Public health officials, including the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), vehemently oppose the consumption of raw milk, citing substantial risks. They warn that unpasteurized milk can harbor dangerous pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, and Campylobacter, which can lead to severe foodborne illnesses, particularly in vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, pregnant women, and those with weakened immune systems. Data from 1998 to 2018 shows over 200 outbreaks linked to raw milk, resulting in thousands of illnesses and hundreds of hospitalizations.

The debate has intensified recently with the emergence of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), or bird flu, in U.S. dairy cattle. While pasteurization effectively inactivates the virus, concerns persist about the potential for H5N1 traces in raw milk. Despite no confirmed human cases linked to raw milk consumption, health agencies are urging strict adherence to pasteurized products to mitigate any evolving risks, underscoring the scientific community’s cautious approach to food safety.

Proponents of raw milk, often aligning with a broader skepticism of government regulation, argue that pasteurization diminishes milk’s nutritional value and destroys beneficial enzymes or bacteria. They claim raw milk offers health advantages not found in pasteurized versions, such as aiding allergies or boosting the immune system. However, scientific consensus, including studies from institutions like the University of Wisconsin-Madison, maintains that pasteurization does not significantly reduce milk’s nutritional value and that purported benefits of raw milk lack robust scientific backing.