Distortions and Misinformation about Raw Milk

By Peg Coleman

On May 8, 2025, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issued a press release entitled, “With raw milk in the news, here is background information and studies on raw milk.” The document provides invalid conclusions, half-truths and distortions of scientific evidence that may misinform and intentionally deceive the public.

The claims made in the press release are not supported by the current body of scientific evidence on benefits and risks of raw and pasteurized milks. Study after study in the peer reviewed literature dispute the claims made in the press release. The press release offers North Carolina citizens entrenched beliefs masquerading as scientific facts that are not supported by scientific evidence. In reality, neither pasteurized nor raw milk is risk free.

Here are the facts that the NC press release left out, each with references that you are encouraged to review and fact-check.

1. The press release does not provide a valid scientific evidence base for claims that raw milk poses inherent public health threats from potential bacterial and viral hazards.

2. Pasteurized milk is a highly processed food that is linked to adverse health effects.

a. CDC reported two thousand one hundred eleven pasteurized milk illnesses and four deaths for 2005-2020.¹

b. Significantly higher outbreaks, hospitalizations and deaths were reported in pasteurized dairy from 2007-2020 of listeriosis compared to raw dairy.²

c. Stillbirth, miscarriage and premature delivery were reported for pasteurized dairy, not raw dairy.²

d. Heating milk (boiling and pasteurization) denatures milk proteins, increasing allergenicity and contributing to inflammatory disease.^3,4

3. Approximately fifteen million raw milk consumers benefit from access.

a. A recent government survey estimated that 4.4 percent of U.S. population consumes raw milk.⁵

b. Multiple sources report that consumption of raw milk is increasing, not decreasing (NielsenIQ figures^6,7 and California production data⁸).

c. CDC reported one thousand six hundred ninety-six raw milk illnesses for 2005-2020;¹ but not inflammatory disease.⁹

d. In one study, children with an allergy to pasteurized milk tolerated raw milk, whereas pasteurized milk induced adverse effects.³

e. Raw milk has a dense and diverse microbiota, similar to the breastmilk microbiota. Both benefit the gut microbiota and immune system function and suppress growth of pathogens.^8-11

4. CDC data indicate that illness associated with raw milk is not increasing in North Carolina or any state.

a. No significant increase was reported for illnesses linked to raw milk (see upper panel of Figure 1 in the referenced study).¹²

b. No significant increase was reported for state outbreaks or illnesses associated with raw milk, nor are rates by state increasing¹ (see Figures 11, 12, and 13 in the referenced study).¹

5. Consuming raw milk complete with intact natural microbes (microbiota) is beneficial to children’s health.

a. Just as children benefit from raw breastmilk and its protective microbiota, children (and adults) also benefit from raw cow or goat milk complete with their protective microbiota that strengthen gut, immune, nervous and respiratory systems.^9,13

b. CDC data for 2005-2020 indicate that no child died in the U.S. from consuming raw milk.¹

c. Children with allergies to pasteurized milk tolerate raw milk with no adverse effects.³

d. In multiple large cohort studies, children exposed to raw milk developed no diarrheal illness, had significantly fewer respiratory and ear infections and were more protected from inflammatory disease.^9,14,15

6. Emeritus Professor Rodney Dietart at Cornell University and colleagues have provided the only peer-reviewed systematic analyses to date of both benefits and risks for raw and pasteurized milks.⁹

a. Claims in the NC press release that raw milk is “inherently dangerous” and that “risks exceed benefits” are not supported by the body of scientific evidence.^9,13

b. These claims appear to be “risk perceptions,” that is, “a person’s subjective judgement or appraisal of risk”¹⁶ and “a blending of science and judgement with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors”.¹⁷ Thus, risk perceptions are social constructs reflecting ideology, beliefs and economic interests, not estimations based on the accepted framework for evaluating and incorporating scientific evidence^18,19 and quality analysis^20-22 for robust risk analysis.

7. Scientific evidence fails to support the hypothesis that avian influenza H5N1 transmits to humans by ingestion.

a. Avian influenza H5N1 is not a foodborne pathogen that causes stomach flu in humans, but a respiratory infection and eye inflammation (conjunctivitis).^23-25

b. All lines of evidence for assessing influenza transmission²⁶ fail to support the hypothesis about oral transmission of avian influenza.

i. Avian influenza H5N1 is not highly pathogenic or highly virulent for exposed dairy workers.^25,27 Mild eye inflammation was reported for forty-one dairy workers in five states (thirty-one in CA, two in MI, one each in CO, NV and TX) exposed to reportedly infected cows.²⁸ No oral infections or pneumonia were documented in dairy workers or consumers.

ii. No disease transmission was observed for non-human primates inoculated with a high oral dose of H5N1,²⁹ while the same dose caused mild illness by the nasal route and severe illness with pneumonia by inoculation into the deep lung of non-human primates. This study was one of forty-four available inoculation studies recently reviewed.⁸

iii. No epidemiologic evidence documents oral transmission of H5N1 to raw milk consumers, even though more than two hundred sixty-three thousand gallons of H5N1- positive raw milk (~4.6 million servings) circulated in the CA retail market last November before a raw milk recall.⁸ No human influenza cases were reported.²⁸

iv. Validated models of transmission for respiratory and ocular exposure exist for influenza A23 but no mechanistic models exist for oral transmission of H5N1.

About the Author

Peg Coleman, MS, MS, is a medical microbiologist and risk analyst who consults on microbial benefits and risks via food and all potential transmission sources. She serves as a Fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis and a peer-reviewer for many scientific journals. Ms. Coleman provides expert testimony on evidence for microbial benefits and risks. For more information, visit Coleman Scientific Consulting (colemanscientific.org).

References

1. Stephenson MM, Coleman ME, Azzolina NA. Trends in burdens of disease by transmission source (USA, 2005-2020) and hazard identification for foods: focus on milkborne disease. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2024 Sep;14(3):787-816.
2. Sebastianski M, Bridger NA, Featherstone RM, et al. Disease outbreaks linked to pasteurized and unpasteurized dairy products in Canada and the United States: a systematic review. Can J Public Health. 2022 Aug;113(4):569-578.
3. Abbring S, Kusche D, Roos TC, et al. Milk processing increases the allergenicity of cow’s milk-Preclinical evidence supported by a human proof-of-concept provocation pilot. Clin Exp Allergy. 2019 Jul;49(7):1013-1025.
4. Abbring S, Xiong L, Diks MAP, et al. Loss of allergy-protective capacity of raw cow’s milk after heat treatment coincides with loss of immunologically active whey proteins. Food Funct. 2020 Jun 24;11(6):4982-4993.
5. Lando AM, Bazaco MC, Parker CC, et al. 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.
6. Aleccia J. Raw milk sales are up despite bird flu outbreak in dairy cows. Fast Company, May 14, 2024. https://www.fastcompany.com/91124899/raw-milksales-rise-bird-flu-outbreak-dairy-cows
7. Lyubomirova T. Bird flu latest: FDA raises raw milk risks awareness, studies pasteurization effectiveness. Dairy Reporter, Jun. 26, 2024 (updated Jun. 27, 2024). https://www.dairyreporter.com/Article/2024/06/26/FDA-tellsconsumers-to-know-the-risks-of-raw-milk/
8. Coleman ME. Deliberating the scientific evidence base for influenza transmission to raw milk consumers. Risk Anal. 2025 Jul 15.
9. Dietert RR, Coleman ME, North DW, et al. Nourishing the human holobiont to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases: a cow’s milk evidence map example. Appl Microbiol. 2022;2(1):25-52.
10. Coleman ME, Oscar TP, Negley TL, et al. Suppression of pathogens in properly refrigerated raw milk. PLoS One. 2023 Dec 12;18(12):e0289249.
11. Butler MI, Bastiaanssen TFS, Long-Smith C, et al. Recipe for a healthy gut: intake of unpasteurized milk is associated with increased Lactobacillus abundance in the human gut microbiome. Nutrients. 2020 May 19;12(5):1468.
12. Koski L, Kisselburgh H, Landsman L, et al. 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.
13. Coleman ME, North DW, Dietert RR, et al. Examining evidence of benefits and risks for pasteurizing donor breastmilk. Appl Microbiol. 2021;1(3):408-425.
14. Loss G, Depner M, Ulfman LH, et al. Consumption of unprocessed cow’s milk protects infants from common respiratory infections. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015 Jan;135(1):56-62.
15. von Mutius E. The microbial environment and its influence on asthma prevention in early life. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016 Mar;137(3):680-689.
16. Aven T, Ben-Haim Y, Andersen HB, et al. Society for Risk Analysis Glossary. Society for Risk Analysis, updated August 2018. https://www.sra.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SRA-Glossary-FINAL.pdf
17. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal. 1999 Aug;19(4):689-701.
18. Marks HM, Coleman ME, Lin CT, et al. Topics in microbial risk assessment: dynamic flow tree process. Risk Anal. 1998 Jun;18(3):309-328.
19. Food and Agriculture Organization. Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Assessment. CAC/GL-30, 1999. https://www.fao.org/4/y1579e/y1579e05.htm
20. Lathrop J, Roed W, Ackerlund S, et al. SRA Risk Analysis Quality Test Release 1.0. Society for Risk Analysis, 2020. https://www.sra.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SRA-Risk-Analysis-Quality-Test-R6.pdf
21. Waller R, Coleman M, Denard S, et al. Lessons identified from applications of the Risk Analysis Quality Test Release 1.0. Risk Anal. 2024 Aug;44(8):1886-1895.
22. Lathrop J, Dikmen I, Soane E, et al. Defining and assessing risk analysis quality: insights from applications of the SRA risk analysis quality test. J Risk Res. 2024;27(8):1028-1040.
23. Jones RM, Adida E. Influenza infection risk and predominate exposure route: uncertainty analysis. Risk Anal. 2011 Oct;31(10):1622-1631.
24. Lockhart A, Mucida D, Parsa R. Immunity to enteric viruses. Immunity. 2022 May 10;55(5):800-818.
25. Mostafa A, Naguib MM, Nogales A, et al. Avian influenza A (H5N1) virus in dairy cattle: origin, evolution, and cross-species transmission. mBio. 2024 Dec 11;15(12):e0254224.
26. Killingley B, Nguyen-Van-Tam J. Routes of influenza transmission. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2013 Sep;7 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):42-51.
27. AbuBakar U, Amrani L, Kamarulzaman FA, et al. Avian influenza virus tropism in humans. Viruses. 2023 Mar 24;15(4):833.
28. H5 bird flu: current situation. CDC, Sept. 16, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/index.html
29. Feldmann H, Rosenke K, Griffin A, et al. Orogastric exposure of cynomolgus macaques to bovine HPAI H5N1 virus results in subclinical infection. Preprint from Research Square, 18 Oct 2024. https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr927429

This article was published in the Fall 2025 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation. Become a member today to begin receiving this valuable resource by mail.