A look at raw milk's health risks and potential benefits as Trump administration hints at law changes

Jan 13, 2025

6 min

Kali Kniel


More than half of U.S. states allow the sale of raw milk directly from farms to consumers, a number that would likely increase if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – a raw milk advocate – is confirmed to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Kali Kniel, a professor of microbial food safety at the University of Delaware, can discuss the dangers and potential benefits of drinking raw milk.


Some have celebrated the legalization of raw milk around the country, claiming it tastes better and has some nutritional benefits. Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, one of the DHHS agencies Kennedy would lead, cautions against drinking raw milk, which comes directly from cows, sheep or goats and has been banned from being sold across state lines since the 1980s.


Concerns regarding raw milk have been elevated as a deadly strain of bird flu is infecting dairy farms around the country.


In the following Q&A, Kniel talks about the pathogens that may be present in raw milk, ways to communicate food safety to the public and other topics.


Milk and other dairy products that sit on shelves at the grocery store are pasteurized. What does this process involve and why is it important for dairy products?


Pasteurization of milk is a process of heating milk and passing it between heated stainless steel plates until it reaches 161 degrees Fahrenheit. It is held at that temperature for around 15 seconds before it is quickly cooled to 39 degrees Fahrenheit. This process is intended to kill the pathogenic bacteria that could make a person sick.


How does this process affect milk’s quality and nutritional value?


Scientific studies have shown that pasteurization does not significantly change the nutritional value of milk. Unpasteurized milk may have more vitamin C, which does not survive the pasteurization process, but milk is not considered a good source of vitamin C, as it contains less than 10% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), the average amount of nutrients it takes to meet a healthy person’s needs.


There are no beneficial bacteria in raw milk. Milk (pasteurized or raw) is not a good source of probiotic or potentially beneficial bacteria, so for that consumers should choose yogurt and other fermented dairy products as well as other fermented products.


Scientific studies using animal models have shown no difference in how calcium in raw milk and pasteurized milk is absorbed by the human body.


Popularity in drinking raw milk is increasing, despite the U.S. Food and Drug Administration advising that it’s not safe to drink. What are the health risks that come with drinking raw milk?


Raw milk may contain pathogenic bacteria, including Campylobacter, Salmonella, pathogenic types of E. coli, Listeria and Brucella, as well as the protozoan parasite Cryptosporidium. These are all zoonotic microbes, which means they can be transmitted from animals to humans. Often the animal does not appear ill, so it is not possible to determine if an ill animal is shedding these pathogens in its feces that can contaminate milk.


Microbial testing of the finished product and environmental monitoring programs may be helpful, but do not guarantee that the raw milk is absent of these pathogens. Milk can be contaminated with these pathogens from direct contamination with feces or from environmental conditions. Cross-contamination from dairy workers can also happen, even when people are trying their best to reduce the risk of cross-contamination.


The likelihood of a disease outbreak occurring associated with a person consuming raw milk is relatively high given that others may also be exposed. Unpasteurized milk will have a relatively short shelf life and may not be available for testing. Following good hygiene practices on the farm and during milking such as biosecurity around the farm, appropriately sanitizing equipment and monitoring the health of animals can reduce the chance of milk contamination, but not eliminate it.



There have been numerous outbreaks of illness associated with raw milk as well as cheese made from raw milk. Persons most at risk of illness associated with drinking raw milk include children, in particular 5 years of age and under, individuals aged 65 and over, pregnant women and immunocompromised individuals. It should be noted that all outbreaks of illness associated with raw milk have included individuals under 19 years of age. Children may be most vulnerable, as they cannot voice an opinion on consumption and risk of raw milk if it is in their household.


The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collects data on foodborne disease outbreaks voluntarily reported by state, local or territorial health departments. According to the CDC from 2013 to 2018 there were 75 outbreaks of illness linked to raw milk consumption. These outbreaks include 675 illnesses and 98 hospitalizations. Most of these illnesses were caused by Campylobacter, shiga-toxigenic E. coli, or Salmonella.


An increase in outbreaks has been correlated with changes in the availability of raw milk. For example, between 2009 and 2023, there were 25 documented outbreaks in the state of Utah, which has 16 raw milk retailers licensed by the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. In all of these outbreaks, the raw milk was contaminated with the bacteria Campylobacter, which typically causes gastroenteritis symptoms like diarrhea and nausea, but may also cause chronic illness, including Guillain-Barré syndrome which can cause paralysis.


How likely are these illnesses to happen from drinking raw milk?


It is difficult to say. Foodborne illness is often underreported, depending on how severe people’s symptoms are.


According to one study, only about 3.2% of the U.S. population drinks raw milk, while about 1.6% eats cheese made from raw milk. But compared with consumers of pasteurized dairy products, they are 840 times more likely to experience an illness and 45 times more likely to be hospitalized. The authors of this work used the CDC’s national reporting system to analyze data from 2009 to 2014.


Despite health risks, why do some people still drink raw milk?


Some people feel a nostalgic connection to raw milk, and others may feel that foods that are not treated with heat retain certain nutrients and enzymatic activity. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed rigorous scientific studies that indicate the nutritional benefits of consuming raw milk over time, given the risks of potential for illness, combined with a well balanced diet full of healthful food choices.


It remains that raw milk is particularly risky for children to consume, as children can get sick from consuming fewer bacterial cells compared to adults.


More than 900 cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza — the disease commonly known as bird flu — have been detected in dairy cattle across 16 states, and at least 40 people have been infected with the disease from close contact with dairy cows. Raw milk is being tested for the virus. With raw milk gaining interest among consumers, what are the possible consequences? Does it elevate the risk of bird flu spreading further to people?


There remain clear risks of transmission of pathogenic bacteria through consumption of raw milk, and now with the potential for contamination of raw milk with avian influenza, it is even more important that consumers protect themselves by drinking pasteurized milk.


The people most at risk right now are those involved with the milking process and in the handling of dairy cattle. So it is important that those individuals be aware of the risks and take appropriate precautions, including hand washing and wearing appropriate personal protective equipment like protective clothing, gloves, face shields and eye protection.


As of December, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is requiring 13 states to share raw milk samples so the agency can test for bird flu viruses. How could this testing better help us understand the virus?



I think it is very smart that USDA is leading the National Milk Testing Strategy, which will help us understand the extent of infected herds. Surveillance of microorganisms is an important way to assess risk so we can develop appropriate strategies to reduce and control these risks.

Connect with:
Kali Kniel

Kali Kniel

Professor, Microbial Food Safety

Prof. Kniel’s laboratory explores issues of food safety and public health that involve transmission of viruses and pathogenic bacteria.

Food SystemsPathogenic BacteriaFood Safety Public HealthMicroorganisms

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Delaware

1 min

Los Angeles wildfires: Experts address health concerns and evacuation strategies

Major wildfires are once again raging in California, this time in Los Angeles County. According to news reports, they have so far been responsible for two deaths, 1,000 damaged structures and the evacuation of more than 30,000 residents. Experts from the University of Delaware's Disaster Research Center can comment on health impacts, evacuation strategies and how to manage pets and animals during disasters. Below are three of the Disaster Research Center core faculty and the topics they can discuss related to the current wildfires: Jennifer Horney, founding director of UD’s epidemiology program: Health impacts of disasters (mental and physical) as well as evacuation. Additionally, exposure to wildfire smoke which increases risk of respiratory infections; the scale of these fires during a very high period for these infectious diseases (flu, RSV, COVID) may also put pressure on public health and health care systems. Tricia Wachtendorf, co-director of the Disaster Research Center and professor of sociology and criminal justice: Disaster donations, social vulnerability and evacuation. Sarah DeYoung, associate professor of sociology and criminal justice: Pets and animals during evacuations.

1 min

Expert: Meta ditches fact checking, a major loss for the American people

Meta moving away from fact-checking towards a "community notes" model is the equivalent of crowd-sourcing truth, says the University of Delaware's Dannagal Young. This shift in policy is a victory for intuition, common sense and lived experience over data, expertise and evidence. It also stands as another example of media institutions acting preemptively to avoid political and economic fallout under the incoming administration. Young, director of UD's Center for Political Communication and professor of communication, can talk about epistemology (how people understand the world) and how it relates to populism and populist leaders like incoming President Donald Trump. Young can also discuss the following: • The contents of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's announcement video, in which he explains that recent elections mark a "cultural tipping point" in the direction of "free speech." "He's acknowledging that this policy change isn't a principled stance Meta is now taking, as much as a response to what he thinks the public is calling for (a dubious conclusion to draw from a narrow electoral victory)," Young said. • Zuckerberg's new stance, and how it will allow him to curry favor with the incoming administration because it allows Meta to avoid having to moderate Trump-friendly content. • Why content moderation and fact checking are expensive, and how moving away from that model is a "WIN-WIN-WIN for Meta: politically, culturally, and economically. And a LOSE LOSE LOSE for the American people: socially, culturally, and democratically," Young said.

3 min

New Year's Resolutions: Why they fail and how we can stick to them

By now, most people have already made their New Year's resolutions and (hopefully) put them into practice. But most people — about 90% — give up on them within the first few weeks of the year. University of Delaware experts dig into the psychology behind why resolutions fail and offer a recipe for success. The timing of New Year’s resolutions also isn’t always ideal. According to Philip Gable, professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, a lack of commitment is one reason why many people fail to achieve their goals. “New Year's resolutions sometimes lack in commitment,” he said. “It's just this time of year when people feel like they should make a resolution, as opposed to other times in the year when it's less common but maybe more meaningful, like if you get a doctor's report and realize you need to change that aspect of your life.” In order to be part of the 10% of people who keep their New Year’s resolutions, Gable said to break down big goals into small, achievable steps. “I think a lot of times with goals, people will commit to a very big goal and not realize the smaller steps they need to take to achieve that goal,” Gable said. “If we have too big of a goal, we get emotionally distressed when we can't do it, or we fail because we set too big of a goal. Or maybe we couldn't think through all of the elements required to meet that really big goal. So starting small gives us something achievable, and then that gives you a platform to go to the next thing.” Naomi Sadeh, associate professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of Delaware, said that part of the reason it’s so hard to make long-term changes is that humans are wired to prioritize instant gratification over delayed rewards. In other words, when posed with an option, we tend to pick the easy choice with an immediate outcome to satisfy a need today instead of delaying gratification for a bigger reward — we splurge on items we don’t really need instead of saving money, order takeout instead of cooking a healthy meal, or binge-watch a TV show instead of going to the gym. “With impulsivity and with breaking New Year's resolutions, often it's when people tend to opt for that sooner, smaller reward over the longer, bigger reward,” Sadeh said. “The sooner reward is really tempting, even if it's not as satisfying in the long run as the longer goal or bigger goal that you had.” When people set goals, they tend to feel very motivated for a few days and falsely assume they’re committed to their goal. But as soon as that motivation wears off, they give up. “There's potentially a mismatch in the timing of your goals,” said Rob West, interim chair and professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. “Your goals are immediate, they're conscious, they're volitional. You have those in the moment, and they can be developed and abandoned quickly. But habits take a considerable amount of time and repetition.” To connect directly with Gable, visit his profile and click on the connect button. Interviews with other researchers can be arranged by contacting UD's Media Relations department.

View all posts