When I was a child I spent a good deal of time on a dairy farm ... and drank raw milk. I don't recall any problems. A few years ago I visited a "raw" dairy near Tulare, CA ... drank some milk and ate some cheese ... I don't recall any problems. Would I recommend raw milk to anyone? No. Do I wish to drink raw milk? No. Do I believe that pathogens exist? Yes. Have I seen unsanitary conditions on dairy farms? Yes. Are all dairy producers honest, candid and trustworthy? No. I'm a libertarian. If people want to gamble with their health ... drink up and enjoy raw milk. I choose to avoid it.

Are there any studies that have tested the digestability of raw milk versus pastuerized? I know somebody who used to drink raw milk and could drink it all day long without any digestive disturbances. If they drank pastuerized milk, they suffered from all the lactose intolerance issues. Are there digestive enzymes or something else in milk that the heat of pastuerization alters or kills that could cause this difference? I think it is worth finding out, so those out there who would like to drink milk, but can't because of lactose intolerance, could drink it.

As a dairy farmer originally from Southern California now a producer in Texas it was refreshing to see raw milk myths presented in an easy to understand manner.The commercial dairy industry is fighting an image problem being portrayed as greedy uncaring opportunists.Please due some research on pasteurized dairy products and report on the safety of America's milk supply.In spite of millions of gallons of milk going to the consumer every day,very few problems surface.A healthy product lots of nutrition at a fair price.

Interesting fact that supports Myths #4 and #5: Palmolive recently reformulated their antibacterial dish soap active ingredient from triclosan to lactic acid. It claims to kill 99.9% of salmonella, E. coli, and staph on dishes in seconds.

Lactic acid is produced from lactose in milk by lactic acid bacteris during clabbering. That's what causes the milk to sour.

http://www.colgate.com/app/Palmolive/US/EN/HomePage.cwsp#Antibacterial

While fact checking this article I found this statement on the FIRST article I looked at that was listed as evidence.
Based on the evidence collected, it was not possible to demonstrate a strong causal link
between consumption of raw milk or dairy products made from raw milk and any of the
pathogens considered in this review. The evidence examined in this review did provide
moderate evidence to support a causal link between consumption of raw milk/raw milk
products and the following pathogens:
- Campylobacter spp.;
- E. coli spp.;
- Listeria monocytogenes; and
- Salmonella serovars.
Seems as though this was in no way conclusive, moderate evidence is not enough, we need proof

Unfortunately, the article falls flat on several points. The comparisons of the two milk products (raw vs. pasteurized) show differences between the two: the pasteurized product is higher in cholesterol, sodium, slightly less carbs, and has no iron. Clearly heating the milk has altered it. Second, India has a a very high population. How can one state with any degree of certainty that everyone boils their milk for infant formula? Are there monitors in every home verifying this? Third, concerning pathogen found in the guts of wild animals, the issue isn't whether pathogens are located in the guts, but whether they are being shed. This slight of hand by the author betrays the intent to distribute propoganda, and not a factual article. Sorry but its the author that gets "busted".

Stanford conducted a controlled study to determine whether there is objective validity to the anecdotal claims that raw milk is better tolerated than pasteurized milk by those who think they are lactose intolerant.

According to the researchers, the results of that study, collected under standardized and controlled conditions, "do not support the widespread anecdotal claims by proponents that raw milk has benefits over pasteurized milk regarding the symptoms of lactose intolerance."

The study's conclusion: "Claims that raw milk is well-tolerated by lactose intolerant individuals, as examined in this study, are unsupported and misleading for individuals with true lactose malabsorption."

http://www.marlerblog.com/case-news/stanford-bites-raw-milk-in-the-udder/

Michele, I'm disappointed. You dance and play with words almost as good as Marler.

Not worth reading since us raw milk drinkers are doing just fine and have healed problems within our own families with raw milk, like allergies. This is just another biased piece of writing.

I'l come back and hit some other arguments, but regarding #7, specifically the last sentence, it is possible that Whole Foods considers raw milk a liability because they truly question it's safety.

However, it is equally possible that Whole Foods fear of a lawsuit stems not from their doubts about the product, but out of the reality that we are a litigious society, always ready to sue, and the darker regions are inhabited by soul-less beings holding law degrees who wait to take advantage of peoples greedy nature and file suit without regard for real liability, seeking only the deepest pockets, not justice.

As a few people mention here, this article is entertaining, but unfortunately full of half truths and mileading references. As one example, Myth #5, about leaving raw milk at room temps. "Not all raw milk contains pathogens, but because you can't see or smell them, there is no way to know if it is safe to take this chance." The truth is that virtually all milk intended to be served raw does NOT contain pathogens. There are on average (according to MarlerBlog latest analysis) something like 120 average annual reported illnesses from all raw dairy (including cheese) from 1998 to 2011, out of many millions of servings each year.

Or Myth #7, about raw milk consumption, says, "Commercial raw milk sales make up less than 1% of milk sales overall (28)" rather than 3%+ documented in the 2007 CDC survey. Footnote 28 turns out to refer to data ending 19 years ago. Yes,consumption has increased significantly since 1992, in part because of misleading articles like this from the public health community, which lots of consumers have learned not to trust.

I could go on and on about the misleading statements. As someone here said, excellent propaganda. Unfortunately, the debate about raw dairy needs to move beyond propaganda to real dialog.

The idea of "safety" of milk being tied to its pasteurization is amusing following the outbreak of listeria in cantaloupe (and several other recent similar outbreaks from commercially produced food). I think we could start boiling all fresh produce and let's see if we can convince everyone that because it has nearly the same protein, carbohydrates and fats that boiled cantaloupe and spinach are just as good for you as the fresh version. Forget about digestive enzymes, heat-altered proteins, mechanically deranged fats, and everything else raw milk has to offer that doesn't fit neatly on a nutrition label. If it's not there in black and white we must not need it.

The other posters are right, the "science" here is a bit "holy" and comparing the needs of developed countries to undeveloped ones is a far cry from convincing based on differences in sanitation, available resources, and more. With routine tests for Tb and brucellosis already in place there is no risk of those in raw milk in my state at least (Idaho), and developed countries are perfectly able to test for all other pathogenic bacteria as a precaution, and allow consumers the choice to consume food that builds immunity and promotes health in ways pasteurized milk is unable to do. FOr more info on this, visit realmilk.org

While we're at it, let's discuss what's truly unsafe about our diets - the huge amounts of sugars and refined carbs that are causing epidemics of obesity, heart disease, cancer, and hosts of other illnesses.

Leave raw milk alone for heaven's sake, what's your beef?

Bruce Wilson wrote:
The comparisons of the two milk products (raw vs. pasteurized) show differences between the two: the pasteurized product is higher in cholesterol, sodium, slightly less carbs, and has no iron. Clearly heating the milk has altered it.

But Bruce, didn't you read, Michelle was referring to only the "the major nutritional components," not those other unimportant things you mentioned.

BTW, can someone tell me how vitamin C is somehow introduced into milk through pasteurization?

David,

You say you "could go on and on," but you do not. You've taken issue with two ideas you read. Raw milk may for the most part contain no pathogens, as you insist. Surely, raw milk is more likely to contain pathogens than pasteurized milk. You would agree? And those pathogens would not be detected by the consumer?

Your other issue is how many people purchase raw milk? As the author states, consumption and purchase are two different numbers. I'm not sure either of us could come up with a reliable figure based on the 2007 survey. Do you think the majority of those who reported drinking milk in the 2007 survey were buying that milk or drinking it fresh?

Michael Bulger,
Yes, I can go on and on. Three more marginal assertions:
#1 "Raw milk has caused numerous deaths of infants throughout history." I'd like to see the info source on that one. My understanding is that raw milk became a serious health problem beginning in the mid-1800s, with the mass movement to urban areas as a result of the Industrial Revolution. That period lasted less than 100 years.

#3 " Homogenization is simply the process of physically breaking up the fat globules in cow's milk..." And there is a school of thought that breaking up those fat globules produces changes to the fat that reduce the benefits of the original globules, and produce changes that can adversely affect health. Our knowledge about the impact of homogenization is incomplete, and I would have liked acknowledgment of that.

#9 about the European research. Two major studies now show convincing evidence that raw milk significantly reduces allergies (and asthma). The ideological divide around this subject keeps the public health community in strict denial about this research, when the appropriate response is to encourage more research and learn what the possibilities are for using the protection (suggestions the researchers make). But it relates to a fourth problem, Myth #2, since the beneficial nutrient now thought to confer protection from allergies and asthma is a protein that, ironically, is killed by pasteurization.

Finally, I have acknowledged frequently that raw milk is riskier than pasteurized milk (which does occasionally cause illness, and kill people). But neither product represents a serious health problem.

To your question: "And those pathogens would not be detected by the consumer?"...I would pose a question: Can you name a food where the pathogens could be detected in advance by the consumer? I suspect not. The reason you even raise such a question is that you and many of your colleagues are blinded by your opposition to raw dairy.

David, if 70% of the population drank raw milk, what do you think the illness rate would be?

Putting your personal accusations aside, I will show that this last point was in reference to deliberately aging raw milk. If raw meat was left to spoil, the changes would be noticeable and the meat would most likely not be considered edible. Do you see the distinction between unwanted spoiling and the deliberate aging of a perfect medium for pathogens?

As to the rest of your points:

#1 "Throughout history" is a subjective phrase. I'm not going to debate with you the history of milk consumption. It is a relatively new food and the genetic mutation that allows a minority of the population to digest lactose did not exist throughout the entire history of homo sapien sapien. Personally, I don't have a problem with the use of the phrase. It certainly was a problem as milk gained in popularity during the 1800's.

#3 I'd like to see your scientific references for this school of thought. Indeed, there is much more that can be studied regarding homogenization and human health. The study I came up with as time permitted was the following: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224406000550

If you can gain access to the full report, you will find that they did not conclude that homogenization negatively affects human health. I will quote their most concrete conclusions: "Regarding human health, homogenized milk seems more digestible than untreated milk. Homogenization favors milk allergy and intolerance in animals but no difference appears between homogenized and untreated milk in allergic children and lactose-intolerant or milk-hypersensitive adults."

#9 The European studies differentiated between Ultra-Pastuerized Store, Pasteurized Store, Boiled Farm, and Raw Farm. The results for pasteurized milk did not reach statistical significance, possibly due to small sample size. The number that was calculated showed pasteurized milk correlated with less asthma. Boiled farm milk showed less association with atopy (allergies). The results for boiled farm milk were statistically significant. Why would heated milk have the proteins researchers theorized offered protective effects?

It's quite simple. Contrary to what raw milk businessmen claim, pasteurization does not kill proteins. The fact is that proteins can't be killed. Protein enzymes can and are denatured during pasteurization. However, the denaturation does not affect all the enzymes in the milk. In fact, once the milk cools, many of the proteins the researchers point to actual renature. That is, once pasteurization is complete many of the enzymes go back to being regular enzymes.

I'm not going to respond further today. I don't expect you to be happy with the state of research, as it clearly shows definite risks to choosing raw milk.

You likely will fall back on this being an issue of personal choice. What right does the government have to tell people that they can't consume according to their beliefs, whether or not they are correct or not. I'd just like to point out that milk is the beneficiary of a century of lobbying and campaigning by dairy industry. As such, it has been imbedded in the American diet as a kind of superfood. It's each and every known benefit has been isolated and trumpeted, as if this food was necessary for the very survival of mankind. In reality, most of the world does just fine (and probably better) with no livestock milk.

Raw milk businesses are quick to claim health benefits as justification for the elevated risk of their products. Penicillin was first cultured from blue cheese, but no one is suggesting that sick people eat blue cheese to cure an infection. Yet, raw milk proponents use the supposed health-giving properties to market raw milk. All foods contain something that is beneficial and promotes health. In that, raw milk is not particularly special. Raw milk marketers should acknowledge that their product is not "super", "magic", or necessary. Raw milk consumers should not be led to believe that it is something that it is not.

It is a paradox that more and more exceptions are added as far as artificial things in organic food are concerned while these unreasonable restrictions are regularly placed on healthy products of local farmers. I am a great fan of local farmers and their products which I think can under no circumstances be replaced by genetically modified products. What I like in particular is bio meat. It has recently been on the rise but it still needs a lot of promotion. I was lucky to find some great places such as The Healthy Butcher, Fresh From the Farm, Cumbrae’s in Toronto where you can get healthy and high-quality meat which not only eases your conscience as far as the treatment of animals is concerned but it also has a much more positive impact on your health and lifestyle. But when I read about the actions that the government together with other authorities are about to take I get the impression that the future of local farmers and organic food is under serious threat and we should all do something about it.

Mary McGonigle-Martin,
Interesting question, but so hypothetical I wouldn't even attempt an answer. It's certainly not a situation I would recommend (70% of the population drinking raw milk). The existing dairy infrastructure couldn't support production of good clean raw milk for that many people. (Research has shown that significant amounts of conventional milk intended for pasteurization is tainted with pathogens.)

I do think it could be done very safely, if the government would get off the backs of farmers who have the desire and expertise to produce safe raw milk. This would reverse the current trend of forcing production underground, where it can't be monitored and tested, and where farmers can't be educated as to safe production techniques.

All that being said, I still wouldn't advocate the scenario you raise. I think people should be able to choose whatever foods they want, including terribly unhealthy fast food. I'm not a proselytizer for raw milk based on its health benefits, even though I know many who have experienced health benefits from drinking it. I respect those people, and their experiences. Let's just allow that small minority that desire raw milk access to it.

I quarrel with Michele in her whitewash of "Myth 7." Implied in the number drinking raw milk is a comparison of the relative rates of illness between raw and pasteurized milk, data which is available but which no-one seems to want to talk about. The number of people drinking raw milk compared to illnesses has been fuzzy for far too long. I'm not an epidemiologist, but I'd like to suggest some new angles in this debate.

The 2007 CDC data which reports 3% of the population drinking raw milk cannot possibly mean, as Michele suggests, that only 1/3 of this group is "really" drinking raw milk because that argument relies on the "explanation" that the remaining 2/3 are farmers drinking it from the bulk tank. This means 6,000,000 people were farmers, families and likely employees, who were drinking raw milk from the bulk tank.

First, if true, this would mean that 6,000,000 people were drinking the most dangerous kind of raw milk, namely milk that was produced with the expectation and reliance that it would be cleaned up by pasteurization. Of course, these folks may have super-strong guts from being habituated to their farm's menu of pathogens and thus are immune to them. This alone is food for thought.

On the other hand, USDA reported that in 2006 there only 75,000 dairy farms in the U.S. Since 2006 was one of the years covered by CDC's 2007 report, we'll take the 75,000 farms and divide it into 6,000,000 people purportedly drinking raw milk only from bulk tanks. This means on average, that each dairy farm was feeding pre-pasteurized bulk tank raw milk to 80 people. Pretty big families, I would say. But does it really matter? Three percent is three percent, no matter where they are getting their milk, and the illness data don't suggest that those 6,000,000 people are dropping like flies.

I would suggest that the CDC study really means that something like 3% of the population WAS drinking raw milk in 2007, meaning 9,000,000 people, meaning it's very likely more than 9,000,000 people today. I started in 2005, so I'm one of the 9,000,000, but I know lots of people who have started in the last 4-5 years, and I would argue they are part of a much larger number.

I will admit that illness data suggest that raw milk may well be responsible for more illnesses than pasteurized milk, on a population-adjusted basis (although, pasteurized milk has been responsible for more deaths). Both numbers, however, are tiny. I estimate a population-adjusted illness rate of 0.0007% for raw milk and 0.00007% for pasteurized. I would like the safety/public health community to admit that these numbers are both tiny, and explain the hugely disproportionate emphasis by bureaucrats on taxpayer-funded attacks in the War Against Raw Milk. The hullabaloo present in this discussion is testament to the power of very tiny numbers, and to the power of an out-of-context statistical argument that one tiny number could be ten times as large as another tiny number. With all due respect to those few people who have fallen ill (from whatever kind of milk), the argument against raw milk is ridiculous, perched on a tiny foundation.

So, let's move on and let people choose what they want to eat.

David, let’s just pretend that we live in a Sally Fallon world where small dairy farmers are once again the norm and people all though the US can sell raw milk in any capacity: retail, cowshares, on the farm, and farmer’s markets. This would be raw milk produced without the intention of pasteurization, with the best safety protocols followed. Anyone who wanted access to raw milk could easily obtain it in all states. It would also be legal to ship it across state lines. Let’s pretend 35% of the population consumes raw milk, not 3%. In this type of world, how many raw milk illnesses do you think there would be each year?

Steve, I don’t have Ted Beals figures in front of me. I’m guessing you probably know what he calculated the average number of illnesses from raw milk to be each year. Can you please figure out for me what this number would be if 35% of the population consumed raw milk?

It would actually be very interesting to look at just California's percentages of raw milk drinkers, since they probably have one of the highest percentages of raw milk drinkers in the US. I wonder what their state's percentage is?

I agree it's a far stretch to say that MOST raw milk drinkers are farm families. Remind me, why does it matter whether it's dairy families or not drinking the milk? Are dairy families a super-breed of humans not susceptible to illness? And if so, what does that tell us about the immune benefits of drinking raw milk?

The wording on some of these "myths" really is quite staged. Really, who believes that pasteurization destroys ALL nutrients or that raw milk hasn't caused ANY problems for thousands of years? I believe it these statements were reasonably worded, such as "Raw milk sustained mankind and a vital food source for thousands of years" or "Pasteurization alters many components of raw milk" they would be a lot more realistic of what people actually think (and are right about!)

One more thing mentioned earlier...The issue with homogenization is that MECHANICALLY altered milkfat is more easily passed into the bloodstream where it doesn't belong in that form (oxidized, if I remember correctly) and poses problems for the immune system and likely the heart. Naturally homogenized milk containing small fat molecules properly formed (not mechanically altered) does not pose the same risks. Research was done on this by Dr. Oster and Dr. Dudley in the first half of this century. Realmilk.com and Dr. Mercola both discuss this in their material.

Mary, I used illness data from the CDC for the period 1990-2006, which are slightly higher than the data used by Dr. Beals (CDC data showed an average of about 57 raw milk illnesses per year and Beals' data shows something like 42, but I believe the timeframes are different, and his data I believe are far more carefully collected and vetted). So, my argument is "conservative."

Rates are rates, so you can do the math. If you want to multiply the population by ten or so, you can do that and apply the rate, but I would argue it is highly speculative to do such "forecasting" into a future which would obviously be a radically different environment on many levels. That said, I would argue the trend in raw milk safety has been a good one, but I've not worked up that data; my belief is founded on the likely-significant increase in raw milk drinkers in the last five years, and the lack of a concomitant significant increase in illnesses. Thus, the raw milk illness rate may actually be trending down. Your laser-focus is no doubt a factor in this decrease, as well as the vigilant and improving milk production practices by the farmers who are on the front lines.

Mary Martin and David Gumpert,

Mary, you raise a reasonable and thought provoking question. ”If 70% of the population drank raw milk, what do you think the illness rate would be?”

David replies: “Interesting question, but so hypothetical I wouldn't even attempt an answer. It's certainly not a situation I would recommend (70% of the population drinking raw milk).”

I have good news for both of you. This experiment, 70% (or more) of a given population drinking raw milk, has already been done. And it has been a long term study… running well over 200 years here in America so it is not even a hypothetical. It is the most comprehensive, real-to-life study that microbiologist could possibly conceive of. The demographic includes all age groups and both sexes, pregnant women, infants (once they are weaned from the breast) and the elderly.

As you may have guessed, David, I speak of our Mennonite communities. The Amish may even be a stronger example.

Almost everyone in our local Mennonite congregation of 200+ people drink raw milk. The mothers drink it every day even when they are pregnant. My mother did and both my grandmothers did too. I know my wife did with all six of her pregnancies. My wife breast-fed all our children, but somewhere in the first 6 months or so they were drinking a little raw cow’s milk too… and when they were weaned at 12 to 15 months, they went straight to raw cow’s milk. Our family is very typical of our people and the practice in our churches is still that way today. The number of dairy farmers among us is becoming less with the years, but 70% at least of our families still get their raw milk from a dad or brother or uncle or even neighbor. Most of the dairies providing this raw milk never test for pathogens because their dairies are not state permitted for selling raw milk to the public.

Our congregation is only 1 of about 1000 that we are connected to across the nation. Everywhere you go the pattern is repeated. I have a sister who lives in Guatemala with her husband and seven children, and sure enough, they buy their milk raw from the dairy farmer/minister of their congregation.

So, back to Mary’s question, what is the illness rate among us? I have never, in my 42 years of life, known of even one problem among our people with a pregnancy or any other illness that was from raw milk.

Is this scientific? No. Could there have been a few illnesses that went unnoticed? Yes. Does this anecdotal evidence prove anything? No. But I do think that it gives us a very solid clue to what the illness rate would actually be if a high percent of a demographic group were to drink raw milk. The illnesses would not be epidemic.

In fact, I would further postulate, from community experience, that the over-all pathogenic illness rates (food borne, water borne, air borne, door-knob borne) could possibly even be far reduced from the norm in general society. The reason is that the tremendous diversity of natural micro-flora in raw milk provides the education, information and stimulus that our immune systems desperately need to actually protect us as God designed.

Just my thoughts ~ Edwin Shank

I drink raw milk in my cereal every morning. The farmers making it, a husband and wife team, have each weekly batch checked in a laboratory. The farmers both happen to be veterinarians. In their literature they explain how they originally bought into the propaganda regarding the danger of raw milk, but their own research countered those arguments. I love the taste, the freshness and yes, the health benefits. I didn't do so well with pasteurized milk. I used to get stomach aches after using it on my cereal.

Well spoken, Edwin Shank!

@Edwin Shank, thank you for that missive!

The problem with statements like "if 70% did this or that," is the unwritten assumptions. I have no doubt that what you write about the Amish and Mennonite communities is true. But how many would choose to live like the Amish or Mennonites?

So if the question is, "What would happen if 70% of Americans lived like the Amish or Mennonites?" I'd wager that quite a few things would be different, including little or no allergies, asthma, autism, heart disease, or cancer -- not to mention vastly fewer traffic deaths.

But if the question is, "What would happen if 70% of Americans drank raw milk from CAFO dairies' bulk milk tanks, and continued to buy industrial processed food from the centre aisles of Mall*Wart?" I suspect you'd get quite a different answer.

The problem is not raw milk. The problem is reductionist thinking, the notion that one can take a problem apart into its constituents and clearly isolate the problem to a single component. The reality is that systems thinking (in the manner of Jay Forrester, Donella Meadows, et. al.) is almost totally absent from the "scientific" community these days.

The Amish and Mennonites aren't healthy because of raw milk. They are healthy because they embrace a healthy system of living -- which happens to include raw milk.

This debate recently hit close to home for my family.

Professionally I have had intimate experiences in the illness outcomes of contaminated raw milk. As already discussed contaminated raw milk is a known source of disease causing pathogens in humans. Raw milk has been implicated in causing severe illness with lasting morbidity. It is not always just a bout of mild diarrhea. The General public is naive to the risk they take with a product like raw milk. E-coli:O157 and invasive Listeria infections cause permanent neurological damage, kidney failure, infant and fetus demise, and death.
When you tell someone who understands the risks of raw milk that you have decided to give it to your family it's similar to saying you decided to let your kids play in an open field during a lighting storm. Most people have an instinctive reaction that that's not a good idea even if they don't know the risk ratio or likelihood of being struck by lighting. They know it only takes once to have a really bad outcome.
The types of pathogens than can be picked up from raw milk and cause diarrhea are easily passed person to person in a group setting. This includes among family members in the same household. This secondary transmission, of the type of pathogens that can be found in contaminated raw milk, is consistently documented among groups or families with good hand hygiene and is not a sign of a dirty environment or poor habits.
Electing to consume raw milk is a leap of faith and some people who do so are looking for a cure for a condition that is discouraging or difficult.
Personally, I have had to make a difficult decision on learning that a friend, which has been looking after my school age child, has recently decided to provide raw milk to her family. My child will no longer be going to her home after school. It is of course my friends choice and I have no bearing on her decision.
I am concerned that the choice of raw milk is increasing and better education needs to be provided to the public about the risks they are taking. When you see actualy documented illness cases linked to raw milk keep in mind your are really looking at the tip of an iceburg. Most ill persons aren't identified unless they severly ill and seek medical intervention.
I lived and worked in a devloping country boardering India and yes it is the culture to boil raw milk before consumption across the board.

Dairy's that test their product can never garantee it free of pathogens.

I take my chances with pasturized dairy products.

I wanted to thank Food safety News for putting this article up. There should be no loss of life due to ignorance.

Awesome awesome awesome and informative book about this subject: The Untold Story of Milk by Dr. Ron Schmid. He's a proponent of raw milk and spends a great deal of time and pages going into the history and politics of raw milk and the quality that is lost in the pasteurization process. He also clarifies that not all raw milk is equal: some is produced poorly (the kind that gets everyone heated over the issue) and some is produced cleanly and safely (the kind with awesome benefits). He incorporates great evidence and scientific backup, and one should have the knowledge of what's presented in this book before one picks a fight over this issue.

The article and most of the comments seem to assume that all raw milk is the same. I have a milk cow and do not pasteurize my milk. No one in my family has ever gotten sick from it. That does NOT mean that I would feel safe stopping in at a local dairy to get a gallon or two. When I milk, I take care to "milk clean." I sterilize my equipment and wash the udder, strain the milk and fast-chill it immediately. In a commercial dairy, the milking process is not as careful because of the assumption that the milk will be pasteurized.
In our family, we only drink our own raw milk, because I know my cow is healthy and my milking routine is clean. I don't trust others to be as careful to milk in a clean way...you don't get bad milk if the cow is healthy. You get bad milk from mishandling. Most pathogens are introduced from the environment after the milk leaves the cow...dirty equipment is the primary problem.

If you truly want to eliminate the risk of foodborne illness, then stop eating and drinkning. Milk (from another species i.e. cow) is not a "superfood" nor is it neccessary as Bulger pointed out. On the other hand, human milk IS a "superfood" and neccessary for proper human development until we are weaned from our mothers. There's a reason so many people are lactose intolerant. It's because we weren't designed to digest milk as an adult.

We shouln't have a government telling us whether or not we can drink raw milk or not. We should examine the information currently available, calculate the risk, and make a decision of what and how to eat or drink.

A lot more people die from smoking EVERY DAY!!!! Are you writing about that. If the government is so concerned about deaths, why are they still selling cigarettes and alcohol.

This is absltely CRAZY!!!!!

OK, if raw milk is so bad, and pasteurized milk is so good, then why do we allow human mothers to provide raw breast milk to their babies?

Why stop there? How about cows out in the pasture with baby calves, why should we allow the baby calves to receive raw cows milk?