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

Survey says: Senior leaders are using AI, but they could use more direction featured image

4 min

Survey says: Senior leaders are using AI, but they could use more direction

Over the years, study upon study has shown that senior leaders are slower to adapt to new technology – email, the Internet and social media – than younger employees. That’s not necessarily so with AI, according to the University of Delaware’s Saleem Mistry. Mistry, associate professor of management at UD's Alfred Lerner College of Business & Economics, recently conducted a survey of more than 200 university alumni, 75% of which had more than 16 years of professional experience. He found that senior leaders are actively adopting AI to solve their biggest challenges. However, they are doing so largely without structured support or guidance. Here are four findings from Mistry's survey that shows how AI is actually being used at the top. Senior Leaders Are Overwhelmingly Self-Taught Mistry said his most glaring finding is the gap between high AI adoption among senior leaders and the near-total absence of formal corporate support. Although a majority use these tools, they are almost entirely self-taught, which highlights visible opportunity that organizations aren’t really steering the AI conversation for leaders: • High usage. 62% of all senior leaders surveyed use AI tools "regularly" or "occasionally" in their work. • Training gap. Of those users, an overwhelming 80% report their organization provides "Never" or only "Sometimes" (mostly never) adequate training. Mistry said this shows that leaders from VP level down are using tools like ChatGPT and Copilot informally to keep up with heavy workloads, without any real organizational guidance. The stakes are high. In the survey, a vice president of legal was using AI for compliance tasks and a manager of three was using it for performance reviews, both with no formal training. “These are senior leaders handling sensitive work while essentially figuring it out on their own,” Mistry said. There is a clear ladder of AI use Leaders are not using AI randomly. There is a clear progression in how they use it, moving through three levels. • Tier 1 (The Drafters) This is the most common starting point. Leaders use AI to improve writing and communication. They draft emails, shape documents, and refine tone. As one Director of Product put it, it helps him "polish phrasing" and adjust tone and voice. • Tier 2 (The Synthesizers) At this stage, leaders use AI to manage information overload. They summarize meetings, condense documents, and pull together research so they can keep up with large volumes of input. As one leader managing a team of 200 said, "Being a leader requires attention in a variety of areas. AI helps me manage the vast amounts of information I need to consume." • Tier 3 (The Architects) Here, leaders move beyond writing and summarizing. They use AI to automate parts of their work. This includes building agents, creating custom GPTs, or designing tools that track work and performance. One leader managing 300 people said, "It will eliminate half or more of my overhead." Managers and individual contributors use AI for different reasons People managers and individual contributors (IC) are using AI for very different reasons based on their roles. • For people managers, their main challenge is scale. They are overloaded with communication and administration, so they use AI to reduce noise and keep up. They lean heavily on summarization and tone adjustment tools. • For project leads and ICs, their focus is output. They use AI to produce work faster, including drafting content, building decks, writing code, or generating ideas. This difference reflects their jobs. One group is trying to keep up, the other is trying to produce more. It also shows that AI is not a single-use tool. Its value depends on the problem it is being used to solve. This difference reflects their jobs. One group is trying to keep up, the other is trying to produce more. It also shows that AI is not a single-use tool. Its value depends on the problem it is being used to solve. Resistance to AI is mostly intentional Among the 38 percent of leaders who do not use AI, resistance is usually not based on lack of awareness. It falls into three groups: • The Ethical Objectors. Some avoid AI due to concerns about its broader impact. • The Quality Skeptics. Some do not trust the output and feel it is not reliable enough for important work. • The Blocked. Some are not allowed to use AI due to company policy. Mistry concludes that there is a clear overall pattern: Leaders are using AI in practical ways, but mostly without structured support or guidance. “If it feels like you are figuring this out as you go without much help from your organization, that is consistent with what most leaders are experiencing,” Mistry said. To connect directly with Mistry and arrange an interview, visit his profile page and click on the "connect" button. Interested reporters can also email MediaRelations@udel.edu.

Hantavirus cruise ship outbreak: Epidemiologist discusses causes and challenges featured image

1 min

Hantavirus cruise ship outbreak: Epidemiologist discusses causes and challenges

A deadly outbreak of hantavirus on a cruise ship currently stuck off Cape Verde, Africa, has put the virus on the national radar for the first time since 1993. University of Delaware epidemiologist Jennifer Horney can talk about the potential for a larger outbreak and the challenges associated with responding to the emergency. There have been nearly 1,000 cases of hantavirus in the U.S. since surveillance began in 1993. That year, an outbreak of the severe respiratory disease in the four corners area of the U.S. Southwest was linked to domestic exposure to rodents, Horney said. Horney can discuss the following points in reference to the Dutch vessel M/V Hondius, which has seen three people die since departing from Argentina on April 1. • The response to this global public health emergency will be challenging given the cuts to U.S. public health and extensive leadership turnover at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. • Climate change and global transit likely contributed to the new cases, as rodent populations thrive during certain weather conditions. • When humans inhale rodent feces, urine or saliva, often when dust is aerosolized through cleaning, they can become infected. While symptoms may develop up to two months after exposure, the disease has a mortality rate of up to 50%. To reach Horney directly and arrange an interview, visit her profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested media can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.

Gritty like his city: How the Philadelphia Flyers' mascot went from punchline to sensation featured image

2 min

Gritty like his city: How the Philadelphia Flyers' mascot went from punchline to sensation

How did Gritty, the fluffy, orange, menacing whatchamacallit that backs the Philadelphia Flyers, go from a punchline when he was rolled out in 2018 to one of sports' most well-known and beloved mascots? The University of Delaware's Matt Robinson took a shot, and scored, with some answers. Robinson, a professor of sport management at UD's Lerner College of Business & Economics, said Gritty embodies the tough attitude that Philadelphia is known for. Also, some of his bizarre features and personality traits go straight to the heart of the demeanor and history of the Flyers, who are currently battling their way through the NHL playoffs. Those are among the ingredients that go into marketing and launching a successful mascot.  Robinson can discuss the following: • Why some mascots take off and others flop. After his launch, Gritty was ridiculed as a concept on late night TV and "Saturday Night Live." But he was still garnering billions of views on social media and millions in earned media for the franchise. The Flyers kept pushing the concept despite its early unpopularity, which led to his eventual success. "Any public relations is good public relations," Robinson said. • Mascots need to be authentic. Gritty embodies the team he represents and the city that team plays in. Robinson noted Philadelphia's "grit" and love of players who play hard, like the Broad Street Bullies – the nasty group of Flyers' players who led the team to two Stanley Cup wins in the 1970s.  • The best mascots transcend sports. Robinson pointed to the film and character "Rocky," whose statue sits in the front of the city's Art Museum, as well as the city's reputation as one with a bit of an edge. "We're the ones who threw snowballs at Santa Claus," Robinson said, referring to the infamous 1968 incident when Philadelphia Eagles fans pelted Kris Kringle from the stands. • Players and coaches come and go, but the mascot stays the same. Mascots can be part of ticket sales and community engagement in the offseason, when players may not be in the city or moving to another via free agency. • Mascots offer an attachment point for fans that is not sport related. Kids respond to mascots and, from there, connection with the team, players and the sport can grow. To contact Robinson directly for an interview, visit his profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested reporters can also email MediaRelations@udel.edu.

View all posts