Despite health warnings and legal restrictions, raw milk continues to attract a devoted following in the United States, the Atlantic reports.
Enthusiasts tout its purported health benefits, even as experts warn of serious risks, including contamination from pathogens such as E. coli, salmonella, listeria, and now, bird flu.
Raw milk, which cannot legally be sold for human consumption in many states, is consumed by an estimated 11 million Americans. Advocates, including wellness influencers like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., promote its unpasteurized state as a source of bioactive compounds and immune-boosting properties. However, public health agencies maintain that pasteurized milk is the safer and healthier choice, pointing to the stark contrast in foodborne illness outbreaks—202 linked to raw milk between 1998 and 2018, compared to just nine for pasteurized milk.
This year, a new threat emerged: bird flu. In March, the virus was detected in US dairy cows, and an FDA study later found infectious viral particles in raw milk samples. California health officials recently shut down production at Raw Farm, a major raw-milk producer, after finding bird flu in its products. While no human infections have been reported from contaminated raw milk, the virus has proven deadly in other outbreaks, killing more than half of those infected.
Proponents of raw milk argue that its “rawness” preserves beneficial bioactives—compounds that some believe support immunity and combat conditions like hypertension, inflammation, and certain viruses. However, studies indicate that these bioactives are present in low concentrations, requiring unrealistic consumption levels to achieve meaningful effects. Pasteurized milk, which is fortified with additional nutrients, is considered by experts to be a safer and equally nutritious alternative.
Advocates also claim that raw milk supports gut health and reduces allergies, asthma, and eczema. The Raw Milk Institute, a trade and advocacy group, emphasizes the presence of prebiotics, active immune factors, and protective proteins in raw milk. Critics, however, point out that these benefits are not supported by robust scientific evidence.
The appeal of raw milk often goes beyond health claims. For many supporters, it symbolizes a resistance to government regulation and industrialized food systems. Events like the recent “Raw Milk Revolution” rally in Arkansas and legislative pushes in states like Texas reflect a broader desire for food choice autonomy. Figures like Kennedy have amplified this sentiment, framing government actions against raw milk producers as overreach.
Raw milk advocates argue that strict safety standards, such as those upheld by the Raw Milk Institute, can mitigate risks. These standards include regular pathogen testing and stringent cattle health screenings. Still, critics note that even with these measures, raw milk remains inherently more dangerous than pasteurized alternatives.
The detection of bird flu in raw milk adds a new layer of complexity. While Raw Farm is the only producer currently facing a shutdown, bird flu has been detected in 695 dairy herds across 15 states. This raises concerns about the potential for wider contamination.
Despite the risks, demand for raw milk shows no signs of waning. Enthusiasts view it as a natural, wholesome alternative to industrialized dairy, and government crackdowns may only increase its allure. As bird flu continues to spread and the debate over raw milk intensifies, public health agencies and consumers alike face a challenging balancing act between safety and personal choice.
