Raw Milk: Healthy or Dangerous?

I confess that while researching consumer opinion for this blog post, I came across a wide array of debates about raw milk. Many people tout its exceptional flavor, freshness, and claim that it's healthier to drink milk "the way nature intended." Some people claim lactose intolerance is caused by pasteurization, and therefore people who are lactose intolerant, they claim, can consume raw milk with no consequences. Still other people claim, however, that drinking raw milk is unsafe because of pathogens that it can carry, and that it should never ever be given to children, the elderly, or, really, anyone. I took a step back and evaluated each side of the argument, and was surprised to learn that even the ag community is very divided over this issue. Many farmers and ranchers drank raw milk as children, and are unaware that the danger levels associated with raw milk have dramatically increased since then, with the advent of the E. coli O157:h7 bacterial mutation. In a survey of about 200 people taken on my Instagram page, @thetruthaboutag, where it's safe to assume that the majority of my followers consider themselves part of the ag community, and where I can confirm that the majority of my followers are younger than 30, I found a direct correlation to what people think of raw milk. Followers were asked two questions: 

1)Would you drink raw milk (Yes or no), and 2) How did you make your decision? (Food Safety or Taste). 

Results showed that 60% of those surveyed would drink raw milk, and 40% would not. For the second question, 60% of those surveyed made their decision based on taste, and 40% made their decision based on food safety. According to individual responses (98% of those who answered that they would drink raw milk made their decision based on taste, and vice versa. It would have been 100%, except that not everyone answered the second question), there is a direct correlation. The 60% who would drink raw milk made their decision based on taste, and the 40% who would not made their decision based on food safety. This is very telling, and it worries me. 

Food safety is something I am passionate about. I often complain about how much I hate the documentary "Food Inc," both because of the way it portrays conventional agriculture and because of its slanderous treatment of Monsanto and other biotech groups, but the truth is, there was one segment of that film that really did strike a note with me, and that was the story about Kevin Kowalcyk. For those that don't know, Kevin was a little boy who died when he was two because he was stricken with hemmorhagic diarrhea (symptoms are very, very similar to PED in baby pigs, except that his illness also caused kidney failure and a whole plethora of other nasty symptoms) from the O157:H7 strain of E. coli that probably came from an undercooked hamburger, although it was never definitively proven. I would like to just say that I am so sorry for the loss that Kevin's family suffered, and I understand their frustration with the meat industry following Kevin's death. I'll be the first to admit that the plant that probably processed the hamburger that made him sick had some dubious things in its past as far as food safety, but I don't think their quarrel is entirely with the beef industry. E. coli O157:H7 can be killed by cooking hamburger to an internal temperature of 160°F/70°C, according to the CDC. The key is that you have to cook burgers ALL THE WAY THROUGH. 

Kevin Kowalcyk

Think about it. Meat from an uncountable number of cows is ground up into a mixture that's so homogeneous that pathogens get mixed into the mincemeat, and are just as likely to end up in the center of a burger as they are the outside. Not so with steak, because there's no mixing of mincemeat, and no way for the contamination to reach the center. That's why you can safely order a steak so rare it's still mooing (as long as the outside is properly cooked) and not have to worry about E. coli O157:H7. On the other hand, burgers need to be done all the way through to the center in order to prevent a food-born illness. The CDC even recommends that thermometers be used instead of judging donenness based on the color of the meat, as it can be deceptive. Something tells me Kevin's burger wasn't cooked all the way through, and that's why he got sick. Therefore, a good portion of the blame rests with whoever didn't cook his burger properly, or even whoever didn't properly wash their hands before making it. What does this have to do with raw milk?

You're even more likely to get E. coli O157:H7 from raw milk than you are from a burger. In fact, the CDC recommends that you completely avoid raw milk and unpasteurized products like soft cheese that are made from it. All it takes is a speck of dirt or manure that you didn't catch as it fell into the milk bucket, if you have your own dairy animals. Just one single bacterium that fell from a dirty tail and onto the milk machine before you put it on the udder, and the bacteria will multiply until your milk is thoroughly contaminated. Take one sip, and you're a goner, although luckier than if your child or grandpa took that sip. Most healthy adults in their prime can fight it off. Children and the elderly? Not so much. It's practically a death sentence that can easily be avoided by simply pasteurizing the milk. Think organic and non-gmo certified raw milks are safe? Think again. Bacteria don't care how special the milk is, or how pretty the package it came in is. All they care about is eating, if a single celled organism that lacks a nucleus could care, that is.

However, E. coli O157:H7 isn't the only deadly thing lurking in raw milk. According to the FDA, raw milk is 150 times more likely to cause foodbourne illnesses, and is 13 times more likely to result in a hospitalization than its pasteurized counterpart, but these aren't just due to E. coli. 

In fact, the reason mass pasteurization policies were implemented in the 1920s, according to the CDC, was to stop the spead of dangerous diseases being spread through raw milk, including Tuberculosis, Scarlet Fever, and Typhoid. Eradication of these was thanks to pasteurization, as there is no vaccine for Scarlet Fever, or Tuberculosis. Today, you still run the risk of getting Tuberculosis, as well as Brucella, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Lysteria, and of course Salmonella, from raw milk. All of these diseases can prove fatal to humans, and occur much more often in raw milk. 

With all that being said, why do people still choose to take the risk, and even allow their children (who are at the highest risk of dying) to take the risk of drinking milk raw?

Some people think it tastes better. This could, however, be that the type of cow it comes from is different than the standard holstein milk found in supermarkets. It may come from breeds such as the Jersey, which have a higher concentration of butterfat in their milk, and therefore have milk that tastes better. It could be that what was previously drunk before switching to raw was an organic, pasteurized milk. Organic milks are pasteurized at higher temperatures for added freshness and reduced spoilage, and the high heat causes the sweet flavor from the sugars in milk to intensify, affecting the taste. It could even be that what was previously consumed was skim milk, 1% milk, or 2% milk, which would of course taste different than whole, raw milk, because of the extra cream in the whole milk. The point is, you can get the flavor without taking the risk of falling ill. I myself prefer 2% Jersey milk, and I put whole goat's milk in my coffee in place of creamer, because I like the flavor of it better than the milk of holstein cows. I just make sure it's pasteurized first.

Some people think raw milk is more nutritious, which is only half true. It's true that raw milk contains more of certain nutrients than pasteurized milk, but the catch is that the nutrients that are reduced by the heating process are easily made up for in the diet of the average American. For instance, raw milk might contain more Vitamin C, but there are plenty of other sources, like orange juice, that are even better at supplying this nutrient.  

Think lactose intolerance is due to pasteurization? It's not. Lactose intolerance occurs when the human body doesn't make the enzyme lactase. It's genetic, and has nothing to do with pasteurization. And while we're on the subject of lactose intolerance, I'd like to put another myth to rest. Goat's milk has lactose in it. Lactose intolerant people should not drink goat's milk no matter what they read on the internet. 

I digress. 

Long story short, whether you drink raw milk or not is completely up to you. I don't think it's a wise decision, but you do you. All I ask is that if you're a senior citizen or you have young children, PLEASE make sure you don't keep raw milk around. If you wouldn't give a baby honey because it could contain botulism, why would you give one raw milk? Just food for thought. 

I'm a full-time college student at Texas A&M University, where I'm in the process of getting my Animal Science degree, with eventual aspirations to go to law school and work as a consulting lawyer for agriculture corporations. I grew up around animals, and currently manage an operation that breeds show-quality boer goats for 4H and FFA exhibitors. My family also raises commercial cattle in south Texas, where I also gained experience with commercial cotton farming as an intern.