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
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Delaware

World Cup 2026: Former soccer executive analyzes tournament economics and youth soccer structure featured image

1 min

World Cup 2026: Former soccer executive analyzes tournament economics and youth soccer structure

With the 2026 FIFA World Cup days away, the University of Delaware's John Allgood is available to discuss the business of soccer, youth sports participation and the tournament's impact on communities and the economy. As a former United Soccer League (USL) top executive, Allgood brings firsthand experience and knowledge of the commercial operations and development sides of the sport. He also currently serves as an instructor of sport management at UD. Areas of expertise relevant to the World Cup include: • Economic impact: How the tournament will drive local revenue. • The business of soccer: Sports marketing and the commercialization of global sports entertainment. • U.S. youth soccer: The tiered structure of soccer in the U.S., including the pay-to-play system in youth soccer that is different from development models in other countries. • Participation and interest: How the World Cup will boost participation and fan interest in soccer, especially among youth players. • Soccer as a unifying force: The sports' social impact and how it brings people together. To reach Allgood directly and arrange an interview, click the "contact" button on his profile. Interested journalists can also send an email to mediarelations@udel.edu.

World Cup: Hall of Fame heading expert can talk about concussions featured image

1 min

World Cup: Hall of Fame heading expert can talk about concussions

With a focus on concussion research, the University of Delaware's Thomas Kaminski serves as the sole U.S. representative on the FIFA Heading Expert Group, putting UD on the world soccer stage. Kaminski's contributions to the sport earned him a place in the National Athletic Trainers’ Association Hall of Fame. Kaminski, professor of kinesiology and applied physiology at UD's College of Health Sciences, has studied heading in soccer and concussion risk for nearly three decades. It's just one of the many topics he can discuss in relation to the upcoming World Cup: • Concussion risks, prevention strategies and sports-related mild traumatic brain injuries. • Ankle instability and how evolving safety standards are influencing the modern game. • Purposeful headers in interscholastic and intercollegiate soccer. Kaminski will be inducted into the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA) Hall of Fame at the 77th NATA Clinical Symposia & AT Expo on June 30, 2026, in Philadelphia. The award represents the profession’s highest honor and honors members who have dedicated their lives to service and left a lasting impact on the profession. “I’m honored and humbled to join such a distinguished group of athletic training pioneers – people who have shaped and pushed the profession forward to where it is today,” Kaminski said. To reach Kaminski directly and arrange an interview, visit his ExpertFile profile and click on the "connect" button. Interested members of the media can also email mediarelations@udel.edu.

NBA Finals: Pricey tickets have fans debating the value of a memory featured image

2 min

NBA Finals: Pricey tickets have fans debating the value of a memory

With the NBA Finals back in New York and San Antonio, some fans holding pricey tickets face an emotional and financial decision: Savor a major life memory or cash out for big money to spend on something else? The University of Delaware's Amit Kumar has conducted research on these types of choices. Kumar, an assistant professor of marketing and psychological & brain sciences, says that it may come down to a choice between material possessions that people often buy because they think those things are going to make them happy and a satisfying experiential purchase that tends to "last" in a psychological sense.  The Spurs haven't been to the Finals since 2014. It's been 27 years for the Knicks – and 53 years since the team hoisted the championship trophy. So, in this case, the decision comes down to a large lump of money to spend on, say, a kitchen remodeling project or a new watch; versus the memory of witnessing a rare NBA Finals home game.  "If there's a consumer deciding between buying antique living room furniture to replace the set they already have in their house or instead spending that money on the experience of seeing the Knicks play the Spurs, they are likely to derive more enduring satisfaction from the memories of being at the game, the stories they tell about going and having been there, and the social interactions they have as a result," Kumar said. He added that the lesson for people's everyday lives is really to tilt their spending in a way such that they spend a bit less on material goods and a bit more on experiences. To connect with Kumar directly and arrange an interview, visit his profile and click on the "contact" button. To reach him directly, send an email to mediarelations@udel.edu.

View all posts