Raw Milk Reality: Is Raw Milk Dangerous?


– USA Today

– Food Safety News

“Raw Milk is a Raw Deal, CDC Says.”
– LiveScience


I’m going to break this series into three parts. In this first article, we’re going to examine what the research really says about raw milk safety, and compare the risks associated with drinking unpasteurized milk with other foods and activities. In the second article, we’ll explore the benefits of drinking raw milk from several different perspectives: nutritional, health-related, social, environmental and ethical. Finally, in the third article I’ll make recommendations and provide guidance on finding a safe and responsible raw dairy producer in your area.

This series is called “Raw Milk Reality” because, as is the case with other hot button issues like vaccination and homebirth, propaganda and hype have overshadowed facts and common sense.  If you only saw the headlines from the CDC and FDA reports, you’d be left with the impression that raw milk is a dangerous food and anyone that consumes it or gives it to their children is reckless and irresponsible.  The purpose of this series is to present the other side of the argument, and give you the bare facts without bias or hyperbole so you can make an informed decision about whether unpasteurized milk is a good choice for you and your family.

I’m not here to convince anyone that they should drink raw milk.  That’s a decision each individual has to make on their own by weighing the potential risks against the potential benefits.  But to do that, you need an accurate understanding of the risks (which we’ll cover in this article) and the benefits (which we’ll cover in the next.)

Just how “dangerous” is raw milk? A little perspective…

Before we do that, however, let’s put the current discussion of unpasteurized milk safety into a wider context. Foodborne illness is a concern for many types of food. According to the most recent review of foodborne disease outbreaks in the U.S. in 2008 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), seafood, produce and poultry were associated with the most outbreaks. Produce is responsible for the greatest number of illnesses each year (2,062), with nearly twice as many illnesses as poultry (1,112). Dairy products are at the bottom of the list. They cause the fewest outbreaks and illnesses of all the major food categories – beef, eggs, poultry, produce and seafood.

According to the CDC, during the period from 1990 − 2006, there were 24,000 foodborne illnesses reported each year on average. Of those, 315 per year are from dairy products. This means dairy products account for about 1.3% of foodborne illnesses each year. That’s not exactly an alarming number, considering that more than 75% of the population consumes dairy products regularly.

It’s also important to note that the outbreaks and illnesses associated with dairy products are generally mild compared to other foods. According to the CSPI report above, approximately 5,000 people are killed every year by foodborne illness. From 2009 − 2011, three high profile outbreaks involving peanuts, eggs and cantaloupe alone accounted for 2,729 illnesses and 39 deaths. (1) Yet there have only been a handful of deaths from pasteurized dairy products in the last decade, and there hasn’t been a single death attributed to raw fluid milk since the mid-1980s, in spite of the fact that almost 10 million people are now consuming it regularly.

The takeaway is that thousands of people are killed each year by foodborne illness, but they’re dying from eating fruits, nuts, eggs, meat, poultry, fish and shellfish – not from drinking unpasteurized milk.

Why the CDC report can’t be taken at face value

The CDC report claimed that unpasteurized milk is 150 times more likely to cause foodborne illness than pasteurized milk, and such outbreaks had a hospitalization rate 13 times higher than those involving pasteurized dairy products.

According to senior author of the CDC study, Barbara Mahon:

When you consider that no more than 1% of the milk consumed in the United States is raw, it’s pretty startling to see that more of the outbreaks were caused by raw milk than pasteurized.

But can these claims be taken at face value? No.

There are several problems with the CDC report:

  • First and foremost, the CDC doesn’t include the dataset they used, so we can’t analyze how they reached their conclusions. Fortunately, the CDC data for foodborne illness, as well as data from other institutions and peer-reviewed studies, are readily available online.
  • There are about 24,000 foodborne illnesses reported each year. Yet by the CDC’s own admission, this represents only a tiny fraction of the true number of foodborne illnesses that occur. In 1999, CDC scientists used an estimate of the overall prevalence of diarrhea and vomiting to calculate the “true” incidence of foodborne illness as 76 million cases per year! Put another way, 99.97% of foodborne illnesses go unreported.
  • A food vehicle was identified in only 43% of the reported outbreaks and only half of these were linked to a single food ingredient. What this means is that the true prevalence of foodborne illness that can be attributed to a particular food is much higher than what is reported. It also means that the data linking specific outbreaks with specific foods is such a tiny sample of the total that even small errors or biases in the reporting of outbreaks would seriously skew the results.
  • To calculate the number of people that drink unpasteurized milk, the CDC used an older, lower estimate (1%) of the number of people that drink raw milk. This is curious because a FoodNet survey done by the CDC itself in 2007 found that 3% of the U.S. population – about 9.4 million people  – regularly consumes raw milk. That number is likely even higher today with the growing popularity of raw milk. (In 2010 alone, raw milk sales increased by 25% in California.) Why did they do this? If you’re a cynic, you might conclude that they used the lower estimate to exaggerate the risk of drinking raw milk.
  • They combined data from outbreaks and illnesses associated with “bathtub cheese” (i.e. Mexican-style Queso Fresco made illegally at home) made from raw milk, and raw fluid milk. Queso Fresco is inherently more dangerous than raw milk, and is associated with more serious outbreaks and illnesses. Again, this distorts the data and makes raw milk seem more dangerous than it really is. (Note: commercial, properly aged raw milk cheese has never been implicated in a disease outbreak.)

(For a more detailed analysis and critique of the CDC report, see this article from the Weston A. Price Foundation.)

In light of these weaknesses, I decided to conduct my own analysis using a more comprehensive data set including the CDC foodborne disease outbreak surveillance tables, an online outbreak database published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), public health reports such as the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly (MMWR), a CDC line list produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to CDC by the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), and peer-reviewed studies in the scientific literature (2,3,4).

I purposely excluded outbreaks associated with Queso Fresco cheeses, because we are concerned here with the safety of raw milk and not raw cheese made in a bathtub, which I would never eat and would never advise anyone else to eat. I chose to focus on the most recent data available, from 2000 – 2007, since unpasteurized milk consumption increased significantly over the last decade.

I also included two notable outbreaks in California that were missing from both the CDC and CSPI databases: a large outbreak of campylobacteriosis in 2006, involving over 1,644 illnesses among prison inmates that was linked to pasteurized milk produced by an on-site prison dairy and another campylobacteriosis outbreak in 2007, that caused 8 illnesses following consumption of commercial raw milk and/or raw colostrum. (5,6)

What does this more reliable, peer-reviewed dataset tell us about the safety of raw milk?

The chart below lists all outbreaks and illnesses associated with unpasteurized milk from 2000 − 2007. Click the link to display the chart.

Raw milk data

There were 37 outbreaks and 800 illnesses from unpasteurized milk during from 2000 − 2007, with an average of 100 illnesses per year. The estimated U.S. population as of today is approximately 313,500,000. Using the CDC’s own 2007 FoodNet Survey data indicating that 3% of the population consumes raw milk, we can estimate that approximately 9.4 million people drink unpasteurized milk (as I said above, the number is likely higher because of the explosive growth in the popularity of raw milk over the past 5 years, but 2007 is the latest reliable estimate we have).

This means you had a roughly 1 in 94,000 chance of becoming ill from drinking unpasteurized milk during that period.

Now let’s compare this to pasteurized milk, as the CDC did in their study. The chart below lists all outbreaks and illnesses associated with pasteurized milk from 2000 − 2007. Click the link to display the chart.

Pasteurized milk data

There were 8 outbreaks with 2,214 illnesses, with an average of 277 illnesses per year. According to the CDC FoodNet survey, 78.5% (246,097,500) of the U.S. population consumes pasteurized milk.

This means you had a roughly 1 in 888,000 chance of becoming ill from drinking pasteurized milk.

According to these data, it’s true that you have a higher chance of getting sick from drinking raw milk than pasteurized milk. But the risk is 9.4 times higher, not 150 times higher as the CDC claimed.

Perhaps this is a good time to review the difference between absolute and relative risk. When you hear that you have a roughly 9 times greater (relative) risk of getting sick from drinking raw milk than pasteurized milk, that might sound scary. And indeed it would be, if we were talking about the absolute risk moving from 5% to 45%.

But when the absolute risk is extremely small, as it is here, a relative 9-fold increase is rather insignificant. If you have a 0.00011 percent chance of getting sick from drinking pasteurized milk, and a 9.4 times greater risk of getting sick from drinking unpasteurized milk, we’re still talking about a miniscule risk of 0.00106% (one one-thousandth of a percent).

But to truly gauge the risk, we should ask how serious these illnesses are. An “illness” in these data can mean everything from an upset stomach to mild diarrhea to hospitalization for serious disease.  One of the reasons most foodborne illnesses go unreported is that they are only a passing nuisance.  When is the last time you had a bout of diarrhea that you suspect was caused by something you ate?  Did you report it to your doctor or the county public health department?  Probably not.

The statistic we should be more concerned with is hospitalizations for serious illnesses such as kidney failure and hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) caused by unpasteurized milk.  This does happen, and children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable and more likely to experience a serious illness.  That said, hospitalizations from raw milk are extremely rare.  During the 2000 − 2007 period, there were 12 hospitalizations for illnesses associated with raw fluid milk. That’s an average of 1.5 per year. With approximately 9.4 million people drinking raw milk, that means you have about a 1 in 6 million chance of being hospitalized from drinking raw milk.

To put this in perspective, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, you have a roughly 1 in 8,000 chance of dying in a motor vehicle accident if you live in the U.S..  Therefore, you have a 750 times greater chance of dying in a car crash than becoming hospitalized from drinking raw milk.

The risk of dying in a plane crash (1 in 2,000,000) is orders of magnitude lower than dying in a car accident (1 in 8,000) – and yet most people who are afraid of flying don’t hesitate to get in their car. But as unlikely as dying in a plane crash is, it’s about 3 times more likely than becoming hospitalized (not dying) from drinking unpasteurized milk.

As I said earlier in the article, there has not been a single death attributed to drinking unpasteurized milk since the mid-1980s. There were 5 stillbirths attributed to an outbreak linked to bathtub-style Queso Fresco in 2000 in North Carolina. These were the only deaths during the 2000 − 2007 period I analyzed.

How does the risk of drinking raw milk compare to other foods?

Now let’s put some of these abstract numbers into perspective.

According to the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly (MMWR), from 2006 − 2008 there were an average of 13 outbreaks and 291 illnesses per year associated with shellfish and mollusks. According to the CDC FoodNet Survey, about 5.7% of the population (17,869,500) consumes shellfish. This means you had a roughly 1 in 61,000 chance of becoming ill from eating shellfish. That’s about 1.5 times the risk of becoming ill from drinking raw milk (1 in 94,000).

The risk is even greater – and more serious – if you eat raw oysters. 7.4% of people who eat oysters consume them raw (1,322,343). There are 15 deaths a year on average attributed to raw oyster consumption. This means you have about a 1 in 88,000 chance of dying from raw oysters. In other words, you have a greater chance of dying from eating raw oysters than you do of getting sick from drinking unpasteurized milk.

What about other more commonly eaten foods?  Check out the chart below, from the 2008 CSPI report. It shows the relative incidence of foodborne illness from 1999 – 2006, adjusted for consumption.

As you can see:

  • Seafood caused 29 times more illnesses than dairy
  • Poultry caused 15 times more illnesses than dairy
  • Eggs caused 13 times more illnesses than dairy
  • Beef caused 11 times more illnesses than dairy
  • Pork caused 8 times more illnesses than dairy
  • Produce caused 4 times more more illnesses than dairy
What this chart clearly shows is that when it comes to foodborne illness, dairy should be the least of your concerns.

I hope this helps you understand the true risk of drinking unpasteurized milk within the context of other risks most of us take on a daily basis without a second thought.  Of course, the next question that naturally arises is why someone might be willing to take any additional risk with raw milk – however miniscule it is on an absolute basis – when pasteurized milk is readily available.

In Raw Milk Reality: Benefits of Raw Milk, I’ll address that question by exploring the benefits of raw milk from a variety of perspectives.



Comments Join the Conversation

  1. joel rosenblum says

    I didn’t read all 500 comments, but Mr. Kresser, you need to revise your article. Just on cursory inspection, your findings are quite misleading. The article is supposed to compare the danger of raw milk to other things. Instead you are comparing dangers of DAIRY IN GENERAL to other foods. Nobody was asking how dangerous it is to consume dairy. We wanted to know how dangerous raw milk is. If you are right that raw milk is about 9x more dangerous than pasteurized milk, then it is almost as dangerous as eating egg and meat products, and twice as likely to cause illness as raw produce. Still, that isn’t too bad, but when you make such a flagrant error like this I start to wonder about your other stats in here.

    • Rachel Martin says

      I’m confused by your comment. That chart shows that even taking _all_ the incidents of foodborne illness related to dairy, it’s a fraction of the illnesses from other types of food. And raw-milk-related incidents are a subset of all dairy-related incidents, so raw-milk-related incidents are an even smaller fraction of all foodborne illnesses.

      Above, he discussed that there are a greater total number of pasteurized-milk incidents per year, but a greater number of people drink it – so the likelihood of illness is lower. With raw milk, the likelihood _is_ higher … but it’s still only a 1 in 94,000 chance. And your chance of serious illness from it is seriously miniscule.

      (By the way: I have no skin in the game and am actually new to the issue. I’ve never actually had raw milk in my life. Just felt the need to chime in because your comment didn’t make sense to me. :) )

      • joel rosenblum says

        Rachel, this is bad logic.

        If dairy in general is 4x less likely to make you ill than produce, but raw milk is 9x more dangerous than pasteurized milk, then raw milk is something like twice as dangerous as produce. In fact Mr. Kresser even states in the article that raw milk is close to being as dangerous as shellfish in terms of producing illness. So, assuming that raw milk is really only 9x more dangerous than pasteurized (not 150x as claimed by CDC), it is still not the safest food to eat. If it is somewhere between Kresser’s 9x and CDC’s 150x, then it could possibly be one of the most dangerous foods to eat, not taking into account the preparation of foods (i.e. whether you buy food and prep it yourself or you get it at a restaurant known for having health violations.)

        However, the risk is still pretty small relative to driving in a car, as Mr. Kresser rightly emphasizes. And the benefits of raw milk do seem to be profound enough from the studies I’ve seen and my own experience, that the small risk is worth it.

        I was just miffed at the way that Mr. Kresser misused statistics so blatantly. Just like you, most people would read that portion of the article and thing, wow, raw milk is super duper safe compared to other foods! That’s what I thought when I read it at first.

      • joel rosenblum says

        Just found more confusion also. At the top he says that produce caused more illness than poultry, but then in the chart produce is near the bottom in risk category. He doesn’t even address that but clearly it shows that all of his data sources are far from agreement with each other, which is more reason to be skeptical of his numbers–specifically his bald statement that raw milk is 9x more dangerous than pasteurized rather than 150x more dangerous as CDC claims.

        Also he claims there have been zero deaths from raw milk since 1980 but according to CDC there have been at least 2 deaths since 1996 from raw milk, and 1 from pasteurized…

        • rawmilkmike says

          The 2 deaths were associated with cheese not milk. Pasteurized milk has been associated with over 1000 deaths.

          • joel rosenblum says

            Ah ok, yeah that is probably the reason why the numbers are not matching up. CDC is very sly with numbers and probably even less trustworthy than the stats from Mr. Kresser, from what I’ve seen so far.

      • rawmilkmike says

        Also keep in mind that most cases of so called foodborne illness are never associated with any food and the ones that are can not be proven to be food related let alone proven to be caused by the food they are associated with. It’s no coincidence that most if not all official documents use the phrase “associated with” rather than “caused by”.

        • joel rosenblum says

          Yes, exactly my point. I saw an article by a Dr. on the Weston A Price foundation site regarding how safe raw milk is, and he was comparing associations between food and foodborne illness in general to actual lab-verified cases of raw milk related illness. Sorry I’m not linking to a source but if you wish I can dig it up.

          • rawmilkmike says

            A lab can verify the presents of a bacteria in a stool sample but that doesn’t indicate the cause of the illness or the source of the bacteria. These bacteria are everywhere, including our own gut. They usually don’t cause illness and food is the least likely source.

            • Joel Rosenblum says

              When they say confirmed cases linked to raw milk, I can only hope they are doing better than this stupid CDC Minnesota report.

              If you get 10 kids in the ER all with the same symptoms, and you find the main thing they have in common is that they are all getting raw milk from the same farm, and then you go test the milk at the farm and find it contaminated with the bacteria that is making these kids ill, that is pretty hard evidence that the raw milk is the culprit.

              Unfortunately, I don’t know if anyone has a database detailed enough to verify how good the evidence for causality is.

              NOW, here’s the *exciting* part. I finally figured out the reason that the CDC says raw milk (actually they say raw DAIRY, and Mr. Kresser seems to continually confuse milk and dairy, which is easy to do, but still shows lack of copy-editing & fact-checking) is 15x more dangerous than Mr. Kresser says it is.

              As Mr. Kresser notes, CDC is using a figure of 1% raw dairy consumption (measured by *pounds* of milk). Mr. Kresser uses the figure of 3% which is a newer figure but also is specific to raw MILK rather than raw DAIRY, and not measured by pounds but people. (There are actually a number of factors that suggest the percentage of pounds of raw milk to pasteurized milk consumed is far higher than 3%: A) probably a great deal more pasteurized milk is thrown in the trash than raw milk–I went to public school and I saw ALL the free-lunch pasteurized milk in the trash–perhaps lots of lactose intolerance–but basically pasteurized milk is cheap and ubiquitous and given out with abandon. B) A large portion of pasteurized milk is made into non-fluid dairy products, but I rarely ever see raw dairy sold even where they sell raw fluid milk around here. C) Pasteurized milk products are exported and given as aid to third world countries, etc. )

              But anyway, so let’s say 3% vs 1%. Now we have to explain another 5 fold difference in risk, because 5×3=~15 fold increase in risk. So where is the CDC getting this 5 fold increased risk? They are comparing OUTBREAKS, whereas Mr. Kresser is comparing ILLNESSES.

              Obviously, CAFO milk is far wider in distribution than small farm raw milk, so one outbreak of CAFO milk will cause an average of 200 illnesses, whereas 1 outbreak of raw small farm milk causes an average of 20 illnesses. That’s 10x less illnesses per outbreak for the small farm milk, as we might expect.

              Interestingly, according to the same table given by CDC, you will note that raw fluid milk illness is something like 8x more likely to cause hospitalization than pasteurized fluid milk illness.

              So now the question is, what do we want to know, really, when considering our risks? What is important to the individual consumer? If I am in the grocery store, am I wondering a) how likely I am to be part of an outbreak due to drinking this milk, or b) how likely I am to get sick from drinking this milk, or c) how likely I am to be hospitalized from drinking this milk?

              Personally, I’d wonder C. I get diarrhea frequently from god-knows-what sources, and it doesn’t bother me much (it’s usually mild, maybe not even really classifiably diarrhea), but anyway it certainly is nothing compared to being hospitalized (which I’ve never been from food)!

              But if I had to choose between wondering a and b, I’d wonder b–because getting ill is more important than “being part of an outbreak” in terms of personal significance.

              So Mr. Kresser is more correct than CDC on this point also. But CDC could have been more right than Mr. Kresser and even made raw milk look more dangerous had they gone with option C rather than option A (i.e. hospitalizations rather than outbreaks). I’m sure if anyone at CDC is reading this, they are banging their heads right now.

              But ultimately, even if I am, say, ~110x more likely to be hospitalized from drinking raw fluid milk than pasteurized fluid milk (adjusting for consumption numbers, assuming 3% raw milk consumption, so multiply the 71 hospitalizations over the studied period by 33, then divide by the 20 hospitalizations from pasteurized milk over that period), the absolute risk is still like 2 in 3 million that in any given year I’d be hospitalized from raw milk. (71 hospitalizations X 33 to normalize consumption, then divide by 13 years studied, then divide by total US population)

              What would be extremely interesting is to compare that risk, to the risk of being hospitalized due to *not* drinking raw milk and thus having a weaker immune system, not to mention the long-term implications of over-exposure to low levels of antibiotics in CAFO milk, which are almost astronomical/incalculable. And not to mention the deplorable conditions for the cows on CAFO farms. I’ll take this small absolute risk of hospitalization from raw milk any day when weighed against the benefits to me, the cows, the Earth, future generations, etc.

              And personally I must say that I am one of those folks who loves the taste of cow milk, but it really messes me up when I drink pasteurized milk. I get gas so bad all day long, nobody wants to be near me, and acid reflux as well.

              There is simply no liquid that quite satisfies me and quenches all desires at once like raw milk. I like to take small sips of it to savor the experience.

              I would love to work on a farm that produces raw milk in an ethical fashion, treating all the goats/cows & kids/calves humanely, if I could find such a place nearby to Philadelphia that wanted to hire someone like me with no experience and a toddler and so forth 😛

              • rawmilkmike says

                Here’s a little something I posted a while back: Recently the CDC blamed 2 Mexican producers of cucumbers for causing an outbreak of foodborne illness. When you go to their website you find out that they were really only talking about 73 cases of diarrhea over a 3 month period over the entire united states. Did you know there are nearly 300 million cases of diarrhea in this country over that length of time. Also notice 39 of the 73 people didn’t even eat their cucumbers. Can we really believe anything these people have to say regarding food safety? They didn’t test the cucumbers, 15 of the ill didn’t eat cucumbers, and 28 were never even interviewed. That’s epidemiology for you. http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/saintpaul-04-13/index.html

              • rawmilkmike says

                No, you don’t “get 10 kids in the ER all with the same symptoms”. You get 2, then you call all the farms customers and find 8 who had diarrhea in the last week and hang up. “then you go test the” floor “at the farm and find it contaminated with the bacteria that” was found in one of the children’s stool samples. There is no “hard evidence that” the diarrhea was even caused be the bacteria let alone food and certainty no evidence that fresh milk was “the culprit.”

                This is the sort of thing you can find if you do an internet search for press releases on fresh milk outbreaks.

              • rawmilkmike says

                The CDC continually confuse milk and dairy when talking to the public about raw milk safety. They even confuse raw milk with improperly pasteurized milk. This is certainly no accident. Just like confusing outbreaks and individual cases. Or saying 17% per 10 years rather than 1.7 per year. Oh, and the raw data is there. They do give the actual number of cases. I think they may even mention the multiplier they use.

                • joel rosenblum says

                  It seems to me that you are the one who is confused about that 1.7% per year thing. You can’t compare apples with oranges…

                  And the raw data is not there. Only the table summarizing the raw data is there. Raw data would look like what exactly took place–who was this person here who supposedly got sick? What was the date and time of their presentation, etc.? Without such raw data we have to take CDC on their word about the summary figures. That’s why Mr. Kresser made up his own database from publicly available sources. And it seems he thought that by doing so he might get a clearer picture of reality. But I am pointing out that his dataset doesn’t seem to be saying much that is different from CDC’s dataset. It is his counting illnesses rather than outbreaks (or hospitalizations) which is shifting things in favor of raw milk (from 150x to 9x as dangerous).

          • rawmilkmike says

            I don’t know exactly what you mean but I noticed you used the phrase: “cases of raw milk related illness.” rather than “cases of illness caused by raw milk.” “Related” and “Associated” only mean the sick person may have consumed some raw milk within the ten days leading up to their diarrhea. The CDC would have never used these ambiguous words in their official written statements if they didn’t have to.

      • rawmilkmike says

        The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Minnesota raw milk study shows that only 1.7% per year or 1 in 59 raw milk consumers acquire illnesses caused by enteric pathogens. While 15% per year or 1 in 6 Americans(97% of whom, don’t drink raw milk.) get sick from foodborne diseases. In other words: People who don’t drink raw milk are 9 times more likely to contract a so called foodborne illness than people that do.

        • joel rosenblum says

          Hi Mike, thanks for your input.

          I looked at the CDC report you are speaking of and there is no mention of the figure 1.7% anywhere, so I’m guessing you calculated that yourself based on some other stats.

          If you can be more explicit about your sources and exactly how you are calculating things, maybe I could take a look.

          And I just want to mention, not sure if I did before, but I am fairly certain the benefits of raw milk do far outweigh the risks. I just don’t like it when people misuse statistics.

            • Joel Rosenblum says

              Ah ok, yes, I do see where it says 17% of raw milk drinkers became ill over the course of the 10 year period.

              That does not translate to 1.7% of raw milk drinkers becoming ill per year, however. If that is what they meant to say, then they butchered it badly in a way that doesn’t serve their objective at all. If it were 1.7% of raw milk drinkers becoming ill per year over 10 years, they would not specify the number of Minnesotans who became ill. Instead it would be the number of illnesses. But even then it would be crude to assume that each raw milk drinker became ill one time per year, thus allowing you to divide 17% by 10 years to get 1.7% of raw milk drinkers becoming ill.

              In any case this is all based on a CDC “estimate,” which is probably more like a guesstimate.

              I am more interested in the hard data than estimates, since they vary so wildly.

              As you mentioned, this CDC report is complete trash, because of their method of assuming that someone must have gotten ill from raw milk if they had recently drank raw milk. It is hard to believe the researchers were truly that stupid to believe that they were making a scientific report here as opposed to pure propaganda that only ignorant journalists would buy. Unfortunately, most people do not understand science, especially journalists… with the exception of some specialty science journalists maybe.

              • rawmilkmike says

                You have written pages but didn’t comment on my point, which is much simpler and based on the same sort of CDC data as you are using. It shows that raw milk has a negative risk factor. “People who don’t drink raw milk are 9 times more likely to contract a so called foodborne illness than people that do.” This is actually very close to my own real life experience. Before I switched to raw milk I was 15x more likely to get diarrhea. And I wasn’t lactose intolerant. Please tell me what you think of these links:

                What is epidemiology

                Statistical Follies and Epidemiology. William Matthew (“Matt”) Briggs, Ph.D.

                • joel rosenblum says

                  Hi Mike,

                  I did respond to your point. You were miscalculating based on the assumption that 17% of raw milk drinkers getting ill over 10 years is the same as 1.7% of raw milk drinkers getting ill each year–the SAME folks getting ill each year and nobody else (which is not likely). Did you not read the top of my reply?

                  Anecdotally I can also report much better health after I switched to raw milk. And I don’t think it’s placebo because I didn’t even know what improved my health until I thought about what change I had made in diet in last few weeks. But anyway this concept of raw milk IMPROVING health is not even mentioned by people talking about the risks… which is hilarious, because in medicine it is always supposedly weighing risks vs benefits…

                  Anyway thanks for the vids, I watched both of them and they were both great, although I’m not sure I learned anything new, but at least it helped me to refresh my memory and pull things together holistically in my mind a bit regarding statistics. Another thing that wasn’t mentioned in that video is that over 1/3 of researchers report deliberate deception in order to get published (not just what Dr. Briggs said about confirmation bias)…


              • rawmilkmike says

                When I said raw data I meant the number of people with lab confirmed enteric infections. Epidemiologists and the public don’t have access to personal medical records. I agree the public should know the limitations of epidemiology. In reality epidemiology should be a tool for clinicians not salesman selling the latest snake oil to the unsuspecting public.

                17 per 10 is 17 over 10 is seventeen tenths or 1.7 isn’t it? Like 60 mph is 60miles over 1hour or 60 miles over 60minutes is one mile per minute. I agree comparing 17% per 10 years for raw milk consumers to 15% per year for the average American would be apples to oranges? That’s why I put the fraction in simplest terms. It’s just grade school math. If you still think I’m confused, could you be more specific.

                “The SAME folks getting ill each year and nobody else.”? !7% of the participants got sick during the 10 year study. Why can’t you convert that to a yearly average just like any other study.

                Hey, what happened to your reply button?

              • rawmilkmike says

                Besides when you are talk only about diarrhea yes, that’s 4x per yr but foodborne illness is only once every 6 yrs for the average American. And yes some Americans almost never get diarrhea. It’s an average.

                This is how I was able to come up with the relative risk. “People who don’t drink raw milk are 9 times more likely to contract a so called foodborne illness than people that do.”

                Absolute versus relative risk – making sense of media stories

                • joel rosenblum says

                  Hi Mike,

                  You are missing the units. In grade school math you learn that if you don’t use the units, you don’t know what you are saying.

                  We aren’t working with scalars. These are not just pure numbers without units. If they were, then sure, you could average it and such without any problem.

                  But look at the units and you will start to see that averaging over 10 years is creating a number of assumptions out of thin air (which I have already mentioned prior). And in addition you are comparing incomparable units. Minnesota raw milk drinkers is one unit (17% of which over 10 years got enteric pathogen illness according to the CDC guesstimate). Americans in general is another unit. So even if your math could work, you are still comparing incomparable units. And even if you are comparing what seems like comparable units, you don’t have access to the raw data, so you can’t control for all kinds of risk/benefit factors. For example, it is possible that most of these raw milk drinkers in Minnesota are ALSO getting local organic produce instead of stuff filled with pesticides that also lacks any of the local pathogens. Small amounts of the same type of pathogen (not to mention local probiotics which compete with those pathogens) can conceivably have a vaccine-like effect, and the lack of pesticides would conceivable boost immunity. And what about how frequently the raw milk drinkers eat out vs other people? Eating out is usually more dangerous than eating in, especially at lower-class restaurants. I would also want to know the level of education of the raw milk drinkers vs other folks. People with more education tend to have more understanding of risk avoidance.

                  And even if you had comparable units and the ability to control for various risk factors, you may still have conflicting study methodologies to look for. How was the 17% figure arrived at vs the 15% figure?

                  And even if you had all these things nailed down and comparable, you’d still be doing what you were warning me about in that video from Dr. Briggs, which is making predictions out of data that has already been gathered. When you have such pre-gathered data, there is always a way to find what you are looking for. The only way to do real science is to make a hypothesis and test it by taking samples longitudinally (as time goes on). And even then, you’d need multiple studies to validate a hypothesis to a high degree of certainty. Usually with different people doing the studies.

                  So if you want to criticize CDC for doing stats wrong, you can’t just go around using the same kind of bad methodology as them.

              • rawmilkmike says

                Hi Joel, Why is it, in all your many paragraphs referencing CDC data, do you not use the term “CDC guesstimate”. As soon as I try to use CDC data against itself the data becomes “CDC guesstimates”? Why do I need access to the raw data and you don’t? The CDC data we are both using is suppose to already be controlled for all kinds of risk/benefit factors. For example, Under reporting.

                • Joel Rosenblum says

                  CDC data was not controlled for all kinds of risk-benefit factors from what I can see. Where did you see that? They did exclude people who travelled internationally, as well as people who were already listed as part of outbreaks (which btw makes this study fairly useless for discussing the risks of raw milk in general even in Minnesota, even if it weren’t based on horrible logic, because this study is really not about trying to say how risky raw milk is, if you read it. It’s about trying to dredge up more factors to include in later estimates of risk.)

                  A multiplier factor has nothing to do with risk-benefit controls, in fact the opposite. Risk-benefit controls help us to be more careful about our conclusions. Multipliers help us be more aggressive about our conclusions.

                  In my analysis (which you label as my “many paragraphs” I think), I was merely trying to understand how CDC and Mr. Kresser can differ so widely on the estimate of how dangerous raw milk is compared to pasteurized milk. And I was not looking at this Minnesota study for that analysis.

                  What you are doing is, first of all, using this trashy Minnesota study to base your stats off of, then comparing Minnesota trash stats with national stats, which are hopefully not based on such loose associations, and then using these comparisons to make new claims about the health benefits of raw milk which the data clearly do not support. That’s why I’m saying you are comparing apples and oranges. And in addition you are making other logical errors as I’ve already described in terms of the averaging thing.

              • rawmilkmike says

                You said, “But look at the units and you will start to see that averaging over 10 years is creating a number of assumptions out of thin air (which I have already mentioned prior).” “But even then it would be crude to assume that each raw milk drinker became ill one time per year” Who’s assuming that? My previous response was, first of all, “when you are talking only about diarrhea yes, that’s 4x per yr but foodborne illness is only once every 6 yrs for the average American.” And how am I not keeping up with the units? The units are illnesses and people. X amount of illness among Y amount of people.

                You said, “If it were 1.7% of raw milk drinkers becoming ill per year over 10 years, they would not specify the number of Minnesotans who became ill. Instead it would be the number of illnesses.” It is the number of illnesses. The number of illnesses among raw milk drinkers multiplied by an under reporting multiplier over the total population of Minnesota x 0.01.

                “the SAME folks getting ill each year and nobody else” Where is this coming from? Why would you make that assumption? The only possible incorrect assumption would be that the same number of people got sick each year. But since it is only an average we know that is not the case. What good are these studies if they can’t be compared?

                • Joel Rosenblum says

                  >Who’s assuming that?

                  You are assuming that by saying that 1.7% of raw milk drinkers became ill each year. CDC is saying 17% of raw milk drinkers in Minnesota became ill over 10 years. That is not the same as saying that each year, 1.7% of raw milk drinkers became ill. Because what if each year, 17% of all raw milk drinkers became ill? That would still translate to 17% of raw milk drinkers becoming ill over a period of 10 years. So that’s the opposite end of the spectrum of assumption when trying to translate their stat to something that is (you hope) more meaningful for your own use.


                  No, the units are not X illnesses among Y people, not from what I can see in this Minnesota report. The units are case-patients… which is a bit vague. The report doesn’t specify whether a case-patient is for sure not the same person as another case-patient, but it does seem to imply that. If it merely said illnesses, then there would be no implication of actual unique persons being counted. This is why raw data is useful to have.


                  To do some more meaningful comparison, you would have to compare the number of food-borne illnesses that raw milk drinkers in Minnesota get (which you can’t based on this study because it excludes outbreaks and illnesses not related to bacteria found in milk) to the number of food-borne illnesses among non-raw-milk-drinkers of Minnesota.

                  So let’s just drop all effort to make conclusions based on this silly Minnesota report. If you want to say that raw milk drinkers are 9x less likely to get a food-borne illness, then look at national data. I don’t know that any exists, though, specifically regarding raw milk drinkers, which is probably why you were excited to use this study to support your astounding stat.

                  You might be absolutely right that raw milk drinkers are something like 9x less likely to get food-borne illnesses, but you aren’t giving any hard evidence.

                • Joel Rosenblum says

                  Oops, I meant to be more clear about this:


                  I should have specified that it would still translate to 17% over 10 years if it was the same 17% becoming ill each year.

                  And I think I was also not making sense when I said what you were assuming. By saying 1.7% are becoming ill each year, you are assuming that it is a *different* 1.7% becoming ill each year. Because remember we are talking about raw milk drinkers as the unit.

                  I think I am becoming more mentally dyslexic and confused as I get older. I blame everything on Lyme disease… and pasteurized milk that I drank for so long. :)

                  Too bad you can’t edit your comments on here.

              • rawmilkmike says

                “So if you want to criticize CDC for doing stats wrong, you can’t just go around using the same kind of bad methodology as them.” If you want to champion the CDC for doing stats right and go around using the same kind of methodology as them then you can’t criticize others for doing the same. I am not using this data to justify raw milk consumption to you. You and I already know raw milk’s safety and benefit. It is for people still trying to make sense out of CDC press releases.

                The Minnesota study is just as reliable as any other CDC data. As long as you know what 17% per 10 years means. 17/100/10 = 17/10/1 = 17/10 = 1.7 This has nothing to do with the units. It is simply putting the answer in simplest terms. Remember “simplest terms”?

                When I compare the Minnesota data to US data the only assumption I am making is that Minnesota raw milk consumers are the same as other raw milk consumers. Do you really think any possible difference would explain a 9 fold negative absolute risk factor.

              • rawmilkmike says

                There is another way to simplify the raw milk question. If you do a search for how often the average American gets diarrhea, it will say the average American gets diarrhea 4 times a year, which is close to my pre-raw milk experience. If you’ve made the rounds of the popular anti-raw milk sites you will know that the CDC says: We should not drink raw milk because it could theoretically contain bacteria that could theoretically cause diarrhea in some people some of the time. So just try it. As a matter of fact try the raw milk diet. That’s a cup of raw milk every so many hours. Try it for 3 months. If you don’t get diarrhea, you know the CDC is wrong. If you see health benefits you know the raw milk consumers were right.

                Why don’t your recent posts have a reply button?

              • rawmilkmike says

                My god Joel, not that stuff again. What does that have to do with anything? This study is really not about trying to say how risky raw milk is, which makes it perfect for comparing it to the national data which is also not tided to a particular food. Yes these were raw milk drinkers but the illness were not associated with raw milk. Case-patients were simply persons with laboratory-confirmed Enteritidis infection. It is highly unlikely that the same person would came into the hospital for diarrhea twice in their lifetime but if they did they’d be 2 Case-patients. Why would you think otherwise?

                My other 2 posts have not shown up yet so maybe I’ll recap.

                I am not using this data to justify raw milk consumption to you. You and I already know raw milk’s safety and benefit. It is for people still trying to make sense out of CDC press releases. Or maybe to just poke fun at the CDC. I’m not sure.


                When I compare the Minnesota data to US data the only assumption I am making is that Minnesota raw milk consumers are the same as other raw milk consumers. Do you really think any possible difference would explain a 9 fold negative absolute risk factor. Didn’t you say you have less diarrhea now that you’ve switching to raw milk? That’s prevention. That’s a negative risk factor.

                Oh, by the way you were doing a good job with that 150x thing. I did one of those a while back, myself. I was able to get it down to 0.7x. In the Minnesota study they couldn’t use “people who were already listed as part of outbreaks” do to “conflicting study methodologies”. The illnesses they included were never associated with raw milk. Most of the illnesses excluded were never tested for interact infection. And what difference does it make if it is the same person or not?


                It is silly for us to use epidemiology when we can use empirical science. I will concede that theoretically epidemiology could serve a useful function but I truly believe that from it’s very inception it was intended to be a tool of disinformation.

                You don’t think it’s hilarious that they’re convicted by their own data? The CDC is not in the health food business. They will never do the kind of research you are talking about. Besides they already know the truth about raw milk. That is why they are so good at avoiding it.

                • Joel Rosenblum says

                  Hmm, my last (long) reply was not posted yet, but anyway right to the point… The Minnesota study shows that in a state with 2.3% identifying as raw milk drinkers, 3.7% of those hospitalized in the study were raw milk drinkers. Of those 3.7%, 50% had close contact with farm animals, which is a likely vector for contamination with bacteria that can later be put in the mouth if hands are not thoroughly washed.

                  So it doesn’t appear likely that raw milk is so awfully dangerous compared to other risk factors for enteric pathogens. Nor does it appear to offer a great deal of protection from food poisoning in general. Just judging from that study.

              • rawmilkmike says

                Why is it so hard for you to accept that the CDC has been convicted by it’s own data?

                It is highly unlikely that the same person would come into the hospital for diarrhea twice in their lifetime but if they did they’d be 2 Case-patients. Why would you think otherwise? Yes they’d be the same patient but it would be their second case. 2 x 1 x 1 = 2 Two trips to the hospital, times one case of diarrhea each, times one patient, equals 2 Case-patients.

                Haven’t you ever heard of heating degree days? It works the same way. “To calculate HDD, take the average of a day’s high and low temperatures and subtract from 65. For example, if the day’s average temperature is 50o F, its HDD is 15. If every day in a 30-day month had an average temperature of 50o F, the month’s HDD value would be (15 x 30) or 450. The nominal settlement value for this month’s weather derivative contract would therefore be (450 x $20) or $9,000.”

                Didn’t you say you have less diarrhea now that you’ve switching to raw milk? That’s prevention. In other words, a negative absolute risk factor. The data you are using suggests a positive risk factor because it is based on the assumption of the attending physician, that raw milk is the most likely cause.

                The Minnesota study shows the Enteritidis risk of not drinking raw milk. It doesn’t matter what caused the Enteritidis as long as you know fresh milk consumers have it less often.

                Epidemiology is only as good as it’s input data and is useless without empirical science. Just as correlation is meaningless without a mechanism.

                • Joel Rosenblum says

                  Holy wow, we just posted at the exact same moment? Or yours was queued until mine or something.

                  Well in my long reply to you that wasn’t posted (you can email me if you want it, since I don’t know if I should try posting it again), I decided to avoid this unit question since I thought we had discussed it enough, and it is probably the most trivial and technical/pedantic part of my criticism of your idea that raw milk makes people 9x less likely to get enteritis.

                  If this were a class in statistics or probability, the teacher might call you out on this type of thing. But I’m willing to let you make the assumption that 17% of raw milk drinkers getting ill over 10 years is equal to 1.7% of raw milk drinkers getting ill on average each year, even tho it is not necessarily true (people do often get the same illness repeatedly if they are prone to it due to genetics or lifestyle). In math terms, you are assuming “probability without replacement”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKTjh-6PFjo

              • rawmilkmike says

                I thought I knew why they excluded the patients linked to a recognized outbreak but on second look, I have to say, I have no idea why. This reminds me of what the did with the raw milk lactose intolerance study. Well OK if you add them back in you get 5.6% per year. So, people who don’t drink raw milk are only 3 times more likely to contract a so called foodborne illness than people that do.

                Raw Milk Consumption among Patients with Non–Outbreak-related Enteric Infections, Minnesota, USA, 2001–2010 by Trisha J. Robinson, Joni M. Scheftel, and Kirk E. Smith

                • Joel Rosenblum says

                  They excluded them because the point of this paper was to figure out how many people are getting illnesses from raw milk (they assume) that are not currently being counted due to not being part of outbreaks.

                  Can you describe your reasoning for saying that the stats in this paper show non-raw-milk-drinkers are 3x more likely to get enteritis? I don’t understand.

              • rawmilkmike says

                Most people that drink raw milk don’t drink enough. But 5.6% per year is still only once every 18 years. Try converting “1.7% per year” to “per 10 years”. What do you get? Case-patients are the same as degree days. Cases x Patients.

                • Joel Rosenblum says

                  I still don’t see any math for how you are calculating that raw milk drinkers are 3x less likely to get enteritis. Can you give a run-down of how I can do your calculation and get your result? From the study it seemed the opposite–raw milk drinkers a bit more likely to get enteritis.

              • rawmilkmike says

                I agree the Minnesota study is: “about trying to dredge up more factors to include in later estimates of risk.)” Or create dozens of meaningless sound bites.

                You were right. I was comparing apples and oranges. As in “A case-patient was defined as a Minnesota resident who had a domestically acquired, laboratory-confirmed Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, STEC O157, non-O157 STEC, or Salmonella” vs US “foodborne illnesses”.

                You were on the right track. There are only two important pieces of data.

                “AFTER EXCLUSIONS, a total of 14,339 cases remained. Among the 14,339 patients, 530 (3.7%) reported consumption of (FLUID?) raw milk during their exposure period” But you should use:

                BEFORE EXCLUSIONS, there were 20,034 cases. Among the 20,034 patients, 551 (2.75%) reported consumption of fluid raw milk during their exposure period. “Minnesotans who reported consuming raw milk (2.3%)”

                And: “Of the 530 case-patients who consumed raw milk, … almost half either obtained it from their own dairy farm (91 consumers, 24%) or from a relative’s dairy farm (90 consumers, 24%).” “Among 464 case-patients with known information, 232 (50%) also reported contact with cattle or their environment during the exposure period; 68% of these exposures occurred in persons living or working on a farm or visiting a family member’s farm.”

                These bacteria are probably part of their normal gut flora and probably had nothing to do with their diarrhea. Don’t they say farmers are probably immune to raw milk bacteria?

                “The point of this paper was to figure out how many people are getting illnesses from raw milk (they assume) that are not currently being counted due to not being part of outbreaks.” No. That is not their stated purpose or stated result. It is what the title states. But why would you then put your results in % per 10yrs?

                I used the 1244 to get my 3x even though I probably should have used the 21.

                “Among these cases, 6,695 were excluded for the following reasons; … the patient was linked to a recognized outbreak (1,244 cases)(Associated with what?)…. Of the excluded outbreak cases, (only) 21 occurred during 5 recognized outbreaks associated with raw milk” “Among the 14,339 patients, 530 (3.7%) reported consumption of fluid raw milk during their exposure period” 9/(1,244 + 530)/530

                Notice they don’t say all the 1,244 outbreak cases were related to raw milk, only 21 of them.

  2. Linda says

    I have A2/A2 Jersey cows. Before I drink any milk from my cow I send a sample off to the ANIMART lab for testing for 17 pathogens. When my milk test results come back clean for all these bacterial possibilities, I drink it. It also is mandatory to sterilize all your equipment after each use, sanitize the user well and use a test dip for avoidance of possible mastitis. With EVERY pregnancy from same cow…it is important to test the milk. I also gave up attempting hand milking so I can milk faster and get the milk into cooler faster at 35 degrees. I never air expose my milk, but let it go into tube into stainless container immediately so no dust, soil or air dust affect milk. In fact, I just drank a fresh glass of chilled raw milk 10 minutes ago. A2A2 milk is very healthy for you.

    • Elizabeth says

      Linda, I have a 5 yr old son that has autism, and I have been looking everywhere for raw organic a2a2 milk that has sanitary standards like yours. It means so much to me to make a switch for my son but so far I can’t find a single farm in tn where I can get a2a2 milk. Are you anywhere near us or do you have any advice on where I can go? I’ve even considered and tried to buy a cow so my son could have this milk, however nobody I’ve contacted seems to want to part with any a2a2 cows,because they are building their herds.

  3. says

    I really want to include raw milk in my diet.

    However, I believe I got a parasite from incorporating raw Parmesan cheese in my diet. I do blood smears every 3 months due to picking up a few Lyme-like infections a few years back and I keep a journal of every change I make in my diet and lifestyle habits. The two things I did differently that got me from parasite-free to parasite-infested were adding raw cheese and pork. I took both of them out and the infection went away (after taking antimicrobials for a short period).

    That said, I am still interested in raw milk. But I would want to know where it’s coming from. Would be cool to have your own happy cows.

  4. says

    I’m getting sick and tired of hearing all the misinformation about raw milk that keeps showing up here. Having drunk raw milk for better than 10 years, and having read the literature, I know better than to believe all the imagined dangers. The dangers began years ago when cows were brought in to the city and poorly cared for, and now I wouldn’t touch CAFO milk with a 10 ft pole. But properly cared for pastured cows are an entirely different matter!

    • rawmilkmike says

      I like to point out to fellow raw milk aficionados that most milk in the US still comes from small farms and that there is no reason to believe that even the worst swill milk is or ever was as bad as the pasteurized milk we now see in our supermarkets. Certainly raw grass fed A2 milk is healthier but there is no reason to think that raw CAFO milk is not still a super-food. If you look at the history of pasteurization you will find that it was first done by the industry in secret because they knew consumers wouldn’t go for it. The health problems associated with pasteurization showed up almost immediately in the form of rickets, osteoporosis and the like. Pasteurization was then and still is today pushed by the medical industry. This industry knew then and most likely still knows today that pasteurization destroys raw milk as a health-food. The $4 trillion a year pharmaceutical industries is by far raw milk’s most powerful competitor. At $4 trillion a year doesn’t that make it the single most powerful industry(aside from the Federal Reserve) in the US and probably the world.

    • Elise says

      As an RN in the Pediatric ICU,  my experience with raw milk is significantly different than the average person.  In my 18 years and in two states we have had a number of raw milk related illnesses. All of these children were infected with E.coli and several went on to develop hemolytic uremic syndrome.  Of those I’ve seen kidney failure,  cerebral edema and devastating stroke.

      The sources of illness in all cases were definitively traced to family dairies that sold raw milk. In each case the farmers were GOOD PEOPLE with the absolute best intentions.  They faithfully utilized best practices and cared for their herds in pristine fashion.  The problem is that these organisms are endemic in this environment. It cannot be helped or prevented. They are not the same pathogens that existed when our parents and grandparents farmed.

      Food borne illness can be prevented. We don’t question temperature recommendations for beef. So why not for dairy….the source of which is the same. Recommending raw milk for infants and children is akin to suggesting undercooked chicken holds a small chance of illness. It’s easy to detached from the realities when not watching these kids literally fight for their lives.

      • alex says

        i don’t like to use modern statistical arguments but you know sir that you have seen only the sick ones in your life and in order to have an idea you have to have the whole picture? if you’re working with sick people all you see are sick people and if you’re working with healthy people all you see are healthy people? you know that there the same illness can be caused by different causes? you know of course that pasteurised and omogenized milk most surely is responsible for a lot of illnesses that will at some point reach your hospital and in your mind you will not associate that with many many other people fighting for their lives you will just say that’s bad luck because you had bad genetics? no of course no. “”you only see what your eyes want to see”” faimous madonna quote. i am subjective the same as everyone else but my subjectivity is far more realistic than yours.

      • rawmilkmike says

        “The sources of illness in all cases were definitively traced to family dairies that sold raw milk.” No way!!! Not possible and you know it!!!

      • rawmilkmike says


        • rawmilkmike says

          Caveat Emptor [ Let the buyer beware.] A warning that notifies a buyer that the goods he or she is buying are subject to all defects.

  5. katherine says

    Our whole family in Malaysia drink raw milk from the time we were young. The milkman would come to our house everyday and deliver it and it taste wonderful. As we grew older, we switched to pasteurized milk as we heard a lot of health concerns and sanitary issues concerning the raw milk. Now I am an adult and earning my own money, i found the milkman and have got him to send to my house every two days. We boil our milk and dont drink straight from it though. And the taste is just wonderful.

    • rawmilkmike says

      Katherine, you have been tricked by the pharmaceutical industry. In the US people that know the value of raw milk are willing to pay 10 times as much for it. Boiling your milk is a crime. If you were raised on raw milk you know there is no danger. The malnutritionists claim only that raw milk can cause diarrhea in so people some of the time when the truth is in the US, children, the elderly, and pregnant women who drink pasteurized milk get diarrhea 4 times a year and 60% of the adults get diarrhea every time they consume pasteurized dairy products of any kind. Americans who drink raw milk hardly ever get diarrhea.

    • rawmilkmike says

      Gerry, it’s interesting you used the word “why”. I assume you meant to say “how”. No one is being accused of murder. This is all your article says:

      “Dr Lester said raw milk COULD contain dangerous bacteria and parasites…” Not DID.

      “She said each batch had passed quality audits, and that ongoing testing by authorities had so far cleared it for e-coli, salmonella, listeria, and campylobacter.”

      “The death is being investigated by the coroner.”

      No how.

    • Charles Hooper says

      Save your breath Gerry. Rawmike’s image says volumes, but his arguments are the clincher. Why not include more from the article, like this:

      “The three-year-old child who died developed haemolytic uraemic syndrome, a rare bacterial illness that leads to kidney failure. The death is being investigated by the coroner.

      The other four children aged between one and five became seriously ill in recent weeks following infections linked to the milk, but have since recovered. Three of the children had haemolytic uraemic syndrome and two others had cryptosporidiosis, a parasitic infection that commonly presents as gastroenteritis with watery diarrhoea.

      Dr Lester said raw milk could contain dangerous bacteria and parasites and posed a heightened risk for young children, the elderly, pregnant women and people with underlying health problems.”

      So it’s deluded rawmike versus an Australian physician and the country’s health authorities. Young mothers you know which one to believe…

      • rawmilkmike says

        Charles, Dr Lester never said the death was caused by raw milk. I quoted your very same quotes to make my point. So where’s the “versus”? This child certainly didn’t live and die in a bubble consuming only raw milk.

        • rawmilkmike says

          So you’re speechless Gary? I see what you mean about saving my breath. It’s really sad the way you guys lead people astray. Dangerous men.

        • rawmilkmike says

          Gary, Regardless of what ever caused the child’s diarrhea in the first place. It was the child’s care at home that made it persist and the hospitalization that caused it’s death. No child today in America should die from diarrhea.

        • Charles Hooper says

          The world is full of stupid and persistent RawMikes Gerry. When you offer them the facts they demand, they completely ignore them and then makes things up from the same evidence. Look at what he says about the child and diarrhea–blames the hospital and the parents yet doesn’t have a clue of what really happened. Just like those clowns who go on and on about events like Ferguson, MO while only the grand jury had the facts. Did you see anything in the story about child or hospital neglect Gerry? I didn’t.

          To do something so flagrantly dangerous to children because he thinks he sounds clever reminds me of the people of Westboro Baptist Church. I long ago quit on him. But don’t let guys like this stand in the way of what’s right Gerry. To try and help parents get the facts about the dangers of raw milk to their children is a noble and good effort, so hang tough. By now there are tons of useful links within this discussion–a tribute to the author of the piece. I have complete trust that unlike people such as rawmike, the vast majority of them love their children enough they will go the extra step to break from philosophical idealism to learn what’s safe to put in their children’s bodies.

        • rawmilkmike says

          The world is full of evil trolls Gerry. When you offer them the facts they demand, they completely ignore them and change the subject. Using their own data against them is unique to rawmilkmike. Did you see anything in the story about child or hospital Gerry? I didn’t. So how do you know what caused the child’s death? You don’t have a clue of what really happened. Just like those reporter clowns in the press going on and on about events like Ferguson, MO without any facts. Like white people in masks breaking windows and outside provocateurs throwing bricks and smoke bombs at police without being arrested. The only people arrested in Ferguson were journalists and a handful of out of state looter.

          To deny children healthy food because he thinks he sounds clever reminds me of the people of Westboro Baptist Church. I long ago quit on him. But don’t let guys like this stand in the way of what’s right Gerry. To try and help parents get the facts about the dangers of feeding pasteurized milk to their children is a noble and good effort, so take another look at the data or lack there of. By now there are tons of useful links within this discussion–a tribute to the author of the piece. I have complete trust that unlike people such as Charles Hooper, some of them love their children enough they will go the extra step to break from philosophical idealism to learn what’s safe to put in their children’s bodies.

          • CommonSenseBen says

            Thought I’d chime in with a slice of reality.

            My opinion: Drinking raw milk exposes you to a completely unnecessary danger.

            My opinion: It is a personal choice to drink raw milk, however, given the increased risk to die for a slight increase in vitamins: the risk/benefit doesn’t weigh up.

            My opinion is based on some simple facts.

            Pasteurized milk is heated for a short time, hot enough to kill potentially deadly bacteria. Google it as I did: this is a simple fact.

            Pasteurization only slightly decreases some minerals found in milk. Note it does this slightly. I found this reference on this very site that validates this information:


            Quick summary of facts (not my opinion):

            Drinking unpasteurized milk significantly increases your chances of becoming very ill for a slight increase in already minimal mineral quantities.

            A human diet does not rely on milk to get the affected minerals into your diet. Raw milk doesn’t contain enough of them to start with.

            You may find that unpasteurized milk tastes better.

            You are 13 times more likely to be hospitalized by raw milk.

            • rawmilkmike says

              CommonSenseBen, it sometimes takes more than just common sense. The reality is there are millions of Americans who have switched to raw milk and they KNOW raw milk’s safety and benefit from their own personal experience. They don’t have to rely on speculation from organizations with a clear conflict of interest. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Minnesota raw milk study shows that only 1.7% per year or 1 in 59 raw milk consumers acquire illnesses caused by enteric pathogens. While 15% per year or 1 in 6 Americans get sick from foodborne diseases. In other words: People who don’t drink raw milk are 9 times more likely to contract a so called foodborne illness than people that do. Kids who drink raw milk have less asthma, allergies | Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-kids-raw-milk-idUSTRE78C75O20110913
              If raw milk were sold in supermarkets it would be a personal choice to drink it, however it is not sold in supermarkets, so it is not a personal choice for most Americans. Pasteurization only slightly decreases some nutrients found on the label of a carton of milk. The CDC has never documented a death from raw drinking milk. Ben, you are quoting statements not facts. Pasteurized milk is heated for a short time, hot enough to destroy enzymes that oxidized milk fat after homogenization. Pasteurization is not sterilization. Your so called foodborne pathogens are everywhere. They are in us on us and on everything we touch. Raw milk is the least likely place to look for them. These bacteria are said to cause diarrhea in some people some of the time. Google that. Raw milk can be a complete human diet. Unpasteurized milk is seasonal and only occasionally tastes better. Sometimes it tastes worse. Your hospitalizations are associated with raw milk. They are not caused by raw milk. Don’t try and read in things that aren’t there. Milk is not just minerals. http://agroindustriindonesia.blogspot.com/2010/09/milk-food-source-for-humans-1.html

              • CommonSenseBen says

                Your statistical analysis is hilarious! You compare two statistics assuming they’re mutually exclusive: your assumption is wrong.

                After all your pandering and misdirection; the fact remains that you are 13 times more likely to be hospitalized by raw milk.

                Even without knowing the facts, nobody is going to live on milk, not if they want to live healthily. Milk is a small part of anybody’s diet, and isn’t worth the risk to drink it with all the potentially harmful microorganisms that go with it.

                It is madness to condone drinking raw milk.

                That said, if you believe the twin towers was a government conspiracy; if you believe that cansema works, I recommend to you the drinking of raw milk.

                • rawmilkmike says

                  CommonSenseBen, These statistics are not mutually exclusive. This is the CDC’s only study of raw milk and it is meaningless without the other statistic as a comparison. It’s interesting you should use the terms “pandering and misdirection”. Where do you think that your “13 times more likely” comes from? And you do realize the actual quote is “People sickened in raw dairy product outbreaks from 1993 to 2006 were 13 times more likely to be hospitalized than those who became ill from consumption of pasteurized milk.” Which has a completely different meaning then your paraphrase.
                  “After all YOUR pandering and misdirection; the fact remains that you are” 9 times more likely to contract a so called foodborne illness if you don’t drink raw milk.
                  In America a government agency like the CDC works for the people and the people are make up of various producers and consumers. These entities will always be at odds.
                  There are recorded cases or people with throat injuries that lived healthy lives on raw milk but of course that isn’t the norm.
                  When you say “Even without knowing the facts” that kind of says it all. Doesn’t it? At least your honest.

              • Judy says


                So, are you trying to say that people who drink raw milk don’t eat any food? Because people who drink raw milk would have the same percentage of contracting other food borne illnesses as the rest of the population in ADDITION to illness from drinking raw milk. Therefore raw milk drinkers have an even higher likelihood of contracting food borne illnesses. (Unless they don’t eat any other foods) I don’t understand your logic/conclusions, or lack there of.

                • rawmilkmike says

                  Judy, we are all exposed to so called foodborne pathogens many times every day and we usually don’t get sick. Many of these so called pathogens are part of our bodies normal flora. The Government statistics I quoted show that raw milk prevents illness. It doesn’t cause it.

    • rawmilkmike says

      Jeff, all it says in your link is “3yo child dies after”. It doesn’t say the cause of death. I’m sure this child did may things and ate many things before it died. But were any of them the cause of it’s death and if so which one?

  6. John Martin says

    It’s not a good analogy to compare the risks from drinking raw ilk to that of driving a car or flying. For the most part driving and flying is a necessity and you would be severely inconvenienced by not doing so. On the other hand there is no similar inconvenience if you don’t drink raw milk. In life it’s about reducing risk while not being severely inconvenienced and if you make the choices to reduce risk you have a pretty goo chance of staying alive and healthy.

    • rawmilkmike says

      John, no one lives for ever. Being young or old poses many risks. Having a baby poses risk of complication. Entering a hospital for any reason poses risk of infection or medical mistake.

      If you look closely at the CDC’s data you will find that raw milk actually has a negative risk factor. In other words, it prevents illness, it doesn’t cause it.

      For the most part driving and flying are not necessary but eating is.

      Since when is life about reducing risk and inconvenience ? Isn’t it about having fun? Some of our most dangerous and inconvenient activities involve having fun.

      • Gary says

        So then, is life about increasing risk? How does fun come into play? Drinking raw milk as opposed to Pasteurized milk is more fun?

        • rawmilkmike says

          Did you read John’s post? “It’s not a good analogy to compare the risks from drinking raw ilk to that of driving a car or flying. For the most part driving and flying is NOT a necessity and you would be severely inconvenienced by not eating. On the other hand there is no similar inconvenience if you don’t DRIVE OR FLY. In life it’s NOT ALL about reducing risk while not being severely inconvenienced and if you make the choices to reduce risk you have a pretty goo chance of NOT HAVING ANY FUN.” Over 9 million Americans drink raw milk for their health. According to CDC data people who don’t drink raw milk are 9 times more likely to suffer a food borne illness than people that do.

    • Charles Hooper says

      Listen John, you will get nowhere with Mike. A foolish person, he bashes the CDC and its data in one post and then relies on their data to support another. Go back and read his responses to other people and you’ll see that a discussion with him is like having one with your cat. Just a milk-covered mouth and a meow is all you get–everything else is nonsense.

      • rawmilkmike says

        Hi Charly. It’s kind of foolish to bash someone for using there own data and then turn around and bash them for using yours. Sounds like you have a problem with data. If John goes back and reads your posts I’m sure he’ll get quit a laugh.

  7. wade says

    The website isn’t picking up symbols. Corrections to both posts below.

    “So to clayify. If I was young…below 10 or old above 75 years, I could have quite easily died…”

  8. wade says

    My brother is a dairy farmer in NZ. He was managing one of the Waikato’s (NZ premier dairy farming region) top dairy farms.

    I took RAW milk from his farm to make chocolate milks. I got campylobacter and if I was young 75 I would have died!!!

    Raw milk is not worth the risk people. Take it from me. I was extremely ill for 4 weeks. I was 11 stone and went down to 7 vomiting, diarrhoea, hallucinations, sweats etc etc. Worst month of my life.

    Stool samples were finally taken, farm was the origin, because we took RAW milk from it. Not supposed to as all NZ dairy products are pasteurised.


    Babies and elderly will die from unpasteurised milk, be warned…FDA know what they are talking about….

    • wade says

      Edit below post.

      “If I was young 75 it was supposed to say.”

      I was 21 years of age and healthy enough to fight the massive infection that took hold of my entire body.

    • rawmilkmike says

      “chocolate milks”? why blame the milk and not the chocolate? Even the CDC isn’t saying that people are dying from raw milk.

        • rawmilkmike says

          You don’t know the campy was in the milk. You don’t know it was even in your food at all. You could have gotten it anywhere or it could have been in your body all along. You don’t even know it was the cause of your illness. This is what you said: “Stool samples were finally taken, farm was the origin, because we took RAW milk from it. Not supposed to as all NZ dairy products are pasteurised.” You didn’t say you tested the milk. “Symptoms of Campylobacter infection begin after an incubation period of up to a week.” When did your symptoms start?

      • Gary says

        And Prince Charles has never undressed himself and his shoelaces are ironed for him. Let’s all do what the royals do!

        • rawmilkmike says

          There are those who believe healthy food is only for the rich. Are you one of those people Gary? I thought I was still talking to John.

            • rawmilkmike says

              Wade said – “Not supposed to as all NZ dairy products are pasteurised.” Gary, I was saying “If the royals do it, it may be good.” “I am pointing out the absurdity of saying” food processors pasteurize milk so pasteurization must be good. What do you think?

    • Lance says

      I would be notifying the dairy regulatory body in NZ if I were you. Dairy farms, especially ones that are producing what is regarded as a higher quality product, should be properly managed. There are strict guidelines a dairy farmer has to follow when taking care of the cows and the milk once extracted, all the way to the vat…. I grew up on a dairy farm and I know many others who did and there are hundreds of thousands of kids grow up on cows milk before it reaches any stage of pasteurizing. City folk mostly don’t even know milk comes from a cow…..they think it’s made in a bottle….

      • rawmilkmike says

        Is there a dairy regulatory body in NZ that cares about the quality of raw drinking milk? “City folk mostly don’t even know milk comes from a cow.” True, but you may be surprised how many grew up on raw milk.

        • Lance says

          I’m speaking from an Australian perspective……I grew up on a dairy farm and the milk has to be tested regular. What people need to realize is milk is very sensitive to sunlight. Leave your milk out on the bench with sun shining on it and it will degrade very quickly. The only real advantage of having milk pasteurized and homogenized is a longer shelf life which benefits the manufacturer and delivery process. Nowadays all milk bought from shops is actually “re-constituted” meaning it is dehydrated and separated at a central collection point then trucked to the large manufacturers in cities. All the goodness is taken out at that point. This allows for greater profit and less waste so the powdered milk and other products are made from what has been taken from the milk…….any body who thinks there is no conspiracy in corporate manufacture techniques must have their heads up a cows…….you know what…….

          • rawmilkmike says

            Lance, you are right on the money. Although I have heard that the only real advantage of having milk pasteurized is that it prevents butter fat from going rancid(oxidize) within hours of being homogenized.

            • Lance says

              just to add an interesting point here……hundreds of tanker trucks pick up the milk from dairy farms everyday. Do you see these hundreds of tankers coming into the large city milk providers plants in cities. No you don’t. Only a few come in with the concentrated milk product. Smaller collection points in rural centers do the separation process and then send on the concentrated parts to the varying process plants, eg: milk powder, baby formula, flavored milk, powdered coffees and so on. Shop milk is not really milk at all………

          • Tom Stevens says

            That’s what I don’t understand. I have found that raw milk (refrigerated) doesn’t go off even after a week. Homogenised pasteurised milk from any supermarket goes bad much quicker.

    • Thaddeus says

      I approached the manager of Jimbo’s (health store) , once upon a time, and I asked him whether or not raw milk was safe. He told me this:

      “The safety of raw milk depends on where you get it from. I wouldn’t get it from a dairy that doesn’t specialize in selling it. The raw milk I do sell ( Organic Pastures ) has raw unpasteurized organic milk that is safe. I know this because in the last 28 years I’ve been selling milk from this dairy, I’ve not had one customer come to me can tell me they got sick from drinking it.” In other words, a dairy that specializes in selling raw milk has to take precautions, and as long as they do, the milk is safe. So, when trying to determine which is healthier, compare safe brands of each. Fact is, pasteurized milk gives me hay fever, but non-pasteurized milk does not. That’s all I can say about the matter, plus the fact that raw milk tastes a lot better, to my tongue, anyway. I’ve been drinking raw milk for several years now, and not one problem, ever.
      I’m 63

      • rawmilkmike says

        Thaddeus, The safety of raw milk doesn’t really depend on where you get it from but it’s quality does. It would be hard to get it from a dairy that didn’t specialize in selling it. Most raw milk in California is sold farm direct from very small high quality operations. Didn’t Organic Pastures first open in 2000? Mark McAfee hasn’t been in the raw milk business for 28 years. Organic Pastures was blamed for an outbreak once and was shut down but as usual no contamination was ever found. Nothing can stop the health department from blaming raw milk or any food for cases of diarrhea and there will never be a shortage of cases. The average America gets diarrhea 4 times a year. None of these so call precautions have anything to do with milk’s safety and neither does pasteurization. Hey, raw milk cured my hay fever to.

  9. R gunna says

    Raw milk has been the norm in India since ages. At home in India , we had a milkman who delivered raw milk every morning and my mom would boil the milk for 10 minutes. The milk creates a thick cream layer on top which was collected and accumulated to make butter and saturated butter(Ghee) from it later. When i moved to Canada the distance between my food and the food provider expanded to the extent I dont know where my milk comes from , which farm or factory, I dont know which farms the vegetables come from. Drinking raw milk is a personal choice but in my opinion people in north america who have been cushioned against bacteria with modern age medicines may not have natural immunity for raw milk consumption. I have had raw milk since I was born , now I do not have access to it, Iam I bothered – yes maybe , Iam worried about the “milk solids ” in my Grocery store milk

    • rawmilkmike says

      Homogenization is worse than pasteurization but boiling milk for ten minutes is worse than pasteurization. People in the city are exposed to more of these so called food-borne pathogens that cows on the farm. Antibiotics do not protect us from these bacteria. Do all Indians boil their milk?

      • Snigdha says

        Yes. We all generally boil milk first and then drink it. Its a common practice in India. And as far I know, there has been not a single case of any side effect from boiling the milk. And because of the fact that even today in small town people buy milk from milkman they always prefer to boil it first and then use it.

  10. Gaston Liberman says

    It seems you start your reasoning with data from pasteurized dairy products, i.e. when you mention that they “account for about 1.3% of foodborne illnesses each year”.

    And then you close the article listing all the products that caused more illnesses than dairy, but then again, isn’t that data from pasteurized dairy products?

  11. John Davis says

    I am a cheese maker. Originally, I got on this site to get information about using raw milk in cheese making. There is good information on this page and I’m grateful to those who supplied it. Raw milk cheese was the norm for me when I lived in England and it still is, in many parts of Europe. I’ve never heard of anyone getting sick from eating it and what I’ve found on this site bears out the opinion that there is nothing dangerous about it.

    I got what I set out to get and thank those whose posts helped me to clear things up. But, to be honest, the bickering and mindless opinions are things I can do without.

    So, I am leaving this discussion.

    Yours sincerely,

    John Davis

    • J killeen says

      Above commenter is correct. The benefits you receive from raw vs pasteurized milk is simply not worth the risk. Any average American diet gets more than enough vitamins/minerals etc. Illnesses from dairy are low because they are Pasteurized! If it was widespread that americans consumed raw dairy products that number would go way up. And for what purpose? Raw milk companies today take pride and work extremely hard to verify that the cow doesn’t have infection, if raw dairy was widespread the risk of infection would sky rocket.

      • rawmilkmike says

        The above commenter is either selling very low quality processed foods or very expensive drugs.
        As John Davis once said “bickering and mindless opinions”. J is obviously not familiar with the benefits of raw milk. Raw milk has demonstrated a negative risk factor. Only a fool would suggest that the “average American diet has more than enough vitamins/minerals”. Illness from pasteurized dairy has proven to be extremely high even before you consider the so called food-borne illnesses associated with it. If raw dairy consumption was widespread in America we wouldn’t need health insurance because most of the doctor we have today would be in other professions we would all be making a lot more money. And yes J “Raw milk farmers today take pride and work extremely hard to verify that their cows don’t have infections.”

        • whoisoutthere says

          I was on board with most of what you were saying (yeah right, American diet is so nutritious…LOL). You lost me when you said if everyone drank raw milk doctors would be out of work. Yikes. Let’s not cause dismissal of some good points you make with such silliness.

          • rawmilkmike says

            First I know where you’re coming from and I agree but for me sometimes when someone brings up the subject this way I find it hard to contain myself. Are you saying raw milk is not a healthy food? Doesn’t it go without saying that an increase in the consumption of healthy food should result in healthier people and therefor a decreased demand for doctors and pharmaceuticals. Or would it simply mean the salesmen would have to step up their game to protect their $4 trillion a year income? Your criticism brings to mind 1984.


      • Bill says

        Ok, ever since man came out of the Garden of Eden he has been drinking raw milk (or if your an uninformed evolutionist ever since we climbed out of the slim) It wasn’t until the late 40’s early 50’s that we began drinking pasturized milk. So suddenly a staple food for millenia was declared “unfit”. It is hogwash, the industrial farming and bags of antibiotics that are causing problems. 3 years ago I had the start of ulcers and constant stomach problems, I was on all sorts of meds for it, a friend told me about the benefits of raw goat milk….3 months after trying it I was off all meds. I know you hippie doctor types will tell me that’s anecdotal evidence….that may be but i don’t double over in pain anymore and one cup of Goat milk seems to keep the Dr. away..Biblically a “Land flowing with Milk and Honey…” He didn’t say pasteurized homogenized crap…, I have to go with God on this one I am a believer!

  12. whoisoutthere says

    Did you also post and say ouch about:
    caggage sickening people
    chicken that continues to sicken people
    massive beef recalls due to contamination and sickening hundreds.

      • holoh says

        The author himself provides the data that shows that raw milk is extremely dangerous. He says that there are only an “average of 100 illnesses per year” caused by unpasteurized milk. However, earlier he says that 99.97% of food-borne illnesses go unreported. This means, according to his data, there are 333,233 actual illnesses each year caused by unpasteurized milk. Yikes!

        • rawmilkmike says

          Now you’re putting word in their mouths. They didn’t say “caused by” the said “associated with.”
          According to U.S. government studies raw milk may actually have a negative risk factor.
          1. An estimated 17.3% of raw milk consumers in Minnesota may have acquired an illness caused by 1 of these enteric pathogens during the 10-year study period. (That’s 1.7% per year.) or (1 in 59) and (No deaths in the US from fluid raw milk consumption.)
          2. About 48 million people (That’s 15% per year or 1 in 6 Americans) get sick and 3,000 die each year from foodborne diseases, according new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
          If raw milk is the most dangerous food NOT on the market how is it possible that only 1 in 59 raw milk consumer get sick each year from foodborne diseases while 1 in 6 Americans(78.5% of whom drink pasteurized milk and only 3% of whom drink raw milk.) get sick each year from foodborne diseases? Raw milk may be preventing 1.3 million cases of foodborne disease and 90 deaths every year in the US. Or in other words: Apparently people who don’t drink raw milk are 9 times more likely to contract a so called foodborne illness than people that do.

        • Marie says


          Okaaaaay…. So when he said CDC estimates that 99.97% of food-borne illnesses go unreported why did you ONLY do the math for unpasteurized milk? According to CDC data, and their estimation that 99.97% of food-borne illnesses go unreported, what are the “actual” figures for the illnesses associated with seafood, meat, produce, and pasteurized dairy???

          • rawmilkmike says

            According to CDC data there are actually 1.2 billion illnesses each year in the US caused by pasteurized milk. Yikes! Of course no case of foodborne illness is ever proven to be foodborne but I’m just sayin’.

            • Judy says

              Could you please list the source for your fact stating 1.2 billion illnesses each year are caused by pasteurized milk?

  13. Francesca says

    Nobody is convinced by a single article you posted above, except maybe the feeble minded and gullible. (Which I guess is what you and those of your ilk are counting on.) They are rubbish, misguided or purposeful propaganda put out by big Diary and formula manufactures. Where is your bs detector? But keep trying to rob woman of the healthful benefits of raw diary and steer them in the direction of denatured and dangerous boiled (ruined) milk and garbage milkshake like baby formula. You are actually harming a lot of woman and children with your posts. Just stop and find a real worthwhile cause to put all your energy behind. You are so obstinate. I bet your would rather give up a limb than let go of your dogma on raw milk for babies and pregnant women. You are so entrenched in your position that you scour the Internet tirelessly looking for any source or person who agrees with you and then post your misguided pseudo science articles or outright fabricated lies. Charles, just because you read it on the Internet does not make it true. Where is your BS detector and your street smarts!

  14. Charles Hooper says

    Sweet Mellisa, if you opt to concoct raw milk formula mixtures for your baby, that is your business. I certainly wouldn’t, especially if I had functioning breasts.

    Here are a few web sites for mothers considering options that provide a little food for thought. However much as I may be one in your eyes (assuming you are talking about me), I don’t consider these sources to be “babbling idiots.” There are plenty more, but this should get folks started. Ladies, please do your research before you put an ideology before common sense. “phsst” indeed…







    • rawmilkmike says

      “Real Raw Milk Facts is supported in part by Marler Clark, the nation’s foremost law firm with a practice dedicated to representing victims of food poisoning.

      Everyone knows raw breast milk is best unless the mother is vegan or on crack. We are talking about raw cows milk vs powdered baby formula.

      I have no intention of getting my toilet-training advice from a Pampers helpline.

      Food safety attorney Bill Marler saw an opportunity to pull together a team of journalists – Food Safety News

      The International Food Information Council – Our vision is a global environment where credible science drives food policy and consumer choice.

      FFF “Antigone”. I don’t know much about homemade formula; I am not convinced that someone feasibly couldn’t come up with a concoction on his/her own.”

  15. John Davis says

    I am a British cheese maker living in Japan. I started making cheese at home with store bought pasteurised homogenised milk. I found that it is possible to make cheese from store bought milk and it can even taste quite good.

    Then I got hold of raw full cream milk, pasteurised it and made cheese. It was amazing. The yield was MUCH greater with HALF of the culture and rennet and the taste was excellent. Encouraged by this and other articles on raw milk, I decided to make a batch with milk straight from the cows.

    It was incredible! Everything went so fast. With MUCH less culture, the pH dropped very quickly and with much less rennet and no calcium chloride at all, I got a great set and the taste (60 days later) brought tears to my eyes. This is it! This is the cheese I used to eat when I was a child in England, 50 years ago.

    Japanese law – in its infinite wisdom (sarcasm) – doesn’t allow me to sell cheese made with unpasteurised milk. But it doesn’t prevent me from making it. Or eating it!

    • rawmilkmike says


      Do you drink raw milk? What do you think of the 60 day rule in the US.? Does the taste of cheese improve with age? Does it get sharper with age? Do you think some people could prefer the taste of a younger cheese? When does it become cheese?

      • John Davis says

        Rawmilkmike, sorry to be late with the reply:

        >Do you drink raw milk?
        Very rarely, but then I only rarely drink milk. I prefer soy or almond milk for drinking. I do, however, make cheese with raw milk, as I wrote above.

        >What do you think of the 60 day rule in the US.?
        I think it’s being ultra safe to the point of meaninglessness. On the other hand, most of the cheese we make is hard cheese, which doesn’t develop its flavour until it’s matured for a couple of months, at least.

        >Does the taste of cheese improve with age?
        Well, it depends what cheese it is. Hard cheeses usually do, but keeping them for longer than six months requires careful attention to temperature and humidity.

        Brie, Camembert, Taleggio and similar cheeses develop a rather unpleasant ammonia taste after 5/6 months.

        Aged cottage cheese would be disgusting!

        >Does it get sharper with age?
        It’s difficult to describe the effect of ageing. I think the sharpness is more to do with the culture used and the time taken for incubation.

        There are also different types of sharpness. Cheddar made with raw milk has a special kind of sharpness that is truly wonderful. Strong, but not sour. Not unlike a good cup of tea, brewed for just the right amount of time with milk and no sugar. (This might not communicate if you haven’t been to England).

        >Do you think some people could prefer the taste of a younger cheese?
        Yes, of course. Each person has their own taste. Our ricotta made with full cream fresh milk is to die for! This does not age.

        >When does it become cheese?
        As soon as you separate the curds from the whey. Some cheeses can be eaten as soon as they are made and others, like Parmesan, are aged two or more years.

        • rawmilkmike says

          Thank you so much for the info. That was exactly what I was looking for. I even printed it out.

          Why do you prefer soy or almond milk for drinking? Most of us need some sort of health food to stay healthy. I read that you should “avoid soy milk with its endocrine disrupting isoflavones and gastric inflaming phytates.” Fresh almond milk sounds OK but not as good as raw milk.

          “Organic, unsweetened coconut milk and almond milk in cartons seem like great alternatives at first blush, but are they really as “healthy” as people believe?”

          “First, Vitamin A Palmitate is added, the synthetic version of Vitamin A.  I personally avoid synthetic versions of Vitamin A like the plague.  Every single multi-vitamin I’ve ever examined contains some form of synthetic A, including the so called “whole foods” multis.”

          “Synthetic vitamins are the chemical mirror images of the real, natural versions.  They can cause imbalances over time   Even small amounts of the synthetic fat soluble vitamins like Vitamin A can prove toxic and should be strictly avoided!”

          “The second really bad additive in these organic cartons of coconut milk and almond milk is Vitamin D2. Vitamin D2 is a form of the wonder vitamin that you should take great pains to avoid.”

          “In all known cases of Vitamin D toxicity where the dose was intentional, Vitamin D2 was the culprit.  By comparison, Vitamin D3 is much less toxic and requires an enormous or even an accidental dose to produce any toxic effect.

          Vitamin D2 is manufactured industrially by irradiating yeast.   It is dangerous for D2 to be added to any food product particularly if this product would be given to children, where toxicity symptoms would appear at much lower dosages.
          None of the store brands of cartoned coconut milk or almond milk were free of these dangerous and synthetic versions of the fat soluble vitamins!
          Notice also that carrageenan is present in 2 of the 3 products as well!  Dr. Andrew Weil has been telling people to avoid carrageenan since 2002.  Carrageenan is so toxic and inflaming to the human digestive system that this food additive is formally classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a potential human carcinogen.”

  16. Gary says

    Is there a mistake in this sentence? Does the author mean “Unpasteurized”?


    • rawmilkmike says

      It’s not a typo.


      There have been 10 deaths associated with pasteurized dairy products in the last decade. The 2 deaths you may be thinking of were associated with cheese not the drinking of raw fluid milk .

  17. rawmilkmike says

    A re-post of part of a response to Sam.

    “One to five percent of healthy people are thought to carry Listeria monocytogenes in their intestinal tracts as a portion of their normal flora.”
    “Listeria is a type of bacteria found in soil, water, and sometimes on plants.”
    “A number of pathogens are commonly associated with persistent diarrhoea in children, but in children without diarrhoea the pathogens are found with similar frequencies.”

  18. Charles Hooper says

    Mike, you’ve run off the rails buddy, so further debate with you is pointless. I will add though, that I am not paid by nor associated with anybody. Everything I said came from far more authoritative sources than myself, and I cite them!

    Mark, you clearly have a horse in this race, a great big one–you own one among the largest raw milk dairies in the country. After researching you and Organic Pastures, it looks like government recalls are a regular part of your operations. Here is a Mother Jones article as one example, but there are plenty others.

    And to say we should dismiss the weight of information based on the CDC admitting a mistake is ridiculous. It’s your word versus the CDC and many other organizations. Given your interests, your opinion is little more than an advertisement.

    Cary, regarding me being a tool, see above. Otherwise, offer something constructive to a debate. My goal has been to raise enough awareness so mothers reading here, wondering if they should give their children raw milk—and yes, raw milk cheese—will research the subject more carefully. If I have done that for just one of them, I can say I did what I set out to do, all by my lonesome.

    • rawmilkmike says

      Charles a competitor’s accusation carries no wait. A persons authority does not give them credibility when they are a competitor. When I drink raw milk for my health my farmer becomes my doctor’s competitor. When I buy farm direct I compete with the distributor, when I buy raw that hurts the processor and so on. As you say, these people have a horse in this race. It makes no sense to site an accusation from a competitor when their own data does not support their position. If you listen closely, most of the time their words don’t even support their anti-raw milk position. When I point this out they promptly change the subject or start name calling. The anti-raw milk argument convects itself. The fact that you call your sources authoritative suggests that you have no facts.

  19. rawmilkmike says

    Charles, You are not responding to any of the points that I have made. You have no evidence that “children and pregnant women” are “most affected”. The statement you quoted didn’t even say that and you will not find any official statement that does. Changing the subject to cheese when we are talking about the safety of raw milk most certainly is a red herring. Talk about pregnant women being prone to diarrhea of unknown origin when we are talking about diarrhea associated with raw milk is also a red herring.

    The pasteurization of milk is the subject so how is that a red herring? The definition of raw milk is unpasteurized milk. We are not talking about raw milk products. Pasteurized milk is a raw milk product. Your CDC report says 79% of dairy product-associated outbreaks were due to raw milk or cheese and we all know what they mean by associated. If you don’t please look it up. If it were a fact the correct term would be “caused by” and it would be followed by a reference to some empirical research. You and I both know all they mean is that these people may have consumed raw milk within the last 3 months and that is all that they mean. Farmers selling raw milk directly to consumer, who drink it for their health, are competing with “medical social workers”. As a “freelance writer” I assume you are being paid for your writing. Thanks for your honesty.

    If “there is overwhelming evidence” “that it is not safe to give raw milk to young or unborn children” why did you post your cheese report instead.

    My point is that raw milk has a negative risk factor. If you were a “medical social worker” and you “used to love raw milk as a kid, and never got sick nor knew anybody who did.” then you know I’m right and you know that “young and unborn children” are the ones that need raw milk the most.

  20. says

    Mr. Hooper,

    I challenged the CDC to provide me any evidence of death by raw milk since 1972. Any evidence of listeria monocytogenes causing illness from raw milk. Any evidence of pregnancy being effected by raw milk since 1972.

    Under FOIA, they were not able to provide any evidence as requested. In fact they denied any listeria associated with raw milk. No deaths from raw milk.

    All listeria was associated with processed milk…that is right, the processors blame raw milk conveniently when they screw up pasteurization.

    These are the facts.

    When considering raw milk safety, also consider that 700 different types bacteria have been found in human breast milk including many of the same bad bugs also found in cows raw milk! ( UC Davis IMGC studies ).

    Babies over 6 months of age are perhaps the greatest age group to gain the greatest value from raw milk.

    When we speak of raw milk, we mean tested, low risk raw milk that is intended for human consumption. Not any old raw milk intended for pasteurization. The FDA and processors have intentionally confused the two kinds of raw milk.

    To see the best standards in the world and the test data to back it up…see http://www.rawmilkinstitute.org

  21. Charles Hooper says

    Dang Mike, I just posted a list of organizations who have answered your question, along with quotes and I posted a link to an excellent article that includes more links, etc. You cannot reasonably discuss something if you completely ignore evidence.

    Below is a tidbit of that info that answers your question about where I found “nonsense” about pregnant women and children and the risks they take when consuming raw milk.

    What’s nonsensical are people willing to spout bs to support an agenda or make $. Isn’t that where you are coming from MIke? Shame on you…

    If I was an objective individual (which I am) and researched the information you and Mark provided and compared them with the body of evidence easily found, there is no way I would give my child raw milk…no way. Why take such a foolish risk? There is no evidence making its potential benefits outweigh its risks. It’s not rocket science, just facts and objectivity, neither of which you possess enough of.

    From a CDC report:
    “Among dairy product-associated outbreaks reported to CDC between 1998 and 2011 in which the investigators reported whether the product was pasteurized or raw, 79% were due to raw milk or cheese. From 1998 through 2011, 148 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 2,384 illnesses, 284 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. Most of these illnesses were caused by Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, or Listeria. It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the raw milk-associated disease burden falls on children; among the 104 outbreaks from 1998-2011 with information on the patients’ ages available, 82% involved at least one person younger than 20 years old.”

    • rawmilkmike says

      Charles, Thank you for your response. I’m not the one ignoring evidence. If you look closely at your evidence you will see it actually supports my argument. It does not support yours. I am a raw milk consumer not a producer. I grew up on pasteurized milk so I know the difference. I have no agenda other than the health of our families. What’s your agenda? Who do you work for?

      Where is your “objectivity”? “Associated” only means they may have drank raw milk. The cause can not be proven. The average “outbreak” associated with raw milk is 11. For pasteurized milk it’s thousands. “between 1998 and 2011”? In 1985, there were over 16,000 confirmed cases of Salmonella infection that were traced back to pasteurized milk from a single dairy. “due to raw milk or cheese”? We are not talking about cheese so doesn’t that make this CDC report irrelevant? Isn’t this what they call a red herring? “Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Listeria” are not strictly food-borne. They are in us, on us, and on almost everything we touch. If “a substantial proportion of the raw milk-associated disease burden fell on children”, wouldn’t there always be “at least one person younger than 20 years old”? Since when is an 18 year old a child? “Substantial proportion” does not mean majority. Actually adults get diarrhea more often than children.

      So that’s the best data you can come up with?

      According to the CDC’s Minnesota study only 1.7% per year or 1 in 59 raw milk consumers get sick each year from foodborne disease. The national average for non-raw milk consumers is 9 times that. Isn’t that a negative risk factor?

      • Charles Hooper says

        No mike, a red herring is a distraction method to divert a discussion from a relevant issue. In this case, the issue is whether it is safe to give children and pregnant women raw milk. I simply say the preponderance of evidence, some of which I cite or link to or list more authoritative sources saying it, is convincing enough to believe it is not, and that I believe to argue otherwise, without more convincing evidence, is irresponsible, since those most affected are unable to argue for themselves (children, whether born or unborn).

        You offer genuine red herrings aplenty. For example, your repeated referencing to pasteurized milk; the whole silly cheese thing (it’s raw milk “products”); and, my favorite, your misunderstanding the report’s use of the term “associated” since it had already said, “From 1998 through 2011, 148 outbreaks DUE TO consumption of raw milk or raw milk products…” obviously meaning more than “associated” from the research methodology definition you apply. It’s actually okay to say something is “associated” once established as fact. Like, rain is associated with clouds, etc.

        You lost me on the bacteria thing. E.coli does indeed live in the gut–in the intestinal tract, not the stomach, and never shall the twain meet or somebody is going to get sick. None of the other three live anywhere inside our digestive systems as far as I know. That these bacteria are all around us I won’t argue with. But it is when they get in the guts of people is when they become pathogens.

        You need to understand that point is the crux of the whole matter. They get in the guts of children either when the child ingests something contaminated (as from a field worker’s unwashed, fecal-smeared hands picking your lettuce), a pasteurized milk system that ain’t pasteurizing, as the one I think you are alluding to was supposed to have, or from a speck of cow crap in the raw milk you give trusting little baby. I personally wouldn’t give a child under two any kind of dairy product, but that my friend would be a red herring.

        Since you asked, I am a retired medical social worker and occasional freelance writer. I used to love raw milk as a kid, and never got sick nor knew anybody who did. I simply say there is overwhelming evidence–far beyond just from the CDC–that it is not safe to give it to young or unborn children. Most of what you are saying is irrelevant to that, or as you would say, “red herrings.”

        • rawmilkmike says

          Charles you said “It’s actually okay to say something is “associated” once established as fact. Like, rain is associated with clouds” but rain isn’t caused by clouds and cause it what we are talking about.

        • rawmilkmike says

          Charles, I apologize for the misprint. You said “It’s actually okay to say something is “associated” once established as fact. Like, rain is associated with clouds” but rain isn’t caused by clouds and cause is what we are talking about.

          You also said “You lost me on the bacteria thing. E.coli does indeed live in the gut–in the intestinal tract, not the stomach, and never shall the twain meet or somebody is going to get sick.” But diarrhea happens “in the intestinal tract” not in the stomach.

  22. rawmilkmike says

    Charles, no one avoids death or diarrhea. The average America gets diarrhea 4 times a year. Has the CDC checked to see how often raw milk consumers get diarrhea?

    Charles Hooper, do you have any idea where this nonsense about “young children and pregnant women” comes from? “pregnant women” are prone to diarrhea. There is no evidence that raw milk increases that risk. The CDC’s Minnesota raw milk study actually suggests the very opposite. “young children” make up a large number of the 10 million raw milk consumers but only a small percentage of the raw milk-associated illnesses.

  23. John Davis says

    It’s interesting that on the FDA site on this issue, they state that one of the dairy products it’s safe to eat is “ricotta cheese made from pasteurised milk.”

    1. Ricotta isn’t cheese. It’s a by product of the cheese making process.
    2. In making ricotta, you heat the whey to 75C, add salt and milk and continue heating to 85C. At this point, IT IS PASTEURISED.

    You cannot make ricotta at low temperature – you just can’t do it. It wouldn’t be (ri=again, cotta=cooked) if you did. ALL ricotta is made from pasteurised milk.

    Looks like they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.

  24. says

    Mr. Hooper,

    You are mostly right about the safety of raw milk in the 1800’s and the very early 1900’s. But that is very old history. Recent CDC data holds a different truth.

    422,000 illnesses from pasteurized dairy products from 1972 forward.

    77 deaths from pasteurized dairy products since 1972…with the last 9 deaths since 2007 all from pasteurized dairy cheese and milk!!

    There have been about 30 illnesses per year in the USA since 1972 and zero deaths from fluid raw milk!!

    Those are the cold hard facts.

    As far as listeria is concerned….there is no listeria illnesses associated with raw milk. That is right…listeria come from processed milk, not raw milk. The CDC under FOIA has clearly declared zero illnesses originating from fluid raw milk from Listeeria. That means that raw milk is not a risk for pregnancy. In fact, one huge EU study showed that pregnant moms provided a very strong gift as shown by cord blood anti bodies of their newborns when they drank raw milk during pregnancy.

    if you want to see really pure and low risk raw milk…go see http://www.rawmilkinstitute.org and look at the food safety plans and test data of the LISTED raw dairymen. The risk is extremely low….far lower than pasteurized milk for sure.

    Mark McAfee
    Fresno CA

    • Charles Hooper says

      Hi Mark, I’m making no argument about the safety of pasteurized milk. I’m saying there is too much caution from too many quarters about the dangers of raw milk to certain populations, which goes beyond “deaths” and “listeria.” The same CDC you cite and whose opinion you seem to respect (at least with information you want to hear) also reports the dangers I mention. Here a few snippets from different bulletins just in the last couple of months:


      “Getting sick from raw milk can mean many days of diarrhea, stomach cramping, and vomiting. Less commonly, it can mean kidney failure, paralysis, chronic disorders, and even death.”

      “Many people who chose raw milk thinking they would improve their health instead found themselves (or their loved ones) sick in a hospital for several weeks fighting for their lives from infections caused by germs in raw milk. For example, a person can develop severe or even life-threatening diseases, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, which can cause paralysis, and hemolytic uremic syndrome, which can result in kidney failure and stroke.”

      “Illness can occur from the same brand and source of raw milk that people had been drinking for a long time without becoming ill.
      A wide variety of germs that are sometimes found in raw milk, can make people sick, including bacteria (e.g., Brucella, Campylobacter, Listeria, Mycobacterium bovis (a cause of tuberculosis), Salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli [e.g., E. coli O157], Shigella, Yersinia), parasites (e.g., Giardia), and viruses (e.g., norovirus).
      Each ill person’s symptoms can differ, depending on the type of germ, the amount of contamination, and the person’s immune defenses.”

      “Who is at greatest risk of getting sick from drinking raw milk?

      The risk of getting sick from drinking raw milk is greater for infants and young children, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with weakened immune systems, such as people with cancer, an organ transplant, or HIV/AIDS, than it is for healthy school-aged children and adults. But, it is important to remember that healthy people of any age can get very sick or even die if they drink raw milk contaminated with harmful germs.

      Can drinking raw milk hurt me or my family?

      Yes. Raw milk can cause serious infections. Raw milk and raw milk products (such as cheeses and yogurts made with raw milk) can be contaminated with bacteria that can cause serious illness, hospitalization, or death. These harmful bacteria include Brucella, Campylobacter, Listeria, Mycobacterium bovis, Salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, Shigella, Streptococcus pyogenes, and Yersinia enterocolitica. From 1998 through 2011, 148 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 2,384 illnesses, 284 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. Most of these illnesses were caused by Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, or Listeria. It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the raw milk-associated disease burden falls on children; among the 104 outbreaks from 1998-2011 with information on the patients’ ages available, 82% involved at least one person younger than 20 years old.”

      “Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater.”

      “According to an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between 1993 and 2006 more than 1500 people in the United States became sick from drinking raw milk or eating cheese made from raw milk. In addition, CDC reported that unpasteurized milk is 150 times more likely to cause foodborne illness and results in 13 times more hospitalizations than illnesses involving pasteurized dairy products.”

      “Pregnant women run a serious risk of becoming ill from the bacteria Listeria which can cause miscarriage, fetal death or illness or death of a newborn. If you are pregnant, consuming raw milk – or foods made from raw milk, such as Mexican-style cheese like Queso Blanco or Queso Fresco – can harm your baby even if you don’t feel sick.”

      A number of regulatory, educational, and public health organizations have issued position papers regarding the dangers associated with the consumption of raw milk. These include:

      Association of Food & Drug Officials (AFDO),

      American Public Health Association (APHA),

      American Medical Association (AMA),

      American Academy of Pediatrics,

      U.S. Animal Health Association,

      National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians,

      Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists,

      House of Delegates of the American Veterinary Medical Association,

      U.S. Food & Drug Administration, and

      International Association for Food Protection (IAFP).

      (And that’s just the U.S.!)

      This is a mere sliver of what I mean by credible information and sources Mark. Not an obviously biased source as the rawmilkinstitute.org. I can reel out data if you want, but you aren’t going to like it.

      If you can seriously continue to blithely speak of the safety of raw milk to certain populations in spite of the weight of so much learned opposition, then you are simply being irresponsible.

      • Cary says


        Charles how come I drank raw milk through all of my eight pregnancies and gave my children only raw milk and I or they never got sick? Huh Huh? How come none of my friends who did the same never became sick? Because the raw milk scare thing is bull crap. Don’t be so gullible. What happens with these government agencies is they just all jump one agencies bandwagon. One agency (usually bought off by some big corporate diary concern.) will issue some caution or warning and the others agencies just follow suit. They don’t each do their own research. They are too lazy. Believe me. If you think you can trust these compromised govt agencies, you are a fool. Someday, perhaps when the hearts of men are about the common good and not greed, we will be able to trust the govt ( really corporate run) agencies. Really, you are really showing your ignorance. And I know you are going to do your your brick wall impersonation…so go right ahead. It’s entertaining really. I bet you a $100 you are going to respond as if you didn’t comprehend a word I said.

        • Charles Hooper says

          $100 eh? Hmmm…nah, I don’t sell disinformation and I try (imperfectly) not to give it away. I assure you I comprehend what you are saying Cary, I just don’t agree. We are supposed to disagree in this country, that’s why I thank Chris Kresser for allowing dissenting opinions on this site–he isn’t afraid to hear reasoned debate, nor should you.

          In response to your comments:
          a) your evidence is purely anecdotal. I don’t say personal observations aren’t important. I grew up drinking raw milk and so did many of my relatives, with nary a problem I can recall. But would I use that information to argue the safety of raw milk for certain populations? No, I would not.
          b) If there were only a handful of agencies or they conflicted with one another, I would be more dubious. But there are hundreds of such reports from agencies and organizations worldwide. To be fair, there are notable exceptions, like France.
          c) I distrust our government only a little more than I do that of France, but sometimes government does things right. I think that can be said for the CDC and FDAs raw milk cautions. Primarily because they agree with the vast majority of others.

          That was not my brick wall imitation though Cary, so here it goes…hurry…it hurts…ah you missed it! Lighten up, it’s a debate, not a war. A mother of six earns tons of respect, and you definitely have mine.

          • rawmilkmike says

            One more time: Considering how common so called food-borne illness is in this country and the extreme nature of the claims made by raw milk consumers, how long do you think one has to drink raw milk to prove it’s safety and benefit?﻿ If you grew up on raw milk you have no idea the health issues you’ve avoided.

        • Roger K says

          You don’t have much of a grasp of statistics do you? The fact you don’t know anyone affected is not at all surprising, statistically.

          • rawmilkmike says

            Roger, “how come I drank raw milk through all of my eight pregnancies and gave my children only raw milk and I or they never got sick? Huh Huh? How come none of my friends who did the same never became sick? Because the raw milk scare thing is bull crap.” Roger, the average American gets diarrhea 4 times a year. That’s once every 3 months. “You don’t have much of a grasp of statistics do you?”

          • rawmilkmike says

            Also Roger, 1 in 6 Americans come down with a foodborne illness every year. So how long could it possibly take to know that “the raw milk scare thing is bull crap.”?

      • rawmilkmike says

        Sarah, all it says in your link is “3yo child dies after”. It doesn’t say the cause of death. I’m sure this child did may things, ate many things, and was given many dangerous medications before it died. But were any of them the cause of it’s death and if so which one?

        “The health department had taken samples of our milk [for] salmonella, E.Coli, dysentery and all the results have come back negative, or not detected.”

        “She also said her company ran their own tests on the milk every week for bacteria and it always came back negative.”

        If reading makes you sick maybe you need to start drinking raw milk. It is not illegal to sell unpasteurized milk. That would be absurd. Actually everything is a conspiracy. Especially when money is involved.

  25. Bill says


    You are painfully uninformed. Please read the article above and then all the comments and then see if you still see things the same way.

    • Joshua says

      Failure to heat milk to kill harmful pathogens is playing with fire. Milk is a PERFECT medium for bacterial growth. Think about what your suggesting to people, your suggesting something that could ruin their life. There is no significant deteriorization of nutrients caused by heating milk to kill pathogens.

      • Charles Hooper says

        I took Mark’s advice and did further research, yet remain unconvinced that raw milk is safe for young children or pregnant women. If you don’t trust the FDAs caution, read those of the UN, Canada, Australia, the UK or Germany. And in many countries where regulations are lax or unenforced, consumers often boil it, especially in Asia.

        To believe these regulations exist solely to benefit the big dairy operations instead of protecting the consumer is like believing Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy. You can find all the “evidence” you want to support a conspiracy, but under closer scrutiny, it just doesn’t add up.

        There is no conspiracy on behalf of the dairy industry. Instead, it’s as you say Joshua, raw milk is fertile ground for pathogens. One can believe a few people posting here or research why so many international regulations exist. If you do so with an OPEN MIND, you can’t help but reach the same conclusions. If then you continue giving them raw milk, you are playing Russian Roulette with your child’s health and safety.

        People can make all the arguments they want–mostly raw milk producers and consumers–but I would not give it to a child or expecting mother. I have no horse in this race and drank it all the time in my childhood. It’s way too rich and fattening for me to drink now.

        • says


        • Cary says

          I suggest you read the new issue of Time magazine that has an article about Butter on the cover. The new research shows that science has been wrong about butter, whole milk, (saturated fats) being the cause of obesity and heart disease. (The usda advocates for the ag industry) It turns out the USDA recommendations were completely flawed and bad science. It turns out sugar and cooked carbs are the major cause of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes etc. Read the article and get back to me. The lesson here. The USDA,
          FDA, CDC can be wrong. Maybe not purposely. But they are human and you have to be CAREFUL what you believe and who you listen to, even the diety you call government.

          • Charles Hooper says

            Hi Cary, my argument is only as complicated as you want to make it and has nothing to do with whether the FDA missed the mark or whether butter and milk are unhealthy or not, nor do I argue that the FDA, et al are infallible.

            My argument all along has been that enough information exists (from governmental and health organizations in other countries, for example) to support caution giving raw milk products to pregnant women and children.

            Trust me, I am careful with sources, but your reliance on Time Magazine as a primary source indicates you are not. There simply is not enough CREDIBLE research to support the safety of raw milk products consumed by children and pregnant women.

            • Cary, says

              I have been watching you debate the whole forum here and I think it is safe to say. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

              • Charles Hooper says

                Not quite brick Cary, but resistant to bad arguments. I’ve been saying the same thing since my first post…it is not responsible to promote raw milk as safe for pregnant women and children to consume. That’s all, so call me a wall.

                International research is abundant and there is a reason pasteurization is considered one of the major health advancements in history.

                Visit any cemetery over 100 years old and you will see them filled with the graves of young children. Infectious disease was the major killer of children (and adults), and many of those pathogens came from water and foods (including milk).

                It’s unfortunately too easy to malign the FDA and ignore their achievements in improving food safety.

      • says

        About 48 million people (That’s 15% per year or 1 in 6 Americans) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die each year from foodborne diseases, according new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The average American get diarrhea 4 times a year.

        What is it you hope to avoid?

        • Charles Hooper says

          Perhaps avoiding food-borne illnesses, hospitalization and death…oh yeah, and diarrhea for children and pregnant women.

          • rawmilkmike says

            Avoiding raw milk does not prevent “food-borne illnesses, hospitalization and death…oh yeah, and diarrhea for children and pregnant women.” You own statistics show that avoiding raw milk only increases “food-borne illnesses, hospitalization and death…oh yeah, and diarrhea for children and pregnant women.”

  26. Joshua says

    My neice almost died and suffers from a disease she will have for the rest of her life due to drinking raw milk from a licensed raw milk dairy. My Grandmother when asked what she thought about raw milk said “I would never go back to unpasteurized milk.. it was terrible in those days, we watched babies die from diseases in raw milk.” I took that as wise advice.

    I think the latest fads about health food are getting down right scary. Suddenly it is “unhealthy” to clean our foods anymore. Now foods like sushi “raw fish” are considered safe and healthy by some folks and heating milk to kill bacteria is somehow turning the milk into an unhealthy food.

    There has been well over 100 years of study on the subject of making food safe to eat. Pasteurization was developed to solve a problem and I think it is nieve to believe that thousands of years of food development is suddenly wrong and we should go to eating everything raw again. I learned about microorganisms in 6th grade science class and the importance cooking food. I don’t think it takes a genius to figure out the risks are great.

    Some say that we need to be exposed to more microorganisms so that our bodies learn to resist them. At some level this must certainly be true. The problem is that with products like unpasteurized milk you cannot control which microorganisms your exposed to. It could be anything from yeast to ecoli.

  27. says

    TB is not a significant raw milk risk. Here is why. A state of CA veterinarian said once, a mother always protects her young.
    What this means is this: When a mother has TB it is the antiboidies to TB that are shared with her offspring…not generally the actual TB itself. Now, if the TB infection is in the udder, the TB obviously gets into the milk, but if the TB is some place else in the cow, like the lungs, then it is the antibodies that are found in the raw milk and not the actual TB itself. That is why cows are an excellent animal to be used for immune milk. Immune milk has been shown to be a very effective and curative method to heal diseases in man. To make immune milk, just inject the cow with the infection found in man during the dry period just prior to calving. When the calf is born the colostrum will carry the antibody to the human infection that was shared with the cow. Other countries arround the world like Germany and Russia use this therapy. The FDA will jail a farmer for playing doctor like this. I fact there have been several dairy farmers prosecuted for providing immune milk to consumers. According to the FDA this makes the farmer a drug company.

  28. Blair Schaan says

    lived onj dairy d\farm from 1960 to n67 and we milked 100 cows and we drank milk when thirsty mother cooked with raw milks we drank it with meals used with cereals. and never died places like CDC and FDA have to try and justify their existance so they say things are dangerous to eat, funny more people get sick from contaminated vegetables or fruits or sea foods then raw milk.

    Its like Cancer, no one will find a cure for cancer sadly to say the drug industry makes to much money providing medications chemo therapy etc and doctors and researchers would all lose their jobs because research wouldnt be needed anymore a cure was found.
    I also believe a cure for the common cold will never happen, it it did just look at the empty shelves at your local drug store which are stocked with cold medications liquids pills capsules rubs etc, imagine the billions the manufactuing companies would lose when their products no longer wanted or needed?? Society always needs its bogeyman so we cant donate and so thes e researchers have a job, just saying

  29. Mary says

    I like raw goats milk quite a bit but, lately I have been thinking about toxoplasmosis risks. I know goats can get it if cats that are infected with the parasite are kept near by. If you are culturing the milk to make kefir, does this destroy the parasite/oocytes?

  30. Charles Hooper says

    Mark McAfee…now that’s how to maturely argue! You give me food for thought and make me want to know more. Civil debate is an excellent way to learn something. When it comes to children and pregnant women, I’ve got some convincing to do, but you lead me in a few directions to follow.

    An example of a ridiculous argument (almost as bad as Mark S.) is somebody who sent me a message (maybe it hasn’t posted yet) about the CDC director being charged with child molestation. What in the world does that have to do with whether raw milk is safe for children and pregnant women? There are creeps throughout society…

  31. Charles Hooper says

    I’m happy for you Joey…enjoy it. I’m talking about misinforming people about the risks to women and children, not whether adults should drink it or not. Do you understand the difference? To illustrate, you can buy all the liquor you want, and even though its not good for you that is your business. But you certainly wouldn’t give it to a child, right?

    Yes Mary, that is a curiosity that only the webmaster can solve. It just doesn’t bode well for objectivity and leaves some wondering, “Wow, I wonder what happened to that kid and whether the milk was the problem or not?”.

  32. says

    Mary and Charles,

    I agree…I am biased, I am in love with high quality raw milk…I love the challenge of the pioneering experience and most of all I love the hugs I get from deeply appreciative moms that provide OPDC raw milk to their kids. Yes….to their kids. I also love the thanks I get from the pregnant moms that drink OPDC raw milk. When they give birth their cord blood reflects an entirely different anti body profile and this is a gift to their babies that lasts a lifetime!!! NO ASTHMA!!!

    Both of you have the science very wrong. Listeria is the bug you worry about when pregnant!!! THE CDC HAS ZERO INCIDENTS OF RAW MILK CAUSING MISSCARRIAGE OR DEATH RELATED TO LISTERIA in USA PRODUCED RAW MILK!! ZERO. All of the issues and deaths have come from dear old FDA beloved pasteurized products….all of them!! Including about 77 deaths mostly from LISTERIA!!

    So get your facts straight. It is one thing to argue based on true facts it is quite another to not know your facts and especially official data like CDC.

    Mary….you know that I completely agree with you about ecoli 0157H7 and kids. But you also know that RAWMI LISTED producers have tackled this problem with the use of RAMP plans and testing. You know that a coliform count of less than 10 basically ( most of our tests show less than 3 or even less than 1 ) makes it statistically near impossible and highly improbable that any one of any age will become sick from raw milk ecoli pathogens. Even our CDFA state dairy inspectors say this.

    Nadines work has been accepted by the most conservative regulatory agency in the world…the Canadians that forbid raw milk. So….we need to stop considering all raw milk dangerous and start thinking of raw milk as a “grey scale of risk”….from higher risk ( Grade A raw milk that is intended for pasteurization ) and Grade A raw milk that is tested, inspected, under tight controls like RAMP and RAWMI etc…that is intended for human consumption. Both come out of a cow…but are they different!!!

    We are not talking about ONE RAW MILK in America. Raw milk quality and safety directly reflects the conditions and safety programs that produce it.

    There is a reason why raw milk is classified in the EU as a “low risk food”. The systems we have applied at Raw Milk Institute.ORG completely bypass and surpass the standards in the EU.

    Times are changing. When 9 kids die each day ( mostly in ER rooms or going to ER’s in ambulances ) from Asthma…and we know that asthma is effectively treated and prevented by raw milk….that is a travesty. ( PARSIFAL, GABRIELA, PASTURE, AMISH EU studies ). We must embrace nutrition as a basis for health. Our dear ER nurse that talks about all the sick kids in the ER fails to appreciate that these ER sick kids are a direct result of very weak immune systems, that are related to anti-biotic abuse and a sterile sugar based fast food or highly processed diet. Kids that drink raw milk and eat whole foods generally have very robust immunity and do not ever go to ER’s for treatment…except for maybe a broken bone and that is rare because their bones are stronger.

    I know all of this….My wife is a 25 year MSRN and I spent 17 years of my life on a helipcopter and in ambulances and I was an EMT-Paramedic ( ran 15000 EMS calls and saw it all at least three times ) that taught EMS advanced life support and prehospital medicine at the Fresno Co. Health Department.

    Yes I own and operate OPDC with a deeply dedicated team of people that embrace safety and RAMP plans and we are not perfect….but pretty damn close as we apply better technology and learn from every little thing that comes our way.

    Pretty soon…there will be no fluid pasteurized milk to defend….it is dying at 2% per year becuase it is listed as the MOST allergenic food in America adn at least 30% of the consumers can not digest it….it is shelf stable and your gut is not a shelf!!

    Start waving that white flag of surrender…raw milk is an emerging market and consumers dollar vote for it every single day.

  33. Mary McGonigle-Martin says

    Charles, I think the most alarming thing you posted was that the comment about the possible sick child from contaminated raw milk was removed. No bias operating here.

  34. Charles Hooper says

    And this folks, is what happens to somebody like Mark when you render their arguments biased and worse than irrelevant. Keep those teats clean!

  35. Charles Hooper says

    That’s the spirit Paula! I wish you and your clients the best. Enjoy your raw milk, I just ask some voice in the back of your head ask you to be sure and careful about that when it comes to young children and pregnant women.

    People on this very forum have spoken about their own experiences with children sickened by tainted raw milk.
    I’ve not mentioned but will now that I do have personal knowledge of its danger to children, having seen many cases of infection in the ER and other areas of medical practice. Do you think they and people like me take our time to throw in our two-cents worth just to bring out profound commentary like “nice try” from somebody who sells the stuff?

    I make no profit here, I only work in medicine because I serve the public’s health. It’s heartbreaking to see severe sickness and death because of the folly of well-meaning parents who put political and personal agendas above the health of their children.

    Mark S., you darn right it was! I can tell when somebody has made a strong point here when you salute them with a “nice try.” Hilariously ironic…

    Would you say that the man who was posting an “as we speak” report about his sick daughter was making so nice a try that his comments have been removed from the discussion? Is that any worse than alleged FDA and CDC cover-ups?

    I see from one of your posts that you are a vendor as well, which negates your objectivity and renders most of what you say to be a “nice try…” Oh, I forgot the irony…NOT!

    So let’s here it Mark…”nic. …”

  36. Ira Goldberg says

    Oy Vey Charles Hooper,

    You really got the CDC’s back and those of their ilk?

    CDC Director Arrested for Child Molestation and Bestiality

    Story at-a-glance
    A high-ranking CDC official, who played a significant role in the 2009 H1N1 propaganda campaign, has been arrested and charged with two counts of child molestation and one count of bestiality
    As an official in charge of CDC health recommendations for all American children, her actions raise troublesome questions about her level of concern for the health and well-being of children in general
    Other recent stories raising questions about the ethics and integrity of the agency include documentation showing that the CDC has never obtained any input from toxicology experts to assess the health effects of water fluoridation, and the recent fraud indictment of Dr. Thorsen—hired by the CDC to debunk the link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Geesh. Charles do you really expect your reputation to withstand this?

    And then the CDC rehires the louse.


  37. Joe Konrad says

    I Just want to let you all know I’m Going up to the Farm to get my weekly supply of 2 gallons of (REAL MILK) Its something I love to do.

  38. says

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear. . .

    Common sense and tradition show me that raw milk from grass fed cows is beneficial in health to both adults/children.

  39. Charles Hooper says

    Of course you have a horse in the race Paula…One side of your mouth says you don’t while the other side clearly indicates you do…Giddy-up!

    • says

      Misinterpretation again . . .

      I don’t “profit” from the sales of raw milk or how many people drink or don’t drink other than my clients/families are healthier and perform better.

      If you consider that “a horse in the race” so be it. Better move over cause it’s a racehorse.

  40. Charles Hooper says

    “I don’t need years of research or flawed studies funded from corrupt sources to show what common sense/tradition clearly show me.”

    ’nuff said there Paula.

  41. says

    I don’t have a “horse in the race” and I am not a “raw milk vendor” and there is 1 reason and 1 reason only “over 30 states and dozens of countries ban its widespread sales…” it’s dangerous to their bottom line. Sadly, it’s about the money–they don’t give a rats a$$ about our health or the health of our children. They are a greedy and unethical lot.

    Who am I? A 54 year old fit female CrossFit affiliate that has seen dramatic health changes personally from the consumption of raw milk. Along with many clients and their many children. Allergies, behavioral and other health issues have virtually disappeared from these children after switching to raw milk.


  42. Charles Hooper says

    Interesting that Nayak’s post about his sick child is not here anymore…what’s that all about?

    Anyway, here is an example of a RESPONSIBLE report on raw milk’s safety for children.

    Parents, read this and research further before you let your kids drink it. Mark McAfee is a raw milk vendor, so one can hardly expect objectivity from him. I don’t know anything about Mark S. other than him being mule headed (his absurd “Nice try” responses).

    There is a reason over 30 states and dozens of countries ban its widespread sales…it’s dangerous to children. If you’re an adult and want to drink it that’s one thing. But to give it to children believing it is safe is just plain stupid, and in some areas would be considered child neglect and criminal.

    I bothered taking the time to look at this presentation suggested by Mark, focusing on the author’s references—both their sources and critiques–and was astonished at how much evidence the author relied on clearly demonstrating the risks. It was also disheartening that Mark left out the author’s disclosure at the beginning of her paper that she is “Not Neutral” and advocates for “regulatory reform,” ie to relax Canadian milk protection laws, and that her paper is based on “independent unfunded research.” Here’s a few references supplied by this same author in her paper that make it clear raw milk is not safe for children:

    Richwald, Ga; Greenland, S; Johnson, Bj; Friedland, Jm; Goldstein, Ejc; Plichta, Dt, 1988: Assessment of the excess risk of Salmonella dublin infection associated with the use of certified raw milk. Public health reports 103(5): 489-493

    Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2009 Sep;6(7):793-806. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2009.0302.
    Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk.
    Oliver SP, Boor KJ, Murphy SC, Murinda SE.

    Dr. Ynte Schukken, professor of epidemiology and herd health at Cornell University, co-authored a paper in the August issue of the Journal of Food Production quantifying the risk of contracting Listeria monocytogenes from raw milk. According to the study, raw milk from retailers proved most dangerous.

    Campylobacter jejuni Infections Associated with Unpasteurized Milk — Multiple States, 2012

    Allison H. Longenberger1,2,
    Aimee Palumbo2,
    Alvina Chu3,
    Mària Moll2,
    André Weltman2, and
    Stephen Ostroff2

    And the list goes on and on.

    She even ignores critiques of studies she cites on evidence of raw milk’s asthma prevention characteristics among children, such as this one:

    And even after a lengthy and flawed presentation, the author admits:

    Mark picked a poor example to support his argument, especially when you skim the cream off these kinds of “studies.” It turns out the researcher was biased, her research was independent and unfunded, and the sources she cites are damning to her own argument.

    If you have a horse in the race Mark, admit what it is so readers know where you are coming from. My horse is not raw milk per se, rather it’s accurate reporting and the safety of those who cannot advocate for themselves.

    As I see it, the research is comparable to this: You look along a shelf of 40 books about the safety of raw milk for children. Mark ignores the 35 that say it is not safe and reads only the five that says it is, and does so with nary a critical eye, as he has done with this paper. As you say Mark, “nice try.”

  43. Mary McGonigle-Martin says

    Mark S. Last year I watched her entire presentation. I have also reviewed the three studies she sites. Her interpretation of these studies is weak at best. She also states that there is one flaw in her presentation of the numbers. They don’t know if there is a vulnerable group getting sick. For example, children. That would change everything.

    I can tell you there is a vulnerable group getting sick from E.coli 0157:H7 and contaminated raw milk–it is children and the majority are under 10. Shame on Nadine for not looking into this further. The outbreak reports are available. It just takes reading them all the come to the very clear conclusion that children are the victims of kidney damage after consuming contaminated raw milk.

  44. Mark S says

    New Studies Confirm: Raw Milk A Low-Risk Food


    See the whole report below:


  45. says

    Wow. This thread has continued for almost 2 years. IMHO it needn’t be so complicated. Pasteurized milk (high vat, low vat–doesn’t really matter–only varying by degrees) is a toxic and allergenic “food” and shouldn’t be fed to anyone. Raw milk, from grass fed cows, properly handled from a researched/trusted source is the way to go. If you do not have access there are plenty of other real and whole foods to choose from. Go raw or go home. End of story.

  46. says

    About little Deeps fever,

    I do share Marys advice.

    However, as a parent you need to also know that a fever is very common in children. A fever is an adaptive and very natural response. Its your bodies way of increasing metabolism to ward off an intruder. Just because the baby drank raw milk does not mean that there is a problem. Babies get fevers from alal sorts of things. yes…raw milk can be one of them. Ear infections, teething, exposure to nearly anything…all can be a cause of fever. The big mistakes are overmedicating with fever reducers, failure to hydrate. Watch for diarrhea and vomiting especially prolonged in duration. The dehydration is what really gets kids into trouble. My wife is a nurse and I spent half my life as a paramedic responding to freaked out parents with kids and fevers.

    Watch for rash and stiff necks and lethargy. These are associated with meningitis. When in doubt and things do not get better as they should, go see a competitant doctor and tell the everything. By the way…all of my grand kids started on OPDC raw milk at 4-6 months old and all have thrived!!

    Whos raw milk did you drink? was it in CA? if it was OPDC I want to have a call on my cell. We take all raw milk related illness even if it is just a hunch…..very seriously and want a call right away. 5599705581 Mark

  47. Charles Hooper says

    See what I mean folks? Information needs to be from reputable sources, not these kinds of articles. People should take extra care when talking about health risks to pay special attention to the risks to children…my point all along.

    However, Nayak only a doctor can tell help you and your child. Right now it could be anything and that’s the doctor’s job to figure out. But since you did give this baby raw milk contrary to health warnings (that you won’t find here) I would be sure to mention that to the doctor. I will pray for the little guy and wish you well.

  48. Mary McGonigle-Martin says

    Deep Nayak just posted a comment and it came in to my inbox, but I can’t find the post here in this thread.

    He was describing how he has fed his 11 month old baby raw milk for the first time two days ago and now has developed fever.

    My son became quite ill from raw milk and the first symptom was a fever that developed two days later. It took another two days for the explosive diarrhea and vomiting to begin. If she starts having diarrhea do not hesitate taking her to the emergency room immediately and have a fecal sample taken. You can not mess around with a child your daughters age if she has contracted a foodborne illness.

    • Deep Nayak says

      Thanks Mary and Chris. Sorry for a delay in replying. To give you updates on my case, the next morning my daughter got rid of her temperature, so we didn’t go to emergency however that risen again the following day and again yesterday. Strangely her fever goes away when given baby paracetamol but then again comes back in few hours. No signs of diarrhoea or vomiting, thankfully so we are still hoping this would not be anything to do with raw milk I fed her few days ago. Wife is taking her to GP today for investigation.

      I sincerely hope this does not put people off from consuming raw milk because the reason behind my daughter’s current illness is still inconclusive. My wife and I are certainly continuing drinking raw milk everyday but would wait for our little one to grow a bit older before we reintroducing it.

      Chris, I live in the UK and I get my organic raw milk from Goodwood Farm Shop in West Sussex, so called quite a reputed place in the country.

  49. Charlene says


    Are you saying pasteurization gets rid of prebiotics that prevent blockage to neuropathways and allows the population to be more easily mind-controlled?

  50. Mark S says

    I think you are the perfect example of someone who is unable to fixate his thoughts. I suggest you lay off the pasteurized milk!

    • james says

      It’s not a try, its a truth. Whatever species humans have evolved from, it involved an EEA (an era of evolutionary adaptiveness) where we spent a lot of time with fixated concentration on the external environment as we hunted for food. At that time, our muscle movements, with special reference to our limbs, were more closely related to eyemovements, and our food drive came to be associated with our eye movements. Later in our evolution, during the EEA when as early humans we developed language as a consequence of hunting and living together in extended society, we disociated the eye movements from limb movements as we abstracted conceptual language from environment to thought. That there is still an enormous relationship between thought and eye movements can be seen from the vestigial relationship between thought and the venous system that underlies the apprehension of succesful eye movements, in that people with PTSD and depression, those who spend a lot of time thinking have bags under their eyes. That the food drive, in terms of the nervous complex underlying the ceacum, is related to the fixation of thought is obviated in situations like alzheimers, where the ill health of the ceacum underlies an inability to fixate thought, and because of the extra effort required to fixate thought, combined with poor vascular health, the central nervous system develops plaques that affect the functioning of the nervous system, such that Alzheimers develops.
      That milk comes with a prebiotic that keeps the ceacum clean is a matter for ‘best fit’ models of the evolution of the underlying technology and that pasteurisation can render us with less ability to fixate our thought and therefore render us with an increased chance of being hypnotised is not a moot point but an entirely testable theory. Before discounting something its really better to test for the validity of that assertion.

  51. james says

    did you know that industrial dairy milk comes without the natural probiotic due to its pasteurisation?
    The natural probiotic keeps the ceacum clean of excess calcium, which otherwise (such as when you drink industrial milk) blocks the ionic channels that allow for the osmosis of nutrients (especially salts) into the blood system. The link between the health of the ceacum and an individual’s ability to fixate their thoughts at will is not well known, for some reason not much research into this area gets funding. But essentially, if you remember the old adage – if there’s a witch in the house then the milk goes stale and the bread doesn’t rise, it is because the witch heats the milk, effectively pasteurising it (the bread doesn’t rise due to the water being powdered which affects the adrenal glands). With a diminished ability to fixate your thoughts at will, you are more likely to succumb to hypnosis, such as suggestion, or what is currently knowlingly allowed as the use of implicit memory in television and internet adverts. Perhaps this is why the CDC fake the research and give raw milk a bad name.

  52. says

    RAWMI does not send out ” how to” packages to farmers. We do however invite any farmer to apply to become Listed. Just go to http://www.rawmilkinstitute.org and fill out the application. All farmers can review the LISTED farmers food safety plans. RAWMI will then work with the farmer to develop a Grass to Glass food safety plan that would work for them.

  53. Francesca says

    This is certainly a stain on the reputation of CDC.
    “CDC Director Arrested for Child Molestation and Bestiality”

    By the way, the American Academy of Pediatrics takes their recommendations from info they receive from the CDC. As an example, the AAP and CDC both cite two deaths from raw milk. However this has so beautifully been called into question by Mark Macffee’s freedom of information search and finding that the two deaths were from ILLEGALLY imported ( smuggled ) bath tub cheeses from Mexico and not USA raw milk!!!. Should we give these alphabet agencies a blank check of credibility when they pull stunts like this? Maybe not. And what is their end game on raw milk and who stands to benefit from making it illegal?

    Lastly, are people aware that pasteurized milk sales are plummeting?

  54. Francesca says

    To Mark Macfee,
    Does your RAWMI provide a booklet or kit I can give my local farm that I get my raw milk from? I don’t know how to broach the subject with them. Maybe you might have thought this all out.

  55. says


    I totally agree with you. Not all raw milk is created equally. It is unfortunate that our society has instead decided to make pasteurized milk the norm under one set of FDA PMO standards and completely disregard the standards for raw milk production.

    Each state has determined what it wants to do with raw milk standards and most states have ignored this challenge. This leaves the raw milk consumer in a completely confused situation.

    In CA with OPDC, we have gone far beyond the state standards and any other standards and created our own standards with the assistance of the Raw Milk Institute. ORG

    This pioneering step makes OPDC raw milk in a class of its own. This is good and this is also lonely. Unless you do some study you really would have no knowledge of what very low risk OPDC raw milk is and or how we produce it.

    We have had people move back to CA becuase of our raw milk. Asthma goes away with OPDC raw milk!!! and it is very safe.

    The same safety can not be said of most raw milk in America…that can run the gambit from low risk to high risk depending on a million variables.

  56. Joanna says

    I commented a while back, but feel I need to say something here…

    I think that for healthy adults, raw milk is awesome. Whenever I go to CA, I get some OP raw milk and drink like a gallon a week.

    I also think that raw milk made under good condition is largely safe.

    That being said, NO food is 100% safe. Not strawberries, not spinach, not meat, not even raw milk. Everything carries some risk, and you need to do a cost/benefit analysis. If the risk falls on your kids, and something happens to them, it won’t matter if the risk was 0.00001%. To you it’s a tragedy.

    I don’t feed my son raw milk IN AMERICA, because it’s not well regulated. In many countries in Europe, raw milk is regulated by the government. They test every batch. Because of that, it’s a very safe food. I would feed it to my kids there in a heartbeat. I’d drink it while pregnant.

    It’s not all black and white. Do I feed my kid raw greens? Yes, because I feel that I can’t get the benefits in another food. Raw greens are special. Do I feed him raw milk in the US? No, because I feel that pastured, high quality VAT pasteurized milk is a good substitute. If I only had access to raw milk or UHT milk for example, I would probably drink the raw milk for a few days as a test subject, then feed it to him, assuming I felt he really needed it. I’m glad I have access to high quality VAT past milk and don’t need to make a choice. I wish the US would stop being hard headed about raw milk and would test it and make sure it’s safe, instead of making it near contraband food.

    And while I’m sure OP has good ways of ensuring the safety of their milk… Not everyone lives in CA, and we can’t be sure that all dairies are as scrupulous. So telling people that raw milk is safe everywhere, anytime, is not a good thing I think…

    That’s my 2 cents…

    • Charles Hooper says

      I think that’s more like a nickel’s worth Joanna, lots of interesting information, for example I didn’t know that raw milk is more regulated in Europe than here. Thanks for the post.

  57. Charles Hooper says

    Oh boy, a Holocaust denier? I’ll read your links Mark, but you really should address categorizing people who disagree with you. It’s that kind of blind thinking, my friend, that leads to things like the Holocaust, racism…fill in the blank.

    I’m talking about an article that leaves out important information, especially for children and pregnant women, while you, on the other hand are talking about hatred, plain and simple.

    I don’t watch the news Mark, because I agree with you that Fox has an agenda. So do most other networks. I just read stuff, like this, cause I like to learn and debate.

    I don’t know where you got this out of my posts:
    “Those who believes that anyone who exposes the AAP,FDA and CDC as not being truly independent organizations are conspiracy theorists, need to look again.” You’re ranting here Mark…go get glass of warm milk and settle yourself. I appreciate the links Mark.

  58. Mark S says

    From the Movie The Matrix:

    To those of you who who listen to Fox News,Rush Limbaugh and think the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics are squeaky clean, please read this report:
    “How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense”
    by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
    From the Movie The Matrix:

    To those of you who who listen to Fox News,Rush Limbaugh and think the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics are not eligible to be vetted, please read this report:
    “How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense”
    by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    These are scientists, who are not affiliated with any corporate interests, and are to be trusted. Denying the influence of corporate influence on the AAP, FDA and CDC is no different than being a Holocaust denier.
    “How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense”
    by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    “How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense”
    by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

  59. Charles Hooper says

    I don’t agree that anything about this issue is “laughable” Charlene, and you insult your own intelligence by not getting my point.

    You somehow extrapolate a discussion I initiated on an article about raw milk into a completely different and totally unrelated subject. Those numbers are indeed horrible, but my beef is this writer ignoring established information that children and pregnant women should not drink raw milk. As far as this discussion goes, it doesn’t matter how many people died from prescription drug abuse, distracted driving, homicide or any of the other stupid ways people harm themselves and others.

    As I said in an earlier post, my beef isn’t so much with raw milk, it’s how (sources) people irresponsibly provide and gain information on something potentially dangerous.

    What I say is clear as mud Charlene (beautiful name, I was named after my Aunt Charlene). Don’t knee jerk to what you read, and take a closer look at what’s being said. I’m not saying raw milk is bad, far more reliable sources than me and this article’s author say it is. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ only stake here is the health and safety of children. If you disbelieve that Charlene, then I’m wasting my breath, er fingertips.

  60. Charles Hooper says

    “Who do you work for Charles?…getting paid to shill for the big boys? Like you would implicate yourself.” Looks like you stuffed my straw first there, Mark. There’s nothing lazy or energetic about what I say, and you certainly aren’t debating anything, you’re just making a statement, the same thing I’m doing. We just happen to disagree.

    “Money interests can buy off and control any organization they want and they do…Such being the case, it is incumbent on any thinking person to be skeptical of any official government agency being unbiased. The rapacious nature of certain human beings and corporations must be acknowledged.
    The reputation and credibility of the govt organizations like the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics have been called into question.” Sounds fairly conspiratorial to me, Mark.

    But hey, you make my point quite nicely when you say “Unfortunately, scientific misconduct and fraudulent research has become a very serious and widespread problem that threatens the entire paradigm of science-based medicine.
    Again and again, papers assessing the prevalence of scientific fraud and/or the impact this is having shows that the situation is dire and getting worse. In short, we have lost scientific integrity,” All I’m saying is this article is an example of the very problem you (and I) raise.

  61. Mark S says

    Charles Cooper,
    I love how lazy debaters try to win an argument by labeling the opponent a “conspiracy theorist”, so they can be dismissed. I think that is what in logic is called the “straw man “.
    You smear someone to make it easier to attack their position. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

  62. says

    Charles Cooper,

    I can say with absolute confidence that the 2 raw milk deaths that are reported in the CDC records reach back to 1972. I have a Freedom of Information Act Request ( FOIA ) response from the CDC that researched these two deaths. The two deaths were from ILLEGALLY imported ( smuggled ) bath tub cheeses from Mexico and not USA raw milk!!!.

    I know for a fact that the CDC data is related to Mexican cheese and not any thing related to a US fluid raw milk.

    I also know that the CDC records show at least 430,000 illnesses since 1972 from pasteurized dairy products and at least 77 deaths if the 1985 Jalisco pasteurized cheese outbreak is included with its 49 deaths. The last 9 deaths from pasteurized products happened since 2007 with 3 from pasteurized milk and 6 from pasteurized cheeses.

    It is absolutely accurate to report that there have been zero deaths reported to the CDC since 1972 from fluid raw milk produced in the USA.

    • Charles Hooper says

      As I said Mark S., some people aren’t going to listen to reason. In fact some don’t listen at all. You seem to have an aversion to the scientific method, dismiss organizations such as the AAP and have a conspiratorial view of the world, even from organizations that help save countless lives. Your rant spirals upward to a final effort to insult me personally. I don’t know a soul in this debate, drank plenty of raw milk in my youth without getting sick nary a time. I just read something and conclude its informational value. I think this is an interesting article, but don’t believe it a very reliable source for learning about the subject. If you don’t agree, that’s fine by me.

      Mark McAfee, makes a more interesting argument…if he can support it. Can you post any of your source information?

      I can’t argue with your pasteurized milk information as I have not researched it, so I would value your source. But right out the gate, I think you compare apples to oranges when you consider the numbers of people who drink raw vs. processed milk.

      I still categorically say you have no way of knowing definitively that nobody has died in your time frame from consuming raw milk. Given that the AAP’s time frame is 11 years and yours is over 42, I am especially dubious of your claim.

      I’m forever the student, and would love more rigorous information comparing the two.

    • says

      To the writer who thinks that we raw milk users are stooges of the raw milk industry:
      I can understand your wariness with the ‘pro” comments, especially in light of recent (duh) allegations regarding companies stacking reviewing website with positive remarks.
      However, speaking for myself, for me, the raw milk knocks me (and my husband) out at night for a full and uninterrupted sleep, fulfills (via homemade kefir) my appetite, and just makes me feel better.
      Also, I can appreciate your hesitancy and fear about drinking “not sanitized” in our day of flesh eating bacteria, anti biotic resistant drugs, and critter infested shopping carts. If you are so worried about raw milk, have you done your homework about the spray washes on apples and pears? or the chlorine washes on conventional eggs? and what about the cantaloupes and lettuce and other produce that get pulled from supermarket shelves due to bacterial contamination in commerical farming? After a week of two, we don’t hear too much flack about that, do we?
      This is govt and BIG FARMA/DAIRYA who spew safety yet cannot watch the hen house close enough for their own products.
      Think on this: if there had been or has been SO many deaths and illnesses due to raw milk, well, don’t you just think that govt inspectors would be all over the raw milk industry? Shutting them down left and right? Getting on ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest of the alphabet stations trumpeting yet another alternative lifestyle shutdown?
      In my area, raw milk producers are coming out in droves and selling like crazy. We buyers are not ignorant–rather I would make a generalization and spew back that we are better informed because we HAVE done the research, as opposed to taking someone else’s word for it.
      May I suggest that you do the weeks of research that I did before I took the plunge and THEN make you opinion; you might end up voting differently, too.

      • Charles Hooper says

        Hi Wendy, I’m going out on a limb here and assume you are referring to my post. If so, I never said anything about somebody being “stooges of the raw milk industry.” I’m just saying I think this article runs counter to what I see as research from more reliable sources. Like I said, I drank raw milk many years without a single problem and knew of nobody else having a problem, so I have no horse in the race. My beef (unintended pun) isn’t with raw milk, it’s with bad, even biased, reporting.

        I realize we live in a toxic environment, but I don’t think advocating the safety of raw milk by simply tossing out odds statistics is responsible reporting. Especially without clearly warning that it is dangerous for pregnant women and children to consume it.

        This has nothing to do with whether the government can be evil or not, or that there are other things more dangerous. I don’t think I can make my point any clearer. If you believe the AAP is ” govt and BIG FARMA/DAIRYA,” then you fall into the same camp as Mark S., and do your cause little justice.

        You kinda went off the rails toward the end of your post there, Wendy. But I do appreciate your passion and willingness to stand up for something. Just try and read what somebody actually says before you criticize, well, what you think they said…makes sense, right?

  63. Charles Hooper says

    Be wary of these kinds of articles, which are little more than advertorials and professions of faith in particular causes. This man is an acupuncturist, not a pediatrician, nutritionist or even biologist.

    Raw milk is not safe, especially for children. You can rely on this flimsy article or on an organization such as the American Academy of Pediatrics. Read their December 2013 policy statement on raw milk consumption. If you believe these doctors are a band of sinister supporters of the milk industry or pharmaceutical companies, you’re not going to listen to reason anyway.

    Mark, it is wrong for your to say there have been “zero deaths” from raw milk consumption in the U.S. since 1972. In fact, according to the AAP, “From 1998 to 2009, consumption of raw milk products in the U.S. resulted in 1,837 illnesses, 195 hospitalizations, 93 illness outbreaks and two deaths.” And nobody, including your PhD. friends can say with certainty they know the cause of every child’s death is not raw milk. Who knows how many raw milk illnesses and deaths escape report? Below is a link to the AAP report and the abstract. Realize this is only U.S. information…it would be interesting to look at the World Health Organization’s justifications for advising the pasteurization of milk.


    From the American Academy of Pediatrics

    Policy Statement
    Consumption of Raw or Unpasteurized Milk and Milk Products by Pregnant Women and Children



    Sales of raw or unpasteurized milk and milk products are still legal in at least 30 states in the United States. Raw milk and milk products from cows, goats, and sheep continue to be a source of bacterial infections attributable to a number of virulent pathogens, including Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter jejuni, Salmonella species, Brucella species, and Escherichia coli O157. These infections can occur in both healthy and immunocompromised individuals, including older adults, infants, young children, and pregnant women and their unborn fetuses, in whom life-threatening infections and fetal miscarriage can occur. Efforts to limit the sale of raw milk products have met with opposition from those who are proponents of the purported health benefits of consuming raw milk products, which contain natural or unprocessed factors not inactivated by pasteurization. However, the benefits of these natural factors have not been clearly demonstrated in evidence-based studies and, therefore, do not outweigh the risks of raw milk consumption. Substantial data suggest that pasteurized milk confers equivalent health benefits compared with raw milk, without the additional risk of bacterial infections. The purpose of this policy statement was to review the risks of raw milk consumption in the United States and to provide evidence of the risks of infectious complications associated with consumption of unpasteurized milk and milk products, especially among pregnant women, infants, and children.

    • Mark S says

      Sorry Charles, but you made no case specifically why Mr Kresser’s arguments were flimsy. He appears to be just be taking CDC statistics and intelligently putting them into proper perspective. I don’t care if he is an acupuncturist or not. He is intelligent and insightful. I’ll take an intelligent acupuncturist over a university brainwashed, working for the man, biologist any day.
      And unless you just crawled out from under a rock, we are living in a plutocracy. Conflict of interest is pervasive problem within the research field. FDA, CDC etc are staffed in executive positions from former corporate executives they are supposed to be regulating. Money interests can buy off and control any organization they want and they do.
      Again and again, papers assessing the prevalence of scientific fraud and/or the impact this is having shows that the situation is dire and getting worse. In short, we have lost scientific integrity, and without it, “science-based medicine” is just a term without substance.
      The reputation and credibility of the govt organizations like the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics have been called into question. This is a shame they can’t be trusted. When they might be telling the facts, it can go unheeded because they have lost the public trust. It’s like the boy who cried wolf.

  64. says

    According to PhD’s that I work with…it is practically impossible to have Ecoli 0157H7 or any other ecoli patyhogen found in OPDC raw milk under the post AB 1735 standards and RAWM LISTING RAMP programs that are in use

    With less than 10 coliforms….there can not be enough Ecoli present to cause illness. We also test for ecoli pathogens and have never found it in 14 years of testing. That said…our average coliform population in all of our independent tests ( thats about 180 teste per month reveal less than 3 coliforms. Pasteurized milk ( after processing ) is allowed up to 10 coliforms.
    This is a numbers game. There must be a load of pathogens and if their is not even enough coliforms to form a basis for possible sub-population…then it is impossible.
    Please know that Mary is a mom and that makes her very passionate and I respect that very much. You will find equally passionate moms that would never ever feed their kids anything but OPDC raw milk becuase it has saved their lives fom Asthma…Asthma kills 9 kids a day!!!!!!! There have been zero deaths from raw milk anywhere in the USA since before 1972.

    Just think about this logically. OPDC is perhaps the most innovative producer of raw milk in the world. if you want to dizzy yourself with the true science behind how we do raw milk come visit or see our RAMP plan at http://www.rawmilkinstitute.org you will be amazed!!

  65. StoneyColdCreamy says

    Mark, nice deflection to the challenge. Milk in general unless comming from a woman’s breast shouldn’t be consumed. And the probiotic claims in here are absolutely proven false; you would need to consume hecto-liters in one day to “populate” your intestines with probiotics from milk. Dare I say Chris’s idea of eating human pooh would probably yield better results. You crunchy people always amaze me. You spout off about not trusting the government, FDA, EPA and then vote for the same clowns (democrats) that are in bed with big pharma, farm bills FDA and EPA. Get a clue and vote libertarian if you REALLY feel this way about your government. Better yet vote for Jessie Ventura and Rand Paul and they will be all for your freedom to potentially poison your kids with no Governmental oversight of food. The only thing I will admit to anyone in here having correct is that ANY food can harbor bacteria; pasteurized or not. Marks example of cheese is a great example of that; but its still leprechauns and unicorns if you are trying to tell me raw milk wont go bad or harbor potentially harmful bacteria which exists everywhere and has killed people for tens of thousands of years. Claiming said bacteria is a positive thing in ones life or for that matter needs to be ingested is simply begging for trouble. I triple dog dare you all to go slurp some ecoli, listeria, salmonella, staph or hepatitis and tell me how great you feel. You wont make the night without a hospital and lord knows you will blame it or your katsup or toothpaste rather than the proper suspects. If only drinking dangerous things really gave us super powers like some of you all claim… my trips to the local micro brewery would be oh so much more special. Scratch that; my brewery DOES give me magic powers… the powers to laugh off these insane comments.

  66. Mark S says

    Mary McGonigle-Martin

    For me to make more meaning out of your son having kidney problems, are you certain raw milk was the cause? Could it have been something else he ate? Could it be possible he was going to have this health issue regardless of whether he drank the milk? How many children have the same kidney issue every year who do not consume raw milk? Did others who drank the same batch of raw milk also have issues? Did something go awry with that batch? Something can go awry with any food?What percentage of kids who drink raw milk have a kidney malady? Is this merely anecdotal and can we extrapolate to all children your son’s experience? Just wondering. I have not reached a conclusion on raw milk yet. Just trying to be careful before making a decision.

    • Mary McGonigle-Martin says

      1. Yes I am certain the raw milk was the cause.
      2. No it wasn’t something else he ate. He had only been drinking the raw milk for 2 weeks. Nothing else in his diet change. He only eats the food I prepare at home.
      3. No he would not have had these health issues if he hadn’t consumed contaminated raw milk.
      4. Yes. 6 children became ill from the milk, but only one other 10 year old girl suffered from HUS, the same as my son. She also went into complete renal failure. Her kidneys never fully recovered. That means someday she will probably need a kidney transplant.
      5. Yes something went awry with the batch—it was contaminated with E.coli 0157H7.
      6. Yes other foods can become contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7. The most common food is hamburger because people don’t cook it to the correct temperature or cross contaminate in the kitchen with other foods. Proper handling and cooking can prevent illness.
      7. I have kept data on the raw milk outbreaks since 2005 involving the pathogen E.coli 0157:H7 116 people have become ill and 27 children (mostly under 10) have developed HUS. That is 23%
      8. There have been 15 raw milk outbreak since 2005 involving the pathogen E.coli 0157:H7. HUS is a very rare disorder. Typically 2%-8% who contract an E.coli infection develop HUS. It appears with raw milk 23% develop it.
      9. In 2012 an outbreak happened in Oregon. A two year old girl developed a severe case of HUS. She had a stroke, died and they brought her back to life. She was left paralyzed, unable to swallow or talk. She also had a portion of her colon removed. She is feed through a feeding tube. A few months ago she needed a kidney transplant. Her mother was the donor.
      10. Here is an article I wrote about my son’s story http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/is-the-foundation-of-good-health-found-in-a-bottle-of-raw-milk/#.Uuh07E3Tk5s

      Good luck with your decision. If you want to drink it for yourself, go for it, just don’t give it to your children.

    • Mark S says

      Mary thanks for your reply. Can we conclude then that only raw milk with 0157H7 e. coli is the problem. Now the question becomes does my raw milk source have it or not? That is the question. Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures, on his website, claims that because of his fastidious cleanliness and care, the independent and govt agencies have never found the villianous 0157H7 e. coli in his milk. So can we conclude that drinking his milk is at least safe for the kiddos? Other unregulated and untested diary’s less so? Also can we conclude that you could pasteurize raw milk to reduce the risk or you could just be very careful, sanitary fastidious, verify it and be safe that way? Do you concur?

      • Mary McGonigle-Martin says

        Well, Mark is technically correct. They have never found E.coli 0157:H7 in a sample of his milk, however that don’t mean it wasn’t in the milk. Pathogens are not evenly distributed. Just because you took a sample out of the bulk tank, doesn’t mean a pathogen wasn’t somewhere in the milk. There have been two E.coli 0157:H7 raw milk outbreaks associated with his dairy. One in 2006 and another in 2011. In 2011, they did find the matching fingerprint in cow manure on his farm.
        E.coli 0157:H7 is not the only pathogen that can get in raw milk, but it is the pathogen that is causing the most serious illnesses in young children.

        Testing does not guarantee that the milk is pathogen free. People really need to understand this when they are choosing to consume regulated raw milk. I made the assumption that because the milk was tested it would be safe to drink. Remember, every single batch of raw milk is not tested. Let’s say the milk is tested 4 times a month. The other 26 days, the milk is not tested. That leaves a lot of room for pathogens to go undetected.

        I think the best option for consuming healthy milk would be to buy it raw from a farmer who feeds his cows grass and does not use hormones or antibiotics and then home pasteurize it. This is what people did prior to mandatory pasteurization. I know Mark McAfee is developing raw milk safety standards for farmers who are selling raw milk. I support these efforts; however, I am not convinced yet that you can make raw milk 100% safe. Time will tell.

        All this talk about raw milk being consumed raw for thousands of years. Let’s keep in mind that the first document case of HUS was in 1982. The deadly pathogen E.coli 0157:H7 is new to our food supply and it harbors in the intestines of cows, goats, sheep and deer. It takes as little as 10 to 50 cells to make a person ill. 200,000 can fit on the head of a pin. Children are the most at risk for becoming ill because they have under developed immune systems.

        My personal opinion is that E.coli 0157:H7 is a game changer for raw milk.

  67. says

    What is your opinion on someone without a spleen drinking raw milk? I have had my spleen removed and have had the appropriate vaccinations. I don’t feel I have a poor immune system as I don’t get sick often. I just bought some raw milk but then I started wondering about having no spleen and if it is still fairly safe. Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

  68. says

    Dear Geetalee,

    I produce retail raw milk out here in CA. My raw milk is state inpected and sold in 625 stores. We have a very intensive food safety plan and publish our bacteria counts at our website http://www.organicpastures.com and also http://www.rawmilkinstitute.org

    If you boil your raw milk it is no longer raw. You might as well just buy the UHT dead stuff you already buy. Boiling is about the same as pasteurization. Why do you want to buy raw milk? Raw milk has enzymes and proteins that are vitally active and impact very poweful healing properties to the consumer. Namely: asthma benefits, anti allergy benefits and it treats excema very effectively.

    Pasteurized milk has been identified as the most highly allergenic food in America at the FDA website.

    But…all of this said, you really need to know your farmer and understand the conditions that he produces under. Raw milk can make you sick if he does not know what he is doing.

    call me if you have any questions…I can help.
    559-46-9732 mark

    • Geetalee says

      Thank you very much Mark, I wish I could buy the raw milk from the stores at organicpastures. But being in New Jersey, I shall try to find more details about the farmer I am planning to buy the raw milk. Also, I will try not to boil the raw milk and consume it naturally. Thanks once again!

    • Janet says

      I have just found this site, looking for more information about using milk which has not been processed by big companies. Here in New Zealand there is one main company – the largest company in the country – which processes almost 100% of the milk produced in this dairy focused land. Milk here is pasteurized, the goodies – it is separated, protein etc are removed, some is used for protein drinks etc, then it is re-mixed, homogenized, plus the UHT variety has another process as well. Then cream: cream has additives to make it smoother when it is whipped, and then it is sold as a pure product.
      Now I can’t say about what happens in the US industry, but what I do know, is that the pasteurizing process I have used for several years, allows me to consume dairy products without any of the – very severe – allergic reactions I had for much of my life eating/drinking that commercially processed dairy.
      My procedure is to bring the milk to 82C for 15 seconds, remove it and cool it quickly in a water bath – my kitchen sink. Depending on how much milk there is, it still takes a while, but before it is completely cold I start to separate it for butter (to freeze for baking) clotted cream (reheated, cooled, for eating on bread) cheese, which can have some cream in it but I don’t like a lot; by now most of the cream has gone, so the rest is bottled and quickly into the fridge for drinking, and finally, the almost cream-free milk I use to make yoghurt.
      I hope this will help the person who wants to know about how to deal with raw milk, but I totally disagree with the notion that home pasteurizing creates anything like what comes out of the over-produced dairy product that comes out of the factories – especially UHT milk..

      • says

        (I think that is the blog URL)

        Well, since my last comment, I am now SO firmly resolved to use only raw milk for my kefir. I did tons of research on UHT treated milk and have concluded that whether the product comes from conventional cows or “organic” cows, the result is the same- dead white liquid AND devoid of anything in it so the stores gain 4-6 extra weeks of shelf life. Think about that. The milk in the aisles that are not refrigerated but stacked for your convenience and touted as 100% safe undergoes the same UHT process as the Horizons brand in the cooler at Whole Foods. Do you want your kids to drink that? Especially when the choice includes a real food, unprocessed and chock full of nutrients .

        I personally think the dairy industry is nervy pushing this while castigating raw milk and doing what it can to limit raw milk exposure.

        Remember: UHT kills 99.9% of all the bacteria (brags the dairy industry). Can anything such as vitamins or minerals still be alive or active? Dead White Water.

  69. Geetalee says

    I have been researching a lot about consumption of raw milk and was surprised after reading all your blogs. I have been feeding my 6 year old daughter with ultrapasteurized organic milk all these years and now I am keen on switching to the raw milk option and since I live in New Jersey, probably delivered by a local farmer from PA.
    My question is should I give it to my daughter as is or should I boil it before and for how long? Also, how long can it be stored if refrigerated normally?
    Thank you very much for the information and saving us from the long term harmful effects of drinking ultrapasteurized milk.

  70. wendy says

    i just thought of something and maybe Chris can address this: if, as my experience and observation has shown, cultured foods from raw milk culture faster than pasteurized or homogenized milk, then would it not be not only beneficial but also better to eat cultured foods from raw milk, if for no other reason, than to be continually feeding your gut probiotics to fight the salmonella and e coli bugs?

  71. wendy says

    all this about raw milk. wow. anyway, i just started culturing my own kefir and buttermilk and yogurt. i cant really tell the difference. i started out using whole foods 365 organic ultra pasturized milk. then went to a pasturized-only ( not ultra),then costcos heavy cream(rbst free). these took 3 days to “turn”!!! 3 days. so i bit the bullet and bought a half gallon of raw milk at $8 a half gallon(gag). this turns within 24 hrs. my assumption has to be this: the others took so long to turn because there were less live things in the processed milks. hey- i thought the new buzz is “processed is bad, raw is best”. well, cultured raw milk tastes a bit different, but starts bubbling immediatley after i dump in my kefir/yogurt tablespoon. also, i want to add this: i was breast fed as a child for a year and still managed to be allergic to everything under the sun. i have been plagued by sinus and post nasal drip for all my life. now at 60, i am culturing my own probiotics from raw milk and now breathe in stereo!!! both nostrils. no morning hacking up mucus and my nose is not crusted with gunk. YEAH> if raw milk is dangerous, then culturing it with kefir grains has got to kill it. you can actually watch the raw milk bubbling, making those wonderful colonies that our bodies need to OFFSET ALL THOSE ECOLI GUYS. i really think that raw milk, homeopathy, and the host of alternative medical and food choices are real targets to limit health. dont get me wrong– i am not a tree lover. i am a registered libertarian who is conservative in thinking. but i have also experienced the marvels of homeopathy up close and personal–some 25 yrs ago. and no one can dispute the horrors of what the conventional food growers are doing to our food ( i just discovered that apple and pear growers have been spraying crops with anti-biotics). how much more is hidden out there, and how much is distorted? re: the e coli parents above—e coli can live for a long time –E. coli has been shown in a separate study to survive over 28 days at both refrigeration and room temperatures on stainless steel, but the bacteria only survived 90-360 minutes on surfaces of copper or copper alloy. In general, without bacterial conditions or measures, both of these hardy bacteria appear to be able to survive on hard, inanimate surfaces for weeks–you really cant pinpoint the raw milk. it could have been sitting there on your countertop or your grocery cart or a public restroom.
    i say–if the CDC and the FDA get involved, there is a lobby group behind it. go raw milk!!.

  72. Tamra says

    Thank you, thank you for this article. I am sick to death of the CDC and FDA trying to scare us with not quite truthful statistics and research. You’re article really broke it down for those of us wanting to make our own decisions!

  73. says

    Stoney Cold,

    Speaking of BULLETS. Asthma kills about 4000 kids per year in America. Consumption of raw milk improved asthma and perhaps even heals the process of inflammation that causes flare-ups. MAST cell stabilization via raw whey proteins. There are several huge EU studies that validate and show this to be true PARSIFAL, GABRIELA, PASTURE, AMISH studies and several others.

    back prior to the advent of the supermarket, people arround the world relied on mammals for milk and its related products. Where ever there was grass and sunshine and rain….there was a mammal that could be milked. Camels, Sheep, Cows, Horses, Goats….People stopped starving when mammals served man. The bible even speaks of it in the highest regard.

    I do agree that modern pasteurized, homogenized standardized white stuff is allergenic and associated with lactose intolerance and should be avoided. Raw milk is not allergenic and does not cause lactose intolerance in nearly everyone that consumes it. Our immune systems need the bacteria found in raw milk for strength and enzyme generation in the gut.

    The CA raw milk markets are crazy on fire with growth and very happy healthy families. Pasteurized milk is however dying off at 2% per year or faster. Three weeks ago….Crave Brothers PASTEURIZED cheese in Wisconsin killed 2 and sickened god knows how many more. That is the real bullet. The 4000 kids a year that die from asthma is the real bullet.

    Raw milk if consumed nationally would save so many lives it would mean bankrupcty for the medical industry that prays on illness. Raw milk builds immunity and health…that is why pharma brain washed doctors hate it.

    Mark McAfee
    Founder OPDC
    Fresno CA

  74. StoneyColdCreamy says

    James, you need to lay off the weed. Your hypothesis basically seems to imply that free range cows, hippy daireys etc have no bacteria ever coming into contact with milk and that the dark ages of the industrial revolution caused all that evil bacteria. Simple test for you; go take a swab and go to your favorite place that sells still moo-ing milk and swab the cows udder. touch said swab to a pitri dish and send out to lab. You will be surprised what grows in the dish. Consuming unpasteurized milk in today’s day and age is akin to Russian roulette with a 15,000 round revolver. Just because you don’t get the bullet doesn’t mean you wont or for that matter have magic powers. The bottom line is that Cows milk is meant for baby cow. The people that crow in here ad infinitum about how awesome their raw experiences are should be mooing too and have never had to take thier kids to the ER for projectile vomit. I have. I am your statistic; My family got the bullet.

    • james says

      dude, first of all I don’t do weed, and am probably the last person you would call a hippy. Secondly, I’m well aware of the difference between a modern, legitimate dairy practicing the type of milk production that produces consumer grade produce and the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century dairies that within the space of forty years moved from being surrounded by low density human population arable land to high density, high populace situations with little or no drainage and no knowledge of the germ theory (which didn’t become prevalent until the early part of the twentieth century in practice) and therefore little in the way of soap. Try http://www.victorianweb.org/science/health/health10.html or this interesting documentary on youtube – I guess you will find it eye opening – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6gyIRy3bEw. These days, if your children experience projectile vomiting (although it is actually a good experience for the developing immune system to be exposed to non-fatal bacteria) you can report it to your local health authority. In 1898 there were over thirty thousand meat producers in new york and only ten health inspectors (with evidence of bribery being rife). Modern milk pasteurisation removes upto 80% of the bacteria that our bodies have lived with for more than thirty thousand years and I think you would be surprised at the speed that our bodies demonstrate symptoms in line with evolution (as little as three generations). I am neither in favour of raw milk or against it, and merely comment as an interested reader for other interested readers. However, should we continue wholescale with pasteurised milk when in modern hygienically controlled dairies in combination with modern refridgeration techniques there is no need for pasteurisation and I am correct about the evolving stomach and short chain calcium molecules that block ionic channels in the ceacum in intestine that has lead to gluten intolerance and problems with gliadin and ADHD and other cardiovascular issues, then the only people who will profit are the drug companies that sell cures for the symptoms that will continue to need to be patched up. Perhaps in order to check whether this is correct, one might find evidence from dairies matched on hygiene and individual families who have drunk raw milk vs families who have drunk pasteurised milk for several generations. If you can find enough families, then if I am correct then there will be a statistically significant greater than chance level of finding families with increased levels of susceptibility to gluten intolerance and adhd etc. As for free range cows, I live in a globally famous area for dairy milk and forgive me if I’m wrong but are you guys in the US practicing battery cow farming? (lol).

  75. James says

    I have been researching for a book about health and physiological macro evolution (rapid changes to our physiology in some adaptive way). A critical theoretic reading of historical influences that lead to the adoption of pasteurised milk demonstrates that the outbreaks of illness that inspired the move towards pasteurisation stemmed from the growth of cities due to the industrial revolution during the 19th Century. The cities, with their large scale drainage requirements literally existed side by side with dairies that had not moved. This led to outbreaks of illness and the move toward pasteurisation was implicitly supported by the separation of probiotics and the fact that pasteurisation preserves milk. What I have found interesting is that there was until recently a group of respected scientists who believed that we had not evolved for milk and that this was the reason for the illnesses associated with milk. Actually, the prebiotic component of milk is implicated in the ‘cleaning / health’ of the ceacum and intestines and we have begun to demonstrate illnesses in response to the pasteurisation of milk as our stomach begins to evolve the ability to cope with the new environment that it finds itself in. Note that this is a modern application of the term ‘evolve’ and refers to an adaptive cellular process. We have since the times that necessitated the introduction of pasteurisation understood the need for cleanliness (the germ argument has been thoroughly developed since its infancy when pasteur hit the milk) and have also now got unprecedented access to fridges in comparison the ice blocks that were sometimes used for cooling back in the day (ice used as a coolant like this is well known for its ability to acquire/transfer germs during delivery). Modern illnesses like gluten and wheat intolerance along with some hormonal problems some cancers, and also ADHD are, to my mind at the moment, most likely to be traceable to this macro evolutionary process due to the process of pasteurisation.

  76. courtney williams says

    regarding the safety of home dairying for raw milk, is there any data on the risk of contracting lyme disease from raw milk from a goat or cow pastured in an area where lyme disease is prevalent?

  77. Joe Konrad says

    I just want to say that I have been drinking 2 gallons of Raw Cows Milk a week for well over 9 years and not once have I been sick and that’s because the raw milk’s benefits and builds a healthty immune systems like mine and has been since I found that great (White Blood,) (Whey,) enzymes, minerals, vitamins and amino acids it provides my 72 year old body.

  78. says

    I am in disbelief that the “head lines read” Raw Milk cheese makes people sick in Minnesota. This is an opportunistic and unsuported claim. Epidemeologic evidence has not linked anything yet….and this is illegal cheese and not tested and regulated legal raw milk!!

    If you want to see problems keep things in a black market condition. Nothing like exploitation of a set of conditions set up for just for these types of inflamatory news cycles.

    Raw milk for human consuption has nothing to do with ILLEGAL MEXICAN CHEESE….nothing.

    All of our raw milk products are regulated and tested….unaged raw cheeses are illegal, not regulated, not tested, and fail to follow any sort of standards.

    This is an act of oppressive missinformation and corruption at its FOOD INC worst.

    Mark McAfee
    Chairman Raw Milk Institute.ORG
    Founder Organic Pastures Dairy Co. CA

  79. says

    “Cornell university studied this and found that 1100 people had been sickened by raw dairy since 1972, but 422,000 had been sickened by pasteurized cheeses or milk since 1972. Thats a no brainer…”

    does this take into account how many millions MORE people drink pasteurized milk than raw?

    • says

      Unfortunately, all too often raw milk is blamed for sickness by association, without any real proof that it was actually the cause. They are no doubt also including people that got sick from consuming a raw milk cheese that was produced in a very unsanitary fashion, in a bathtub, as I remember hearing the story..

  80. says

    First, I admit that I did not read the entire article or all the comments. I also want to state for the record that I’m a fan of yours, Chris, and I have referenced your work in some of my posts. That said, as much as I WANT to support raw milk, and as much as I believe it is a superior food to pasteurized milk and to most foods in the grocery store, I no longer drink it or buy it for my family, and that is because my entire family was sickened by raw milk just a little over one year ago. We drank raw milk from trusted farmers who I still believe to be honest, reputable farmers. It was a fluke. But I just can’t drink it anymore, or give it to my children in good conscience. While I realize that all foods have the potential to make us sick, I have never been sick from any other food. We drank raw milk for only about 2 years, and got very sick. I was almost hospitalized. others who were sickend from the same farm were hospitalized and still suffer the ill effects. I completely support the legalization of raw milk and understand why people drink it. But I also know from first hand experience that it is possible to get very sick from it, even when purchasing from a trusted source. And I am so very conflicted on the issue. I felt the need to state my piece. Thanks for your research and hard work on this article.

    • Pamala says

      I challenge this and ask you to name the farm and when you all became sick. It will be in the public record. Everyone wants verification these days and so do I when someone makes claims like this.

    • says

      Jo-Lynne, I can understand your misgivings about raw milk, but I suspect that the reason you got very sick was partly because the medical profession refuses to acknowledge the benefits of very large frequent doses of vitamin C, which the body uses to knock out such an infection. The story of how they stonewall this treatment is appalling! There’s a brief summary of the importance of vitamin C in this review of a book about it http://www.doctoryourself.com/ascorbate.html
      I also have several other links about vitamin C on my website
      If you read “Curing the Incurable” or “Vitamin C, the Real Story” you’ll see what I mean. I take 500-1000 mg of C 3 or 4 times a day to avoid getting sick.

  81. says

    I am not so sure how any one can claim that raw milk has caused more illness than pasteurized since 1972. Cornell university studied this and found that 1100 people had been sickened by raw dairy since 1972, but 422,000 had been sickened by pasteurized cheeses or milk since 1972. Thats a no brainer…

    Also, 70 people had died from pasteurized dairy products and NONE from US raw milk!!!
    Thats also a no brainer.

    A new EU food risk assessment classification study was just published in the last few weeks. As soon as I have the link, I will post it.

    The EU CODEX risk assessment says this ” raw milk for human consumption is among the lowest risk foods and is not associated with misscarrage in pregnancy”. Yes they said that….they found that raw milk is not associated with LISTERIA…yet pasteurized milk adn cheeses are.

    The FDA lies are being exposed one by one. As far as Mary Martin is concerned…..ask her if her child ever had ecoli found in his fecal sample or his body.

    The answer is NO HE DID NOT. There was epidemeologic questions, but causation was never shown. That is why the State of CA wrote a big fat check to OPDC to avoid liability from a non confirmed recall in 2006. None of the products or even the cows manure was found to have a matching ecoli pathogen!!

    Mary…leave this dog to rest and sleep…enough is enough. The fact that CDFA never published a Press release when 1600 people were sickened from Campylobacter at a CDFA pasteurized creamery literally 2 months earlier in 2006 and restarted the creamery in 3 hours tells me everything. They hate raw milk and being fair or unbiased does not matter.

    The fact that 13 kids in New Orleans ate a spinach smoothie in September 2006 and got Ecoli from a different strain of CA spinach but the CDC does not associate these illnesses with the CA spinach outbreak tells me that their where multiple spinach pathogens and not one.

    I have never lied and neither has Sally Fallon.

    • Mary McGonigle-Martin says

      Do you have the documentation on the phantom 13 children you refer to? If you are claiming that 13 children became ill as part of an outbreak, there were be documentation of this? Where is it?
      As for finding E.coli 0157:H7 in Chris’ stool sample, you really need to educate yourself about this subject. This is a common occurrence. Children and adults develop HUS without testing positive for an E.coli infection. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Documents/stec-episummary.pdf
      From the years 201-2008 there were 336 cases of HUS in California. That averages 42 illnesses a year. Of these only 179 were accompanied by a laboratory-confirmed E. coli 0157:H7 infection. That is 53%. The others could not be confirmed. I am not a scientist and don’t know what is involved in growing out the cultures, but obviously it is not easy to grow.

  82. Ariella says

    I’m living in Mexico and would really love to start using raw milk, however, I’m not sure that it’s safe…. especially after all the talk of Mexican bathtub cheese. I found a supplier in a market but they actually told me that I should boil it. Are there any suggestions/guidelines that I could use to help ascertain whether the dairy farm I’m interested in is producing safe milk?

  83. says

    The CDC conveniently also omits the 197,000 people sickened by pasteurized milk and salmonella in 1993 in one incident.

    The CDC unfortunately is not a scientific organization. It is an organization that does favors for the FDA to further an agenda. I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to them several years ago demanding data on the two deaths that they attributed to raw milk since 1972. The response was this: the deaths were associated with imported illegal Mexican Style bathtub cheese. They agreed that there had been no deaths from any American fluid raw milk since the start of their data collection database in 1972!!

    That is not American Raw Milk! This was illegal Mexican Cheese. Cheese made from God Knows What under conditions that are highly questionable….this is quite a deliberate fraud on behalf of the CDC data collection process.

  84. says


    Congrats on a great article. It could be written in so many ways and you took the high road. I would also add that the CDC carefully selected their time periods for data selection. In 1985 at least 300 people were seriouly sickened and 49 died from pasteurized cheese in one outbreak. The Jalisco Cheese incident. The CDC does not even show this in their data base. The CDC also does not show the 1600 inmates that were sickened by Campylobacter from a CA prison creamery that was inspected by the CDFA. The same agency that inspects OPDC. In fact…the CDFA did not even release a Press Release on the incident.

    If you really want to see some amazing data….see http://www.rawmilkinstitute.org the rw dairy producers that are LISTED at this website adhere to the COMMON STANDARDS and so far none of them have had any illnesses or recalls or outbreaks associated with them. RAWMI has published standards, requires routine testing and a written audited food safety plan. This is the way forward.

    Chris….please consider this, official records show that at least 8 children have died from allergic reactions to properly pasteurized milk since 1998. I would argue that pasteurized milk is defective and does not contain the biologic and metobolic elements needed for digestion. Children by definition do not have the developed digestive tract to be able to digest pasteurized milk. Raw milk is a WHOLE complete food that is the product of 200 million years of mammalian evolution and contains all of the proteins and enzymes and good bacteria needed for the childs immature and developing GUT.

    This is not my idea….this is a quote from Dr. Bruce German PhD at UC Davis Milk Genomics Consortium. He is the most published PhD in the world on the subject of mammals raw milk.

    Raw milk producers and raw milk consumers are literally at war with the FDA and their Food Inc Processors bed partners. This war has a serious body count and the bodies are stacked at the feet of the FDA and their deep corruption.

    Raw milk sales rage upward as pasteurized sales die off at 1-2 % per year and conventional dairies go bankrupt. This says it all. Consumers are dollar voting the truth.

  85. Kim says

    Thank you kindly for summing up these statistics. After a day of research on the subject, I finally have your article to put things into perspective.

  86. Pamala Minerd says

    We are a raw dairy family. I have been doing some study because I am being challenged by some about our consumption of raw dairy. After reading this article I went on line to fine a report I had read in the past. I haven’t found it yet but did find this from the FDA quoting the CDC. Now I would like to know who is telling the truth?


    2. Have any illnesses or deaths been caused by consuming raw milk products?

    Based on CDC data, literature, and state and local reports, FDA compiled a list of outbreaks that occurred in the U.S. from 1987 to September 2010. During this period, there were at least 133 outbreaks due to the consumption of raw milk and raw milk products. These outbreaks caused 2,659 cases of illnesses, 269 hospitalizations, 3 deaths, 6 stillbirths and 2 miscarriages. Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater.

  87. says

    Without a doubt, I have never learned or enjoyed more from a thread. I am a rapidly loyal fit and strong 52 year defender of the benefits of raw milk. My husband partakes and supports me in all this. Neither of us have had a cold, sickness or illness in over a decade.

    As for my love life. . .well, God bless his virile 64 yo arse!

  88. mark mcfee says

    Stoney Cold…

    How is your “love life” with your dear wife???
    Love and support her. Her instincts are based on what she thinks is right and pro-biotic for your kids. Your anger towards her does not help at all.

    What you have described is not so helpful. Filth is not helpful either. I do not know of many people that are into filth and also raw milk. Fermented raw milk saved humans ( many human cultures would have died off if not for mammals and grass all driven by the sunshine ) on earth some tens of thousands of years ago. Human genetics prove it. We share much of our human biome with that of cows. This is from the UC Davis PhD’s that study raw mammals milk at the Milk Genomics research lab.

    The rash that your wife is experiencing is a stress reaction from not getting any love or support from you!! Every one that I know that drinks raw milk and eats whole unprocessed foods have a remarkably strong immune system. After all…80% or more of our immune system strength comes from the biodiversity of bacteria that colonize or live in our gut. No good bacteria..not good immune system. That is very old science and not an argument for or against filth.

    Suggest some respect and love for your wife and perhaps….do some reading about the immune system of your body.

    Pasteurized milk is in crisis….it is the MOST allergenic food in America. Google it yourself. Raw milk is thriving and healing guts all over America.

    • StoneyColdCreamy says

      Oh believe me Mark, My love life is just fine; after all I do have two daughters. Its their LIVES I am more concerned with at present than the esoteric value of someone’s paperback jacket opinion on how supportive I am with my wife which was not solicited from you I assure you. I am here in an attempt to present the other viewpoint to party line raw milk hacks. Nothing more.
      Filth is quite common in late 30 something stay at home mom’s kitchens by the way. I wonder how much experience you have on this as it would seem filth is something you probably have had the monetary wealth to have eliminated for you, most likely from someone paid to do it for you.
      But for most 98%s filth is simply the result of not having enough time or energy to clean everything, change diapers, manage the 18 half gallon mason jars in various states of dairy decay, wash the cloth diapers that you have also been drawn to, and all of the other homeopathic experiments. Something just has to give so its usually cleaning every surface etc is what is sacrificed. Clean to me means micro biologically clean whereby you would not get very good results by swabbing a surface then touching agar after 4 days; because hey, that is what’s going down with the milk, to cream to whey etc. anything that was encountered gets a chance to set up shop. I do not need any proof of that; I have grown my own cultures in Agar personally.

      I share much of my genetics with pigs also, and I love bacon by the way so feel free to call me a pig to Mark, it would be expected of you at this point from me. The rash my wife has is most likely an allergy to the various products and scientifically backwards mysticism being peddled online by profit hungry, Deepak Chopra, Birkenstock wearing Chinese Medicine pushers. If I had a dime for every silly ointment, shake, herb, crystal, oil or supplement that she takes I would possibly be able to afford the copay’s to all of the Dr.s office visits she makes with the kids, visits that you and your ilk claim should never be due to the milk ingestion.

      – I have news for those of you that believe that crushed Tiger Bones cures low Testosterone also by the way: They did a study and the results of that paper are: -you really need to stop killing tigers.

      I have not for one moment attacked the presence of cultures in guts, enzymes or anything else. I am simply no fan of Bacteria. And Bacteria are much more present than car crashes. Whether or not they cause illness and impact you based on your assumptions that your immune system has somehow become calloused to the bacteria is your own business.

      • Charlene says

        Ironic this discussion is occurring simultaneous to Chris’ latest post on the benefit of fecal transplant – and need by some to regain health by recolonizing the gut with feces from another person (this is done either orally, through the rectum, or via nasal tube).


        Perhaps it would be useful for you, Stone Cold, to learn about the essential role bacteria and other microbes play in bringing about vibrant health for human beings. We are 10% human and 90% microbes.

        • StoneyColdCreamy says

          **Update** and Happy Valentines Day Mark; did you get YOUR wife anything?

          My family physician had a “talk” with my wife days after my last post and the raw milk consumption has been ceased.
          Also the rashes cleared up and so has the strange kefir obsessive behavior with all I had mentioned; we now have a clean fridge that we can store food in again; organic food; food which i rinse and cook if need be.
          I asked Wifers by the way what was said to change her mind by the doc.
          She said that he said “well, yes people have consumed it for years, but do you really want to risk this with a 2 year old and 4 year old when there are no proven benefits?” he then advised against it – for the children. For the record, our Dr. is no fan of ANY kind of milk consumption as well as coffee but I break the coffee rule every morning; because the BENEFIT of caffeine is scientifically proven. Carry on all and happy V day.

  89. StoneyColdCreamy says

    I was referred to this website by my rabidly loyal to defending the completely Snake Oil “benefits” of drinking raw milk wife. I will add some additional comments to the mix that I don’t think have been covered. It is my experience that most raw milkers don’t stop with just the milk. They all become poor man’s yogurt, sour cream, whey, butter and cream makers, right out of their less than sterile and often extremely messy kitchens, often fermenting things away here and there and then feeding them to their 2 and 4 year old daughters as if they are doing them some kind of favor. When the only possible clinically (at this time unproven) benefit of raw milk is not farting as much when lactic intolerant I can honestly say it’s the benefits that should be under the microscope here. I could claim eating my own feces never hurt me when I was a baby and made me able to kill a taco bell volcano Nacho later in life without any issues magically and that those feces are safer than a car crash… But come on people.. why risk anything for a benefit that cannot be any more proved than prayer? I stand before you all today with a 37 year old wife covered from head to toe in a rash with a 2 year old and 4 year old that both have had fevers over 103 and projectile vomited all over us and our house. My wife refusing to go see the Dr. because she fears addressing the concern that its the milk and not wanting to lend herself to the statistics that Chris holds so dear. could it be that the raw milk drinkers are so driven by their compulsory need to consume raw milk claiming it gives them magic abilities actually prevents them from reporting illness? So far the only born again believers in Pasteurization I am reading stories on got that way from losing a child. What a terrible game to play just to believe in homeopathic theory and conjecture. So I ask you Chris et al, is it OK to feed your children all of these things in the way I just described?

    • says


      Thank you for posting your story and perspective. In CA one of the families in an outbreak at ODPC had made kefir and two of their young sons were greatly affected by e.coli. Kefir is raw milk sitting on a counter fermenting and it needs to be warm…perfect for e.coli 0157-H7 to proliferate.

      I was your wife just a bit over a year or so ago. That is why Mark McAfee and I are contentious, I went to a raw milk rally for heavens sake! My husband was just as frustrated as you are that I gave it to our young children. I hope that your wife and children are okay. I hope you can convince her to get to a doctor. The children should definitely be seen ASAP. Projectile vomit is never a good thing!!!


      • StoneyColdCreamy says

        Thanks Kristen,
        the symptoms were that of possible bacterial food poisoning which happened after visiting another Raw milk friend of my wife’s house whom also “home brews” all of the other dairy products you mentioned. The children’s bottles co mingled and they drank another cows milk. They also attended a VERY heavily populated restaurant this past weekend. The issues here are two fold. Its either the milk or products, or the lack of immunity from disease encountered by the other children or restaurant.
        Didactic logic thereby proves the following:
        The milk is dangerous or
        The milk provides no immunity enhancements nor magical properties.
        Take your pick Mark and explain. And before you ask my wife has been feeding hectoliters of this stuff to my kids. Shouldn’t they basically be bullet proof now if what you believe is true? And there it is… its just NOT factual. And by the way all, I assure you I am telling the truth. come to my house you can help me clean up the puke.

    • Mary McGonigle-Martin says


      Typically with a foodborne illness you will have diarrhea. Do the kids also have diarrhea with the vomiting? If your kids have been ill like this for a few days, I would get your kids to the doctor. You don’t have to mention that you give them raw milk.

      The description of your wife having a rash from head to toe sounds like the measles.

  90. mark mcfee says

    I have asked my PhD friends at the Milk Genome Consortium research lab ( Dr. Bruce German PhD and Dr. Lemay PhD ) to give me their read on A2. After all, UC Davis claims to now have the patent privileges for testing A2 traits. For many years the ability to test was patented and even if you wanted to test…it was not possible. I have not ever been able to connect with the UC Davis division that does this testing.

    If any one should know about A2…it should be the Milk Genomics people at UC Davis. We will see what they think.

    • SC says


      I wouldn’t bother checking with UC Davis, as they are licensed by A2 Corp to perform the tests. There are other testing methods available to test for A2 without using their “patented” methods.


  91. mark mcfee says

    By the way…..

    Dr. Kresser,

    I do not understand the repeated statement made under your name on this comment thread. It appears to be a repeat comment. Is this a glitch?

    Loved your presentation at WAP….packed full of great information.


  92. mark mcfee says


    I agree….A2 nothing wrong with it at all as long as the cows are healthy, the pastures are green, the management is organic and the processing is 100% raw.

  93. mark mcfee says

    Dear SC,

    Four fold healing is written by Dr. Tom Cowan. Several years ago, Tom came to me at a conference and said this: ” If I had known now that A2 research is what it is….I would never have written the foreward to the book The devil in the Milk”.

    Tom was even duped.

    If you have never seen pictures of pasteurized milk please see the slide show of these pictures at http://www.rawmilkinstitute.org they will change your perspective 100%. Pastuerized milk looks like fine sand paper while raw milk looks like human blood or a well structured coral reef. The destruction is total and complete with high heat. The proteins are changed and the enzymes are gone. The cassein is literally toast.

    The differences between A2 and A1 on one little amino acid is irrelevant. Although my comment is high level and not supported by studies, the A2 corp claims are not supported by any studies at all.

    Why is it that our protein sensitive autistic consumers have no problem drinking OPDC raw milk and have severe reactions to A2 pasteurized….think about this. It is a huge scam.

    There was no A2 genetic cleft 5000 years ago. Where is any evidence of this….there is nada…nothing to support this. Nothing. There was a change in processing and feeding 100 years ago.

  94. Sam says

    Raw milk will be unsustainable for a large population.

    How will it be transported without contamination?
    How will it be transported quickly enough to prevent widespread bacterial growth?
    Will you be happy using sterilising agents (alcohol or Peroxides) on all parts of the supply chain?

    There is no physical way you could produce raw milk on a mass scale with ZERO contamination in an economical and environmentally sound way.
    It is far better for the environment for one dairy to process milk, than many small dairys. Just as its better for 30 people to travel on the bus, than all drive individual cars.

    Sure raw milk might not be dangerous for YOU. But it would be if it was distributed on the same scale as pasteurised milk.

    • SC says

      That is exactly the point. Distribution should be local by multiple farmers/dairies not super commercial dairies. Not ONLY is Raw milk not dangerous it is better for the consumer. Hey, let the chips fall as they may but selling raw milk being illegal is plain wrong.

  95. mark mcfee says

    My take on the A2 concept is that two dead New Zealand pro A2 milk guys duped the world. The Devil is in the processing of the milk and the feeding of the cows and not the genetics. There is no support for their concepts. There are still allergies to pasteurized A2 milk and there is still lactose intolerance with pasteurized A2 milk.

    I know all about the A2 corp. They tried to get me to sell all of the OPDC to them when they were in North America in 2003….they failed. I wanted to sell OPDC raw milk and not pasteurized.

    See the OPDC position at our archived letters at http://www.organicpastures.com Mike Schmidt and others that lead the raw milk movement agree with me. Pasteurization changes all of the proteins and all of the enzymes not just one of them.

    Feed the cows on pastures and stop processing it…that is the milk that humans have been drinking for 30,000 years. genetics are not the issue. The jury is still completely out on this. Many more studies need to be done to even consider this A2 logic.

    • SC says

      A2 corp and A2/A1 issues are two separate issues. Just as is Pasteurized vs RAW. If you drink RAW milk that is A1, I think you owe it to yourself to look at the research the data is out there. Since you sell A1 milk and you just offered your opinion not any fact I will keep an open mind and in the meantime consume A2 Milk whenever that is an option. Here is a good read on the issue. http://fourfoldhealing.com/2009/03/10/march-2009-newsletter/

  96. mark mcfee says

    Met with PhD researchers at UC Davis. They run the Milk Genomics Research Lab. They say that raw milk will make a strong emergence in the coming years with the advent of better testing technologies and better production conditions. They also said this….Pasteurization is a 18th solution to a 18th century problem.

    Consumer Dollar voting is taking care of pasteurized milk as we speak. The markets for liquid pasteurized milk fall at about 1% per year….regardless of the amounts of money spent to prop them up. Raw milk grows with out marketing or promotion…why? It is delicious and it is healing a crisis of the GUT and Allergies in America. Lies have a way of becoming known and the truth always gets discovered…it is a matter of time and the internet has rapidly accelerated this discovery.

    • says

      “It is a delicious and it is healing a crisis of the GUT. . . ”

      It most definitely is. Here I am almost 3 months later from our previous conversation and a steady, daily diet of raw milk kefir, along with raw cream and other healthy lifestyle choices and I am feeling amazing!! Lean, strong and healthy. We are fortunate to have advocates such as yourself Mark, paving the way. I have become a big fan of yours–I love your rebel style and I have become very involved in my local raw milk movement and am spreading the word in both my business and the community.

    • SC says


      What are your thoughts on A1 cows vs A2. Is your dairy A1, A2 or a combination?

      What I have read on Mercola http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/07/09/the-devil-in-the-milk.aspx is that One of the major proteins in cow’s milk is casein, the predominant variety of which is called beta-casein. In older breeds of cows, such as Jersey, Asian and African cows (called A2 cows), the beta-casein contains an amino acid called proline.

      In newer breeds of cows like Holstein (A1 cows), however, the proline has mutated into an amino acid called histidine.

      This is important because beta-casein also contains an amino acid called BCM-7, which is a powerful opiate linked to negative health effects. Well, the proline that exists in A2 cows has a strong bond to BCM-7, which helps keep it out of the cows’ milk. The histidine in the newer A1 cows, however, has a weak hold on BCM-7, which allows it to get into the milk, and also into the people who drink the milk.

      By drinking milk from A1 cows, which are the predominant cows used for dairy products in the United States, you’re exposed to BCM-7, which has been linked to neurological impairment, including autistic and schizophrenic changes,type 1 diabetes, an impaired immune response, autoimmune disease, and heart disease


      • says

        These points about A1 & A2 are important, but I was a little puzzled by now the strong bond of proline keeps the BCM7 from getting into the milk. So with some investigating came up with clarification:
        BCM7 is an incompletely digested protein fragment, which results from the partial digestion of A1 milk (with histadine at position 67). With a healthy GI tract and healthy gut flora, these protein fragments are further broken down in the gut and don’t cause a problem. Hence a truly healthy person can probably tolerate A1 milk. If one has a leaky gut and/or abnormal gut flora, BCM7 may be formed from incomplete digestion and can enter the blood stream and cause havoc. If strong bond proline is at position 67 it prevents casein digestion from producing BCM7 even if digestion is impaired. Raw milk is very beneficial for healing the gut and encouraging healthy gut flora. Dr. McBride makes this point toward the end of this article on the GAPS Diet http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/gaps

        • SC says

          So the point seems to be that if one has leaky gut and/or abnormal gut flora then stick with A2 Raw milk only. If you have a healthy GI tract and healthy gut flora then A2 is preferred but A1 is still ok.

  97. says


    The total story is still to be told on raw milk and autoimmune disorders. However, the science is pointing towards this: When the body is missing its gut biodiversity ( we are too clean ), the body starts to attack itself. This is the socalled autoimmune disease response.

    Suffice it to say that when your gut is well…you will be well. Raw milk contains the rare sources of vital missing biodiverse bacteria that is missing in the highly processed American diet. Add to this the mixed blessing of Antibiotic abuse of modern medicine and industry abuse and the gut does not have a chance.

    My experiece in CA with 13 years producing raw milk and taking calls from thousands of consumers every year says this….raw milk rocks!! It stabilizes MAST cells ( reduces allergies and asthma ), it repairs the gut flora, it all but heals IBS quickly, helps excema dramatically in most people and kids, eliminates recurrent ear infections, reduced CRP values and inflamation and so much more.

    The CDC and FDA are so backup against the wall on this that they just completely lie to the public. Their very own Complimentary and Alternative Medicine websites agree 100% with my statements.

    Big pharma is laying in bed with the government agencies that regulate and protect their interests. FOOD INC is alive and struggling to protect its drug trade.

    Pasteurized milk is listed as the MOST allergenic food in America at the FDA website.

    There is a reason why raw milk sales in CA and nationally are skyrocketing and fluid pasteurized milk consumption is tanking.


    • says

      Thank you Mark for the validation. I love the way you spell out the truth. And cheers, I just finished my workout and was enjoying the best post workout “protein shake” I know of when I read this–16 oz of raw milk!

  98. says


    “Builds immunity”, so raw milk would be beneficial for someone with an autoimmune disease? Conventional wisdom (which is usually wrong) says to avoid dairy but then again they are referring to pasteurized. I am asking there is a big difference between the 2; raw milk being a living whole food and pasteurized being a dead food and possibly detrimental to ones health.

    Thanks, Paula

  99. says

    I must apologize for a math error I made in my last post. I went back and looked at the Cornell data one more time and my memory had not served me well. There had been only 1,100 illnesses associated with raw milk since 1973…not 11,000.

    The correct math is more like this:

    422,000 illnesses from pasteurized milk over 37 years for the USA ( 330 million consumers )….or about .0012% incidence of illness.

    1,100 illnesses from raw milk over 37 years for the USA (9.9 million drinkers CDC data ) = .00011% incidence of illness.

    That makes the incidence of illness for raw milk drinkers about 1/10 as much as pasteurized milk drinkers. I will take these odds anyday…especially when raw milk builds immunity and cures, IBS, Asthma and crohns.

  100. says

    Hi all,

    In doing raw milk research I came across a Cornell University study of CDC illnesses regarding the years between 1972 and 2007. The data was shocking.

    422,000 illnesses from pasteurized milk with 22 deaths. The CDC also failed to count 50 deaths from the pasteurized cheese listeria outbreak in 1985 at Jalisco Cheese Co in CA. So the real number was about 77 deaths from pasteurized dairy products.

    11,000 illnesses were listed for raw milk and raw dairy products for the same time period…..and ZERO deaths.

    It we assume that 3% of US citizens drink raw milk ( CDC data ). Assuming 330 million people in the USA, then the numbers are like this.

    The rate of illness from pasteurized milk over the period is = .0012%

    The rate of illness from raw milk over the period is = .0011%

    They are practically identical.

    The rate of death from pasteurized milk or dairy products is 77 souls….and none from raw milk!!!

    I rest my case.

    The only people hurt by raw milk is the Big Indistrial Monopolies that can not make any money off of raw milk. Raw milk must come from real farmers that care and work hard. Raw milk can not be faked or outsourced. It is true food and it is the greatest immune food on earth. You never mess with several million years of natural evolution and biologic selection. Raw milk is the perfect food to protect and nurture life. Man kind and its CAFO FOOD INC selfishness…not only kills milk and its living goodness but farmers that serve processors.

  101. says

    Mark or Chris,

    I am a huge fan of raw milk, fortunate to have a local source and have drank it for 4 years with beneficial effects. Question: those with autoimmune challenges have been told to avoid dairy because the proteins resemble gliadin. Would that be true with pasteurized milk only or also raw milk? I would think raw would be safe and pastuerized not because the heat denatures the milk protein? Any insight would most be most appreciated. Thank you.

  102. says

    Chris, I am reading this article. It is great. I was raised on raw cows’ milk. Have milked many a cow in my day. I drank maybe a gallon a day by myself.

    Now I raise Nigerian Dwarf and Mini Nubian goats for raw milk.

    Could you email me privately? I have a couple of questions.


  103. says


    When you discuss milk…try reaching back more than 120 years and look at the tens of thousands of years prior to the last 120 years.

    People that had access to raw milk ( and all the wonderful products made from it ) from all sorts of mammals had a decided advantage over those that did not. It created a protein and fat rich super food from grass, water and sunshine. People do not eat grass very well, we do not have four stomachs like cows. Where ever there was sun and grass, there was food if you had a milk giving mammal. Milk was a complete food and people stopped starving.

    Super markets give anti-milk people all sorts of excuses and easy alternatives. Take away the super markets and people will pray for a goat or a cow in the back yard with some grass.

    We forget history so quickly as humans on this planet.

  104. says

    For everyone that is interested. Pastuerized milk is listed as THE MOST ALLERGENIC FOOD IN AMERICA at the FDA website…to find this data, GOOGLE “most allergenic food in America” and it will pop up very quickly.

    8 children have died since 1998 after consumption of pasteurized milk. This was perfectly pasteurized milk with no living bacteria left in it….the deaths occured because the Milk was dead…this a food that kills when it done right!!!

    These are deaths that occured from consuming properly pasteurized milk…ie… “super-allergenic-food” and the paramedics could not get to the child fast enough to intubate, do CPR and push epinephrine. These are dead kids!!! Death by pastuerized CAFO milk!!!

    Raw milk is known the world over as a “super non allergenic food” that stabilizes MAST cells and stops allergic reactions and reverses Asthma 9 among lots of other great things ). The EU raw milk studies are clear as crystal. PARSIFAL and GABRIELA are both peer reviewed and published. 23,000 kids that drank raw milk in EU studied for six years showed the dramatic decrease in Asthma, excema and allergies.

    Breast milk is Raw Milk….breast milk is not sterile. Kids thrive on breast milk!! Bacteria are critical to life and immune system function. That is why all of the baby formula producers are rushing to add bacteria into baby formula.

    When you pick on OPDC you are picking on an “educational-warrior”. We will teach and teach and teach…The truth is clear and it is just a matter of time before the big lie of dirty dead foods is uncovered completely for all to see.

  105. says


    One thing I have come to respect is mother lions and the love they have for their RAWMILK. Instead of attacking OPDC and me why don’t you attack a mother lion that loves raw milk. That would be a real fight….

    Prison or no prison,…..CDFA did not bother to write a press release. They kept it all very quiet. That is pure bias. It was their embarrassment. Instead they wrote a very nasty press release filled with assumptions all about RAWMILK and OPDC. When CDFA had discovered their screw up and realized they could find no smoking gun at OPDC they paid us for the recall and signed a release and agreement to keep CDFA from being sued for a false unfounded recall. ( for anyone that wants to see the cancelled CDFA check and the release settlement agreement between CDFA and OPDC I would be glad to share it ). Lets all remember that the 2006 Spinach recall killed 3 and hospitalized 200. The CDFA recall of OPDC products happened in the middle of the Spinach recall. The DNA fingerprints associated with any sick kids and the OPDC recall could never be found at OPDC or in any of our products or cows. CDFA could prove no connection between OPDC and any sick kids. Nothing….it was all pure assumptions. Assumption that can not be used in a court of law. In a court of law…. “causation” can only be proven with facts.

    You call it spin…I call it telling the rest of the story.

    Ok lets get down into the dirt. If you want to talk about the whole truth. ‘

    Why don’t you tell the world about your son. Did he ever have Ecoli 0157H7 ever detected in his body???

    The answer is no. You also admitted to investigators that your son consumed lettuce!!! It is in the court papers.

    There is no connection between OPDC raw milk ( which never tested positive with ecoli ) and Chris Martin.

    Mary…lets all face it. What happened to your son is horrible. I never want that to ever happen to any child anywhere.

    But….you have taken this illness ( which he has completely recovered from ) and made it a sick mission for your life. You deny any benefits to raw milk. You dig up 6 year old history….you can never let go.

    Most of all….you give no credit to OPDC or raw milk for all the good things it does. Like….saving childrens lives that would have died from Asthma. 4000 children die from Asthma every year…yet Raw Milk Cures Asthma.

    Where is the balance in your heart. You got a ton of money from our insurance company to settle this matter, because of Marlers scare tactics ( like a false video tape that he created and posted on the internet that he nearly got sued over ). Yet you persist in attacking OPDC and me. Why can’t you leave this alone and go on with life.

    I thought we bought peace with you.

    I am also a father lion for raw milk surrounded by tens of thousands of mother lions that love their raw milk and the health is has brought their children.

    Mary….I prefer love and peace, but I will fight to protect peace and love. Can we just let this matter settle?

    Can we just love our children and nourish their safety and health. I am very very glad that Chris is well. Perhaps you should be glad as well and stop the persistent super negative attacks.

    • Mary McGonigle-Martin says

      Mark, once again you have your facts wrong. I think you need to check with your insurance company about the payout. Is it possible you have no clue? I will email you the correct facts.

  106. says

    What a great discussion. The data is accurate and the tone is fair.

    As fall all the debate about recalls and illnesses, I find in fascinating that in 2006 1600 people were sickened and seven were hopsitalized from campylobacter after drinking PASTEURIZED milk from a CDFA inspected creamery…The CDFA published no Press Release and there was no creamery shut down. The creamery resumed operations in three hours.

    Suffice it to say that recalls and illness pronouncements are a huge political tool. A tool used in an attempt to destroy raw milk.

    When people say that OPDC sickened six in 2011…that is not accurate. Five were listed in the PULSENET data base….but only two were hospitalized. Those two did not drink raw milk….they drank raw milk Kefir that their mom made at home with store bought kefir cultures.

    So do not believe the stories or the news. The agenda against raw milk is huge. Raw Milk is dangerous to one group of people…the processors and their profits. To the consumer it is a GODSEND. It heals asthma and kids stop dying from asthma and GUT related disorders. Last year 4000 kids died from asthma…yet asthma is cured by RAWMILK. See the huge studies in EU ( PARSIFAL and GABRIELA ).

    The most allergenic food in America is PASTEURIZED MILK!!! It has killed 8 kids since 1998. Not from bad bugs, but from dairy allergies.

    Market dollar voting tells the truth of it all. OPDC is thriving when conventional dairies are dying. 28 dairies in Fresno CO are in bankruptcy right now. OPDC grew 29% this last year.

    We are very very serious about pathogens and even have our own lab to test and do 12 each day. We are leading America to a better place..A place where immune systems work and kids thrive.

    Processors and their buddies at the FDA suck and that is the truth. Their plan to sterilize our food so it is easier to distribute and lasts longer on a shelf…sucks.

    At OPDC we produce real living food for people and the HUMAN GUT….not the shelf.

    Mark McAfee
    Founder OPDC

    • Mary McGonigle-Martin says

      Mark, funny how you left out the fact that the 2006 pasteurized outbreak you refer to happened at a prison. There was a malfunction with the pasteurization equipment and of course many prisoners became ill. This was not a public health threat to the general public. You are so the master of spin.

      As for talking about the 2011 outbreak and the kefir—spin again. Yes the mother made kefir with the RAW MILK SHE BOUGHT FROM YOUR DAIRY. If it hadn’t been contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7 (which they found the matching fingerprint on your farm) the kids would have never become ill. Stop with all the spin and fess up to the fact your milk made kids ill. Have you learned nothing from the 2006 outbreak? You don’t want to piss off the mother lion.

      • Charlene says

        Gosh , Mary, pasteurization machines can break down any time , at any dairy, not just at ones that sell to prisons. Anyway, how is it germane that it was prisoners who were stricken? Are you implying that since they were in jail they deserve to be sick so the public shouldn’t be concerned about their health? Pasteurizers are not fail proof – which is particularly dangerous if you are drinking milk from sick CAFO cows – and therefore CAN be a danger to the non-imprisoned general public.

  107. Bernice A Drake says

    Hi Chris,

    I apologize if the answer to this question is readily apparent, but somehow I’ve been unable to find it. Where do I locate the two follow-up articles which you mentioned you were going to write? I would really like to read them and share them on Facebook with my family and friends.


  108. Karin says

    I grew up in a farming community in Germany. It was my job to go get milk from the neighbor’s farm every night when I was a kid. The milk was not pasteurized. Most nights nearly 1/2 the milk would be gone before I got home, so I’d have to go back and get more. I used to love drinking that milk. In the late 70’s we moved to Canada. No more milk straight from the cow. The first time I had milk from the store I spit it out, because it tasted strange, not like the milk I was used to. I haven’t had a glass of milk since.

    In all the years that we were drinking raw milk none of our family members nor any of the neighbors who got their milk from the farm ever got sick. I really don’t know what the negative hype is all about. The cows our milk came from were kept in pasture during the day, walked through the upper part of the village back home, had their udders cleaned and were milked. They were fed and moved back to pasture in the morning.

    Maybe it’s the way cows are kept today – in massive milking operations, up to their knees in their own excrement. They’re pumped full of antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, growth hormones, etc. I could certainly see the milk from these types of businesses being contaminated with all sorts of ‘crap’.

    If we kept our livestock the way it was supposed to be kept – outdoors in pasture – we probably wouldn’t have so many food-borne illnesses.

  109. says

    Hi Chris: Our organization is pro .food choice and that includes raw milk in Canada. As the name suggests our basic philosophy is Anti Corruption for the simple reason corruption is a major issue in accessing clean, natural home grown food as well as most of our modern social problems. We are gathering members as I write and will soon become a registered political party in Canada. Cheers on the good work and please help us out if you can. When we are successful in Canada the movement will spread as there is no shortage of corrupt officials in the world. Royce Hamer Leader

  110. Aubrey Williams says


    I realize you are addressing the safety of RAW milk vs. industrial milk, but do you address anywhere the safety of milk in general, whether raw or pasteurized/homogenized. I’m thinking of Pedro Bastos’ work (See AHS 2011 presentation or this blog post: http://www.paleoplan.com/2011/08-15/pedro-bastos-on-dairy/) where he points out that milk is intended as a postnatal food to stimulate rapid growth. Industrial milking practices, which includes some RAW milk dairies, milk cows year-round outside of the roughly 5 months they would produce milk naturally, and therefore may introduce even more estrogen and other hormones into an already hormone-heavy substance.

    Bastos raises concerns for me that ANY milk will be insuligenic and increase IGF-1, which may promote cell proliferation and cancer. Hormone levels, whether “normal” for milk or elevated due to year round milking raise other concerns.

    To draw a parallel, I wonder if discussing RAW vs. pasteurized milk is somewhat like discussing white vs. whole wheat flour. Are we perhaps better off without it altogether?



    • Glenn Atkisson says

      Good point Aubrey.
      I touched on the Paleo Diet exclusion in my comment back on May 9th. Chris has covered the paleolithic diet in the past and so I too would like him to revisit the subject of dairy in light of Paleo Diet guidelines some time in the future. I think it would make for an interesting investigation. Pedro Bastos has begun to delve into it, but I’m sure there are a lot of studies out there that reflect on this issue.
      Thanks for bringing this up.

    • Chris Kresser says

      I’ve seen those mechanistic arguments, but most studies that look at actual humans consuming dairy in a free-living environment find that dairy (especially full-fat dairy) is associated with health benefits – not problems. When you consider that most of the people in these studies are probably drinking dairy from factory-farmed, grain-fed cows, that’s interesting.

      • Lynn says

        My point exactly! Where are the studies showing full-fat, unprocessed milk from pastured cows, let’s go so far as even A2/A2 cows, is harmful to human health? I sent this question to Robb Wolf with the subject line, “Dairy-bashing.” Okay, so Paleo-man didn’t have domesticated animals to milk, they also didn’t have buckets, ropes, fences or could stay in one place long enough to develop a milking herd. Just because it wasn’t in the hunter-gatherer diet doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be consumed or was/is harmful. My understanding is that raw milk is the one and only food that can sustain human life for any length of time!

  111. says

    I think you did an excellent job assessing the risks, but I found fault in your use of 2010 population numbers as a basis for estimating percentage risk based on 2000-2007 data for raw milk. It’s a minor issue, but it does skew the risk of illness lower amount by using a population figure that is larger than when the data were recorded. The 2010 census reported 308,745,538 people in the United States, and the 2000 census reported 281,421,906 people. I don’t recall any reason for dramatic shifts in the U.S. population, and a linear estimate would presume that the average population from 2000-2007 was 290,985,177, but it would be most accurate to specify a range (e.g. illness risk from 2000-2007 is between illnesses/308,745,538 and illnesses/281,421,906).

  112. Joe says

    Chris, please address my comment above. You are claiming to be an unbiased researcher, yet your analysis in the article contains serious flaws. It has not been peer-reviewed and it is in a public forum. I am calling you out on your erroneous statistics which you claim as facts, not your opinion or conclusions.

    Please correct your article or rename it Raw Milk Hyperbole because as it stands, it is not Raw Milk Reality.

    • Chris Kresser says


      I’ve been thinking about your comments, and also attending to the many other obligations I have. While I don’t agree with all of your critiques, I do accept your point that it’s unfair to compare two activities with different levels of reported and unreported risks. i.e. if many illnesses caused by raw milk or other foods are not reported, and virtually all car accidents are reported, it’s not accurate to compare those two numbers.

      Tomorrow or Saturday I plan to edit the article. In the case of raw milk illness, I will compare them only to other reported foodborne illness risk. In the case of hospitalizations from raw milk illness, I think it is still fair to compare them to motor vehicle accidents and plane crashes (although imperfect because such comparisons don’t adjust for frequency of travel/consumption). As you conceded, it’s likely that the vast majority of hospitalizations caused by raw milk are reported.

      Beyond that, I have addressed your other comments and I maintain that the data and analysis in this article are sound.

  113. Jay says

    Thanks Chris for the clarification. I meant to distinguish between regular raw cheese and queso fresco statistics since I buy Organic Valley’s raw cheese at Whole Foods.

    I really dislike that it seems health authors/bloggers can’t write an article and discuss raw milk without WAPF being dragged into it. No wonder more paleo writers don’t address the issue. Finally, Chris is providing an attempt to see if WAPF’s information is acurate. Bravo Chris. I’m looking forward to the rest.

    • Lynn says

      FYI: Organic Valley’s “raw” cheeses are, “heat treated 158 degrees for 15 seconds.” and do not meet the pasteurization requirement of “a minimum of 161 degrees F for 15 seconds or more” and thus can be legally labeled “raw.” This plus other irritations with OV have led me to look elsewhere for truly raw cheeses such as Sierra Nevada Cheese Company. The milk used for their raw line of organic cheeses is heated to under 104 F which not only retains more of what we want from dairy but also results in more interesting flavor profiles.

  114. Joe says

    So far, you have raised one issue with my numbers, which I have addressed (as has Glenn). That does not change the basic thrust of this article. Furthermore, even if the risk of getting ill from drinking raw milk were 1 in 2,800, which I don’t accept for the reasons I mentioned, that is less than 3 times more than the risk of dying in a car crash. Those illnesses may include things as mild as an upset stomach and a little diarrhea. The risk of becoming hospitalized with a serious disease is still orders of magnitude lower than the risk of dying in a car crash. Do you dispute that?[/quote]

    Yes, I raised an issue with your numbers and you haven’t acknowledged that the absolute comparison examples in the article are bad comparisons. You’ve provided a very weak hypothetical phenomenon as justification for EXCLUDING ALL OF THE UNREPORTED ILLNESSES FROM YOUR COMPARISONS. Furthermore, your comparisons are all done in terms of ABSOLUTE RISK. This is very misleading. Glenn also recognized this point when he said: “I appreciate that you are pointing out that the risk comparison in this article is not accurate. I agree with you.” And why shouldn’t he agree? Your numbers are clearly wrong.

    I didn’t come up with the ratio of reported/actual foodborne illness. In your own writing: “In 1999, CDC scientists used an estimate of the overall prevalence of diarrhea and vomiting to calculate the “true” incidence of foodborne illness as 76 million cases per year! Put another way, 99.97% of foodborne illnesses go unreported.” I do not believe that you have adequately addressed this unfair comparison. If you don’t accept the 97.7% ratio, then what do you propose to do, make up a number? How is that going to benefit the analysis? Do you think it’s still appropriate to exclude all of the unreported illnesses, which is admittedly the vast majority? Don’t you think that it makes a difference when you say that “you are about 12 times more likely to die in a car crash on your way to pick up your raw milk than you are to get sick from drinking it” even though it would be more fair to say that you are about 2.5 times more likely to get sick from drinking raw milk (1 in 3200) than you are to die in a car accident (1 in 8000)? I agree when you say “The risk of becoming hospitalized with a serious disease is still orders of magnitude lower than the risk of dying in a car crash.” I’ve never disputed that since there would be very few serious illnesses that go unreported.

    You are discounting the idea that raw milk numbers are skewed, yet accepting as fact the estimate for total foodborne illnesses each year – which is just a guess not based on any culture-confirmation or other empirical data. That’s a double standard.

    I’m not discounting the idea that raw milk numbers are skewed. In fact, as I stated earlier, if you believe the numbers are skewed against raw milk, then you can’t use any of the data. If they are skewed, then you can’t use the reported statistics! The stated intent of this article is to “give you the bare facts without bias or hyperbole so you can make an informed decision about whether raw milk is a good choice for you and your family.” You have chosen to accept these statistics, not me. You argue that the absolute risk of getting sick from raw milk is extremely small. I’m pointing out that the numbers that you use to calculate absolute risk of getting sick are grossly understated since they don’t include the vast majority of the illnesses. I also am showing you a more accurate comparison by including the 97.7% estimate of the ratio. This is not a double standard, this is a fair comparison.

    If you want to stick with only empirical data, then we should be discussing safety numbers based on reported illnesses adjusted for consumption. That’s what this article does.[\quote]

    We can discuss only empirical data if you want to stay away from the estimate of the unreported/reported illnesses. In my opinion, this is the most fair and accurate thing to do. That means we can’t argue the absolute risk of getting sick from raw milk at all. We don’t have any data that shows the total number of illnesses from drinking raw milk. We can still compare the relative risks of drinking raw milk to other foods and to pasteurized milk which the article has done. But we can not compare raw milk safety against any other activities!

    As the article stands now, it is incorrect. You need to either correct your numbers or take out the absolute risk comparisons with other activities. Maybe it doesn’t change the basic thrust of the article, or maybe it does. That’s up to the reader to decide. Regardless, the numbers have to be accurate.

    • Mike says

      Joe seems to have his own agenda. He keeps going on (and on) about the 99.97% of foodborne illnesses that go unreported and how this skews the comparison to car accidents. Do we report 100% of car accidents… every little scratch and dent? I don’t think so. I do not understand why keep ranting about it. In my mind unreported means not significant enough to report, be that food or car-related “injury”. I do not see why we should be concerning ourselves with unreported illnesses.

      You say “you can’t pick and choose data or throw out certain data points or else your work is not objective and is actually harmful to the community…”. Yet, that’s exactly what you seem to be doing.

  115. Jay says

    Is there any way to know the statistics of the fermented raw milk versus raw milk? Is raw cheese, raw butter, etc ever caused kidney failure?

    • Chris Kresser says

      I’ve never seen any statistics on fermented dairy. According to the CSPI, there has never been an outbreak associated with commercial, properly aged raw cheese. The outbreaks associated with raw milk cheese have been from “Queso Fresco” style homemade cheese.

  116. gregory barton says

    On further reflection, the point of my post, above, is:
    i. There is no standardized product called raw milk. One of the reasons that people are against raw milk is that it is not regulated, so it could contain anything.
    ii. From my experience, all raw miilk will probably contain some pathogens. The question is degree.
    iii. The “less than one in a million” chance of sickness statistic indicates that most of the time the pathogens won’t harm you.

    If you’re still concerned, what’s the solution? Test! Buy a bottle of CMT solution and test your raw milk. If the milk is dangerously infected you’ll probably find out within a few seconds.

  117. says

    Joe: “Also if you take into account that children are more likely to be sickened, that is an issue that should be considered by many families. It is an important point that wasn’t even mentioned in this article. For example take a look at the latest outbreak in Campylobacter from Organic Pastures a few days ago. Six of the ten people sickened are under 18. In the e coli outbreak in Oregon, 15 of the 19 were under 19 years old.”

    Thank you for making that point and your data analysis above. I get frustrated with the comparison to automobile travel aside from data analysis because in most cases automobile travel is necessary. The gov’t lawmakers, enforcers, and safety experts have made the automobile industry highly regulated when it comes to the safety of our children. Here in CA, you can’t even leave the hospital without showing the nurse a properly installed car seat for your infant.

    What is the raw milk industry doing about PROPER education about raw milk safety? Mark McAfee’s RAWMI? That seems like a joke because he has had 6 recalls in the past 6 years. The gov’t is focused on crackdown and recalls. Who loses in the meantime? The children.

  118. Joe says

    Hey Glenn, I couldn’t respond to your last comment in order for some reason, so I’ll add my thoughts here.

    While you may be at peace with the spirit of Chris’ argument, that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it, but please don’t attempt to speak for everyone else. I don’t see how you can conclude that other people are comfortable with the risks as well. I am certainly not comfortable with the risks. The 1 in 2800 number isn’t the worst-case scenario, it is the most fair comparison. If you use the CDC data then the 1 in 2800 number becomes much worse. Also if you take into account that children are more likely to be sickened, that is an issue that should be considered by many families. It is an important point that wasn’t even mentioned in this article. For example take a look at the latest outbreak in Campylobacter from Organic Pastures a few days ago. Six of the ten people sickened are under 18. In the e coli outbreak in Oregon, 15 of the 19 were under 19 years old.

    Fortunately your children grew up without any problems. Count your blessings. Mary McGonigle-Martin’s child wasn’t so lucky. How long ago did your children grow up? Were there as many CAFO farms and e coli outbreaks back then as there are now?

    When you have outbreaks like this, no amount of “safe-handling” is going to avoid the problem. And your idea about rotating to a new batch of milk to avoid kidney failure is way too little too late. The genie is already out of the bottle at that point.

  119. Joanna says

    I was thinking of the fact that so many families consumed raw milk in the good ol’ days and didn’t get ill. I asked my husband, and he hypothesized that maybe there are new, more virulent strains of e coli and other bacteria which did not exist before the age of intensive monocultures and CAFOs, that what used to be safe is no longer safe. Thoughts?

    • says

      Here’s Beals’ other article on the pathogen-killing ability of raw milk:


      It’s in response to a white paper I wrote to provide readers with information about the peer-reviewed literature on the topic. I asked Beals for citations on his general conclusion and have waited nearly two years for a response.

      The bottom line is that a choice for raw milk cannot be free if consumers are not informed. The urban legend about Mark McAfee spiking his milk with pathogens and those pathogens disappearing does nothing to help consumer choice. That was the big discussion here:


      There have also been strange situations where consumers thought their farmer had one type of practice (e.g. grass fed) only to end up in an outbreak with pictures from the state about dirt pens. These situations are an affront to free choice. I wrote a buyer’s guide to help consumers analyze their farm:



      • Chris Kresser says

        I agree that the claim that raw milk kills pathogens cannot be supported by the current data. On Friday I will be publishing an article about the potential benefits and advantages of raw milk, and while there is some very limited data suggesting that certain pathogens are less likely to proliferate in raw milk, it’s not solid evidence at all.

        Thanks for the link to your guide. I will include it in Part 3 of this series where I discuss a framework for evaluating whether raw milk is a good choice for you and your family, and how to minimize risk.

  120. says

    Being a dairy goat farmer in the tropics this is a topic close to my heart.

    Raw milk is not pathogenic in itself. It is only contaminated raw milk that is problematic and that depends on the pathogen with which the milk is infected, of which there are many.

    There are two ways milk can be contaminated:
    i. in the udder of the goat (or cow) by reason of infection; or
    ii. in the handling of the milk from milking to cheese making. Farms are inherently dirty places. Even if you follow the best practices (as I endevour to do), you can’t stop the occasional hair falling into the milk bucket and you can’t stop the animals pooping in the environment.

    We do a weekly CMT test for all of our milking does. CMT is the California Mastitis Test which tests for somatic cells in the milk. Each udder of each doe is tested. There are four grades of result:
    i. clear, slight, medium, which indicate either subclinical mastitis or the end of a lactation period (around 30 to 40 weeks of milking) and
    ii. high, which we treat as clinical mastitis.

    Only the milk of does with a “high” result is destroyed. The “subclinical” milk goes into the pot to make cheese along with the ‘clear’. We do a very slow semi-pastuerization: one hour to reach 165 degrees F on a very small flame and, upon reaching 165 degrees, the heat is extinguished immediately.

    Every CMT test reveals at least one or two does with a “slight” result in at least one udder. That means that our daily milk batch always has a chance of being infected. In the rare cases where the doe tests “high” the infected milk could be mixed with the unifected milk for a few days before it is detected and eliminated. This is one reason that I prefer to do the pasteurization.

    Nonetheless, a lab report on our cheese reports no staphylococcus aureus, no salmonella, no lysteria monocytogenes and bacillus cereus at only 2% of the guideline limit. You can see a copy of the report on our facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/luludaisy

    We also have many customers who, by special request, purchase raw milk. None of them has reported any illness after drinking it. On the contrary, one is convinced that the raw milk has ‘magical properties’, so much so that I’ve started to try the raw milk myself for yogurt.

  121. Mary McGonigle-Martin says

    Chris, until you have sat in a pediatric intensive care unit with your child’s hands tied to the bedrail, chest tubes coming out of both sides, on a ventilator to breathe, a kidney dialysis port to clean the blood and another port for feeding and medication, you have no idea what you are talking about. When raw milk is contaminated there is tremendous suffering.

    You are obviously a WAPF follower. You are using your credentials to encourage people to feed their children raw milk. God forbid someone listens to your spin about the low risk and gives contaminated raw milk to their child and they become severely ill.

    So far this year there have been 6 raw milk outbreak and 152 illnesses. This includes 6 or 7 kids with kidney failure. When cow shit gets in the milk, bad things happen. For God’s sake, there are so many other immune building foods besides raw milk. If you want to take risks with your own child, go for it, but don’t encourage others to make the same choice.

    • Chris Kresser says

      I’m not encouraging others to do anything. I stated clearly in the article that it’s a personal choice. It’s horrific that children have become ill from drinking raw milk, and as a parent I can imagine the pain and suffering that would cause. It’s understandable that someone who has a child that has been sickened by raw milk would feel strongly about it. Yet kids (and adults) also get sick from pasteurized milk, and a number of other foods. Kids have died from other foodborne illnesses. Is that not equally terrible?

      This is analogous to the decision on whether to vaccinate and how to give birth. Homebirth critics speak as if there is no risk in giving birth in a hospital (which is wrong). Advocates of vaccination speak as if there is no risk in vaccinating their children (which is wrong). There are risks associated with either choice. Sickness, accidents and death – as tragic as they are – are all part of life.

      Raw milk also involves some risk, but many parents (myself included) believe we should have the right to choose whether that risk is acceptable to us or not.

      While 6 outbreaks and 152 illnesses is tragic, it is still a very small percentage (about 1 in 62,000) of the 9.4 million people that drink raw milk. The risk of a serious illness is 1 in 1.34 million. Do you dispute these numbers? If so, please tell me how. Otherwise, we’re talking about a personal decision about risk. You’ve made it clear where you stand, and I respect that. But other parents have examined the risk and made a different decision. That’s their prerogative, just as they are free to choose homebirth and not vaccinating.

      (FYI I’m not a “follower” of WAPF. I have a similar perspective on nutrition and health, but I don’t agree with everything they put out there. I rarely do in the case of any institution or organization.)

      • Kristen P says


        WAPF: http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/diet-for-pregnant-and-nursing-mothers
        Diet for Pregnant and Nursing Mothers
        Written by Weston A. Price Foundation
        January 10 2004

        1 quart (or 32 ounces) whole milk daily, preferably raw and from pasture-fed cows (learn more about raw milk on our website, A Campaign for Real Milk, http://www.realmilk.com)
        4 tablespoons butter daily, preferably from pasture-fed cows
        2 or more eggs daily, preferably from pastured chickens

        Chris Kresser: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/5-primal-superfoods-for-fertility-and-pregnancy/#ixzz1uy7IQEPN
        With this in mind, here are the top 5 “superfoods” I recommend for fertility, pregnancy and breastfeeding.

        Liver. Ounce for ounce, liver is one of the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet. It’s loaded with fat soluble vitamins like retinol (pre-formed vitamin A) that are crucial for reproductive health, and difficult to obtain elsewhere in the diet. Liver is also a great source of highly absorbable iron, which helps prevent miscarriage and maternal anemia, and B12, which is required for proper formation of red blood cells and DNA. Liver is also a good source of bioavailable protein, zinc, and folate.
        Egg yolks. Like liver, egg yolks could be considered “nature’s multivitamin”. But they are especially rich in a nutrient many people have never heard of: choline. Studies suggest that 86% of women don’t get enough choline in their diet. This is significant because choline helps protect against neural tube defects. It also plays an important role in brain development, helping to form cholinergic neurons and the connections between these neurons that are so crucial in the first few years of life.
        Cold-water, fatty fish*. Seafood is the exclusive food source of the long-chain omega-3 fats EPA and DHA. DHA is particularly important for fertility and pregnancy. It is preferentially incorporated into the rapidly developing brain during pregnancy and the first two years of infancy, concentrating in the grey matter and eyes. It’s also crucial to the formation of neurons, which are the functional cells in the brain, and to protecting the brain from oxidative damage. Salmon, mackerel, herring and sardines are excellent sources of DHA.
        Cod liver oil. Yep, grandma was right! Cod liver oil is a sacred fertility and pregnancy food that fell out of favor during the last couple of generations, but is making a comeback. It’s one of the highest dietary sources of vitamin A, which we discussed above. It has more vitamin D per unit weight than any other food. Vitamin D is crucial to fertility and pregnancy, and studies show that up to 50% of women are deficient in it. Vitamin D promotes proper development of the bones, especially during the 3rd trimester when the fetal skeleton begins to grow rapidly. Cod liver oil is also a good source of the long-chain omega-3 fats EPA and DHA.
        Grass-fed dairy. While dairy is not strictly a Primal food, it’s a great choice for fertility and pregnancy for those who tolerate it well. Dairy is rich in saturated fat, which is especially beneficial for fertility. It’s also a good source of the fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, K2 & E) and a healthy, natural trans-fat (not to be confused with artificial trans-fats, which are harmful) conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Fermented dairy products – like yogurt and kefir – are also great sources of beneficial bacteria. This is important because a baby’s first exposure to bacteria is in his/her mother’s birth canal, and the mother’s gut health has a significant influence on the lifelong health of her baby.

        Your top 5 are their same top 5.
        You may not follow their recommendations as far as dosages to a T, but do you promote their nursing and pregnancy recommendations in your Healthy Baby Code as completely your own? You should at least give credit where credit is due…for their influence on you and your family’s nutrition. Are you a member of WAPF? Do you not feed raw milk kefir to your family or have said on your podcast how raw milk was so nourishing for your pregnant wife? Are you not speaking at the WAPF conference this coming November?

        Claiming to be an unbiased ‘researcher’ delving into the raw milk data is disingenuous, Chris. It’s about as unbiased at Ted Beals, M.D.’s work, quoted by Beth below, which is very similar to your article here.

        • Chris Kresser says

          I said that I agree with much of their approach to nutrition. Did you miss that? Apparently so. I have also given credit to them on multiple occasions on my radio show and in my writing. And yes, I’m speaking at their conference. Does that make me a “follower”? No. It doesn’t interfere with my ability to think critically, or to disagree with them when I think they’re wrong.

          Where is my “bias”? What do I have to gain from clarifying the data on raw milk safety? I don’t sell it, I don’t make money from it, I don’t have anything to gain from it. Period. I’m just a person that drinks raw milk, believes in its health benefits, and have determined through my own research that its risk has been overstated.

          That is not bias, that is discernment and judgment.

          • SC says

            I don’t think any one group or organization can claim they discovered the health benefits of milk, eggs, butter, cod liver oil, seafood etc… People where enjoying these nutrient dense food sources for thousands of years well before the birth of Weston A. Price and the WAPF organization founding in the late 1990’s. The important factor is not the messenger but rather the message itself and that the message gets out to as many people as possible from as many sources as possible. The end game is to help as many people as possible enjoy a healthy active life for as long as possible.

        • Glenn Atkisson says

          Kristen P: This is a good point “Claiming to be an unbiased ‘researcher’ delving into the raw milk data is disingenuous, Chris.” I’m not saying it is true. In fact you are making some strong assumptions and then this conclusion. You are seeing a connection between Chris and WAPF (speaking engagement), and you are seeing similar recommendations, and assuming collusion. That is not fair. Intuitive, possibly right, but not proven, and therefore not fair in my mind.
          The reason I’m saying your point about claiming to be an unbiased researcher is good is this: people who are circumspect know the WAPF has a bias. It is not just an organization which spreads the word on ways to health. They reap their funds from small dairy, fish, egg, and meat companies which tend to run more “sustainable” businesses than the large Ag companies of the USA. So their word is slanted to favor those foods. For instance, in your cited WAPF article on foods for a pregnant mother or nursing mother, in the list of recommended foods, “fresh fruits and vegetables” comes in dead last. Lumped together like that, and right before the list of foods to avoid. Now I understand this is not a diet, with daily quantities of each item to consume, but the typical person reading this list will tend to chose foods from the top of the list first and try to work downward, but will regard foods at the end of the list with less respect. What will happen, if a mother treats this list in that way and disregards a proper intake of the last items on the list, is she will likely become constipated on day 2, and remain constipated for as long as she eats this way. Not only that, short of taking heavy loads of supplements, she will probably be way short on enzymes, minerals and many vitamins, not to mention roughage and microflora to keep her gut and therefore her immune system healthy! This is not the best example I have, but it is a good example of how WAPF distorts guidelines for healthy living in favor of the products of it’s sponsoring organizations, the small meat/dairy companies, which don’t care about vegetable sales.
          As a result of your warning, (and I’ve given similar warnings to other health guru’s) I would advise Chris to be aware that being connected to the WAPF in any way, even via a speaking engagement, will tend to raise a flag in the minds of those of us who are looking for as unbiased sources as possible. This doesn’t say that Chris doesn’t do his own research, and that research is uninfluenced by the WAPF. I am not saying that his speaking before a WAPF audience makes him undependable, but I think it is important that he declare these things to his readers, and probably give a little extra qualifications and proof of his difference from the WAPF when he writes articles that might align with the WAPF bias.
          What I would like to see as an example of that type qualification in Chris’s followup articles on Raw milk would be some discussion of milk as a food from a paleolithic diet point of view, since this is one point of view Chris has also written on before in a positive light. I think this is important because a Paleo diet is not totally in agreement with diet items that WAPF emphasizes. At this point in time, I believe for Chris to maintain credibility with his already secured audience, it is important for him to state exactly how he differs from the WAPF on issues concerning foods that they promote heavily. That will give me a greater level of trust in his “Medicine for the 21st Century”. I admit, this is just me. But I’m trying to help Chris remain credible, and the time to start is when the first item of question arises. I know there are those out there who think the WAPF is the cat’s meow. I say they have not done their research. It is a marketing tool, used successfully by certain purveyors of food. The WAPF helps companies sell food. The food happens to be healthy food, but one cannot live on WAPF marketed foods alone. Never do they give guidelines for how to weight your diet. They just push the foods of their sponsors, just as Madison Avenue companies push the foods of their clients.
          For instance, the last workshop given by the WAPF regarding raw milk was on April 19, 2012 in Temecula, CA. It was titled “Raw Milk: The Benefits Abound”. Here’s the thumbnail they show:
          “Come learn how to build and nourish your immune system by drinking raw milk!
          Organic Pastures Dairy founder, Mark McAfee, will share the benefits of drinking raw, organic, unpasteurized, unhomogenized milk combining colorful PowerPoint slides, free raw milk samples and high energy speaking to enlighten and inform. Armed with truth and knowledge, your health will never be the same again. Join the 50,000 raw milk consumers in CA who have made this choice and have never looked back.”
          This is claimed to be distributing “truth” but it sounds a lot more like a sales pitch to me.
          Thanks again for raising a warning flag, Kristen. I wonder what the Organic Pastures Dairy speaker had to say regarding contamination risks. I wonder if anyone even asked a question. In my experience, WAPF audiences are very “faithful” people.

          • SC says

            I think Chris covered this already above, so not sure why the need for such a lengthy post? If you have a thing against WAPF than that is your right/opinion. Chris is just discussing the topic regarding the safety of Raw milk.

            • Glenn Atkisson says

              No, SC, Chris did not cover this as probably Kristen, and definitely myself would wish him to cover it. It’s so simple. Let me lay it out for you.
              If Chris really has no monetary or contract ties to the WAPF, he can very simply declare what his significant differences are with the aims of that organization – here and now! If he has ties, he will make some claims like he did above, but he won’t state his differences, as that will either break a contract he has with them, or cost him his chance to speak at their functions.
              As Chris stated above, in his reply to Mary McGonigle-Martin “(FYI I’m not a “follower” of WAPF. I have a similar perspective on nutrition and health, but I don’t agree with everything they put out there. I rarely do in the case of any institution or organization.)”
              I’m claiming that any unbiased researcher can state their perspective on health and compare themselves to other organizations and points of view. Chris does this all the time. He does it every time someone submits a comment questioning his point of view. He states his reasons for his difference with them. So lets ask him to state his differences with the WAPF line. To give us a few of their articles, quoted verbatim, and then state where he differs. If he can put it in print, we might want to accept him as unbiased, with respect to the WAPF at least. If he won’t do this, I say we are allowed to see him as helping to maintain the WAPF bias, possibly to avoid a financial loss or to increase a financial gain.
              Per Kristen’s statement above, she already seems to assume Chris is aligned with the WAPF and will parrot their line. I am open minded. I’ll give him a chance to prove his independence from that organization by stating his differences in a significant way. The sooner the better. You would be willing to do the same, wouldn’t you? Are you a member of the WAPF? Simple question.

              • SC says

                No, I am not a WAPF member. Even if Chris was a member which he said he is not, it would have no bearing on the information he is presenting regarding raw milk. He is simply stating some points to consider. These points can be disregarded, disputed or debated. Read the information and make your own decision on whether you feel raw milk is safe relative to the benefits. Obviously, Chris agrees with WAPF that raw milk is nutrious and safe relative to the risks. He has been upfront regarding his personal and his family’s consumption of raw milk.

              • Chris Kresser says


                I never said I wasn’t a member of WAPF. I am. This involves paying an annual membership fee ($30, if I recall). In return I get 6 issues of the WAPF journal. It has some interesting articles in it, some of which I agree with, some of which I don’t. I have tremendous respect for Chris Masterjohn, who is a frequent contributor. I also support much of the work they do in terms of nutrition education and advocacy for breastfeeding and natural child-rearing.

                I receive no money from the WAPF. I’m not being paid to speak at the conference (though they do reimburse for travel expenses, which I won’t be incurring in this case since I live very close to where the conference is this year.) I have no “contract ties” with them, whatever that means. I think you have a vivid imagination when it comes to the WAPF. As far as I know, they don’t have people under “contract”. And if they uninvited me to speak at their conference because I disagreed with them on something, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. I’m not employed by them, nor do I represent them. I have nothing to gain by promoting their approach when I agree with it, nor anything to lose when I disagree with it.

                I don’t feel the need to list where I agree and disagree with WAPF, because I don’t feel a need to defend my credibility. My blog, radio show and other activities establish whether I’m credible or not far more than what you or I say or don’t say. Just as Lynn said.

                That said, if you’re familiar with WAPF claims for the benefits of raw milk, you will see where I disagree to some extent in my article on raw milk benefits on Friday.

                • SC says

                  Chris… did not mean to mis-quote you on the WAPF mebership. Like I said, either way it’s a non issue.

                • Glenn Atkisson says

                  Chris, SC and Lynn –
                  I only suggested Chris make some statements about his differences with WAPF to help clear his name from what Kristen seemed to be asserting: That he was somehow aligned with them, or promoting purely their viewpoint. I’m looking forward to his statement of some of these differences along with all the other new information he provides in his upcoming article.
                  For me, when someone suggest that I am no longer believable, that becomes the priority, over and above the subject at hand. So that’s how I began treating my input on this forum once the question was raised by Kristen.
                  I am all in favor of Chris making it clear that he is not some kind of pawn of the WAPF so we can continue this discussion normally. He has done a lot of that in his reply to me.
                  SC, you are right that even if Chris is a member, it should have no bearing on his ability to come to his own conclusions regarding raw milk. Membership was never my focus. I raised the question of contracts or other financial ties because that is far more important to keeping one’s free agency.
                  What the average person does not understand about WAPF is that the dues you pay as a member is only part of their income. They receive considerable money from what they call “sponsors”: companies that pay for booths at their conferences. Companies pay to be “sponsors” and those same company’s products are then touted by the WAPF speakers at these conferences. I’m not saying the generic product, like “beef” or “raw milk” is touted. I’m saying the specific products of a company. So if Organic Pastures Dairy is a sponsor at an event for example, the WAPF speaker can be expected to push their products, even if those products were found tainted in a recent outbreak of e-coli. It is a way to advertise product. It is far from the origins of Price and his research. The average WAPF member thinks the organization takes their membership dues, and uses it to help spread the word on eating more natural foods. But the members are actually just being used, because their donations toward membership has the effect of making “believers” and “supporters” out of them. They have, in their minds, joined a “cause”. WAPF puts on the face of “representing the little farmer” and members jump on the band wagon. A lot of this started when vegetarians and vegans and the low-fat proponents (which were some very big food industry companies) were giving the animal product producers a really hard time, for example with commercials selling low-fat foods. For WAPF to support local meat and dairy farm products that are raised more naturally seemed a logical thing to do. As it happens though, it turned into big business. And this is my only problem with WAPF. They are functioning as an advertising arm of an industry (not a huge and unhealthy industry, but an industry all the same), and claiming to be something else. And some of these “small” farms are now quite large businesses, and they really enjoy having a non-profit organization help them advertise.
                  Please read Kristen Papac’s post which follows this. She is a past WAPF member who has delved farther into seeking truth and has found information which she never would have been provided by WAPF. It might behoove us all to delve into her blog. WAPF is not about research, except to help sell product of sponsors. It is not about truth, if that means the whole truth. It is about enough truth to sell product, but no more, and no negative-side truth. That is NOT truth.
                  Please read the WAPF mission statement, found under their “About Us” tab on their main page: http://www.westonaprice.org/
                  That is where they have their chance to convince the member that they are just a knowledge dissemination organization. In this mission statement they say “The Foundation is dedicated to restoring nutrient-dense foods to the human diet through education, research and activism.” Well, it is commonly accepted that the most nutrient dense foods are vegetables. But vegetables are never an item for discussion at a WAPF conference. Why is that?
                  Weston Price considered the intake of raw vegetables very important, and went so far as to recommend a lacto-vegetarian diet to his family.
                  The mission statement concludes with “PLEASE NOTE: The Weston A. Price Foundation is NOT a trade association.”. Why do they need to put this in if they don’t resemble a trade association? It’s all just a sales pitch, masked as enlightenment. It’s too bad we can’t see their income statement, isn’t it? As Kristen says, “Sally Fallon-Morell has probably made a lot of money off this organization”.
                  There are several ways to determine “nutrient rich”. Here are a few, and the WAPF doesn’t push these foods, though their charter says they want to restore nutrient dense foods to the human diet:
                  1. Anti-oxidants contained —
                  2. Total nutrient mix —
                  3. Life Extension Foundation’s ANDI score —

                • Chris Kresser says

                  For the record, I don’t agree at all with your assessment of WAPF and so far you have provided no proof of your assertions other than your own interpretations and assumptions. Organizations have to make money to support their activities. This is as true of non-profits across a variety of disciplines as it is of for-profit corporations. This does not by itself make an organization corrupt, or make the information they share unreliable. That has to be evaluated separately. This thread is not about the WAPF, and I’m not going to approve any more of these comments. If you want to continue, you can do it elsewhere.

          • Lynn says

            First off, I am a WAPFer and a raw milk drinker for many years. I therefore have “bias,” and I also enjoy excellent health. I feel compelled to comment about your perception of the Weston A. Price Foundation. Its purpose is to, “disseminate the research of nutrition pioneer Dr. Weston Price, whose studies of isolated nonindustrialized peoples established the parameters of human health and determined the optimum characteristics of human diets.” Read Dr. Price’s, “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” to get an understanding why the Foundation promotes the foods it does. The Foundation is a membership-driven organization and does not, “reap their funds from small dairy, fish, egg, and meat companies” nor is it a “marketing tool.” The Foundation has also been accused of taking money from Big Ag, from the meat and dairy industry. My understanding is that through membership fees are they able to remain a functioning non-profit organization. Personally I am thrilled Chris is coming to speak to us in November, apparently he is able to put aside his differences and disagreements with some of the Foundation’s recommendations. I don’t agree with everything coming from the Foundation either, much has been learned in the years since Dr. Price’s book was published. If a presenter had to agree 100%, I’d bet there’d be no speakers at all. I think the focus should be on what we have in common – finding our individual paths to optimal health. That takes discussion, forums, and yes, disagreements and debates. One last comment: I can’t imagine Chris needs your help to “remain credible.”

            • Glenn Atkisson says

              Thanks for your reply Lynn. You admit you have a bias. I have no complaint with how you operate! Stay healthy. Seek out alternative points of view to help balance your bias. Be happy we are all here on this earth communicating. It enriches the learning experience.

          • says


            I just want it made clear that I have not claimed to be unbiased in this matter of raw milk. I used to feed it to my children and family. My husband had very strong objections to feeding raw milk to our children. I ignored him because I was strongly biased because of my involvement in WAPF. Unlike Chris, I did not know how to do a cost/benefit analysis. My husband did, and he tried to talk with me about his concerns, but I was one of the “faithful”. :) I believed their propaganda that raw milk miraculously kills pathogens…to the point that it makes it safe for children to consume. Even if they are not promoting that argument anymore, it is still a prevalent belief in WAPF culture and they haven’t exactly clarified the already muddied water. You can read about my frustrations with WAPF on my blog linked to above.

            As for WAPF’s funding, it appears that Sally Fallon-Morell has made a lot of money from her WAP Foundation. I could be wrong about that and I have not the paper documents to prove this yet, so I cannot speak of my theory publicly. Many of my old acquaintances in WAPF would definitely fall under the category of “believers”. In fact I wrote a post about leaving WAPF’s group think mentality.

            As for Mark McAfee, I have a select few words for him and none of them are pretty. The latest example: Currently his Organic Pastures is under recall for Campylobacter and he has told his consumer base to keep right on drinking his raw milk they have stored up. He is an excellent salesman.

            Why attack Glenn? He writes a lot but seems to be able to entertain both sides of an argument which is more than I can say for you. He writes a lot, so what?


            • SC says

              I would not classify my post as attack oriented unlike your posts regarding WAPF. Seems like you are trying to use Chris’s post as an opportuntiy to attack WAPF. I don’t recall Chris mentioning WAPF in his article.

            • Glenn Atkisson says

              I can just say it is great to have someone around who’s seen both sides of the WAPF. I’m sure your eyes are far wider open than any of us who have only been outside it, or are still inside it. Thanks for your insight. If I were going to have to trust someone to represent to me what was the meaning and value of the WAPF, it would be someone who has been there and back, like yourself. Stick around! Money can hardly buy your experience, and it probably can’t buy your silence either. All the best.

              • says


                You are my new BFF. When can we meet for drinks? Lol.

                More seriously, there are a few of us ex-WAPFers out there. It’s been a wild ride for sure. It’s been a heartbreaking to see the ugly side of people you once idolized or thought were caring people, but also a time of great personal maturation. I’ve learned to not cry over people who would definitely not cry over me. I’ve gotten a lot of support, but support from a caring stranger is the best kind. It’s nice to feel heard.

                I thought that no one was my guru before this whole mess, including what has been written here, but now I truly know the meaning of that statement. I am in total control of my health and the health of my family now, and with that comes great responsibility.

                If you want to talk further, you can contact me via Facebook or Twitter (@kikiphotog).

                All the best,

            • Heather says

              Um, that would be because the outbreak turned out to have nothing to do with raw milk and McAfee knew it. CDFA jumped the gun, big time. The reason McAfee has a megaphone the size he does is that CA’s approach to raw milk regulation excludes small dairies, chokes all production into a couple of dairies big enough to afford complying with the regs, and drives the price through the roof. In the past half dozen years, we have moved back and forth between the St Louis area and the San Jose area a few times. In SJ, I have to do business with Organic Pastures or Claravale–there is no one else. I do business with Claravale, but I think even their farm is too big and not local enough. When I was in St Louis, I bought my raw milk from a local farmer, whose operation I could visit by driving an hour out into the country. The farmer brought the milk into the city once a week, so it was her we talked to every time (MO allows direct farmer-to-customer sales of raw milk ONLY), and I bought both my milk from her and free range eggs, as well, both produced in conditions I approved of–and for 25% of the price either commands in the Bay Area. But, aside from requiring direct sales, the MO government stays out of the matter (generally, anyway–the AG had a burr under his saddle a couple of years ago about off-farm deliveries, but he lost in court)

          • Heather says

            If you want to know what Mark McAfee has to say about raw milk risks, search his name on you tube. He’s not a quiet man!

            So WAPF gets their funding from “small farmers”, etc. I would like to see evidence that it gets most of its funding from anything much but individual membership fees and donations. Frankly, I’ve lived in farm country most of my life (not now, but 36 out of 40 years so far, I’ve lived in the rural Midwest). Small farmers hardly ever have money to blow–or much to donate. I’m lovin’ the slow food/whole foods/traditional food/WAPF movement because it might be the one thing that can finally save the real American family farm (not the modern “family farm” where they have 1000’s of acres of GMO corn on contract to ADM or Cargill or whoever)

            WAPF and associated orgs, such as the FTCLDF, are poking the powers that be with a pointy stick in some tender spots…and the poked are trying to find ways to slander the poker into oblivion.

  122. Jay says

    Great article Chris. In the raw milk books by Gumpert and Schmid, the glaring obvious aspect that distorts the statistics is the government agents hear a victim drank raw milk and their investigation is over. Other possible suspects are dismissed immediately and the raw milk has to be the culprit so why look further much less matc hthe pathogen. Thus, raw milk is probably even less dangerous than the statistics show.

    • Heather says

      Exactly. Follow-up the story of the Organic Pastures outbreak earlier this year–which turned out to be salad, not raw milk. This is not even the first time this has happened to Organic Pastures–another time it was spinach watered with sewage runoff, but the outbreak was originally blamed on raw milk. When the real culprit is found, does anyone at the fedgov alphabet soup agencies bother to move the tallies from the “raw milk” column to the appropriate one? To find out that they are not so conscientious wouldn’t surprise me at all.

  123. says

    What you are glossing over with your modified data mining and interpretation is the fact that children are disproportionately likely to be extremely sickened by raw milk (kidney failure). In the latest e.coli outbreak in Oregon from raw milk from Foundation Farms, 19 people are sick with e.coli, 15 of the cases are under 19 years old and 4 of the children have been hospitalized with kidney failure. According to a member of the herdshare, at least 4 of the farmers own children were sickened and one with HUS.

    This is a 48 household herdshare.

    You can always find statistics to argue a point. In this case you have a roughly ten percent chance that a child per household will experience kidney failure from complications of ecoli 0157:H7. You have an approximately 40% chance that someone in your household will get sick from ecoli 0157:H7 contaminated raw milk.

    This is just the latest outbreak. I can guarantee that if you look at the outbreak statistics for raw milk you will find that children are disproportionately represented. Pasteurization is the only method to prevent illness from e.coli, salmonella and listeria.

    It is only a matter of time before a child dies from drinking raw milk. So far this hasn’t happened because modern emergency medicine has brought these HUS children back from the brink of death.

    • Chris Kresser says

      I didn’t gloss over anything and I didn’t do any “data mining”. I’m using the exact same data that all of the anti-raw milk activists use. In fact, I’m using the most comprehensive data set possible because I also included data from two outbreaks (one from pasteurized milk, the other from raw milk) that weren’t included in the CDC line-by-line data, which was obtained using the Freedom of Information Act. How is that “data mining”?

      You continue to ignore or distort the point of the article, which is that the absolute risk is very, very small. Do people get sick? Yes. Do they get very sick? Yes? Is there a chance a death could occur? Yes. But as I said, these risks need to be weighed against the potential benefits of raw milk and compared with other risks that people take every day of their lives. This includes parents putting their children in cars, which is a much higher risk activity than giving them raw milk.

      Using a single outbreak to estimate the risks of getting sick from raw milk is not sound science. That is an inadequate sample size to draw any conclusions from. To come up with a reasonable estimate, you have to use data from a longer period of time and average out the numbers. This is what pro- and anti-raw milk advocates do because they understand that it’s not appropriate to use a single case like this and extrapolate from it.

      How people respond to the data, and how they determine whether the benefits are worth the risk, is their prerogative. If you think raw milk is not worth the risk, that’s your decision. But you have not challenged any of the actual data in this article.

      • Joe says

        Chris, your article does not contain any science, only statistics to argue a point. You didn’t like the CDC statistics, so you put together your own data set. Your main argument is that the risk of getting sick is small compared to other risks in life like riding in a car. The comparison is a bad one because, like you mention in your article, “99.97% of foodborne illnesses go unreported” so “the true prevalence of foodborne illness that can be attributed to a particular food is much higher than what is reported.” You can not talk about absolute risk with your data because the actual data is incredibly incomplete.

        The point Kristen raises is that these illnesses (e coli, etc.) can give a healthy adult an unpleasant experience like throwing up which would not be reported, but they can also leave an infant or small child with serious complications like organ failure. You haven’t provided any commentary on how the statistics are skewed to heavily affect the very young and very old. I think this is an important point that merits being in the discussion when one makes their own personal choice.

        • Chris Kresser says

          You can’t really make that assumption. Due to bias in reporting, as I said in the article, it’s likely that far more raw milk illness gets reported than illness caused by other foods.

          This is the first article in a 3-part series. I will be commenting on the increased risk for young and old in Part 3, where I discuss a framework for how someone might go about choosing whether to consume it or not.

          The data set I used is not “my own”. It’s the CDC’s own data, along with additional, peer-reviewed data to form a more complete picture. I made it clear why the CDC’s data were problematic, and why I made the choices I did. I was not “data mining”.

          The article does contain science, in the form of links to peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals that were used in my research. There will be more of that in Part 2, as well, when I discuss the benefits of raw milk.

          • Joe says

            I am not making any assumptions. That 99.97% figure comes from your article and applies to all foodborne illnesses not just raw milk. I am just pointing out the flaw in your analysis. As you say, we should present the bare facts without bias so that people can make their own informed decisions. If you believe that there is bias in reporting the statistics, then all of the data should be thrown out. That is the scientific method.

            The main argument of your article is that the overall absolute risk is small compared to other activities. There is an error in your analysis because you only compared the reported illnesses from drinking raw milk which are 0.03% of the actual illnesses.

            Let’s look at the numbers and please let me know if you see an error in my analysis. It is more important to be accurate than it is to be right. We have 100 reported illnesses per year from raw milk. We need to take into account that 99.97% of foodborne illnesses go unreported in order to have a comparison against other activites like auto fatalities. So that means that we can calculate that there are 3,333 total illnesses per year from drinking raw milk (unreported and reported). Now consider that 9.4 million people consume raw milk.

            That means we have a ONE in 2820 chance of getting sick from drinking raw milk. This number should be compared against the ONE in 8000 chance of dying in a car accident, or ONE in 65000 chance of getting killed while crossing the street.

            Once again, I’m just showing the facts based on the statistics. You are more likely to get sick drinking raw milk than you are to be killed in a car accident.

            • Chris Kresser says

              I think you may have missed my point. You’re assuming that an equal percentage of illnesses from all foods get reported. But as I said in my criticism of the raw milk data, it’s likely that’s not the case. Consider two scenarios where someone becomes ill from eating a contaminated food:
              – they reflect on what they’ve eaten recently. Since they’ve only had foods they imagine to be safe like produce, nuts, etc., they assume it had nothing to do with food and was perhaps a stomach flu. This is a foodborne illness that will go unreported.
              – they reflect on what they’ve eaten recently, and it turns out they’ve had raw milk (or raw seafood, or chicken, or things that are considered to be risky). They suspect foodborne illness, and go to the doctor. It gets reported.

              The same phenomenon can happen in public health clinics where people are questioned about suspected foodborne illness.

              This means that the percentage of illness caused by raw milk that is reported is likely much higher than the percentage of illness caused by other foods. So you cannot extrapolate as you have, because that assumes that the percentage of reported and unreported illness caused by each class of food is the same.

              To simplify, say you have 100 reported illnesses and 900 unreported illnesses in a year for a total of 1,000 illnesses, with 10 reported raw milk illnesses. It’s tempting to say that there are really 100 raw milk illnesses each year (10% of reported > 10% of total). But say that 50% of raw milk illnesses are reported, whereas only about 10% of illnesses caused by other food are reported. That would mean there are only 20 raw milk illnesses out of the 1,000 – not 100 as the 10% estimate assumes.

              There is also the question of frequency of consumption to consider. As another commenter pointed out earlier, most people that drink milk drink it daily. Yet dairy products account for only 1.3% of reported illness. Fish consumption causes far more illnesses than dairy; yet few people consume it every day. Once or twice a week is probably a more reasonable estimate. If these risk numbers were adjusted for frequency of consumption, it’s likely that some foods like fish would be even riskier than they already are.

              • Joe says

                You are making hypothetical arguments rather than using the numbers that you provided. There is no evidence to support the claim that illnesses from raw milk are reported at a higher rate than other contaminated foods, only conjecture. In fact, since milk is a food that is consumed frequently for many people, this would not be a likely suspect, it would be the out-of-ordinary foods that they would consider to be the likely suspect. Logically, if you don’t ordinarily get sick, but then suddenly you become sick, you would first consider what was out of your normal routine to find a cause. Most people wouldn’t routinely eat shellfish, but they might routinely drink milk.

                You can do all sorts of hand-waving arguments, but the fact of the matter is that the high majority of foodborne illnesses go unreported. This is indisputable. This applies to raw milk as well since most raw-milk induced illnesses don’t end up in the hospital for adults. Usually it is a case of stomach flu-like symptoms. Because of this you cannot use comparisons like the numbers you are putting out. The best estimate of the ratio of unreported illnesses versus reported illnesses is 97.7%. You have to extrapolate like this to make these comparisons against absolute risk examples like auto fatalities. You have to compare apples to apples. Let’s leave out the bias and argue facts and numbers. You should say that you have a 1 in 94,000 chance per year of getting sick from raw milk AND reporting it AND attributing it to raw milk. Otherwise you should say that you have a 1 in 2820 chance per year of getting sick from consuming raw milk. This is according to the statistics you provided. If you consider the CDC statistics, the numbers are much higher.

                The frequency of consumption issue is another issue that isn’t supported by any data. We don’t know how much milk each person consumes. You could argue it both ways. Consider that you only add a little milk to your coffee every day, but you have a fish meal once per week. That’s pretty equivalent in terms of weight.

                The problem I have with this article is that you claim to be only presenting the facts, but your analysis is objectively biased.

            • Amanda says

              There is another area of bias in outbreak data — outbreaks need two or more people. Small operations are less likely to be involved in an outbreak because there are fewer people consuming the product. Raw milk operations tend to be small…

      • Glenn Atkisson says

        Forget the detractors like Kristen and Joe. I still accept Chris’ point that the absolute risk in consuming raw milk products is very low. I consumed raw milk for years in a family that never had any upset stomach symptoms, so none could be blamed on raw milk. It’s not just luck though. Whereas people may be able to consume puss-laden pasteurized milk their whole life and never show a sign of disease that can be traced to that milk, people can come down quickly with illness if they drink milk that is full of e-coli. So the solution, if you care about quality (and that’s the main reason for consuming raw milk these days), is to qualify your source, just as you would for organic veggies, free-range meat, etc. Most proponents of raw milk here are claiming they buy from a local source. It might behoove them to to visit the milk source just once and watch the operation, and question the dairyman. Get them talking about cleanliness, sanitation, refrigeration, containers. You might come away with enough information to decide whether you want their milk, or wish to look elsewhere. Or you might help educate them. But regardless, you will probably lessen your chance of coming down with a sickness from the milk you drink. Raw milk is not all the same, no more than organic produce is the same. The reason people are into alternatives is that they have an ability to discriminate. Keep those abilities sharpened! It’s what helps you guarantee quality. It’s not just a “USDA Organic” or “Unpasteurized Raw” label. Just by being discerning you will probably move yourself into the very safest category in terms of having a risk from the raw milk you drink. Don’t expect all dairies to be the same and contribute equally to the statistics. Foundation Farms is an exception. But it doesn’t mean that another farm can’t actually be worse next week. And it doesn’t mean that Foundation Farms hasn’t already cleaned up it’s process. As I stated when I first replied to this article, I really don’t consume raw milk, or hardly any dairy product. But I support people’s right to produce and consume raw dairy. If you believe in the healthy benefits of raw dairy products, it’s best to inspect the dairy you use, unless you have some individual-dairy statistics attesting to the safety of it’s product over time, especially if you have small children.

        • Joanna says

          With Foundation Farm, what do you think happened? They seemed to have been very, very careful with their raw milk. And yet, one child almost died of kidney failure and was on dialysis. Even if chances of getting organ failure are close to 0, if it happens to your child, it does not matter, it’s still 100% for you. I would like to know what happened in these cases where raw milk got someone sick. Could it be avoided 100%? With spinach etc, yes, it can be avoided 100%. E.Coli does not live in spinach, it comes from runoffs from animal farms, etc. How does E. Coli get into the milk in the first place?

          • Rachel Martin says

            E. coli doesn’t just get onto the spinach from farm runoff, I’m afraid. Some unscrupulous (presumably larger) farm operations don’t give their farmworkers either the time or facilities for bathroom breaks. :/ This issue is presumably greater when operators are using illegal-immigrant laborers, who would be less likely to raise hell about it.

        • Joe says

          Glenn, you can choose what you want to believe and that’s fine. But when you base your argument on statistics, as this article is based on, you have to look at the actual numbers to draw fair comparisons. We don’t have actual statistics for food-born illnesses, so comparing them to something like auto fatalities (which we do have actual statistics for) does not hold water.

          Let’s look at the numbers in a more fair way. All of these numbers are taken from the article.

          We have 100 reported illnesses per year from raw milk. We need to take into account that 99.97% of foodborne illnesses go unreported. So that means that we can estimate that there are 3,333 total illnesses per year from drinking raw milk (unreported and reported). Now consider that 9.4 million people consume raw milk.

          That means we have a ONE in 2820 chance of getting sick from drinking raw milk. This is a more fair comparison against the ONE in 8000 chance of dying in a car accident, or ONE in 65000 chance of getting killed while crossing the street.

        • Glenn Atkisson says

          I agree statistics can be distorted and misleading Joe. My input to which you are replying is directed at those who wish to consume raw milk. From all I’ve read about opinion and arguing with facts, people tend to keep believing what they originally believed. So I’m not trying to change minds as much as let people go on their way, happy with their way of life. For the raw-milk-believer, I’m saying “Look, you can fortify your safety if you do certain things.”
          Another thing that isn’t mentioned so far in this article is what happens in the home after the milk is brought in? But it could be substantially instrumental in producing the statistics that are showing even a small danger in raw milk. For instance, a bottle of milk left on the counter that is pasteurized has to start from almost zero to culture bacteria. A bottle of milk left on the counter (or table) that contains raw milk and some small amount of bacteria is more dangerous than the pasteurized counterpart (yikes, a play on words!). Kids are notorious at leaving things out. Parents that want to be responsible with the use of raw milk should be warned that the safety of the milk is more precarious. Who knows how many gallons of milk come from raw dairies with an entirely safe level of e-coli within, but are turned into dangerous foods by the families that don’t keep the milk refrigerated. Our stomachs are nothing but germ killers. They work fine. But any stomach can be overloaded chemically, especially when fats are combined with sugars, where the fats delay the acid-exposure, and the sugars feed the microbes. Kids are notorious for overindulging on sugars, not just as a dessert.
          I think people who eat raw (not just dairy) need to be aware of basic physiology, and basic food preparation — way more than people who eat purely factory food which is dead and bacteria never grow on the stuff.
          So I’m providing guidelines to those who aren’t going to change their habits just because Chris happens to get some (possibly) valid criticism. I’m trying to help them live better. It takes all sorts of information to make a balanced forum, where people can see all the reasoning out there and still make their choices. I know people tend to stay in the same rut because they already did a lot of research just to get there. I’m not trying to move them much, just help them be “rut-happy” if you will, and let them understand that not everyone is scared to hell of unpasteurized food, and there are safer ways to obtain and maintain it.

          • Joe says

            Glenn, I’m not saying that statistics can be distorted and misleading. I’m pointing out the fact that the risk comparison in this article is not accurate. Please go back and read what I wrote and let me know what you feel is misleading.

            The whole intent stated in the article is to present the unbiased facts so that educated choices can be made, and this portion of the article is heavy on statistics. I do think you have good advice and insight into choosing a raw milk supplier.

            • Glenn Atkisson says

              Thanks, Joe. I appreciate that you are pointing out that the risk comparison in this article is not accurate. I agree with you. I also agree with Chris that, due to a lot of negative press on raw milk, the 99.97% figure could be a bit high in the case of unreported raw milk sicknesses. And you don’t need to modify this figure much, (like just by -2.0 or -3.0 percent) and you suddenly have raw milk sickness again as less likely than dying in a car crash, a risk that probably 99.9% of all Americans is willing to take.
              But even if we take your figure of a 1 in 2820 chance of getting sick from raw milk in any given year, that amounts to about 1 sickness per person every 8 years. And that is considering that people stay ignorant of how to care for the milk once they have it in hand, and all dairy sanitary procedures stay as they have in the past, in spite of the added pressure from the government.
              I really believe, considering how we’ve seen that government agencies work hand in hand with big Ag and big Pharma to promote their agendas, that there is a good chance that there has been distortion of the statistics that Chris says he gets straight from the CDC. If you read again Chris’s list of “several problems with the CDC report” and allow for the points he makes, you can easily see that the water surrounding the CDC statistics is very muddy. There are so many cases where a CDC employee, building a CDC statistic from one outbreak, could say the responsible food is “unknown” (the usual case) and not press to investigate further, but the same person, when investigating another outbreak, where a lead question might be “do you consume raw milk in your family”, and getting a positive answer, might have a very high chance of attributing the sickness to the raw milk, even if it may have had a different origin. Admittedly this is conjecture. But what is not conjecture is that we are dealing with the statistics of a biased government here, whose agencies are abetting large corporations. Why should these statistics be any more accurate in their recording than those already proven to have biased FDA drug approval decisions, which statistics are later found to have been intentionally distorted by the drug companies who’s drug was approved?
              I see that Chris is trying to make his case IN SPITE of taking the statistics right out of the dragon’s mouth, and then he makes some qualifications to show how PROBABLY the statistics are even more favorable toward raw milk than the actual numbers. As someone who is sick of how our government cheats people to serve industry, I can easily be swayed by his statements of probability. And I think those statements are an important and relevant part of his point of view.
              On the other hand, you are trying to make a point by looking just at the statistics, and the chance of distortion from “actual” to “reported” cases. You are granting no leeway to any of Chris’s comments about distortion in the other direction in order to make your point. I understand you are adamant on this little issue of relative risks, but if we give you a “win” on this issue, what is your feeling about advising people to drink, or not, raw milk?
              What is it, once you’ve made your point that “one is more likely to be sick from raw milk than to die in a car accident”, that you would like us to decide?
              Early in this discussion you stated: “You have to pasteurize industrial milk because the risk of contamination is so high. You couldn’t industrially produce raw milk, that is when you would have high increase of illnesses.” So we see that the big milk industry can’t compete for this special product called raw milk. Only the small dairy can take the precautions to deliver it to the public. And the dairy industry wants to shut down the raw dairies. And the people WANT raw milk. For an issue to persist even though there is strong resistance, there must be a VALUE in raw milk. Value well worth paying extra for, and risking occasional upset stomach’s to obtain. This article doesn’t even touch on the value question. But the value is there, and is regarded highly, or there would be no dispute.
              So on the subject of “Raw milk reality: Is raw milk dangerous?” what is you point of view? Are you saying “yes” or “no”? What do you wish people to conclude from this article? You say at one point “The fact remains that there is no way to get rid of these harmful pathogens other than pasteurization. As others have mentioned, these pathogens are nasty and can lead to organ failure, especially in children.” That statement seems to be an attempt to bias this audience, and technically, is inaccurate.
              The pathogens you speak of are only “nasty”, or a risk, when in great numbers. As Gregory Barton mentions in his post today, milk, as well as many other foods (and your municipal water supply), go out on sale even when testing shows there is an acceptable level of pathogens present. Acceptable means that the pathogens will not cause harm because the human stomach can handle a certain number of them. That is what the “expiration date” on products help insure though: that the pathogens don’t multiply to an unmanageable number before you ingest the product. If you just start looking at expiration dates you will realize it takes quite some time before pathogens can multiply to a dangerous level. The more likely to be contaminated foods are the ones that are in the refrigerated sections of stores. But they still comply to standards and have expiration dates. This is how our whole food/water/drug system works. And people rarely get sick from ingesting foods from our system. Children eat dirt all the time and usually only benefit from the additional flora ingested. Pathogens are only “nasty” when a food is LOADED with them, either from a gross contamination during processing, or from sitting around too long. Pasteurization is a great thing to rid a food of pathogens down to near zero. But it also harms the nutrition of the food. People want to receive the vitamins and enzymes and microbiotic life that foods originated with. So lets remember that an article on “dangers” is, at best, only half the story. People here need to keep thinking that if there are dangers, regardless how miniscule, are there also benefits that may offset the dangers, and may they FAR offset the dangers. This article is only on the dangers of raw milk. It is not trying to be the whole story.

            • Glenn Atkisson says

              Joe, Woopsie, I divided that 2820 for some reason by 365! My bad. Meant to divide by 2 to show the average chance one has of being sickened from raw milk. On average, a person will need to consume raw milk for 1,410 years before they are sickened by a dose of it. A few people will be sickened the first year, for sure, and some may live 2820 years, but on average they will get through at least, well, SEVERAL LIFETIMES without being sick. You made your point, but if you look at it this way, the risk is still a non-issue.

              • Joe says

                You make some great points, Glenn. We live in the real world and I agree that our government is anything but trustworthy. I don’t trust the statistics any more than you or anyone else here, but they are the only numbers that we have to go by. I’m a scientist and one of the things that I was taught is that if you have a potential bias in your data, you have to throw out the whole thing. You can’t pick and choose data or throw out certain data points or else your work is not objective and is actually harmful to the community. The argument that raw milk numbers are skewed in the data is not something that we can use to modify the data. If we truly believe that, then you have to discount all of the data and we are left with a religious debate (no empirical data).

                I’m not trying to cause a stink here to promote pasteurization, rather I see a case of misused statistics and I feel obligated to point out the unfair comparison especially since Chris has been adament about presenting the facts in an unbiased fasion. Basically, his numbers are way off and therefore his analysis that uses these numbers for support is way over the top. You’re still more likely to not get sick by a wide margin, but let’s use the correct numbers.

                If you’re asking about my personal viewpoint, I personally would be comfortable drinking raw milk, but I would not be comfortable giving it to my children. Even if the nutrients are twice as dense, the risk is simply not worth it to me because of the chance of kidney failure. This is part of the story that these statistics don’t show. The likelihood of children getting sick is much higher than the likelihood of adults getting sick and these risk numbers don’t make the distinction between adult or child.

                In regards to the level of pathogens and thresholds for food safety, yes it’s proven that trace amounts of pathogens are normally present in our food and are no problem at all. It’s only when our immune systems get overwhelmed by the pathogens that we get outwardly sick. The point about pasteurization that I was trying to say is that it is the only method that we have for reducing the number of pathogens. Raw milk is inherently safe. It’s only when enough external pathogens contaminate the milk that we might have a problem. Most adults can deal with these pathogens with a bout of diarrhea or throwing up. However, infants and children and those with compromised immune systems have a much harder time dealing with these pathogens. They can get so sick that their kidneys shut down. These children would be dead if not for modern acute care like dialysis and transplants.

                • Glenn Atkisson says

                  Thanks for the clarification Joe. I’m at peace with what might have been a difference. You are right that a scientist must throw out the conclusion this article takes from the statistics cited. It’s a lot of detail, but the margin of error makes the statistics not reliable for comparison with other causes of sickness or death that have a far lower margin of error. What I think remains that is significant is that the chance of any one person getting sick from raw milk is still almost as unlikely as dying in an automobile accident (won’t happen in this or our next lifetime!), and that is a risk we all (virtually) are willing to take. And the actual likelihood may be debatable, but even your best adjusted, devil’s advocate “guess”, based on unreliable statistics adjusted for unreported cases of 97.7% is still turning out to be something that people seem ready to face. So as far as the “spirit” of Chris’s presentation goes, I see his point of view as upheld. He may have merely chosen a poor example for one comparison.
                  I appreciate hearing your personal feelings on raw milk consumption.
                  Your last statements about the risk to children is well made. I happened to have fed my kids raw milk with no adverse reactions, and in fact with no knowledge of the risks. Some of this “faith” comes from my being raised by parents who were both raised on raw milk and I never heard a tale of milk-borne pathogens. That milk was home grown, probably chilled only by an ice box, if that, and probably also fed to the churn, the cats and the pigs after sitting around for more than a day! Then there was heavy use of buttermilk too, which I’m assuming is a cure for some of the potential harm within the milk, just as probiotic inoculants are a cure to poor cultures in our gut. Buttermilk is not part of our current “culture”.
                  This whole little subject of protecting the children brings to my mind the idea that if parents want to be extra safe with raw milk, they could take in a new supply before the old supply is exhausted, feed the kids on the remainder of the old milk, and test the new milk on themselves. If they don’t have an upset stomach by the next day, let the kids consume the new milk. Not much extra effort here, but this alone might take care of the chance of childhood kidney failure, etc. Still, I think the most important advice I could give parents feeding children raw milk is:
                  “Don’t keep using the milk if anyone left it out of refrigeration for more than a half hour. It wasn’t microbe free when it was delivered as pasteurized milk will be, so you are contributing to the risk by using it after it’s warmed. Don’t trust your kids to handle it. They may forget to return it to the cold.”

                • Chris Kresser says





  124. says

    Finally! The article I’ve wanted to write, it I only had unlimited time. Now I don’t have to because he explains it all. I am going to be linking this all over the place! Thank you.

  125. wito says

    The following statement is not true, and you know why it is not, Chris:

    “According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, you have a roughly 1 in 8,000 chance of dying in a motor vehicle accident if you live in the U.S.. This means you are about 12 times more likely to die in a car crash on your way to pick up your raw milk than you are to get sick from drinking it.”

    I really like your blog for great data and info, but please don’t use similar tricks like they use in studies you criticize.

    • Chris Kresser says

      If you’re going to essentially accuse me of lying, you should have some data to support your critique. According to this table on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s website, the risk of dying in a motor vehicle accident is 1 in 7,700 for the general population. So, please tell me how my statement is untrue. Comparing risk is always imperfect, because such comparison’s don’t take things like frequency of activity into account. Someone who drives 100 miles a day has a much higher risk of dying in a car accident than someone who drives 10 miles a week. Likewise, someone who drinks raw milk every day has a higher chance of getting sick than someone that drinks it once a month. But these estimates for risk are what are used in the scientific literature and in the CDC and FDA reports, as well as in the critiques of raw milk by attorneys like Marler. I don’t see why they aren’t appropriate to use here as long as they’re based on accurate data.

  126. SC says

    Chris, will you be addressing the A1/A2 beta casein issues in your next artilcles. My understanding is that raw milk or slow vat pasteruized milk for health reasons should come from A2 cows, as opposed to A1 cows.

  127. Richard says

    Ladies and gentlemen – a little perspective here, and perhaps a little history. Louis Pasteur born 1822, died 1895 invented the pasteurization process. Do you REALLY think that for the thousands of years prior to his little miracle discovery that people were dying in droves, by the hundreds and thousands around the globe from drinking unpasteurized milk? Oh, yes, and what about all the families that were raised on farms between Pasteur’s discovery and the regulations which were passed banning the sale of unpasteurized milk? Were those families decimated, destroyed, annihilated by the consumption of a little bacteria in raw milk?
    Indeed, Pasteur’s discovery has probably led to more disease than it has cured. We have become a virtually sterilized society where we use hand sanitizer every time we open or close a door, we carry it in our pockets and purses. We do not wish to attract germs. Does anyone know how vaccinations work – they give you a miniscule amount of the disease you wish to avoid so your internal immune system can combat and destroy it an prepare itself for the real onslaught. We are so sterilized with all our drugs and cleansers that our bodies can’t build up immunities and THAT is why we are sick! THAT is where the superbugs are coming from!

  128. says

    Also interesting, if I did my math correctly, based on your data driving in a car is about 8x more dangerous than being a pedestrian, both of which are fairly dangerous if you ask me. If people don’t want to risk giving raw milk to their children, why risk putting them in a car? Just a thought.

  129. says

    Thank you for doing this analysis. Best article I’ve read on this topic yet. I’m actually shocked at what the risk of dying in an auto accident is. Yikes! It’s nice to know that my risk of getting sick from raw milk is much, much less. I had kidney failure from E. coli when I was a kid (had a remarkable recovery, fortunately). It would suck big time if lightening were to strike me twice, but these statistic do put me at ease. My raw milk farmer has a stringent protocol for milk safety, which should reduce my risk even further.

    Thanks again. Can’t wait to read the rest of the series, and I’ll definitely be linking up to them on my blog.

  130. says

    Great article, and thanks for taking the time to do all the research in a meaningful way!

    I do have one question on the numbers. It seems to me that there is another level here that is not included, being the frequency of consumption. People drinking raw milk would normally (
    I assume) drink that milk on a daily basis, batch after batch. Very few other food sources are consumed as frequently. For instance, who eats raw oysters every day? So isnt there another level of analysis that explore per batch of food, how the risk compares? If a person drinks raw milk 365 days a year and consumes raw oysters 4 times a year, and the risk of getting sick from oysters is still significantly higher, doesn’t adjusting for that make oysters tremendously higher still? What if a person only drinks raw milk at the same frequency as eating raw oysters, what happens to the numbers then?


  131. says

    I’ve had several people commenting on my Facebook page over the last year or so about how people didn’t used to refrigerate milk, and therefore the refrigeration of the milk causes the lactic acid bacteria replication to slow down, and that it can’t “out-compete other cold-insensitive bacteria, including potentially pathogenic organisms.” Here’s the link to Todd Caldecott’s post on The Bovine, with links to studies showing this outcome:


    Very few people I’ve talked to agree with this, and I’m on the fence. But I can’t help to agree that people didn’t refrigerate milk until the modern era, that they did consume it warm, and that they typically fermented it to keep it from souring and used it in that form a great deal.

    • says

      I think about that, too. How the E. coli could be growing faster in the fridge than the beneficial bacteria. Culturing my milk into yogurt makes me feel better about it.

    • Lynn says

      I’m waiting for more info on yesterday’s recall before I pass any judgement. In Nov. 2011, Organic Pasture Dairy products were recalled (for one month with hundreds of thousands of dollars lost in sales) the State found no E. coli anywhere on their farm or in their dairy products, even samples tested in the houses where people got sick. CEO Mark McAfee is an expert in food safety and certified in HAACP management. After the recall was lifted last December, Mark said, ” “It is hard to improve on perfect … zero pathogens ever found in 10 years of testing.” I am wondering how over a four month period campylobacter could have escaped undetected in what were probably hundreds, maybe thousands, of tests? Let’s wait and see….. As Chris says, it can happen.

      • says

        Here is a link to the CDFA report about the Organic Pastures recall and outbreak in November 2012:
        “Environmental samples collected at Organic Pastures yielded E. coli 0157:H7 isolates that had PFGE patterns indistinguishable from the patient isolates. Organic Pastures raw milk consumed by the case-patients was likely contaminated with this strain of E. coli 0157:H7, resulting in their illnesses.”

        • Lynn says

          Thanks for the link. I always want to learn more and better understand the complexities of this issue. I am, perhaps obviously, a layperson and not a scientist. I now understand there’s not often a “smoking gun” but rather enough epidemiological evidence of a food causing an illness that experts agree it “likely” to be the cause. I still would want to read this from other than Marler or CDFA, hear another opinion. Which brings up the question: Why only these 5 children, and not hundreds, or even thousands, sickened? I ate salmon ceviche with a couple last summer and experienced mild nausea for about 15 minutes. They both got very ill and could not go to their jobs for days. The bacteria (Pasteur) or the terrain (Beauchamp)? Could it be there are foods in the grocery store that might contain these “isolates” and if they weren’t ingested by kids who drank raw milk, they never would have become a “cluster” and their E. coli story never would have made the news? I am curious, but it might be more science than I can comprehend….

        • Charlene says

          What were the “environmental samples” tested? Was it soil? Manure? Swabs from equipment? The article does not indicate that it was *FOOD*samples – an important distinction. To prove positively that it was raw milk which caused illness, it is necessary to test unopened packages of food from the same batch consumed by the people who got sick. Contaminated food can make people sick; but sick people can contaminate food as well – which is why it is important to find unopened food from the same suspected batch.

          As far as the environmental samples showing identical genetic patterns with patient isolates: did the lab run positive controls? Did they take samples from people who consumed the food but did not get sick – of which there were thousands, it seems. Perhaps anyone – even healthy people – eating food from the farm would produce matching isolates. Doesn’t *prove* the raw milk made some ill.

    • Heather says

      …and that particular outbreak was eventually found to have been cause by another food entirely NOT Organic Pastures’ milk. But, of course, that was after OP’s milk was on recall for weeks, they lost a ton of income, and had their name and product dragged through the mud.

      • Kristen P says

        Which outbreak at OPDC are you referring too? There have been several and none of them have been linked to another food. Please site your source of information. The CDFA has all of the reports on its website and you can look at realrawmilkfacts.com for their table covering all raw milk outbreaks since 1998 I believe. If you are referring to the latest ecoli outbreak in fall of 2011 at OPDC, I linked to the CDFA report above.

      • Mary McGonigle-Martin says

        I can’t tell you how tired I am of the BS that surrounds the OPDC raw milk outbreaks. The one in 2006 was not caused by another food. People believe this because that is what Mark McAfee told people. News flash—he lied. Then Sally Fallon spread the lie. In the 2006 outbreak 6 children became ill and they lived sprinkled throughout California. The only the common food they consumed was OPDC products. They searched the cows and soil 2 months after the fact and did not find the matching pathogen

        In 2011, the outbreak was a ditto to the 2006 outbreak—6 children sprinkled throughout California. This time they searched the farm immediately and found the matching pathogen in the poop where the calves were housed. It is speculated that the pathogen was dragged into the milk room from dirty shoes.

  132. April says

    Well written, but you have not changed my thought about pasturized vs. raw. I do agree that organic is better but I will never drink raw or serve it to my family.

    • Chris Kresser says

      As I said several times in the article, my intention wasn’t to change anyone’s mind. My intention was to present the fact in an unbiased way so people have the information they need to make up their own minds.

  133. JMH says

    Chris, are you going to talk about the history of pasteurization? Maybe because I’m Canadian, but I’m a little protective of pasteurization, in the way one is protective of one’s old gently misogynistic grampa
    Pasteurization is a thing which makes sense, and for once isn’t coming from a malicious place. It makes sense in the way that Jewish prohibitions about eating cloven-footed things and shellfish make sense. Back in a more primitive time (in terms of technology) it was harder to keep things safe. Back when factory farming was a tiny baby, and they started doing things like shipping food across the state, people *were* getting really sick and dying. Why? Because raw milk can go bad if it’s left just sitting around for a week. But we have refrigerators now. And you’re likely getting your milk from somewhere an hour or so away, not three days away in the summer heat. So it’s not the same kind of risk. It’s not the same kind of choice between dead milk or spoilt milk.

    (This kinda reminds me when I first started buying better quality meat and it kept rotting in the fridge. I didn’t realize how much I depended and meal planned based of preservative content in my dead meat, until I started having to throw out whole chickens that went green on me. You handle raw milk differently than pasteurized milk. Not even more carefully exactly, but it is alive and that’ll catch you up to begin with.)

    But it helps to be able to see it from their point of view. The last time raw milk was common, a lot of people died. Why risk it? When you can show people what’s different and answer their fears, instead of just calling them stupid (I’m not saying you are, Chris. I <3 you, totes.), you can convince more people.

    Plus, Pasteur was a ruddy genius. He didn't invent germ theory, but he basically beat it into people's heads. He proved and explained the science of fermentation, so we can all explain why sauerkraut is bubbly.
    Iunno, like the vaccine debate, I just get really tired when conversations split into two factions. We can both be right and both be missing something.

    • Lynn says

      I must disagree. My understanding is that clean, raw milk does not “go bad”, it simply starts to sour or “clabber” and many primitives without refrigeration drank this type of milk rather than the sweet or fresh milk we have become accustomed to. I also understand that most of the world that drinks untreated milk either ferments it purposefully with a culture or allows it to sour on its own from the bacteria present in the milk. Pasteurization became a necessity in the early 1900’s because of the “swill” or “distillery” dairies that fed their herds spent grains and mash from liquor production. That dangerous milk was a pale blue, and calcium carbonate (chalk) was added to make it white. These cows were sick, and so would you be drinking that milk without treatment to kill the pathogens. Not only that, they were hand milked over open buckets and not by family members careful not to cough over them! Everyone must understand that from a pasture-based operation with a properly managed healthy herd and good sanitation in the milking parlor (esp. with refrigerated bulk tanks and stainless tubing), raw milk is perfectly safe. This describes the dairy in Oregon where I get my raw milk via a herd share. It is tragic what happened at Foundation Farm, and I am curious to know their mistake with the E. coli contamination. No news since the April outbreak. Please do not think that modern day factory-farmed CAFO dairy cows eating citrus peel cake, bakery waste, gum IN the wrappers, and GMO grains doused with broad-spectrum sub-therapeutic antibiotics will give us a safe beverage to drink right from the udder! It is interesting to note that industrial agriculture seems to have a very short memory. Once again conventional dairies are feeding their herds “spent” grain waste in the form of corn leftover from ethanol production. How did we forget? Cattle = ruminants = herbivores = grasses, forbes, legumes… Milk to be consumed raw must be produced under a different set of rules!

      • says

        Lynn, you make great points here. I don’t know what it takes for clean raw milk to go bad, if it ever does. I’m sure at some point you wouldn’t want to eat it, lol.

        I’m keenly interested in the history of pasteurization but I don’t know much yet. Where did you get your information?

        I often think about primitive people consuming raw milk. I’m sure they would have stopped consuming it if people were getting sick. They were pretty smart like that. And yet, milk-consumption survived, so they must have done well on it. But the time before pasteurization was a time when people liked to mess with what was natural, as you mentioned the type of feed they were given on distillery farms. Obviously, this causes problems. I don’t think milk is inherently dangerous–I think people make it dangerous.

        • Lynn says

          I learned a lot of the history from, “The Untold Story of Milk” by Ron Schmid, ND. I have also asked myself this question: if raw dairy was inherently dangerous, why did mankind continue to drink it? It is not without considerable effort tending cattle, goats, sheep, camels, water buffalo…

          • says

            Exactly! And funny–last night after I asked you about your info, I was searching my library catalog for a book about pasteurization, and that one came up, so I put it on hold. I’m so excited to read it!

      • Thrisa says

        This is so true! I actually learned about the disgusting blue milk in history a couple quarters back. Of course, they didn’t talk about raw milk vs pasteurized. They just briefly described how industrialization affected the milk production and how, at that time, they began pasteurizing the milk and adding chalk. I was amazed. The answer was right there in front of my eyes and at that moment, I knew that the information regurgitated to us about the “importance” in pasteurized milk was highly exaggerated and we were being ill advised.

  134. Joanna says

    Hi Chris,

    I really wanted to get into raw milk, but just when I moved to Oregon where it’s legal, a small farm that sold raw milk and did everything so well (or so they thought) got an e coli contamination and one of their kids is in the hospital with kidney failure and on dialysis. That totally cured me of wanting to drink raw milk or feed it to my son. I think that the risk of dying is super low, but there are other things than death than make it a not-so-good option. I’m super bummed about it. Do you know if there’s any way to kill e coli and salmonella without heat? I heard that freezing for 2 weeks kills pathogens, but some research didn’t convince me it kills e coli. What do you think?


    • Chris Kresser says

      If you’re concerned finding a vat pasteurized (lower-temp) alternative from grass-fed cows might be a good idea. Down here in the Bay Area St. Benoit produces a milk like that – we use it to make yogurt with.

  135. Tonya says

    Thanks for doing some research and de bunking some myths.
    We took the plunge last September and have only used raw milk since then. I had surgery in August to remove and diagnose ( I knew ) severe endometriosis. My gut was severely eaten up with lesions as well as my bladder. So, I did not tolerate any dairy products until I became so laden with gut pain that I drug out my copy of Nourishing Traditions and went on a rampage : Fermenting all kinds of food. My gut quit hurting and I got so much better, that I can enjoy cold raw milk now on occasion. We make butter every week from the thick, rich cream. ( There have been a few times we tossed the milk or just cooked with it when the cow ate some onions :( but we get it from a family not a big farm, and they are very clean, and use sterilized jars. Keeping it cold all the way home is important as well.

  136. Joe says

    Its funny how the position of the US government, the industrialized diary industry, and many brainwashed Americans is that Raw Milk will kill you or at least make you so sick that your organs will fail. In other countries Raw Milk is perfectly ok to consume, you can even buy it out of vending machines in France!

  137. says

    Nice job Chris. I also thought the CDC report on raw milk illness was fishy. At the same time, I’m fairly convinced that raw milk is more likely to make you sick than pasteurized milk, which your analysis confirmed. I don’t know why this issue gets so politicized and distorted.

  138. says

    I eat a fair amount of local queso fresco where I live in Mexico. My image of “bathtub cheese” (a term I’ve never heard before – yuk) will probably keep me from eating it now more than the fear of getting sick from it. Bummer, I used to love that stuff.

  139. Cat says

    I have heard that there is beneficial bacteria in raw milk which is killed off during the pasteurization process. I’m not very learned in the field of bacteria and the roles that good and bad might play in all this, but would it be plausible to suggest that since there is beneficial bac., couldn’t it over-crowd or even consume any bad bacteria that might contaminate the milk? Whereas with sterilized milk, bad bacteria could get in it and grow unhindered by anything?

    Maybe it’s a fallacy to suppose that good bacteria could act like an “independent immune system” for the milk, but I have heard (and seen for myself) that in the case of ourselves, good bacteria on the skin lends a measure of protection – like a barrier, against bad bacteria infiltration. Could the same be said of raw milk, which has live beneficial bacteria and enzymes in it too?

    So basically what I’m wondering is, could the good bacteria/enzymes in raw milk do either or both of the following: Prevent dangerous bacteria from thriving. Kill dangerous bacteria somehow?

    • Mario Vachon says

      9.4 times next to nothing is still next to nothing. Chris, you can lead them to water, but you can’t make them drink. Jesus some people.

      • Jesse says

        If I have a choice between two products, one of which is maybe 10 times more likely to make me sick, I’m going to choose the one that is less likely to make me sick, if all else is the same. That seems like the obvious thing to do.

        Now presumably Chris is going to say that all else is not the same, but we’ll have to wait for his next article to see why, so I’m sticking with my summary so far.

        • gregory barton says

          Ten times negligible is still negligible. The point about a risk being negligible is that you can take it out of the equation when balancing costs and benefits.

  140. daniel a says

    Thoughtful research Chris, well done. I like your specific answer to homestead and suggest they try less appeal to authority and generalizations. Are you a fan of tragedy and hope, Andrew Grove, Jan, Brett and the gang? I imagine you’ll be approached about a show if you haven’t already.
    Thanks again

  141. says

    Great article Chris, your thorough attention to detail in the analysis of these things is always appreciated.

    On a slight tangent from this subject, I have used kefir applied topically to clear up tinea, in myself and others and it works more effectively than anything I’ve ever come across, including some of the very potent OTC pharmaceutical creams/sprays, tea tree oil and lemon myrtle oil.

    • Paul N says

      Many years ago, i was prescribed a to[ical cream called Calmurid for dry, cracked skin on my heels. The active ingredient was lactic acid – the exact stuff produced by kefir and other lactobacilli- though I did not know that at the time.
      Amongst all the information you could ever want about kefir on Dom’s Kefir Insite, he recommends it for skin conditions, and I put 2+2 together.
      Quite likely the ancient luxury of a “milk bath” was a kefir/fermented milk one also.
      Kefir is amazing stuff.

      You can also get kefir cheese, made in NY state, from raw milk, of course (and aged 60 days as per USDA rules) at kefircheese.com. Interesting story there about getting a gov grant to start the process and how they almost lost it because they were using raw milk. The grant was approved but their project was the only one NOT made public.

      As Kris says, if you were a cynic you might think that was more than just some clerical omission…

  142. Joe says

    Hi Chris,
    All you’ve shown is that with your modified data, people who drink raw milk are one order of magnitude more likely to get sick instead of two orders of magnitude with the CDC data.


  143. says

    From talking to a friend of mine who worked at raw milk dairies for years, the diet of the cattle is very important to the safety of the milk. He advised me to only ever consume raw dairy products from 100% grass-fed dairies, and to avoid those who even use grain just to get the cattle in the barn. (Grain-feeding leads to a more acid environment in the cow’s digestive system, which encourages more acid-resistant bacteria who can more easily survive our very acid stomachs to make us sick.)

  144. Evan says

    Thanks Chris!

    As you deal with a lot of chronically ill patients, how much greater do you think the risk of consuming raw milk is for these people? Do you recommend avoiding raw dairy to these people?

  145. David says

    Nearly finished 5 weeks on raw milk only. Here in Australia it can be bought as organic bath milk.
    Feel great, don’t want to go back to solid food’s as this is just so convenient.
    Many cravings have gone, and I no longer desire coffee.
    I am doing it because of an articel by Dr J E Crewe from the 1920’s about the milk cure used at the Mayo Foundation, now the Mayo Clinic. Specifically to reduce the size of my enlarged prostate. Unbelievably this is exactly what it has done !! Very hard to believe something so simple will do what my urologist says can only be rectified by surgery…………….. but that is what has happened…….

    • Diana says

      David, that’s amazing!

      I’m not surprised, though. The medical profession doesn’t want anyone to stop using its products and procedures.

    • Natalie says

      Hi David, thats amazing! and sorry to butt in here…I am also from Australia and was wondering where you purchase your raw milk from?

      • jackie says

        Natalie, I’m also in Australia. Many health/natural foods shops sell ‘bath milk’ (aka raw milk), and it also can be found at many farmer’s markets.

  146. Liat says

    While I am also in the camp of allowing people to do what they want to without their own bodies, I believe in the phrase “don’t poop where you eat.” Cows defecate, and they carry all kinds of pathogens in their feces. A producer may do their absolute best to prevent the cow from contaminating their milk, but once they contaminate, then the person who drinks the feces contaminated milk can have the option of dying or suffering from lifelong renal failure. Maybe you can address this in another post.

    I find the logic of this post to something like swine flu hasn’t killed millions of Americans so we should import H1N1 pigs. Increasing the number of raw milk producers may increase the number of E Coli infected strains of milk..

    • Chris Kresser says

      You seem to have missed the point of this post. Cows defecate wherever they are. Water contaminated by cow poop then runs off into nearby spinach crops, which people eat and get e.coli from. This happened in California recently. Should we stop eating spinach?

      It’s possible to use proper sanitation methods and produce raw milk with less risk of illness than other more common food commodities. And in fact, the statistics I outlined in this article suggest that is what’s happening in most cases.

    • Angel says

      Cows don’t *eat* their own feces. They also avoid grazing where they or other cows or animals have defecated, which is why grazed pastures look lumpy (not mowed) – grazing animals naturally avoid eating grass around piles of poop.

      Staying healthy isn’t about absolutely avoiding certain pathogens anyway, it’s about managing risk *when* exposed, because pathogens of some sort are always present. Healthy cows on properly managed pasture have very little routine exposure to pathogens – enough to develop immunity, but not enough to get sick. Their immunity shields consumers of their milk.

      • SSC says

        I agree with Angel. There are many dairy producers in my family, and every good farmer knows that pasture rotation is of the utmost importance. A responsible dairyman will rotate his herd to new pasture every single day, which is pretty easy these days thanks to the invention of portable electric fencing. The best way to determine if your raw milk is safe is to know your farmer and be familiar with good farming practices, so that you can ask the right questions.
        My grandfather sold raw milk for decades all around his county, and never ever had any problems.

    • Joe says

      Yeah “don’t poop where you eat.” How about this one: “don’t milk your cow where it poops?” Do you have any idea how cows are milked in a traditional small farm? They are taken to a milking shed that is cleaned after each milking and are milked.


      • Liat says

        I was kind of getting to that point. But after doing some extensive reading, I have also concluded that udders can be infected too. E. Coli is transmitted by feces, but campylobacter can come from the udder of a clean cow. Also, a small amount of bacteria is enough to get people sick so assaying bacteria does not necessarily eliminate the possibility. In the end, it all comes down to risk assessment and I don’t mean to make anyone paranoid about raw milk, but pasteurization is not altogether evil either. I do not see a huge risk to getting raw milk from a small farm, and I am certainly less inclined to eat raw oysters in months that don’t end in -er, but at the same time, I buy most of my dairy at the store using light pasteurization with culturing because I do not see an overwhelming benefit from store bought raw milk.

        • Joe says

          Oh yeah, I would never buy raw milk from a store. I go straight to the farm and buy it about 20 mins after it came out of the cow. Plus, I trust the farmer because I drink the same milk that he, his wife, and all of his 9 kids drink. And $3.00 a gallon isn’t a bad selling point either!

          • Diana says

            Yes, we also get our raw milk from a local dairy farmer, and the whole family — mom, dad, nine kids — all drink it themselves.

            Most of the complaints about “raw milk” that people are making here, are regarding factory-farm milk that is on its way to the pasteurization facility. In other words, it was never meant to be consumed without pasteurization. That affects everything about it, and how it’s handled, etc.

            I’m 64 years old. I started buying raw milk four years ago, when I was 60. I’d never tasted it before. My dad was a milkman, and a shop steward for the Teamsters. Some old folks used to tell him how much they missed the taste of milk the way it used to be, before pasteurization. He would always dismiss their claims, and say it was dangerous. He told me these people didn’t make sense.

    • Heather says

      What part of the chicken do you think the egg emerges from? I’ve kept chickens and it’s sure not their wingtips. And chickens are much dirtier critters than dairy cows (I lived on a dairy farm as a kid, before modern factory dairies)

  147. says

    I scuba dive, climb mountains, and mountain bike but I have never seen my mother the microbiologist more animated than when I told her I was eating cheese made from raw milk. For about 15 minutes she railed about the dangers. I don’t remember her arguments. I had recently gotten a case of food poisoning from raw vegetables…I think. It’s hard to trace down causes. It all depends on the bacteria what the gestation period is before getting symptoms. Anyway I threw out the cheese. Obviously I am not going to tell anybody not to drink raw dairy products.

    When switching to grass fed beef, free range chicken, and wild fish we tend to improve our chances of not getting a food born illness. Interestingly switching from pasteurized dairy to raw dairy increases our chances. When it comes to improving our food system raw dairy is not where I am going to make a stand.

  148. says

    I appreciate what you are trying to do here, I really do.
    I’m glad you don’t go so far as Sally Fallon to say raw milk kills pathogens or that babies should drink raw milk formula…
    Congratulations on coming out of the raw milk closet!

    • Lynn says

      I understand that raw milk can indeed kill pathogens. I have heard of experiments where good-quality raw milk has been inoculated with known pathogens, allowed to sit, then retested and none of the pathogens remain.

      • says


        There has been considerable discussion on this topic within the raw milk community, but as Chris is the myth buster here I am sure he can talk about it in greater detail…Chris?

    • Angel says

      My former sister-in-law had a baby boy a couple of years ago, and even though she **lived and worked on a farm that produces high-quality raw milk from pasture-fed Jersey cows, which she and her whole family drink daily** she was feeding him store-bought formula. He kept vomiting it up, though, and finally she switched to feeding him raw milk … and he stopped vomiting. He’s a thriving, beautiful boy.

      Maybe babies spit up so much because they are being fed bad food. It’s probably not a “natural” habitual behavior.

      I’ve been drinking raw milk from that same farm for 4 years, and have never had any illnesses from it. I also went on the raw milk diet 2 years ago, for three weeks, drinking this milk, and had no problems.

      • Sam says

        Maybe the babies weren’t being burped properly. You have no evidence, only anecdotes. Raw milk has harmful bacteria that can make kids sick because they have weakened immune systems. Babies have trouble processing food because their body is not developed yet. Raw milk has Listeria becateria in it, which can lead to childbirth problems in pregnant women. That’s a fact.

        • rawmilkmike says

          Sam, as a scientist, how long do you think it would take to prove it had nothing to do with burping? Even though it is theoretically possible for raw milk to contain unwanted bacteria there is no evidence that it actually does. The fact is pregnant women are prone to diarrhea. There is no evidence linking raw milk to diarrhea in pregnant women.

  149. Janeen says

    Thanks for the information, Chris. I drank raw milk prior to becoming pregnant but the one place locally that I knew to buy it stopped selling it suddenly. I knew there was some risk so I felt a little hesitatant giving it to my 3 year old but after reading this post, I feel much better that it is an acceptable risk for my family. I’m hoping to find another source near Tacoma, WA soon. Thank you for all you do.