The Rural Grocery Store: Food and Community
June 15, 2026Real Milk Updates, Summer 2026
October 18, 2026By Margaret E. (Peg) Coleman
This Guest Opinion by M.E. (Peg) Coleman was published in the Syracuse Post Standard (12 May 2026)1 in response to an Associated Press article by Laura Ungar and Jonel Aleccia under different titles (‘Got Raw Milk? Despite warnings, it’s becoming more widely available’ published 3 May in the Syracuse Post Standard; ‘Push for raw milk intensifies across the US, despite illness outbreaks and scientists’ warnings’ elsewhere; apnews.com/article/raw-milklegislation-outbreak-02c67adf7845d188c41ab0af06e97869).
As a medical microbiologist, risk analyst, and grandmother, I am concerned that the article about raw milk in the Syracuse Post Standard by Laura Ungar and Jonel Aleccia (3 May 2026) failed to provide scientifically accurate information or context that my neighbors deserve to know when making dietary and health decisions. The outdated assumption that raw milk is inherently dangerous ignores major scientific advances of the past decade. Multitudes of diverse microbes in breastmilk and cow milk (the milk microbiota) promote gut health, balanced immune function, and protection from infectious and inflammatory disease.
The flood of misinformation about raw milk in the media prompted colleagues in Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) to work with me to challenge misinformation with evidence for public and technical audiences over a variety of venues this year. Are you wondering why millions of longtime raw milk consumers like me, my kids and grandkids, farmers and farm workers ignore warnings about imminent danger and choose raw milk over pasteurized?
Findings below from scientific studies are excluded from pro-pasteurization narratives dominating the media. The wisdom of SRA’s commitment to “let the data speak” is sorely needed in broader public discourse to bridge the chasm of mistrust in our society about food freedom and access to local raw milk.
Search the title below on American Council for Science and Health (ACSH) for a concise, readable, and referenced description that challenges outdated assumptions and misleading narratives consistent with the pro-pasteurization worldview: “Revealing Raw Truths about Milk: Scientific Advances in Understanding the Health Impacts of the Milk Microbiota.”
The ACSH not only posted this rebuttal to misinformation from a previous post on their site, but then posted an apology for missing the mark on evidence-based communication.
Highlights from recent studies below reveal a divergent view of benefits and risks of pasteurizing raw donor breastmilk and raw cowʼs milk, based largely on a 2024 analysis of CDC data spanning sixteen years2 (2005-2020) and previous collaborative studies, all challenging the pro-pasteurization narrative.
1. Raw milk outbreaks, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths are not increasing (contributing less than 1 percent of the burden of infectious disease in the US over sixteen years: 0.4 percent outbreaks, 0.1 percent illnesses, 0.5 percent hospitalizations).
2. Annual rates of raw milk illness per serving for available data from [California] were low and not increasing (less than one illness per million servings for fourteen of sixteen years, and less than five illnesses per million servings for 2015 and 2023).
3. Pasteurizing milk did not prevent 4,313 acute illnesses, 343 hospitalizations, and 26 deaths for dairy-borne infectious disease over sixteen years.
4. Pasteurized—not raw—milk contributed to an estimated fifteen million chronic illnesses (intolerance or allergy), with fifteen fatalities reported in the National Food Death Allergy Registry for 2005-2025. Eleven of the fifteen milk allergy deaths disproportionately affected children aged three to seventeen.
5. Children with milk allergy all tolerated the maximum volume of raw milk (50 mL) but suffered allergy symptoms at an average of 8.6 mL pasteurized milk in a small provocation study.3
6. Pasteurized dairy was associated with significantly higher outbreaks, hospitalizations, and deaths compared to raw dairy, as well as twenty cases of stillbirth, miscarriage, or premature delivery, none reported in raw milk.4
7. Raw milk feeding of infants, compared to heated milks, provided the highest level of protection against respiratory and ear infections in a large prospective cohort study (983 infants), comparable to breastfeeding. Diarrhea was not associated with raw milk feeding to infants5 (see ACSH post Epidemiologic Associations for Protection of Infants: 2015 Clinical Study), comparable to breastfeeding.
8. Pasteurizing human donor breastmilk unequivocally causes a loss of benefits to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) infants. Denial of evidence on benefits from dozens of human studies for breastmilk and bovine milk reveals bias. Follow the money.
What else do my New York neighbors and those in other states need to know? Most states have excellent records of raw milk safety based on CDC data. New York reported only four illnesses (no hospitalizations, no deaths) associated with raw milk in the past ten years, while the number of licenses for dairy farms selling raw milk direct-to-consumers increased. CDC data on milkborne deaths (four for pasteurized and one confirmed for raw milk) over sixteen years are too sparse for reliable prediction of future milkborne mortality. Many articles cite opinions claiming that increasing access will increase outbreaks or deaths.6 The CDC data refute those opinions.
I work to protect the rights of my grandkids and their grandkids to choose fresh unprocessed local milk, complete with the natural protective milk microbiota. Advances in understandings of the protective effects of the milk microbiota call for more balanced, evidence-based dialogue about actual studies, not just opinions or positions of individuals and organizations that promote their own agendas.
The pasteurized milk agenda threatens farm families and robs consumers of our freedom to choose our 21st-century diets.
Margaret E. (Peg) Coleman
Medical Microbiologist/Risk Analyst
Fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis
peg@colemanscientific.org
EPILOGUE
Due to the newspaper’s space limitations, I did not list the venues where our work will be presented this year: 1) the International Milk Genomics Consortium conference in September; 2) at a panel peer-review workshop in October; and 3) at the Society for Risk Analysis conference in December.
Interested in supporting our work? Stop by our table at Wise Traditions Oct 16-18 to contribute to the 2026 crowdfunding campaign and get more information on our work (wisetraditions.org).
REFERENCES
1. Coleman ME. Raw milk story ignored studies on unpasteurized benefits. Syracuse Post Standard, May 12, 2026.
2. 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.
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. 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.
5. 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.
6. Ungar L, Aleccia J. Push for raw milk intensifies across the US, despite illness outbreaks and scientists’ warnings. AP News, updated Apr. 29, 2026.
This article appeared in the Summer 2026 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.
