drink some milk and say, it's like a pigeon comes in to the rainforest. It's not gonna, it's not gonna change things. It's not gonna flourish, you know?
BT: Right. Right.
WZ: That space is taken, right?
BT: Well, exactly. So you can't just, like, sprinkle in a few things and expect to, like, fix your, your shit.
WZ: Literally.
BT: Literally.
WZ: Right.
BT: So John actually told me that to do the kind of thing that people are claiming that the milk could do...
JL: The milk would need a million per gram of bugs, and there's, if the milk had a million per gram of any bugs, it would already start to be sour.
BT: Oh. Of anything?
JL: Anything.
BT: So to me, this- Mmm, this is what makes the microbiome claim fall pretty flat. Like, it does not make me wanna go running to the local farm for a, a warm, frothy glass fresh from the udder.
Chapter 4: Can raw milk help prevent allergies and asthma?
WZ: All right. So the next claim let's look up is this idea that it can prevent allergies and asthma.
BT: Yes
WZ: Anything to this?
BT: This one, Wendy, is, like, a lot more interesting-
WZ: Mm ...
BT: actually.
WZ: Ooh.
BT: This is the one that made me go, "Hmm." Hmm. Hmm. All
WZ: right.
BT: Let's, let's- Can you hear the intrigue?
WZ: Hit it, Blythe.
BT: Yeah. Yes. This is a big one that people say. Mm-hmm. Right? They say that if you give kids raw milk, it can help prevent allergy, it can help prevent asthma. And actually, if raw milk could do this, it would actually be a pretty big deal because these conditions, asthma and allergies, they're super common in kids.[17][18][19] I talked about this with Professor Christine Seroogy.[20] She's a pediatric allergist and immunologist who's also at the University of Wisconsin, and she says asthma can be really serious.
CS: It is the number one reason for admission to the hospital for a child. Asthma, asthma and wheezing.[21]
BT: Really? The number one reason?
CS: Yes exactly. And so if you can prevent it in the first place from developing, that's game-changing.
WZ: Yeah, and we've seen a rise in allergies and asthma in kids, right?
BT: Yes, and that's what she pointed out too, is that, like, in a lot of countries, these numbers are going up.[22][23] So this all is connected to raw milk because a couple of decades ago, we started getting studies relating to asthma and allergies in this particular group, kids who live on farms.
WZ: Mm-hmm.
BT: So what these studies would do is that a lot of times there were these big surveys coming out of Europe, and they would look at thousands of kids, comparing the health of the farm kids, medical conditions they had, to kids who didn't live on the farm.[24] And what they found was ...
CS: Really striking epidemiologic evidence that, uh, the children, the growing up on farms are really protected from developing allergic diseases. Some people say the farm effect.[25]
BT: One study out of Austria found that about 1% of the farm kids had asthma compared to about 4% of kids who didn't live on the farm.
WZ: Hmm.
BT: You know, a study out of Germany found that just over 3% of the farm kids had asthma compared to more than 6% of non-farm kids.[26]
WZ Yeah.
BT It's more than allergies and asthma. It's like skin conditions, stuff like eczema,[27] these histamine things. Yeah. And Christine told me this finding, it's been borne out in the US as well.[28][29][30]
WZ: I feel like this story of kids on farms having low allergies, it sort of, I, I feel like the science has known this for a while, but it's had in the past been attributed to the hygiene hypothesis[31] and that maybe these kids on farms are, uh, exposed to more dirt, and that's really good for them and lowering their risk of getting these illnesses, is now the thought moving maybe it's because they're drinking raw milk?
BT: You have entered the ring on this debate, Wendy.
WZ: So do you wanna walk me through, so with the hygiene hypothesis, let's bing, bing, bing, bing, bing. So, uh, okay, so what, what is the up-to-date thinking on that?
BT: The up-to-date thinking is that yes, like these exposures to things on the farm to like dust, to dander, all of these things, um, that challenge your immune system at a really young age and sort of teach your immune system, like what's out in the world, and basically strengthens it so that like when it encounters that stuff later you don't have a big allergic reaction to it.[32] The idea is still that that's important. But at the same time, some scientists have also looked closer and started to think that maybe also the milk that these farm kids are drinking is at play.[33]
WZ: Okay.
BT: Some of these, uh, particularly some of these researchers out of Europe started thinking this because they looked at these, they did these big observational studies of a lot of kids.[34][35][36][37]
BT: And they tried to look at kids who were in some cases not living on the farm, but who were drinking raw milk, and they tried to control for some of those other exposures on the farm. And they have started to say, We think that there is something going on with the milk. Like, we don't, we think that the hygiene hypothesis is part of this, but we also think that the milk is at play.[38]
WZ: This will just show my ignorance. Living on a farm, growing up on a farm, these kids are drinking raw milk? I feel like we're making some assumptions here. I'm guessing the researchers actually asked these families?
BT: Wendy, you're such a good student of the challenges of this research. How did you know?
WZ: Wait, is this an actual question?
BT: Yeah, so it’s not always clear that what these kids are drinking on the farm IS strictly raw milk - because sometimes even if kids are drinking milk from the farm, it’s getting boiled or treated some kind of way - and the studies don’t always check for that.[39]
And then on top of that, some of these studies coming out of Europe are comparing this farm milk … to milk that’s gone way BEYOND sort of standard pasteurization … so this is stuff that has been heated up to a way higher temperature[40] … and that kind of milk is more common in Europe,[41] it’s the milk you don’t have to put in the fridge … like the shelf stable stuff
WZ: Oh, like the crap you get on a plane. The, or, or the-
BT: Right, like sterilized-
WZ: That's sitting in a hotel room in a little box, that sort of stuff.
BT: Exactly, that can just sit on the shelf for three months or whatever without being refrigerated.
WZ: Oh, so you compare it to that, which is seriously processed milk.[42]
BT: Exactly. And so online this is what a lot of people seem to get wrong about these studies … they're assuming that farm milk is raw milk ... but if you actually read the nitty gritty papers, you see sometimes that's not true … and sometimes what they’re looking at is something ELSE, Wendy … called “minimally processed milk”[43] … you want to know what that is?
WZ Yeah, minimally processed milk, what is that?
BT So that is PASTEURIZED MILK
WZ … That's that Science Vs touch, Blythe, getting into the papers, working out what all the definitions are …
BT: That’s right, we love a definition
WZ: That’s why we’re here
BT: And so I will say despite all that, scientists like Christine, they're not, like, driving a nail through the coffin of this claim that raw milk might do something to help reduce allergies …
WZ: Mm-hmm. Mm, so when she looks at all this complexity, she's like, "I'm not crying over spilt milk."
BT: Correct. Christine is not-
WZ: She does not think the science is spoiled??
BT: She doesn’t think we should be lapping up the science out of Europe and using it to bolster claims that raw milk is good for you.
WZ: But she doesn't think we're ready for a milk shake-up. And that we- Ooh ... should all be drinking raw milk right now.
BT: She does not think that.
WZ: So we've done our puns. What do, where do we go from here then?
BT: Well, I'm not gonna leave you with just that.
WZ: Okay.
BT: Okay. Because
WZ: It would behoove you to tell me more
BT Because Christine- ... to tell
WZ: me more.
BT: Um, I c- Yeah.
WZ: Sorry, sorry, sorry.
BT: I can squeeze out a few more drops of science. Uh, just okay. Okay. Um-
WZ: We've really milked this for all it's worth.
BT: Oh my God. I'm gonna put my dipper back into the pail, Wendy. And pull out more science for you. Okay. So Christine actually was part of a study that I did think does some work here to help us parse out how big of a deal raw milk might be.
Like, if there's a signal, how much might that matter compared to, like, the other stuff people are exposed to on the farm, right? And so Christine is based in Wisconsin, and she works with a lot of pe- she, she studies a lot of different families who live on farms. And what she did is some research into these two particular groups in the US, the Amish[44] and the Old Order Mennonites.[45] Are you familiar?
WZ: Um, yeah, I've been to Pennsylvania. Intercourse, big Amish community there. My parents laughed a lot at the name. I didn't understand what was funny. I do now. Um, tell me more.
BT: So yes, so the Amish and the Old Order Mennonites are similar in a lot of ways.[46][47] They often have big families. They live these, like, sort of more traditional farming lifestyles, not big on technology a lot of the time.
WZ: Yeah.
BT: And they tend to drink raw milk.[48]
WZ: Okay, great.
BT: And-
WZ: Raw milk
BT: ... farm from the farm.
WZ: Yes,
BT: great. Raw milk.
WZ: Perfect.
BT: Yes.
WZ: Yes.
BT: Um, but they, but these two groups are different in one important way. So the Amish often don't use any electricity at all. And the Mennonites, some of them do have electricity, so then tend to sometimes use mechanized processes for things …
WZ: Mm-hmm.
BT: So Christine's team, what they did is that they surveyed a bunch of families in these two groups. They looked at the rates of asthma, the rates of allergy, and they found-
CS: The Amish community is, like, super protected. Like, they had decreased, um, allergic diseases across the board compared to the Old Order Mennonites[49]
BT: This might suggest that what matters here is that they're doing all this stuff by hand with the animals.[50]
WZ: Mm.
BT: So the animal contact is what's important. So what you see in like an Amish family, and I'm speaking generally here, right, is that people are in the barn, you know? Um, they're like one-on-one, they're milking the cows by hand. They're in the cow shed.
WZ: Mm. It's not about drinking the raw milk, it's about s- all that time with the animals.
BT: That is a suggestion, that the time with the animals could be more important.
WZ: Mm. Which is back to the hygiene hypothesis. That bing, bing, bing.
BT: Exactly.
WZ: Hygiene hypothesis.
BT: Bing, bing, bing. Yes. Mm. Yes. Another scientist told me that in Amish households, a lot of times it's the women who are doing the milking, so they're in the barns a lot, including when they're pregnant, maybe including when they have really small babies.
WZ: Mm.
BT: You know? And if the kids are involved. And so there's like just a lot of exposure one-on-one with animals, that if you have like a mechanical milking setup or like a more mechanized farm, you're on the tractors, all this stuff, you're just like not up in it with the animals nearly as much.
WZ: Got it
BT: And the thinking is that that might be, we don't know for sure, but that might be the bigger difference-maker here.
WZ: Mm-hmm.
BT: So like even away from the Amish and the Mennonites, just sort of bigger picture. You know, Christine's- Yeah ... group, they study a lot of farming families in Wisconsin, and they will ask them-
CS: You know, is the child going into the barn? And at, and at, and if so, at what age? I mean, that makes a difference. And getting exposed to that, that barn environment and the stable, like that is another protective signal.
BT: At what age is it most beneficial for the kid to be in the barn?
CS: Yeah, I mean, it's a good question — the data, the, from the epidemiologic studies, uh, strongly suggests that this needs to happen early in life. In, and the European studies have suggested that, um, even begins in utero.
WZ: Aha. So actually what we need to be doing is, is taking our kids to the farm, or going to farms when pregnant to reduce the risk of allergies and asthma. That's where we're at?
BT: Yeah, which is sort of a little bit of an an- annoying answer, right? Like, because not everybody has access to that kind of thing, but the other thing Christine told me is that like get a pet, get a dog.[51] Like, that also is a good way for your kid to have, be exposed to, um, to this type of stuff early in life.
WZ: So where we're at with the research at the moment, this raw milk In front of me, uh, not packed with good bacteria and probably not gonna be the thing to help me with my allergies or reduce your kids' chance of having eczema, allergies, and asthma in the future. Is that where we're at?
BT: I think that’s right. It’s possible there’s some kind of link with allergies and asthma, not really a slam dunk. Okay... How are you feeling about the idea of taking a big old gulp of that?
WZ: I mean, less interested than when we started, I've gotta say. But I'm also less worried about it because John said there's probably not that many bad bugs in here. But is that-
BT: Aha.
WZ: Ah. Ah.
BT: Ah. Ah. I'm, I'm gonna have to stop you right there. Oh,
WZ: okay.
BT: Let's talk about that. After the
WZ: break. After the break.
BREAK
All right, welcome back. I'm here with Blythe. We are suckling at the teat of raw milk research.
BT: Absolutely. Yes, we are.
Chapter 5: What are the risks of drinking raw milk?
WZ: Okay. So now we are on to the risks. How dangerous is this glass of milk in front of me? 'Cause I am getting thirsty, Blythe.
BT: Oh, no. My time is running out.
WZ: I'm parched. I'm parched.
BT: Right. Okay. Let me tell you. Even though - like John said, milk doesn't start out with a bunch of bugs in it... if the cow is healthy … of course, sometimes the cow is NOT healthy, and gnarly stuff can get into the milk that way ... astute listeners of the show … will remember from our bird flu episode - that cows can get bird flu - and it can get into their milk!!
WZ: Yes, that’s right!
BT But! even if the cow is healthy ... you have something else to worry about ... Cos this other big concern is that even if the milk comes out OK, it can get contaminated after … bugs can get in… because cows are on farms, and the milk comes out of their udders, which are just kinda like f- flopping around under their bodies, you know?
WZ: Mm-hmm. It's also somewhat close to their butt hole, right? I guess.
BT: Yes, near the poop chute.
WZ: Yes.
BT: So they can come into contact with all sorts of stuff, and I dug into this with John Lucey, who's the first scientist that we heard from.
JL: You know, I grew up on a farm. We do the best we can, but you try and keep it as clean as you can, but to s- think that the ground or the soil or the bedding that the animal is laying down in is sterile is just fantasy. And, and the problem is that dairy farms are just not a sterile environment.
BT: Right. You can't... The cow's not in a bubble.
JL: The cow's not in a bubble. The soil is not in a bubble. The feed is not in a bubble.
WZ: That's fascinating. So the... So it comes out, let's say, close to sterile, but as soon as it's out, then it's exposed to all of these other things, and that's stuff that can then infect the milk. That tends to be the bad bacteria. Is that right?
BT: Yes, exactly. Like, that's what we, that's what we see. It's a dir- it's a dirty environment because there's dirt, you know? And actually, one thing that John told me that was also kind of interesting is that- If this bacteria gets on the teat of the cow somehow, sometimes it just, like, hangs out there
JL: We all see these hospital shows, and we see the doctor about to go into the surgery, and he's washing his hands.
And it's not a five-second job. Like, it's scrubbing of the hands, scrubbing, scrubbing, scrubbing. Why? Because on the hands there can be bacteria, and it can form als- actually biofilms on the hands and in the environment, and that means it's harder to remove than just a simple little wash off.
Ah. The same can be true on the outside of these, uh, udder of the teats that the cow has. There can actually be permanent bacteria living on the outside of it that are very hard to remove. And remember, this is a sensitive area for the cow too, so you can't spend five minutes like the doctor scrubbing.
BT: And the things we're worried about here are stuff like Salmonella, E. Coli, this thing called campylobacter[52] … and in particular I want to zoom in on one bacteria - Listeria….[53]
WZ: Mm-hmm.
BT: There’s a bunch of different types of Listeria, but one of them in particular can make us pretty sick … And it can cause gross stuff like diarrhea and nausea, but it's actually particularly dangerous to people with compromised immune systems, and if you're pregnant, it can kill the baby.[54] And Listeria is kind of all over the farm. You can find it in the soil, and you can find it in the cows a lot of the time, at least in their crap. Here is John again.
JL: I'll give you just an example. One of my colleagues here at the University of Wisconsin did a study of a farm here in Wisconsin, and she a- literally went out and sampled poop from these animals and cows. Mm-hmm. 90% of the animals were carrying Listeria monocytogenes.[55]
WZ: So that's in their poo, though. So then the question is, how often is that listeria or are any of these scary bugs going from the farm to the milk, right?
BT: Right ...
WZ: that's the question.
BT: That is the question. Yeah, yeah. That is the question. How mu- how often is this grotty stuff actually getting into the milk?[56]
WZ: Yes, yes.
BT: And so one way that scientists try to figure this out is that they look at the milk at the dairy, because it comes out of the cows, it all gets collected up before it gets pasteurized.
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm,
WZ: mm-hmm.
BT: Right? Yeah. And what happens is it gets collected in this big tank called a bulk tank.
WZ: Okay.
BT: And scientists, what, what they'll do is they'll take samples from a bunch of tanks, and they'll actually analyze them to see what's in there
JL: Uh, I would say, you know, if you look at the percentage of the different pathogens, sometimes you see 5% of them are contaminated with listeria- 5% are contaminated, roughly. I'm giving broad, uh, ranges,[57] with Campylobacter, E. coli, et cetera.
WZ GASP
BT Yeah - so we see that about 1 in 20 samples could have one nasty bacteria inside them...
But if you amalgamate all of them and you ask a slightly different question, "John, how many bulk tanks in many of these surveys have at least one pathogen?"
BT: Mm-hmm.
JL: Sometimes it's as high as 20 to 30% have one pathogen present in the bulk
WZ: Whoa, there's no way I'm drinking that.
BT: You don't like those odds?
WZ: No way. G- at the upper estimate of 30% in the bulk tanks?
BT: Yeah.
WZ: Whoa. And why would you give that to your pet?
BT: Or your kid, Wendy.
WZ: Right.
BT: So I mean, the bottom line is, like, it's pretty, uh, common to find creepy stuff in the milk. Like John talked about those numbers. I did f- I found a study out of the UK that looked at raw milk that was actually for sale, and it found that 40% of the samples they looked at had some kind of problem with a risky pathogen.[62]
WZ: But then 40... Right. But then not everyone who will then drink these microbes in their raw milk will then get sick, right? Some of them, their immune system will deal with it. So how often are people getting sick from drinking raw milk?
BT: Yeah, it's a great question. I mean, look, some people drink raw milk and are totally fine - it’s not like they’re drinking arsenic, right? But there have definitely been some disease outbreaks.
So, like, one CDC study looked at, uh, this 20-year period and found more than 200 outbreaks tied to raw milk in the US … getting about 2600 people sick … [63] Just this year there have been a couple of outbreaks in the headlines - there was an E. coli outbreak that was linked to this raw cheese …[64] and in Idaho, almost SIXTY people got sick from raw milk … a bunch of them from campylobacter[65] … and look - when you look at the RAW NUMBERS, WENDY!!! People are more likely to get sick from other foods, seafood,[66] stuff like spinach[67]… that is true – but with raw milk … what freaks out scientists like John … is that a lot of the time with these outbreaks, the people who get sick are kids.[68]
JL: Children end up, uh, being the most largest percentage of, of hospitalizations for raw milk outbreaks. They don't have a choice. They don't know anything. They've been f- mom and dad are feeding it to their kids. Those, those are the ones that I, I get most concerned about. And, and depending on which study you take, sometimes it's like a quarte or more are sometimes under the age of three and five years old. Like, people are thinking, "Oh, I gotta expose my kids” … to pathogens?? Are you serious? They could end up in hospital! That's the problem.
BT And earlier this year, this is actually how raw milk kind of got on my radar, because there was a listeria case. So this woman in New Mexico apparently drank raw milk during her pregnancy, and she lost her baby.[69]
WZ: Because of a listeria infection. She had a listeria infection.
BT: Yeah.
WZ: Oh, God.
BT: So, like, not common from what we can tell,[70] but these outbreaks, when they happen, people can die.
WZ: I mean, this is exactly why it's so devastating, right? I mean, I don't know what was happening for this woman during her pregnancy, but more broadly, you see these trends and these influencers and people saying, "Damn the establishment. What do they know? Raw milk is the answer. Pasteurization is a farce." And then this is the ultimate conclusion. Of course it is. Then people thinking, "Oh, I've got to be drinking raw milk to help my unborn child and reduce the chance of them getting allergies," and then they're missing the bigger picture that is listeria …
BT: Right. And the stakes are just really high if, because it's not common for those horrible, horrible things to happen, but when they do-
WZ: It's awful
BT: they're awful. Yeah. Yeah.
WZ: I just wanna, just, just, just wanna spill that milk right in front of me, but there’s carpet, I don't, I don't wanna have to clean that.
BT: Heh
WZ: So I mean, that's really feeling like this raw milk. It, it, this raw milk's not coming back from that, uh, right?
BT: No, I don't think so. And I mean, to be, you know, like to say some raw milk producers, of course, they'll say, like, "Listen, we try to avoid this. We try to keep things clean. We try to test for bacteria."[71] And there ARE instances where stuff sneaks into pasteurized milk, and makes you sick … but one study found that when people were getting sick from contaminated dairy … 96 PERCENT of the time[72] - it was the raw stuff …
WZ: WOW OK. Yeahhh … 96% of the time!
BT: Which is why … we pasteurize it! Pasteurization works really well to kill all the stuff that we're talking about.
WZ: You heard it first in 2026.
BT: 100 plus years later.
WZ: Pasteurization works really well.
BT: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, listen, John was like, "It's good that we've been doing it so long," you know? Like, it's allowed us to, like, test it and refine it and figure out systems for it, figure out how to do it at scale.
JL: And all of that has been put in place over 100 years to show that pasteurized milk is one of the safest food products on the planet.
BT: So I asked him ...
BT: Is, is, is there a way to have safe raw milk? You're shaking your head.
JL: No, no. Um, it's, it's a foolish and risky thing to do
WZ: I don't wanna be called foolish by John …
BT: Yeah. So what are you gonna do with that milk?
WZ: I mean, there's this annoying neighborhood cat.
BT: Wendy, no.
WZ: That might be thirsty and pisses on my security gate
BT: if you even... Don't do it.
WZ: It says for pets. Pet milk only!
BT: Oh my God, Wendy. Throw it out. Put it down the drain.
WZ: Tell us in the comments, what should I do with the raw milk?
BT: Oh my God. Yeah, I, I think they'll tell you exactly where you can put it, Wendy.
WZ: That's Science Vs. … I'm not gonna give it to the cat. Don't call PETA.
BT: I know you would never.
WZ: Don't. put down the phone. Don't call PETA. It's fine. Um, how many citations are in this week's episode, Blythe?
BT: There are 72 citations in this week's episode.
WZ: And if people want to see them, where should they go?
BT: They can find a link to our transcript in our show notes.
WZ: Thank you, Blythe. Like I mentioned, we just started a YouTube channel. You can come and find us, ScienceVSPodcast. That's where we are. There's a gonna be a link in the show notes. While you're looking at the transcript, you can click on it, come find us there, see some of our video episodes.
And Blythe, as I said we're taking a short break.
BT: Yeah, just a few weeks. We'll be back.
WZ: In a, in a few weeks. All right. Bye.
BT: Bye.
This episode was produced by Blythe Terrell, with help from Ekedi Fausther-Keeys, Meryl Horn, Rose Rimler, Michelle Dang and Wendy Zukerman. We’re edited by Blythe Terrell. Wendy Zukerman is our executive producer. Fact checking by Diane Kelly. Research help from Erica Akiko Howard. Mix and sound design by Bobby Lord. Music written by Bumi Hidaka, Peter Leonard, Emma Munger and Bobby Lord. Thanks to the researchers we spoke to for this episode, including Professor Markus Ege, thanks so much for your time. Thanks to Elsevier for sharing your raw milk book.
Thanks to Elsevier for sharing your raw milk book with us. Thanks to the Zukerman family, Joseph Lavelle Wilson, and Jack Weinstein. I'm Wendy Zukerman. Fact you next time.
[1] https://www.instagram.com/reels/CrWJTldJQx0/ RFK: “Since I was here last year, I only drank raw milk”
[2] May 30, 2025 This week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr…. recorded an interview with wellness influencer Paul Saladino, which culminated in the two doing raw-milk shooters in the White House. On Wednesday, Saladino — who goes by the moniker Carnivore MD — posted a teaser for the upcoming episode, in which a cameraman presents Kennedy with shots of raw milk mixed with glyphosate-free honey. “I strongly believe diet is the biggest lever you can pull to heal and improve your health,” Saladino wrote in the caption for the clip, which shows him and the secretary for Health and Human Services chugging a product that the CDC warns “can expose people to germs such as Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Listeria, Brucella, and Salmonella.”
[3] https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/11/2193
https://jcea.agr.hr/en/issues/article/2277
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002203021400246X
[4] Raw milk is milk that has not undergone a pasteurisation process to kill any bacteria that might be present. It is illegal to sell raw milk for human consumption in Australia.
[5] State legislators have introduced more than 40 bills so far in 2026 to make raw, unpasteurized milk and cheeses available, according to the Associated Press. It’s illegal to sell raw milk across state lines, but legislatures can control access within their states.
[6] https://pluralpolicy.com/app/tagged-bills/49730?page=1
More than three dozen bills supporting raw milk have been introduced in statehouses across the nation, The Associated Press found. A growing number of states are making it legal to sell. Dairy farmers say they can barely keep it in stock, even though prices can exceed $10 or $20 a gallon.
[7] Pasteurization is a process, named after scientist Louis Pasteur, that applies heat to destroy pathogens in foods. For the dairy industry, the terms "pasteurization," "pasteurized" and similar terms mean the process of heating every particle of milk or milk product, in properly designed and operated equipment, to one of the temperatures given in the following chart and held continuously at or above that temperature for at least the corresponding specified time:
Temperature Time Pasteurization Type
63ºC (145ºF)* 30 minutes Vat Pasteurization
72ºC (161ºF)* 15 seconds High temperature short time Pasteurization (HTST)
89ºC (191ºF) 1.0 second Higher-Heat Shorter Time (HHST)
138ºC (280ºF) 2.0 seconds Ultra Pasteurization (UP)
[8] These time-temperature combinations are designed to destroy all human pathogens, and the most common pasteurization treatment is rapidly heating milk to not less than 72°C and holding that temperature for at least 15 seconds.
[9] In 1924, the US Public Health Service developed a regulation known as the Standard Milk Ordinance for voluntary adoption by state and local agencies; this is now called the Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO).
[10] Historically, TB outbreaks were closely linked to milk consumption, particularly in Europe and North America during the 19th and early 20th centuries, when bovine TB was rampant and milk pasteurization was not yet widely practiced. Children, who were often the primary consumers of milk, were disproportionately affected due to their developing immune systems. The introduction of pasteurization and livestock vaccination programs in the 20th century significantly reduced the incidence of zoonotic TB in developed countries (Yang et al. 2024).
[11] Recipe for a Healthy Gut: Intake of Unpasteurised Milk Is Associated with Increased Lactobacillus Abundance in the Human Gut Microbiome: We found that the main change in terms of microbiome composition was a dramatic increase in the participants’ Lactobacilli between pre-course and post-course faecal samples. This increase was strongly associated with the participants’ intake of unpasteurised milk and dairy products. (but note: n = 24)
[13] The bovine milk microbiome – an evolving science: In contrast to mucosal organs that contain rich and well-characterized culturable and non-culturable microbial communities, milk obtained from the healthy bovine mammary gland usually contains few or no viable bacteria. The low bacterial biomass of milk has created methodological challenges that have resulted in considerable variability in results of studies that have used genomic methods to define the microbiota of milk obtained from healthy or diseased mammary glands. While genomes from several bacterial genera are routinely identified from samples of milk, teat skin and the teat canal, the viability, origin, and function of these organisms is uncertain as environmental factors have been shown to strongly influence the composition of these bacterial populations. Possible sources of microbial DNA include bacteria introduced from skin or the environment, bacteria trapped in teat canal keratin or bacteria engulfed by phagocytes.
[14] In recent years, the concept of sterility of milk has been challenged by researchers using diagnostic methods based on molecular techniques that amplify microbial DNA. While research using culture-independent methods has identified nucleotide sequences from a number of microorganisms in bovine milk samples, to date, researchers have not demonstrated that many of these organisms are viable and the sequences may be debris resulting from phagocytosis or other immunological mechanisms. Unless viability is demonstrated, the technical definition of “sterility” remains an appropriate expectation for aseptically collected bovine milk from a healthy mammary gland.
[15] From the Encyclopedia of Human Nutrition (2015): Milk and dairy products: Fermented milks: They belong to the group of probiotic foods, i.e. those that contain live microorganisms that, when ingested in sufficient quantity, can exert beneficial effects on health by favoring the balance and maintenance of the intestinal microbiota. The bacterial groups most commonly used as probiotics are lactobacilli and bifidobacteria. Yogurt is, in its different presentations, the best-known fermented milk. It is made from pasteurized milk and milk fractions inoculated with a mixture of microorganisms, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus, which are responsible for the metabolic transformations of carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids, leading to the development of its characteristic flavor, aroma, and texture.
[16] The concentration of probiotics needed to obtain a clinical effect is often quoted as≥106 cfu/ml in the small bowel and≥108 cfu/g in the colon. The dose for treatment of an acute illness by a particular probiotic agent may be lower or higher, in the order of 10-fold or 100-fold or more in terms of colony forming units (cfu).
[17] CDC (2016): Asthma is the most common chronic lung disease of childhood, affecting approximately 6 million children in the United States. Although asthma cannot be cured, most of the time, asthma symptoms can be controlled by avoiding or reducing exposure to asthma triggers (allergens and irritants) and by following recommendations for asthma education and appropriate medical care.
[18] CDC (2024): Current Asthma Prevalence (2023):Children (Age <18 years) 6.7% as of 2023
[20] Dr. Christine Seroogy is tenured professor in the Division of Allergy, Immunology, and Rheumatology and the E. Richard Stiehm Endowed Chair in Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Rheumatology. She also serves as assistant medical director of the clinical research unit supported by the Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR). Seroogy has co-led the NIH-funded Wisconsin Infant Study Cohort (WISC) since its inception in 2013.
[22] Several countries here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/asthma-prevalence?tab=line&time=earliest..2023&country=USA~NZL~AUS~CAN~GBR~NLD~JPN
https://www.termedia.pl/The-increase-in-allergic-conditions-based-on-a-review-r-nof-literature,7,47697,0,1.html The global interest in allergic disease epidemiology in the 20th and 21st centuries is a result of their growing prevalence of unprecedented, pandemic proportions. According to the 2011 White Book on Allergy, the prevalence of allergic conditions rises dramatically worldwide, both in developed and developing countries, with the rates of asthma ranging from 1% to 20%, allergic rhinitis from 1% to 18%, and skin allergies from 2% to 10% in various populations. The growing prevalence of allergies is particularly noticeable in children, who have been affected most by this trend for the last two decades.
Over the past 60 years, there has been a temporal trend of increasing asthma prevalence in first-world countries, in large part due to the urbanization of infrastructure.
[23] One of the first survey-based epidemiological studies was conducted in 9,000 families in the United States in the period 1928–1931. The resulting analyses showed 0.5% of children aged 5–9 years to suffer from bronchial asthma. Subsequent studies, conducted in the period from 1976 to 1980, demonstrated an increased prevalence of asthma in children and adolescents aged 3–17 years. Asthmatic symptoms were reported in 9.5% of children among a total of 7,300 respondents. Fourteen years later, 15.9% of children aged 5–17 years had been diagnosed with bronchial asthma [7]. In comparison with the 1983 data, the prevalence of asthma had increased by 6.7% in this population [8]. By the beginning of the 21st century, the total number of bronchial asthma patients in the United States had increased by 60% in comparison with the data from the early 1980s [9]. Meanwhile, the rates of allergic rhinitis ranged from 9% to 42% in the study population [10]. The current incidence is very high in the population of under-18-year-olds, 41% of whom suffer from asthma, 11.6% from atopic dermatitis, 10% from allergic rhinitis, 8.4% from hay fever, and 5.4% from food allergies [11].
[24] For doctor-diagnosed asthma and current wheeze, the combined estimate around 0.75 indicates a 25% reduction of odds of disease for children exposed to farming environments compared with the unexposed. Because the prevalence of asthma and wheeze was below 20% in the majority of studies, this translates into an approximately 25% lower prevalence of childhood disease among those exposed to farming in childhood compared with the unexposed
[25] The farm effect, or: when, what and how a farming environment protects from asthma and allergic disease” Multiple studies have shown that the prevalence of asthma and atopy is reduced in children raised on traditional dairy farms.
[26] Epidemiological studies have shown protective effect of traditional farming on the prevalence and incidence of asthma in childhood. There are several studies that have looked at the effect of farming (exposures) with the risk of asthma (8). The study from Riedler et al. conducted in rural area in Austria (with a high proportion of farmers) observed a low prevalence in the farm children compared to the nonfarm children (1.1% vs. 3.9%) (9). In the study from von Ehrenstein et al. conducted in two rural Bavarian districts in Germany showed similar low prevalence of the doctor diagnosed asthma in the farm children (3.4%) compared to nonfarm children (6.4%) (10). Perkin and Strachan compared rural nonfarming and farmers' children and showed that farmer’s children when compared to the rural nonfarm children had significantly less current asthma symptoms (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.67 (0.49-0.91)
[27] Allergic rhinitis and eczema displayed a continuous increase throughout the study period, whereas the rise in asthma mainly occurred in conscripts born after 1961. Farming environments and rural living already provided protection from allergic rhinitis in conscripts born during the 1950s, but the protective effect was greater in later cohorts. An inverse association was observed between farm living and asthma, but mainly in conscripts born after 1970. The adjusted risk ratios for asthma in conscripts from farming vs. non-farming families were 1.00 (95% CI 0.93–1.07), 0.94 (95% CI 0.88–1.01) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.79–0.91) in conscripts born in 1952–1961, 1962–1971 and 1972–1981, respectively.
[28] By the end of the first year of life, the prevalence of food allergy and atopic dermatitis were higher in ROC infants compared to the rates observed in OOM infants as was the number of infants sensitized to foods.
[29] Infants in Wisconsin farm families had reduced AD incidence, and patterns of farm exposures further defined AD risk.
[30] Our study confirmed previous findings that living on a farm at an early age may be protective against eczema and allergic rhinitis. In addition, Wisconsin farm children had a lower incidence of early life severe respiratory illnesses, as defined by parental recall or by the medical record.
[31] The hygiene hypothesis postulates that an environment with a high incidence of infectious diseases protects against allergic and autoimmune diseases, whereas hygienic surroundings increase the incidence of these disorders. This review examines the evidence in support of the hygiene hypothesis and offers a number of mechanisms that could explain the relation between sanitary conditions and susceptibility to allergic and autoimmune diseases.
[32] Changes of lifestyle in industrialized countries have led to a decrease of the infectious burden and are associated with the rise of allergic and autoimmune diseases, according to the ‘hygiene hypothesis’. The hypothesis was first proposed by Strachan, who observed an inverse correlation between hay fever and the number of older siblings when following more than 17 000 British children born in 1958 [1]. The original contribution of our group to the field was to propose for the first time that it was possible to extend the hypothesis from the field of allergy, where it was formulated, to that of autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes (T1D) or multiple sclerosis (MS) [2]. The leading idea is that some infectious agents – notably those that co-evolved with us – are able to protect against a large spectrum of immune-related disorders.
[33] Regular contact with animal stables before the age of 3 years (odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval): 2.0 [1.0; 4.0]) and unpasteurized milk consumption at age 6 years (1.8 [1.0; 3.3]) were the strongest risk factors for T. gondii infection. None of the farming-related factors were significantly associated with H. pylori infection. Current consumption of raw farm milk was not significantly associated with H. pylori infection (2.1 [0.8; 5.3]). Regular contact with animal houses before the age of 7 years was the strongest predictor for atopy (0.49 [0.26-0.96]). The reduction in risk could not be further decreased by any other factor under consideration. After adjustment for animal house contact, the OR for atopy was decreased by raw milk consumption and H. pylori infection in an additive manner.
[34] Farm milk consumption ever in life showed a statistically significant inverse association with asthma: covariate adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.88], rhinoconjunctivitis: aOR 0.56 (0.43-0.73) and sensitization to pollen and the food mix fx5 (cut-off level of >or=3.5 kU/L): aOR 0.67 (0.47-0.96) and aOR 0.42 (0.19-0.92), respectively, and sensitization to horse dander: aOR 0.50 (95% CI 0.28-0.87). The associations were observed in all four subpopulations and independent of farm-related co-exposures. Other farm-produced products were not independently related to any allergy-related health outcome. (14,893 children aged 5-13 years from five European countries)
[35] PASTURE study: Farm children had half the risk of hay fever at 10.5 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.79) than that of nonfarm children. Whereas early life events such as gut microbiome richness at 12 months (aOR 0.66; 95% CI 0.46-0.96) and exposure to animal sheds in the first 3 years of life (aOR 0.26; 95% CI 0.06-1.15) were determinants of hay fever, the continuous consumption of farm milk from infancy up to school age was necessary to exert the protective effect (aOR 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.72). At 10.5-year follow-up, 778 children participated in the PASTURE study and 769 have data on hay fever.
[36] In rural regions of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, a comprehensive questionnaire about farm milk consumption and other farm-related exposures was completed by parents of 8334 school-aged children, and 7606 of them provided serum samples to assess specific IgE levels.Three strata were defined as follows: (1) farm children (ie, children living on a farm run by the family); (2) exposed nonfarm children (ie, children not living on a farm but regularly exposed to stables, barns, or cow's milk produced on a farm); and (3) nonexposed nonfarm children. Reported raw milk consumption was inversely associated to asthma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.74), atopy (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90), and hay fever (aOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.69) independent of other farm exposures. Boiled farm milk did not show a protective effect. Total viable bacterial counts and total fat content of milk were not significantly related to asthma or atopy. Increased levels of the whey proteins BSA (aOR for highest vs lowest levels and asthma, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.97), α-lactalbumin (aOR for interquartile range and asthma, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97), and β-lactoglobulin (aOR for interquartile range and asthma, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97), however, were inversely associated with asthma but not with atopy. The findings suggest that the protective effect of raw milk consumption on asthma might be associated with the whey protein fraction of milk.
[37] Exposure of children younger than 1 year, compared with those aged 1-5 years, to stables and consumption of farm milk was associated with lower frequencies of asthma (1% [3/218] vs 11% [15/138]), hay fever (3% [7] vs 13% [18]), and atopic sensitisation (12% [27] vs 29% [40]). Protection against development of asthma was independent from effect on atopic sensitisation. Continual long-term exposure to stables until age 5 years was associated with the lowest frequencies of asthma (0.8% [1/122]), hay fever (0.8% [1]), and atopic sensitisation (8.2% [10]).
[38] A meta-analysis corroborated the protective effect of raw milk consumption early in life (<1 to 5 years, according to study) on asthma (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.69), current wheeze (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78), hay fever or allergic rhinitis (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.82), and atopic sensitization (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95). The effect particularly on asthma was observed not only in children raised on farms (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.82) but also in children living in rural areas but not on a farm (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48-0.74). This demonstrates that the effect of farm milk consumption is independent of other farm exposures and that children not living on a farm can theoretically profit from this effect. Because of the minimal but real risk of life-threatening infections, however, consumption of raw milk and products thereof is strongly discouraged.
[39] From the FDA: The PARSIFAL study found an inverse association of farm milk consumption, not raw milk consumption, with asthma and allergy. The authors of the PARSIFAL study clearly indicated in the paper that the “present study does not allow evaluating the effect of pasteurized vs. raw milk consumption because no objective confirmation of the raw milk status of the farm milk samples was available.” In fact, in the study, about half of the farm milk was boiled (Waser et al., 2007). The authors of the PARSIFAL study concluded that “raw milk may contain pathogens such as salmonella or EHEC, and its consumption may therefore imply serious health risks… At this stage, consumption of raw farm milk cannot be recommended as a preventive measure.” (Waser et al., 2007)
[40] UHT treatment involves heating to temperatures at 135–150 °C for a few seconds, which not only destroys the potentially pathogenic microorganisms but also most of the thermoresistant spores (Burton, 1994, Kessler, 2002). UHT treatment leads to products with a shelf-life from six months up to a year when stored at ambient conditions.
[41] https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/ultra-high-temperature-milk-market The global ultra high temperature milk market size was estimated at USD 83,002.5 million in 2 024 and is projected to reach USD 140,633.1 million by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 9.3% from 2025 to 2030. Ultra-high temperature (UHT) milk is used as a sterilized milk by heating raw milk above 135 degrees Celsius to kill germs and spores present in the milk. The process preserves essential nutrients and vitamins, making it essential for human consumption.
In terms of region, Europe was the largest revenue generating market in 2024.
Country-wise, UK is expected to register the highest CAGR from 2025 to 2030.
[42] When contrasted with ultra-heat treated milk, raw milk consumption was inversely associated with occurrence of rhinitis (adjusted odds ratio from longitudinal models [95% CI]: 0.71 [0.54-0.94]), respiratory tract infections (0.77 [0.59-0.99]), otitis (0.14 [0.05-0.42]), and fever (0.69 [0.47-1.01]). Boiled farm milk showed similar but weaker associations. Industrially processed pasteurized milk was inversely associated with fever. Raw farm milk consumption was inversely associated with C-reactive protein levels at 12 months (geometric means ratio [95% CI]: 0.66 [0.45-0.98]).
Early life consumption of raw cow's milk reduced the risk of manifest respiratory infections and fever by about 30%. If the health hazards of raw milk could be overcome, the public health impact of minimally processed but pathogen-free milk might be enormous, given the high prevalence of respiratory infections in the first year of life and the associated direct and indirect costs.
[43] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pai.14251 MARTHA Trial looking at “minimally processed” milk — e.g., pasteurized
One example — Malone Substack advocating for raw milk seems to conflate these two: https://www.abovo.co/rwmalonemd@substack.com/141957 Research consistently shows that children who consume raw or minimally processed cow’s milk early in life tend to have lower rates of asthma, wheeze, allergic rhinitis, colitis, and atopic sensitization, especially among farm communities.
[44] The Amish are a Christian church that traces its roots to the Protestant Reformation in sixteenth-century Europe. Amish people accept basic Christian beliefs but also have some special interpretations and emphases that have emerged throughout their history.
[45] Old Order (Wisler horse and buggy) Mennonites are found in five major settlements in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Ontario. They trace their origin to 1872, when bishop Jacob Wisler of Elkart, Indiana was expelled from the Old Mennonite Church because of his opposition to innovations (e.g. Sunday schools) and organized separate district conferences in Indiana and Ohio. This split was followed by the organization of affiliated district conferences in Ontario in 1889, in Pennsylvania in 1893, and in Virginia in 1901.
[46] The Old Order Mennonites of southeastern Pennsylvania are a religious isolate with origins in 16th-century Switzerland. The Swiss Mennonites immigrated to Pennsylvania over a 50-year period in the early 18th century. The history of this population in the United States provides insight into the increased incidence of several genetic diseases, most notably maple syrup urine disease (MSUD), Hirschsprung disease (HSCR), and congenital nephrotic syndrome. A comparison between the Old Order Mennonites and the Old Order Amish demonstrates the unique genetic heritage of each group despite a common religious and geographic history.
[47] The Amish have a number of social and demographic characteristics that create unique opportunities for the study of heritable disorders. As a result of their long tradition of intermarriage, or endogamy, and their principled separation from surrounding culture, the Amish tend to form relatively closed societies in which virtually everyone in their community is of German or Swiss Anabaptist ancestry. Because the number of founders was relatively small, present day descendents are nearly all related to each other through a limited number of common ancestors.
[48] A total of 1,741 surveys were distributed from August 2014 until March 2016, of which 518 surveys were received (29.9% response rate) representing over 4200 individuals. The majority of households consisted of married couples with children with the mean number of children per household was significantly higher for Amish compared to OOM (6.56±4.14 versus 5.23±3.39 respectively p=0.0025). The OOM group had a lower frequency of raw milk ingestion and farm residence compared to Amish. However, the majority of both Amish and OOM respondent families live on a farm and reported consumption of raw unprocessed farm milk, including during pregnancy
[49] At the household level, Amish families reported an overall allergic disease prevalence of 26.4% (n=92 households, data available from 348 households) while OOM reported a significantly higher prevalence of 46.7% (n=35 households, data available from 75 households, p=0.0008)...At the individual level, Amish reported significantly less self-reported and health care professional diagnosed asthma, eczema, hay fever, and food allergies compared to OOM
[50] In our survey, while the allergic disease prevalence in OOM was higher than Amish, it is considerably lower when compared to the reported general population and is consistent with the notion that early life farming exposures are protective against the development of allergic sensitization
[51] 2023 review: Fairly consistent results regarding early exposure to pets, in particular dogs, and the prevention of food allergies have been described. Furthermore, there seems to be a protective effect against allergy and asthma in relation to the number of pets owned.
[52] https://reference-global.com/download/article/10.1515/aoas-2015-0089.pdf Raw milk is promoted as ‘health food’ despite the fact that it poses a realistic microbiological hazard for the consumers’ health or life. Food-borne disease outbreaks associated with Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., shigatoxin-producing Escherichia coli, Brucella melitensis, Mycobacterium bovis and tick-borne encephalitis virus have been traced to the consumption of raw milk, however, many other microorganisms that can be present in milk are considered as potential food-borne pathogens to humans.
[53] The genus Listeria contains 17 species, but Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) is the only known pathogenic strain [1]. Lm is a bacterial, intracellular parasite that causes approximately 1600 illnesses and 260 deaths annually within the United States [2]. Regulation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a zero tolerance for Lm in food due to the high mortality rate associated with listeriosis, and its undetermined infectious dose [3,4].Lm is able to penetrate the blood-brain and placental barriers, increasing severity of disease, compared to other foodborne pathogens that predominantly infect the gastrointestinal tract [5]. Pregnant women, elderly, infants, and immunocompromised individuals are the most at risk populations for Listeria infections and complications [3].
[54] Listeria monocytogenes causes listeriosis, a systemic infection which manifests as bacteremia, often complicated by meningoencephalitis in immunocompromised individuals and the elderly, and fetal-placental infection in pregnant women…Human listeriosis manifests as septicemia, central nervous system and maternal-fetal infections, as well as rare forms of localised infections (Charlier et al., 2012; Charlier et al., 2014; Chersich et al., 2018; Danion et al., 2017; Morgand et al., 2018; Pilmis et al., 2019; Shoai-Tehrani et al., 2019). Upon ingestion of a large inoculum, Lm also induces a benign and spontaneously resolutive gastroenteritis in immunocompetent individuals (Aureli et al., 2000; Dalton et al., 1997). In France, where a very systematic surveillance is implemented, septicemia represents roughly 50% of cases, neurolisteriosis 30%, maternal-fetal infections 10%, and all types of rare and localised infections combined 10% (Charlier et al., 2017).
[55] In this study, we conducted a longitudinal sampling of fecal samples from 20 lactating dairy cows in one Wisconsin farm over a 29-d period and found a strikingly high incidence of L. monocytogenes shedding, in 90% of sampled animals.
[56] Even milk that appears to be of good quality (ie, low total bacteria count) may contain pathogens.5,7 There are at least 4 different mechanisms by which raw milk becomes contaminated by pathogens: direct passage from the blood (of the cow) into milk (systemic infection), mastitis (udder infection), fecal contamination (external contamination of milk from the environment during or after milking), or contamination from human skin.
[57] Review paper: Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, and Campylobacter spp. in raw milk in the United States between 2000 and 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis: The average prevalence (event rate) of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., STEC, and Campylobacter spp. in raw BTM in the US was estimated at 4.3% (95% confidence intervals [CIs], 2.8–6.5%), 3.6% (95% CIs, 2.0–6.2%), 4.3% (95% CIs, 2.4–7.4%), and 6.0% (95% CIs, 3.2–10.9%), respectively.
[58] 2018 US: As part of the National Animal Health Monitoring System Dairy 2014 study, bulk tank milk (BTM, n = 234) and milk filters (n = 254) were collected from a total of 234 dairy operations in 17 major dairy states and analyzed for the presence of these pathogens. The invA gene was detected in samples from 18.5% of operations and Salmonella enterica was isolated from 18.0% of operations. … Listeria spp. were isolated from 19.9% of operations, and L. monocytogenes was isolated from 3.0% of operations. … one or more E. coli virulence genes were detected in the BTM from 30.5% of operations and in the filters from 75.3% of operations.
[59] 2017 US: . The presence of Campylobacter spp. was detected in either BTM or filters from 24.9% of dairy operations and it was more frequently detected in samples from farm operations that had more than 100 cows than from smaller operations with less than 100 cows.
[60] 2011 US: Salmonella was detected in samples from 36.7% of the dairy farms surveyed while Listeria monocytogenes was found in samples from 8.7% of the dairy farms surveyed. Genes associated with pathogenic forms of E. coli were detected by real time PCR in samples from 58.1% of the dairy farms but the signals were generally very low indicating that potentially pathogenic forms did not constitute a large portion of the coliform population in the samples.
[61] 2001 US: It was observed that 21 of 79 (26.6%) dairy producers who consumed raw milk had one or more pathogenic bacteria in their bulk tank milk.
[62] A total of 902 samples of RDM were collected from retail sale in England for microbiological examination. Overall, 454 of 770 samples (59·0%) taken for routine monitoring were of a satisfactory quality, whilst eight (1·0%) were 'unsatisfactory and potentially injurious to health' due to the presence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, Campylobacter or elevated levels of Listeria monocytogenes or coagulase-positive staphylococci. In contrast, 16 of 114 (14·0%) of samples taken in follow-up to a previous unsatisfactory result and 5 of 18 (27·8%) of samples related to illness were potentially injurious. A total of 229 of 902 samples (25·4%) gave unsatisfactory results due to elevated aerobic colony counts and/or coliforms, whilst 139 of 902 samples (15·4%) were of borderline quality due to coagulase-positive staphylococci. Listeria monocytogenes was detected at levels of <100 CFU per ml in 66 of 902 samples (7·3%) and other Listeria species in 44 of 902 samples (4·9%)...A total of 229 of 902 samples (25·4%) gave unsatisfactory results due to elevated aerobic colony counts and/or coliform levels…
[63] CDC 2022: During 1998–2018, health departments reported 21,919 foodborne outbreaks and 423,595 outbreak-associated illnesses to FDOSS. Of these, 202 outbreaks (0.9%) and 2645 illnesses (0.6%) were linked to unpasteurised milk (Table 1), including 228 hospitalisations and three deaths. During the same time period, 9 outbreaks (0.04%) and 2133 illnesses (0.5%) linked to pasteurised milk were reported, including 33 hospitalisations and three deaths.
[64] The FDA and CDC, in collaboration with state and local partners, investigated a multistate outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections linked to RAW FARM-brand raw dairy products. As of April 30, 2026, CDC announced that the outbreak is over. CDC reports a total of nine illnesses in three states. Illnesses started on dates ranging from September 1, 2025, to February 20, 2026. Three people were hospitalized and one person developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a serious condition that can cause kidney failure. No deaths have been reported.
[65] https://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/news/idaho-public-health-officials-are-investigating-two-outbreaks-likely-associated-raw-milk The Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) is working with local and state partners to investigate a recent increase in illnesses after consumption of unpasteurized (raw) milk. Since May 19, 2026, nearly 60 people have been identified who became ill after consuming raw milk. At least 45 of those people tested positive for campylobacteriosis, a bacterial infection, although not everyone who is sick was tested. Investigation and interviews of people reported as ill are ongoing and additional illness may be identified.
[66] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3647642/ Table 1
Figure 1: Foodborne illness cases associated with fish and shellfish (crustaceans and mollusks) in the United States, 1998 to 2008
[67] "We reviewed leafy vegetable-associated outbreaks reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention between 1973 and 2012. During the study period, 606 leafy vegetable-associated outbreaks, with 20 003 associated illnesses, 1030 hospitalizations, and 19 deaths were reported. … In 2006, an outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157 infections associated with spinach was the deadliest US foodborne disease outbreak attributed to leafy vegetables ever reported, causing nearly 200 laboratory-confirmed illnesses, 100 hospitalizations, and five deaths"
[68] In a second study, 121 dairy-associated foodborne illness outbreaks were identified in the United States from 1993 to 2006. Of these, 73 (60%) were associated with unpasteurized dairy products, resulting in 1571 cases, 202 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths; 60% of the patients were younger than 20 years.
During October 2023–March 2024, California public health officials investigated an outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium infections linked to raw milk from a California dairy farm. Among 171 cases identified in California and four other states, 70% were among children and adolescents aged <18 years.
England and Wales: Between 1992 and 2002, there were 19 outbreaks linked to raw drinking milk (RDM) or products made using raw milk, involving 229 people; 36 of these were hospitalised. There followed an eleven-year period (2003–2013) where no outbreaks linked to RDM were reported. However, since 2014 seven outbreaks of Escherichia coli O157:H7 (n = 3) or Campylobacter jejuni (n = 4) caused by contaminated RDM were investigated and reported. Between 2014 and 2017, there were 114 cases, five reported hospitalisations and one death. The data presented within this review indicated that the risk of RDM has increased since 2014. Despite the labelling requirements and recommendations that children should not consume RDM, almost a third of outbreak cases were children.
[69] The New Mexico Department of Health is warning New Mexicans to avoid raw dairy products following the death of a newborn from Listeria infection. Health officials believe the most likely source of infection was unpasteurized milk the infant's mother drank during pregnancy. While investigators cannot pinpoint the exact cause, the tragic death underscores the serious risks raw dairy poses to pregnant women, young children, elderly New Mexicans and anyone with a weakened immune system….Raw milk can contain numerous disease-causing germs, including Listeria, which is bacteria that can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm birth, or fatal infection in newborns, even if the mother is only mildly ill. Listeria is also able to invade the bloodstream of people with compromised immune systems, causing serious infections and sometimes death.
[70] Overall cases: https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/hcp/clinical-overview/index.html The annual incidence of laboratory-confirmed listeriosis in the United States is about 0.24 cases per 100,000 population,
Specifically from raw milk - rare: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9987020/ Unpasteurised milk associated outbreaks, illnesses and hospitalisations by pathogen – FDOSS, United States, 2013–2018… Listeria monocytogenes - 1 outbreak
[72] CDC 2017: Unpasteurized milk, consumed by only 3.2% of the population, and cheese, consumed by only 1.6% of the population, caused 96% of illnesses caused by contaminated dairy products.(2009-2014) Unpasteurized dairy products thus cause 840 (95% CrI 611–1,158) times more illnesses and 45 (95% CrI 34–59) times more hospitalizations than pasteurized products. As consumption of unpasteurized dairy products grows, illnesses will increase steadily; a doubling in the consumption of unpasteurized milk or cheese could increase outbreak-related illnesses by 96%.