Advocating and Training for World-Class, Low-Risk Raw Milk for Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Beyond

Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) recently traveled to Pennsylvania and Delaware in support of low-risk raw milk. Through training farmers, meeting with regulators, and visiting farms, we’re aiming to help ensure that raw milk is safe, embraced, and accessible in the northeastern states. 

BUILDING BRIDGES WITH REGULATORS AND FARMERS IN DELAWARE

RAWMI President Mark McAfee and Vice President Sarah Smith met with Delaware Secretary of Agriculture Don Clifton, alongside dairy farmers Steph and Gregg Knudsen, to discuss Delaware's recent raw milk legalization, proposed regulations, and ways we can all collaborate to ensure accessibility to safe raw milk in Delaware.

The Knudsens were instrumental in getting the legalization Bill passed so that more farms can thrive in Delaware. Mark and Sarah visited their G&S Dairy Farm to talk about the path moving forward now that raw milk is legal.

EDUCATING FARMERS FOR A SUSTAINABLE PATH FORWARD

Mark McAfee, Sarah Smith, and Dr Joseph Heckman taught a 3-hour seminar on World Class Raw Milk at the PASA Sustainable Agriculture Conference in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Topics included

• History of raw milk

• Why raw milk farms are thriving

• Health benefits of raw milk

• Benefits of selling raw milk

• Safety and risks of raw milk

• Grass-to-glass raw milk risk management

• Raw milk testing

There were ~45 attendees from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Delaware. Attendees included farmers who are already producing raw milk, prospective farmers considering raw milk production, and students who were interested to know more about raw milk.

THANKS to Lancaster Farming newspaper for giving balanced coverage of this raw milk training class and the potential benefits of raw milk production for farmers. https://www.lancasterfarming.com/farming-news/dairy/demand-for-raw-milk-offers-opportunities-for-farmers/article_7b69a814-e401-11ef-93cf-b332916b01d8.html

PIONEERING FOR LOW-RISK RAW MILK

Edwin Shank, from The Family Cow dairy in Chambersburg Pennsylvania, is the farmer who pioneered on-farm bacterial testing for raw milk dairies. We're always happy to visit with Edwin and see how his multigenerational family farm is thriving. Edwin's farm is RAWMI Listed and we share his on-farm lab educational materials here: https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/updates/on-farm-lab-testing-for-raw-milk-farmers

CONNECTING WITH AMISH FARMERS

There are many dozens of Amish dairies, but they can't generally access RAWMI’s online training materials. We want to make sure they have access to the information they need for low-risk raw milk production, regardless of any barriers to technology.

Several Amish farmers attended our training class in Lancaster, and we visited several Amish farms that are thriving with the current cultural shifts towards food security, local producers, and healthier foods to nourish the gut microbiome and immune system.

Overall, this trip was a resounding success! We were gratified to train more farmers in low-risk raw milk production and look forward to future collaboration towards successful rollout of Delaware’s recent raw milk legalization.

Two Types of Raw Milk

My family has been drinking raw milk for over 18 years. I drank raw milk through both of my pregnancies and raised both of my kids on raw milk since they were weaned from breastmilk as toddlers. I have purposely chosen raw milk for my family because of its exceptional health benefits and animal welfare.

Studies performed in Europe have shown that children who drink raw milk have decreased rates of asthma, allergies, eczema, ear infections, fever, and respiratory infections. Nonetheless, when I tell people that my family drinks raw milk, I often hear responses such as:

“Raw milk is dangerous!”

“Doesn’t raw milk make people sick?”

“I heard that raw milk was bad for you.”

The reason for raw milk’s negative reputation is that there are two types of raw milk!  Raw milk that is intended for pasteurization is quite different than raw milk produced for direct human consumption.

Raw Milk Intended for Pasteurization

When my family drives past a nearby dairy that produces milk for pasteurization, we are struck by the horrendous smell and filthy living conditions.  The animal yard is completely covered with manure. The cows have no choice but to lie and stand in manure all day. It is disgusting to think that this operation is producing food for families.

Raw milk that is “intended for pasteurization” is typically sourced from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). This type of milk is actually defined under the Federal Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO).  Such milk is being produced in conditions where animal health is often compromised and mastitis (udder infection) is common.  Antibiotics are often utilized in these herds, and hormones are used to stimulate higher levels of milk production. The animals are housed in an abundance of manure, and there is a corresponding high rate of pathogens.

This milk is intended to be pasteurized to kill pathogenic bacteria, and as such, it is often produced with little care towards preventing contamination with pathogens. Furthermore, this type of milk is generally commingled with milk from multiple dairies, which increases the risk of pathogenic exposure. Studies have shown that up to 33% of this type of milk tests positive for pathogens. This type of raw milk is clearly unsafe to consume. I would never feed this type of raw milk to my family.

Raw Milk Intended for Direct Human Consumption

When my family visits the dairy that produces the raw milk that we drink, we see a very different setting from the CAFO dairy. The cows at the raw milk dairy are happily grazing on lush pastures. The cows look clean and healthy. The milk is bottled on-farm, and we can see that the milk bottling room is clean and neat. There is a stark contrast between the CAFO dairy and this raw milk dairy.

Raw milk that is carefully and intentionally produced for direct human consumption is wholly different from raw milk being produced for pasteurization. Raw milk farmers carefully manage the cleanliness and hygiene of the farm from grass-to-glass, with much care to ensure that the animals are healthy and the milk is clean.

From the health of the herd, to cleanliness of the milking parlor, to the specific cleaning processes for the milk line, to ensuring rapid milk chilling, to regularly testing their milk, and everything in between, raw milk farmers are dedicated to taking their farm management to the next level in order to ensure that their raw milk is safe to consume.

Although there are no federal standards for raw milk, the Raw Milk Institute has established Common Standards for raw milk that is intended for direct human consumption.  This type of raw milk is tested often and held to rigorous standards to ensure that it is being produced in a way that discourages pathogen growth.

Where Do Pathogens in Milk Originate?

The four main pathogens in milk that can cause human illness are E coli 0157:H7, listeria mono, salmonella, and campylobacter. The two most common sources of pathogens in milk are manure and mastitis. It is estimated that one-third of CAFO dairy cows have mastitis, and the cows in CAFOs stand and lie in manure all day. Clearly, this type of dairy environment is primed for pathogen growth.

On the other hand, the raw milk dairy environment is carefully managed to prevent pathogens in the milk. These farmers manage the health of their herd to prevent mastitis. They ensure that the milk from any animals that are showing signs of mastitis is not used for direct human consumption. Raw milk farmers meticulously clean the udders before milking to ensure that no manure or other contaminants are present. They also rigorously and frequently clean their milking machines, milk lines, and milk tanks.

Take a look at the milk filters shown below.  Even with just a quick look, it is apparent that the milk being produced with the intent to be pasteurized is clearly not clean, whereas the milk filter from the intentionally-produced raw milk looks impeccable. (To be fair, there are some dairy farmers who produce milk for pasteurization that is much more hygienic than most others. However, that milk is still commingled with milk from other dairies, many of which are likely to not use hygienic practices.)

Comparison of Bacterial Test Standards for Two Types of Raw Milk

Okay, I’m gonna get technical here.  If reading about standards and looking at charts is not your thing, you can skip ahead to the last section. :)

Two important types of bacterial testing for milk are Standard Plate Count (SPC) and coliform count. The SPC is a measure of the total number of aerobic bacteria in the milk. High SPC numbers can indicate dirty milking equipment, poor milk chilling, and/or poor udder preparation.

Coliform count measures the amount of coliform bacteria present in the milk. Coliform counts measure the overall hygiene and cleanliness of the milk. High coliform counts generally indicate the presence of manure or other environmental contaminants on the udders or milking equipment. High coliform counts are likely to correspond to the presence of pathogens in the milk.

According to the PMO, pre-pasteurized milk is allowed to have up to 100,000 colony-forming units (cfu) of bacteria per mL in SPC testing. The PMO does not have a standard for how many coliforms are allowed in pre-pasteurized milk, but the state of California allows coliforms up to 750 cfu/mL of milk.

In comparison, the Raw Milk Institute Common Standards call for <5,000 cfu/mL for SPC testing, and <10 cfu/mL in coliform testing. As you can see in the chart below, intentionally-produced raw milk is measurably quite different from pre-pasteurized raw milk, and even meets stricter standards than pasteurized milk.

The Raw Milk Institute has been collecting monthly Standard Plate Count and Coliform Count data from its LISTED raw milk dairies since 2012.  This dataset of thousands of test results shows that raw milk farmers who have been properly trained can routinely meet the stringent standards set forth in the Common Standards.

Research on Raw Milk Safety

Researchers from Canada and Europe have studied the safety of raw milk intended for direct human consumption. They have found that carefully produced raw milk is a low-risk food which is fundamentally different from pre-pasteurized milk. 

The table below contrasts pathogen test data from pre-pasteurized milk vs. raw milk intended for direct human consumption.  As illustrated in the table, pathogen testing of pre-pasteurized milk samples has detected pathogens in up to 33% of samples.  In contrast, there were zero pathogens detected in thousands of milk samples from raw milk intended for direct human consumption. It is clear from this test data that pre-pasteurized milk is categorically different from raw milk intended for direct human consumption.

Data courtesy of the British Columbia Herdshare Association

Not All Raw Milk Is Dangerous!

It is clear that raw milk produced with the intention to be pasteurized is likely to contain dangerous pathogens. This type of raw milk is unsafe, and I would never feed it to my family. Unfortunately, this type of raw milk’s negative reputation has led many to believe that all raw milk is unsafe to consume.

It is important to note that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe food. An analysis of foodborne illnesses from 2009-2015 showed that the top food categories commonly linked to illnesses were chicken, pork, and seeded vegetables. Pasteurized milk is not perfectly safe, either, and is implicated in foodborne illnesses and outbreaks every year.  The CDC outbreak and illness data which is used to assert that raw milk is unsafe does not distinguish raw milk intended for pasteurization from raw milk that is carefully produced and intended for direct human consumption.

It is clear from the above-presented test data that intentionally-produced raw milk is a low-risk food. In my family, we purposely choose raw milk for its superior nutrition and significant health benefits over pasteurized milk.  Raw milk contains greater bioavailable nutrients than pasteurized milk, as well as a wide array of beneficial enzymes and probiotics which are known to have benefits on the immune system and gastrointestinal tract.   

FREE Raw Milk TRAINING: RAWMI Risk Management Training Video Series

The Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) has trained hundreds of farmers through in-person workshops around the USA and Canada.  For those who cannot attend our training in-person, we have a free web version for you!

RAWMI’s Risk Management Training Workshop is now available to watch on Vimeo here. This 4.5 hour course is broken into 17 segments for easier viewing. There are direct links to each of the 17 segments towards the bottom of this post.

About the Training

This RAWMI training focuses on:

• benefits of raw milk,

• grass-to-glass identification of risks,

• development of a risk management plan, and

• lessons learned from other raw milk dairies.

It includes lots of practical tips for the production of safe raw milk. This training has been shown to reduce outbreaks and illnesses, increase safety, and lower insurance costs.

Links to Specific Segments

The overall training course is 4&1/2 hours long, but we have broken that down into 17 smaller segments so that you can easily find the sections you want to watch.  

WORKSHOP OVERVIEW: 

PART 1 – Introductions and About Raw Milk Institute  

PART 2 – Raw Milk History and Opposition 

PART 3 – Raw Milk Benefits 

PART 4 – Raw Milk Risks and RAWMI Method 

PART 5 – Introduction to Grass-to-Glass Risk Management   

PART 6 – Small-Scale and Large-Scale Raw Milk Production 

PART 7 – Risk Minimization: Grass, Pasture, and Water 

PART 8 – Risk Minimization: Animal Health and Biosecurity 

PART 9 – Risk Minimization: Milking and Udder Prep 

PART 10 – Risk Minimization: Management 

PART 11 – Q&A for Parts 1-10 

PART 12 – Risk Minimization: Management (cont.) 

PART 13 – Risk Minimization: Management (cont.) 

PART 14 – Risk Minimization: Glass, Bottling, and Inspections 

PART 15 – Raw Milk Testing 

PART16 – Why to Become RAWMI LISTED 

PART 17 – Conclusion and Final Q&A

What Attendees Have Said

Here is some of the feedback we received from attendees at this training: 

“Excellent presentation that every single person who dairies for themselves and their family should take and learn from. Thank you very much.”

“This has been excellent!  ONLINE was so helpful as it’s hard to travel and be away.”

“For me, the combination of technical information and anecdotes is very effective for explaining why the RAWMI methods are important and how they solve a raw milk producer challenges. I came away with practical solutions to increase the quality/value of our milk and farm. Thank you." 

“I left the Zoom meeting with a very clear understanding of what we are doing right and where we need to make changes. Beyond that, though, I left inspired to pursue excellence and cast a clear vision to everyone who is joining me in this endeavor.”  

“The information was also rich and informative. I learned a ton and the systematic way you presented it was easy to follow and comprehensive.” 

“I cannot wait to move forward with you in becoming RAWMI Listed. We will be making some changes as we form our RAMP plan. We have already adjusted our milk chilling and have seen an improvement in flavor and longevity.”  

“Thank you for all you do. I have no doubt history will look back at the RAWMI as having played a crucial role in reforming raw milk production, health, and nutrition.”

DONATE to HELP Farmers Test Their Raw Milk

You can help farmers and families thrive by donating for milk testing equipment!

Ongoing bacterial testing is one of the pillars of low-risk raw milk production. With testing, farmers can easily detect small issues before they turn into big problems. However, testing costs can be an ongoing financial burden which makes small-scale farmers hesitant to test their milk often. The solution is on-farm labs, where farmers can perform their own bacterial tests for just $1-$3 per test.

On-farm labs don’t take up much space or need a lot of sophisticated equipment. With a simple incubator, set-up costs for on-farm labs are in the range of $800-$1,000. Because even those costs can be too much for small-scale farmers, at the Raw Milk Institute we devote $5000 of our budget yearly to providing grants for on-farm labs. We give 10 farmers $500 each to help cover the costs of setting up their on-farm labs.

As a 501c3 non-profit, we rely on donations and run on a low operating budget, but nonetheless we want to help as many farmers as possible have the capability to test their milk. However, with so much increased interest in raw milk, we have already given out all 10 of the lab grants we budgeted for in 2024! There are still many more farmers who want on-farm labs to help in producing low-risk raw milk, but we do not have the budget to continue giving out more lab grants this year.

This is where you come in. Your donations, no matter how small, can help more farmers build their on-farm labs so they can test their raw milk regularly. For every $500 we raise, we will be able to gift another farmer with a grant to make on-farm testing a reality.

Will you please donate today to help farmers purchase on-farm labs for testing their milk?

100% of your donation will go to helping farmers purchase testing equipment.

You can donate here: https://www.givesendgo.com/farmerlabs

USA-based donations are tax-deductible. With your support, we can continue to provide lab grants to raw milk farmers.

NOW Available: Farmer Training Booklet

Raw Milk Institute is pleased to announce that we have released an introductory farmer training booklet! We developed this booklet to meet the needs of farmers who prefer written materials or cannot access our online training resources.

Our introductory booklet about production practices for low-risk raw milk includes information about:

• Managing the Conditions for Low-Risk Raw Milk

• Udder Preparation for Low-Risk Raw Milk

• Rapid Chilling of Raw Milk To Reduce Risk of Pathogens and Improve Shelf-Life

• Managing the Risks of “Fresh” Cows and Does

• Managing the Risks of Calf-Sharing

• How to Clean Your Milking Machine

This booklet is offered in two formats:

• A spiral-bound, 43-page booklet, printed in full color

• A 41-page, full-color PDF digital download

You can get the RAWMI Booklet here: https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/shop

Bird Flu and Raw Milk: Where is the Evidence?

We are pleased to share with you this balanced analysis of the risks of H5N1 bird flu from raw milk, from medical microbiologist Peg Coleman. Peg serves on the Advisory Board for Raw Milk Institute and she will be presenting a free webinar about Milkborne Risk Analysis (including a discussion of H5N1 avian influenza and raw milk) on Thursday May 9 at 11am Pacific / 2pm ET.

Recent risk communications from CDC , FDA, and USDA regarding transmission of influenza A sub-type H5N1 (highly pathogenic avian influenza virus or HPAI) to humans via raw milk include no supporting evidence of viral transmission from raw milk to humans in the peer-reviewed literature. CDC and USDA reported that the HPAI strains recently isolated in the US lack the genetic markers for viruses adapted to infect humans. An extensive body of scientific evidence from the peer-reviewed literature introduced herein does not support the assumption by these US government agencies that HPAI transmits to humans via milkborne or foodborne routes and causes disease. Nor does the scientific evidence support the recommendation that consumers should avoid raw milk and raw milk products.

One Detected Case: Worker Contact with BOTH Dead Birds and Affected Cows?

In March of 2024, dead wild birds on a TX dairy farm and unusual symptoms in older dairy cows (decreased lactation, low appetite, other clinical signs) triggered sampling of affected cows (oropharyngaeal swabs) and their milk. On March 25th, Texas Animal Health Commission confirmed samples were positive for HPAI. A dairy worker on this farm with eye inflammation was also confirmed positive for HPAI, though it is unclear if the worker had contact with both the dead birds and the affected cows. Similarly, it is unclear if dead cats on affected dairy farms were infected by contact with dead birds, milk, or other sources of viral contamination. 

On April 9th, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated the following about the TX case. “This is the first human infection with [HPAI (H5N1)] acquired from contact with infected cattle and the second confirmed human case of influenza A(H5N1) detected in the country. No additional associated cases of human infection with influenza A(H5N1) have been identified. Since the virus has not acquired mutations that facilitate transmission among humans and based on available information, WHO assesses the public health risk to the general population posed by this virus to be low and for occupationally exposed persons, the risk of infection is considered low-to-moderate.” In addition, the American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) now recommends a new name, Bovine Influenza A Virus (BIAV) because the virus is not highly pathogenic in dairy cows.

The WHO lists the following factual information about avian influenza: i) “Direct contact with infected animals (through handling, culling, slaughtering or processing) or indirect contact (through environments contaminated with bodily fluids from infected animals) represent a risk for human infection.“; ii) “animal influenza viruses are distinct from human influenza viruses and do not easily transmit to and among humans;” and iii) sustained person-to-person transmission is not demonstrated.

Animal Contact is the Only Demonstrated Transmission Source

Of all the transmission sources reported in surveillance systems by CDC and other government agencies (animal contact, environmental, foodborne, person-to-person, and waterborne), the only demonstrated transmission source for HPAI transmission to humans is animal contact. In light of the body of evidence on HPAI transmission to humans by direct animal contact, not by foodborne transmission, risk communications to avoid consumption of raw milk and raw milk products do not appear to be based on scientific evidence, but on other factors.

An earlier risk assessment conducted by FDA and USDA (2010) determined that HPAI “is not considered to be a foodborne pathogen although virus had been isolated from poultry muscle and the interior of eggs”. This is consistent with current facts compiled by the WHO about avian influenza transmission to date: i) “Direct contact with infected animals (through handling, culling, slaughtering or processing) or indirect contact (through environments contaminated with bodily fluids from infected animals) represent a risk for human infection.“; ii) “animal influenza viruses are distinct from human influenza viruses and do not easily transmit to and among humans;” and iii) “sustained person-to-person transmission is not demonstrated”. Although HPAI was detected in milk from ill cows in TX, as in poultry muscle and eggs, no evidence supports foodborne transmission of HPAI to humans.

Antiviral Properties of Raw Milk

While no evidence supports milkborne or foodborne transmission of HPAI to humans, evidence does exist that demonstrates a multitude of well-characterized mechanistic factors that inactivate viruses and prevent foodborne illness. Key studies in the peer-reviewed literature are cited in brackets, with full references appended.

First, consider peer-reviewed studies demonstrating antiviral properties of a suite of bioactive components of raw mammalian milks, including bovine milk [4,5,7-9,12-14,16,17,19]. Multiple researchers note that some of the antiviral components of milk are likely function synergistically, meaning effects are greater in combination than independently, an observation particularly relevant in complex gut ecosystems of humans that include innate and adaptive immune systems. Many of these bioactive components of raw milk are also sensitive to heat and may be absent, inactive, or present in lower concentrations in pasteurized milks. Considering the extensive literature on antiviral activity in milk, clinical researchers [3] applied deep scientific knowledge to recommend that infants not be deprived of raw breastmilk due to the presence of viruses. The benefits of feeding raw breastmilk including its antiviral components to infants outweighs the very small risk of infection, from their perspective as clinical researchers, one associated with the Italian Association of Human Milk Banks.

Defense Against Pathogens in the Human Digestive Tract

Next, consider the gauntlet of defenses against foodborne pathogens in the human digestive tract [1,6,18]. These defenses include physical (stomach acidity, peristalsis), chemical (digestive enzymes), and cellular (innate and adaptive immune system, microbiota) factors that, acting simultaneously or sequentially, inactivate pathogens, including viruses, and/or suppress infectivity and virulence of ingested pathogens. Researchers [11] note that HPAI is an enveloped virus, susceptible to disruption and degradation in stomach acids, unlike the 16 viruses known to be transmitted to human by the oral route [6]. Further, FDA and USDA determined in 2010 that HPAI “is not considered to be a foodborne pathogen” even though virus was isolated from poultry muscle and the interior of eggs.

Host chemical and cellular defenses include:  complement; defensins; enzymes; interferons; interleukins; pattern recognition receptors (Toll-like receptors 3, 4, and 7; NOD-like receptors; RIG-1 receptors); and an array of host cells (dendritic cells, B cells, intestinal epithelial cells, macrophages, monocytes, natural killer cells, T cells) and cells of the gut-associated microbes or microbiota. Also, the gut microbiota include not only commensal (non-pathogenic) bacteria, but also commensal viruses that can modulate infectivity and virulence of pathogens [10].

CDC Data on Transmission Sources

Now, consider that the microbial ecology of raw milks including antiviral activity as described briefly above aligns with recent CDC data for all transmission sources from 2005 to 2020 [15]. This CDC dataset included 3,807 milkborne illnesses (2,111 associated with pasteurized milk) linked to bacterial pathogens, but lacks any viral illness associated with milk, raw or pasteurized. The predominant virus in this CDC dataset was norovirus, associated with 8,199 illnesses from leafy greens reported over this 16-year period. No norovirus illnesses or any other viral illnesses were reported in milk.

What is known about HPAI transmission to humans is that it is rare, requiring prolonged direct contact with infected, sick, and dead animals, generally birds, now dairy cows, that can lead to mild flu-like symptoms or eye inflammation, some progressing to fatal infections, according to WHO. Again, HPAI in humans is linked to transmission via animal contact, not by foods.

It seems that occupational exposure resulted in infection of a farm worker handling ill cows, with developed of one symptom in the worker, eye redness (conjunctivitis), consistent with transmission by animal contact. HPAI has been detected in dairy cows in Texas, Kansas, New Mexico and Michigan as of April 2. The dairy animals and rare humans affected have recovered.

Cross-disciplinary evidence demonstrates that raw milk from healthy cows is not inherently dangerous, consistent with the CDC evidence of trends for 2005-2020 [15] and evidence of benefits and risks [2]. There is no scientific evidence that HPAI in raw milk causes human disease.

Please consider the references below and pose questions in the comments. You may be interested to learn more about these recent peer-reviewed publications.

• Trends in burdens of disease by transmission source (usa, 2005–2020) and hazard identification for foods: focus on milkborne disease.
  Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health.

• Suppression of pathogens in properly refrigerated raw milk.
  PLOS ONE

• Lessons identified from applications of the Risk Analysis Quality Test Release 1.0.
  Risk Analysis

This article was originally published on Peg Coleman’s website here: https://www.colemanscientific.org/blog/2024/4/7/where-is-the-evidence

References

1.           Buchanan RL, Havelaar AH, Smith MA, Whiting RC, Julien E. The key events dose-response framework: its potential for application to foodborne pathogenic microorganisms. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2009 Sep 22;49(8):718-28.

2.           Dietert RR, Coleman ME, North DW, Stephenson MM. Nourishing the human holobiont to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases: a cow’s milk evidence map example. Applied Microbiology. 2021 Dec 30;2(1):25-52.

3.           Francese R, Peila C, Donalisio M, Lamberti C, Cirrincione S, Colombi N, Tonetto P, Cavallarin L, Bertino E, Moro GE, Coscia A. Viruses and human milk: transmission or protection?. Advances in Nutrition. 2023 Aug 20.

4.           Gallo V, Giansanti F, Arienzo A, Antonini G. Antiviral properties of whey proteins and their activity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Journal of Functional Foods. 2022 Feb 1;89:104932.

5.           Gallo V, Arienzo A, Tomassetti F, Antonini G. Milk bioactive compounds and gut microbiota modulation: the role of whey proteins and milk oligosaccharides. Foods. 2024 Mar 16;13(6):907.

6.           Lockhart A, Mucida D, Parsa R. Immunity to enteric viruses. Immunity. 2022 May 10;55(5):800-18.

7.           Kaplan M, Şahutoğlu AS, Sarıtaş S, Duman H, Arslan A, Pekdemir B, Karav S. Role of milk glycome in prevention, treatment, and recovery of COVID-19. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2022 Nov 8;9:1033779.

8.           Oda H, Kolawole AO, Mirabelli C, Wakabayashi H, Tanaka M, Yamauchi K, Abe F, Wobus CE. Antiviral effects of bovine lactoferrin on human norovirus. Biochemistry and Cell Biology. 2021;99(1):166-72.

9.           Panon G, Tache S, Labie C. Antiviral substances in raw bovine milk active against bovine rotavirus and coronavirus. Journal of Food Protection. 1987 Oct 1;50(10):862-7.

10.         Pavia G, Marascio N, Matera G, Quirino A. Does the human gut virome contribute to host health or disease?. Viruses. 2023 Nov 17;15(11):2271.

11.         Sangsiriwut K, Uiprasertkul M, Payungporn S, Auewarakul P, Ungchusak K, Chantratita W, Puthavathana P. Complete Genomic Sequences of Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Avian Influenza Viruses Obtained Directly from Human Autopsy Specimens. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2018. 7(22):e01498-18. doi: 10.1128/MRA.01498-18. PMID: 30533850; PMCID: PMC6284082.

12.         Santos I, Silva M, Grácio M, Pedroso L, Lima A. Milk antiviral proteins and derived peptides against zoonoses. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2024. 25(3):1842.

13.         Schlusselhuber M, Godard J, Sebban M, Bernay B, Garon D, Seguin V, Oulyadi H, Desmasures N. Characterization of milkisin, a novel lipopeptide with antimicrobial properties produced by Pseudomonas sp. UCMA 17988 isolated from bovine raw milk. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018. 9:355822.

14.         Singh P, Hernandez‐Rauda R, Peña‐Rodas O. Preventative and therapeutic potential of animal milk components against COVID‐19: A comprehensive review. Food Science & Nutrition. 2023. 11(6):2547-79.

15.         Stephenson MM, Coleman ME, Azzolina NA. Trends in burdens of disease by transmission source (USA, 2005–2020) and hazard identification for foods: focus on milkborne disease. Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health. 2024 Mar 28:1-30.

16.         Tache S, Benkaddour M, Corpet DE. Rotavirus inhibitor and recovery in raw bovine milk. Journal of Food Protection. 1995 Apr 1;58(4):434-8.

17.         Taha SH, Mehrez MA, Sitohy MZ, Abou Dawood AG, Abd-El Hamid MM, Kilany WH. Effectiveness of esterified whey proteins fractions against Egyptian Lethal Avian Influenza A (H5N1). Virology Journal. 2010 Dec;7:1-4.

18.         Wan T, Wang Y, He K, Zhu S. Microbial sensing in the intestine. Protein & Cell. 2023 Nov 1;14(11):824-60.

19.         Wang X, Yue L, Dang L, Yang J, Chen Z, Wang X, Shu J, Li Z. Role of sialylated glycans on bovine lactoferrin against influenza virus. Glycoconjugate Journal. 2021 Dec 1:1-8.

Avian Flu and Raw Milk: A Common Sense Approach

Breaking News!  There is a concern among dairymen and biosecurity experts about a multistate outbreak of avian flu that is affecting cattle in Texas, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, and Idaho. Various Federal and state government agencies are using this cow illness outbreak as a stage to warn consumers against drinking raw milk. 

According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), in cattle this illness causes decreased lactation and low appetite, but the cattle generally recover without dying. Cows who have contracted this illness have recovered “with little to no associated mortality,” according to the USDA.

The press and media information released by the USDA and others warns against drinking raw milk from affected cows. They further state that pasteurization protects consumers from the illness.  

Raw Milk and Breastmilk are Very Similar

As a premed-trained dairy farmer who is a 12-year member of the UC Davis International Milk Genomics Consortium (IMGC), I have studied viral infections in cows and the immunologic and biomechanics of antibody creation.  Based on what is known about antibodies and raw milk, there are deep flaws in the warnings about consuming raw milk related to avian flu.  

Dr David Dallas PhD is an IMGC researcher who studies milk genomics. At the 2023 IMGC Symposium, Dr Dallas reported that raw milk from cows and goats is “qualitatively similar” to human breast milk.  However, “quantitatively” bovine raw milk and human breast milk have “different levels” of various milk components.  

This is why raw milk from cows and goats is so well-digested and compatible by human consumers. We can thus compare human mammals with bovine mammals in how mothers protect their babies. 

Mammals Protect Their Young Through Antibodies in Raw Milk

In 2004, the state of California Veterinarian visited our dairy to perform tuberculosis testing of our cows. He told me something I will never forget: “Mammals protect their young.”  

What he meant was that, in general, when a mother becomes infected by a virus or bacterial infection, she will produce antibodies in her raw milk that will provide her young with protection from the illness.  This is part of why breastfed babies are known to have stronger immune systems than babies raised on formula.  Antibodies in raw milk are one way that Nature assures the strength and survival of the next generation.  

The CDC readily acknowledges that mothers should continue to breastfeed their infants because “flu is not spread to infants through breast milk.” They know that breastmilk contains “antibodies and other immunological factors that can help protect her infant from flu.” Similarly, studies performed at the UC Davis dairy lab during COVID found that exposing a cow to coronavirus resulted in antibodies to coronavirus in her raw milk.  

These studies were a further confirmation of what doctors and the owners of Alta Dena dairy knew way back in the 1960’s: cows that have been exposed to illnesses create antibodies to the illnesses which are then passed through their raw milk.  Decades ago, Alta Dena dairy would purposely make immune milk for certain consumers and doctors by intentionally exposing cows to specific illnesses. This raw milk was used to help heal sick people.  Now the FDA does not allow this practice and threatens anyone who uses it with criminal charges. They consider it to be equivalent to creating a new drug without oversight, which is a crime in the USA under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.  

Further back in history, it was observed that the milk maidens of the 1700-1800s did not catch smallpox because of their exposure to cowpox by being around dairy animals and drinking raw milk.

Common Sense Approach to Avian Flu in Cattle

The warnings against raw milk related to avian flu are clearly fearmongering.  The FDA acknowledges that “there is limited information available about the transmission of bird flu in raw, unpasteurized milk.” Then they go on to use the same fearmongering tactics they’ve been using for decades against raw milk, despite the fact that there is now ample evidence that raw milk can be carefully produced as a low-risk food.  

Conscientious raw milk producers already monitor their herds for illness and ensure that raw milk from unhealthy animals is not used for direct human consumption. Additionally, biosecurity measures such as maintaining a closed herd and quarantining any new animals are implemented.   

These are common sense measures that are already recommended by the Raw Milk Institute and used by diligent raw milk farmers. We have no reason to suspect that any further measures are necessary in the current Avian flu outbreak in cattle.  Mammalian milk is uniquely designed to protect and strengthen the immune system, and those systems will continue on as new threats arise.

FDA Demonstrates Bias Against Raw Milk in Unfounded Raw Cheese Recall

Government agencies in many countries have been biased against raw milk and raw dairy products for over a century.  This is true in the United States as well, even though Dr Henry Coit and the American Association of Medical Milk Commissions demonstrated that raw milk could be produced carefully and hygienically as a low-risk food all the way back in the late 1800’s.

Anti-raw milk smear campaigns and propaganda have been used continually to make people fearful of raw milk and raw milk products. In reality, raw milk can be produced as a low-risk food when farmers are trained and use careful production practices.

Of course, there is no such thing as a perfectly safe food, as evidenced by the ongoing illness outbreaks linked to foods such as cantaloupes, leafy greens, and chicken. Pasteurized milk is not perfectly safe, either, and is implicated in foodborne illnesses and outbreaks every year. For instance, in 2007, there was an outbreak of Listeriosis in Massachusetts which was associated with pasteurized milk.  Overall, there were five cases identified and three deaths occurred.

Nonetheless, only raw milk and raw milk products are targeted by government agencies as being unsafe.

My Family’s Farm is Being Targeted

In the latest example of anti raw milk bias, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently targeted raw cheese from my family’s farm (RAW Farm). On February 15th 2024, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the FDA urgently demanded to speak with us. We had 30 minutes notice for a call that was attended by about a dozen people from the CDC and FDA.

Our raw cheeses are sold nationally at over 1,300 grocery stores.  We were told that the CDC’s PULSENET database had associated 10 illnesses to our raw cheese products over the last 5 months. The CDC and FDA admitted that, out of these 10 illnesses, half of those who became ill denied ever having consumed our cheese.

Nonetheless, the FDA gave us two alternatives: either 1) voluntarily recall all of our cheese sold in the USA, or 2) they would force a mandatory recall of all our cheeses.

Our own internal tests performed on every batch of raw cheese were all negative for pathogens.  The state of California’s tests on our cheeses were also all negative for pathogens.  Nonetheless, we chose to fully comply with a voluntary recall of all raw cheeses within a specified date range. Although we needed a lot more information and answers to questions, out of an abundance of caution we recalled all of our cheeses on February 16th 2024. 

Searching for Answers to Many Questions

Over a 10-day period during our voluntary recall, we dug into the data to see what we could learn.  We were patient and did not comment, but instead we just collected information and considered every piece of data in our investigation.

We asked the FDA to provide the Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) test data gathered by PULSENET. We conferred with experts from a testing lab who concluded that the WGS data was inconsistent from person to person and did not match as having a single cause. The CDC appears to have picked and selected data to match a narrative and ignored other data and date ranges. 

By February 25th, we had considered all the data from the FDA as well as mountains of internal test data and state test data. There was never any evidence that our cheese contained pathogens.

Clear Bias from the FDA and CDC

In handling this situation, the FDA broke their own rules in numerous ways.  They did not comply with their own Food Safety Modernization Act requirements or procedures. 

The timing of this whole situation was conspicuous considering that it was in the middle of a nationwide recall of pasteurized cheeses due to Listeria.  That outbreak is affecting 11-states and is associated with dozens of illnesses and two deaths. 

Additionally, on February 17th despite lack of evidence, FDA Director Dr Stic Harris posted on his personal LinkedIn page a photo of our cheese along with a warning that “While my personal opinion is you should never drink raw milk or eat raw milk products, you certainly don’t want to eat raw milk cheese linked to an ongoing outbreak.” Raw milk was never even involved in this recall, only raw cheese.  The bias against raw milk and raw milk products is clear.

The Accusations Were Baseless

It is clear from investigating all of the data that the FDA’s accusations against RAW Farm’s cheese were baseless. We stand with our consumers and our test data. The FDA can provide no evidence what so ever of any pathogens in any of our products.

As of February 26, we have now lifted our Voluntary Recall on our cheeses. You can read our full press release here:

Suffice it to say that as pioneers in the raw milk movement, we wage many battles.  Some are scientific, some are political, and some are educational. In this case, the FDA refuses to acknowledge science and is protecting themselves and big industry. They are demonstrating extreme political bias and continue to refuse to become educated about how raw milk can be produced as a low-risk food.

NEW Raw Milk Research: Suppression of Pathogens in Properly Refrigerated Raw Milk

We are pleased to announce that a new peer-reviewed paper has been published about pathogen growth in raw milk.  The paper is "Suppression of pathogens in properly refrigerated raw milk" by primary authors Peg Coleman and Dr Tom Oscar. 

This paper documents the results of a pilot study aimed at gaining insights into how well pathogens can grow in refrigerated raw milk. This study was commissioned by the Raw Milk Institute, with pathogen growth tests being performed at Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), an independent 3rd party lab.

Inapplicable Data Has Been Used to Vilify Raw Milk

Some of the data cited by Government agencies against raw milk includes pathogen growth studies where it was found that pathogens multiply greatly over time.  However, these studies are not actually applicable to carefully-produced raw milk because they were performed in nutrient-rich broth instead of milk, they used tremendously high amounts of pathogens (such as 10 log 7, which corresponds to ten million pathogenic colony-forming units (CFU) of bacteria per mL), or they did not account for cold temperature storage.

Pathogens Were Purposely Added Into Raw Milk

In this new pilot study, samples of well-produced raw milk were purposely inoculated with the four main pathogens of concern for raw milk: E coli 0157:H7, Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., and Listeria monocytogenes. The raw milk was inoculated at two levels (high and moderate counts per mL).

Pathogen Growth Was Measured Over Time

The objective of this new pilot study was to document growth characteristics of these pathogens in carefully produced raw milk over a period of 14 days when stored at the refrigeration temperature recommended by FDA and USDA: 40°F (4.4 °C). The number of pathogenic bacteria present in the raw milk were counted on days 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 14.

Study Found No Growth of Three Types of Pathogens

The study authors concluded that:

"The major finding of the pilot study is statistical evidence of no growth at 4.4°C for the major foodborne pathogens causing illness associated with raw milk in the US (Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, and Salmonella). For listeriosis, rarely associated with illness from raw milk, the pilot study documented evidence of pathogen growth in 8 of 12 replicates (P = 0.001 to P = 0.028, significant by ANOVA in the second week of refrigerated storage)."

These results indicate that, when stored at the recommended refrigerator temperature, moderate to high counts of E coli 0157:H7, Salmonella spp., and Campylobacter spp. did not multiply over time in raw milk.

Listeria monocytogenes exhibited some growth in the second week of refrigeration. It is important to note that a recent systematic review found that the risks of severe listeriosis were greater for pasteurized milk than for raw milk.

Challenging Incorrect Assumptions of the Past

Although more data is needed, the results of this pilot study serve to provide an initial basis for challenging incorrect assumptions of the past that overestimated the growth of pathogens in clean, cold raw milk produced for direct human consumption by careful, trained producers.

Special thanks to Peg Coleman and Dr Tom Oscar for their work on this statistical analysis and paper.

You can read the full paper here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0289249

New Raw Milk Research From the 2023 IMGC Symposium

A Farmer’s Takeaways from the 2023 Symposium of the International Milk Genomics Consortium (IMGC)

“If you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room.”

Introduction

Well…I was in the right room at IMGC with a huge opportunity to learn and grow. Just like all prior years.

The 20th International Milk Genomics Consortium (IMGC) Symposium was held on September 6-8 2023. This was the 12th year that I have attended the IMGC Symposium. For the last several years, the Raw Milk Institute has been an official Bronze Level Sponsor of the conference. These conferences have taken me all over the world, including Cork Ireland, Quebec Canada, Aarhus Demark (twice), Sydney Australia, and UC Davis in California several times. I am nearly always the only farmer in the room filled with dairy processing scientists, PhD students, dairy science professors and university professors, and other milk researchers.

Over 12 years, I have made some great friends and created some important collaborations and alliances. I am approached by PhDs, especially after I speak at the microphone after a particularly engaging presentation that begs questions. They say things like, “Keep on asking those great questions!”  I am the only one that can ask those questions because everyone else would potentially lose their NIH or industry grants if they dared to asked those kinds of questions.

Time and interest are ushering in a new generation of open-minded PhD researchers, many of whom are women. They all want to talk about raw milk and its bioactive elements. Raw milk is truly a miracle of nature.  Being an event sponsor has allowed greater access to insider information about all things milk.  Below are my main takeaways from three intensive days of meetings, interactions, meals and dinner parties, and presentations in Cork Ireland at the University of Cork.

Raw Milk Institute was a Bronze Level Sponsor of the 2023 IMGC Symposium

Raw Milk Nourishes, Protects, and Directs

Raw milk is incredibly complex and perfectly designed to nourish, protect, and direct. We all know that raw milk is designed as the first food of life for babies to thrive and grow, yet as researchers continue to study raw milk, they discover many more benefits.

For instance, raw milk serves as a delivery system for immune-bioactive proteins. Peptides (which are chains of amino acid proteins) are protective of the baby by not allowing pathogens to cause illness. These functional proteins serve many roles, including protection of the baby.

Other specialized-proteins in breastmilk include natural mRNA, which provide the genetic information to direct cellular metabolic processes in the baby.  Breastmilk also contains stem cells for repair of damaged cells or tissues.

Raw milk also contains everything needed for its digestion. Raw milk has proteases, peptidases (for digesting proteins), lipases (for digesting fats), and bacteria that make lactase (for digesting lactose).

Additionally, when people drink milk, over time there are changes in the composition of the gut bacteria that make milk digestion easier. Lactase-producing bacteria found in the gut become the probiotic and as they feed on lactose, that becomes their selected prebiotic (food that bacteria chose to digest or eat). Over time the populations of these lactose-loving probiotic bacteria increase when they are fed lactose from dairy products.

The various milk proteins, immunoglobins, enzymes, fats and sugars are “qualitatively similar” between human breastmilk and cow milk. However, they are “quantitatively different” and appear at different levels and amounts in cow milk versus human milk. The same would be true for other bovine milks. The similarities are why humans can drink raw milk from cows, goats, and other animals. 

Milk’s Benefits Can’t Be Extracted

Many raw milk researchers are focused on finding ways to extract beneficial elements from raw milk. However, these elements are designed to work together with the full complement of many different macro- and micro- nutrients, enzymes, probiotics, etc in whole raw milk.

New products made with bio-actives extracted from raw milk will likely be met with suspicion, as well they should. The health benefits from whole, raw milk are the result of a complex interplay of bio-actives. Outside of the whole food matrix, those bio-actives are incomplete and not as effective as in their natural state.

Milk Fat is Essential to Its Beneficial Properties

Butterfat in milk is an essential part of milk’s overall beneficial properties. This fat is known to benefit brain development, immune system development, intestinal development, and the composition of the gut microbiota.

Butter fat globules are three-layer thick capsules that come in different sizes. The three-layered capsules are used by the gut as fiber; they also provide butyrate and butyric acids which are highly beneficial and healing to the lower gut. 60% of the bioactive elements found in raw milk are “carried on or inside” the fat globule. This says so much about skim milk, which has lost much of its beneficial value with the removal of the fat.

Researchers discovered that the fat globules in the milk are smaller in cows fed a high energy diet with high stress levels, such as cows being kept in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The smaller fat globules in the milk do not contain bacteria inside that could ride through the stomach to the lower gut.

In contrast, the fat globules are larger in cows fed a low energy diet and under low stress levels (such as cows in pasture-based operations).  These larger fat globules carry bacteria inside of them. It is thought that the fat cell may act as a protective carrier vessel to carry bacteria though the stomach acid environment into the lower gut where they may be beneficial.

Pasteurization Damages and Denatures Milk

Pasteurization damages milk such that it becomes oxidated, highly allergenic, and hard to digest. It is a common protocol to pasteurize milk up to 3 or 4 times to achieve longer shelf life and assure that the milk is completely dead, with no regard for the essential and beneficial bio-actives that are destroyed in the process. 

Raw milk contains everything it needs to digest itself. Raw milk contains enzymes and bacteria that help create more enzymes to digest raw milk and all the sub elements. Milk maldigestion has been over simplified. It is not just lactose; it is the proteins and fats that also need help with digestion.

After pasteurization the bioactive elements needed for milk to digest itself are missing! Fats, proteins, and sugars all need digesting, but their enzymes and digestive bacteria are denatured or dead.  Without active enzymes, digestion of fat (via lipase) and proteins (via protease) is inhibited. This results in maldigestion in some consumers. 

Whereas raw milk helps to build immune system strength, pasteurized milk does not build up the immune system. Heat denatures the functional proteins and does not allow cellular direction. This can result in cellular confusion and chaos.

Raw whey proteins are highly anti-inflammatory and have many health benefits. The raw whey health benefit findings are consistent with other researchers in the Netherlands, including Dr. Ton Baars’ research on whey proteins showing that they stabilize MAST cells, control histamine release, and reduce allergies.

However, all whey is required to be pasteurized in the USA as per the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. Whey proteins are destroyed by processing and are highly sensitive to heat. One researcher has been frustrated in trying to extract the beneficial components from pasteurized whey. The heating of whey makes the components “sticky” such that they plug up the ultrafiltration micropores. Therefore, ultra filtration cannot be used to extract whey components from pasteurized whey.

New Pasteurization Technologies Cause Less Damage Than Traditional Heat Pasteurization

As an alternative to heat-based pasteurization, researchers are studying other methods such as high pressure (HPP), ultrafiltration, and ultraviolet (UV) light. These methods are effective at inactivating bacteria and less harmful to milk than heat-based pasteurization. For instance, both high pressure processing and ultraviolet processing preserve some of the bioactive milk proteins better than heat-based pasteurization.

Nonetheless, milk processors in the USA are resisting the use of these new technologies. In some other countries, UV and HPP are being successfully used, but in the USA the FDA continues to represent processors’ interests and thereby block the ability to innovate with these alternatives to heat processing. This failure to innovate with HPP, UV or Ultrafiltration is creating a loss of consumer interest in pasteurized milk as people continue to suffer from maldigestion when consuming pasteurized milk.

In Studies, 20,000+ Kids Drank Raw Milk With NO Milk-Related Illnesses

The pioneering PARSIFAL and GABRIELA studies of more than 55,000 kids in Europe really set the international high bar for studies on raw milk. The overall findings included reduced rates of asthma, eczema, respiratory illnesses, fevers, allergies, and ear infections in children who drank raw milk.

At the symposium, it was emphasized that during all of those studies and over twenty years of research, there was never a “red flag event.” A red flag event would be a reported illness from raw milk consumption. The studies included data from more than 20,000 children who drank raw milk, and there was not a single red flag event!

Yet, at the end of each of the peer reviewed and journal published articles, there is a disclaimer that says something such as, “even though there are health benefits to consuming raw milk, the researchers can not recommend raw milk because of the risks of raw milk consumption.” This disclaimer was included because peer review and journal publication political pressures demanded it, despite the fact that there was no basis in the research data.

Dr. Markus Ege MD and Mark McAfee, in Cork Ireland at the IMGC symposium 2023

Raw Milk Provides Sustainability for Farmers and Superb Nutrition for Consumers

Farmers have been denied fair markets for their dairy products for more than a century. All of the value-added efforts are happening after products leave the farm. Milk processors continue to ensure that farmers are paid low prices for their milk, resulting in the loss of thousands of family farms. However, raw milk provides a pathway to sustainability and life satisfaction for dairy farmers.

Raw milk presents a unique farmstead product that brings all the added value back to the farmer with an incentive to work on quality. By selling directly to consumers, raw milk farmers are able to obtain greater financial rewards for their work, while consumers benefit from the improved flavor and nutrition. It’s a win-win for farmers and consumers!

Raw milk that is carefully and intentionally produced for direct human consumption is a low-risk food. This type of raw milk is wholly different from raw milk being produced in unhygienic conditions. Raw milk intended for direct human consumption is produced in sanitary conditions, with much care to ensure that the animals are healthy and that the milk is clean. This type of raw milk is tested often and held to rigorous standards to ensure that it is being produced in a way that discourages pathogen growth.

By combining nature’s blueprints, the bio-actives found in whole raw milk, standards for good production practices and modern testing systems, RAWMI Listed farmers are nourishing consumers safely. Congrats to all of the RAWMI Listed pioneers!