Meta-Analysis on the Benefits and Risks of Raw Milk

Ashley Weiler: weileash@gmail.com

Anna Shevchenko: anshevna@gmail.com
Todd Gonda: trgonda@gmail.com
Xaviar Jenerette: xaviar.jenerette1@gmail.com
Date Submitted: 19 April 2016

Executive Summary
Recent trends towards food as medicine revived a century-long debate: the regulation of
unpasteurized (raw) milk. Laws requiring milk to be pasteurized began in the early 20th century, but
today raw milk sale is only legal in 29 states. Current pasteurization processes protect consumers from a
variety of harmful diseases, including tuberculosis, listeria, and E. coli. The push-back comes from
anecdotal accounts that raw milk provides a variety of health benefits, including higher nutritional
content, probiotics, and allergy relief. This sparked clinical studies that offered new insight into potential
health benefits. With evidence presented on both sides, the controversy became this: if raw milk can be
more beneficial, then it opens doors to a potentially profitable market and may help countless people;
however, it could equally lead to the hospitalization or even death of just as many.
To get a better understanding of the risks and benefits, this research proposal compares the
research and rhetoric used by both sides of the debate, not only to find where more research is needed but
to find whether the facts at the heart of this debate hold up under scrutiny. A team with experience in food
service, technical writing and editing, academic research and presentation, and raw milk production and
consumption will lead the project. Their findings will then be condensed into a presentation, which
discusses the tactics used by food scientists to discredit opposing parties and which research results each
side conceals to protect their ideological biases. Additionally, this presentation will offer insight into the
heart of the debates true nature: to what extent do the personal liberties of a few outweigh the safety of
the many?

Table of Contents
Title Page .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Background ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Research Outline ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Presentation Outline ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Personnel ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Budget and Budget Justification................................................................................................................ 8
Works/References Cited ............................................................................................................................. 9

Project Description
Background
Pasteurization heating a liquid to its boiling point to kill bacteria was not always the subject of
controversy. Prior to pasteurization, milk was a source of typhoid fever, scarlet fever, and even
tuberculosis. Initially used to prevent spoilage of wine, pasteurization was soon adapted to milk in order
to destroy dangerous pathogens. The process was so effective that the U.S. Public Health Service drafted
the Model Milk Health Ordinance in 1939, requiring all milk sold across state lines to be pasteurized
(Weisbecker 62). Support for raw milk has grown, however, as more states are lifting the ban. Currently,
raw milk sale is legal, if limited, in 29 states (Marler).
These health ordinances are not baseless, however. Even today, raw milk causes outbreaks of
disease, paralysis, and death (Butler). Yet proponents of raw milk have been fighting against regulations
since they were introduced, citing benefits such as alleviated allergies and a healthier immune system
(Axe). Raw milk consumers also believe regulating milk sale disrupts personal liberties. The implications
of this argument are more impactful than they initially seem; at its core, this research raises the question
of public safety outweighing freedom of choice.

Research Outline
Most rhetorical arguments surrounding the raw milk controversy fall into two categories: whether
raw milk is safe, and whether it is beneficial. When summarizing the issue, opponents of raw milk
legalization point to anecdotes of children becoming ill after drinking raw milk. However, those who
support raw milk often cite their personal experience of it curing various afflictions. The raw milk
controversy then morphs into a lens for analyzing how much freedom one should be granted to pursue
purported health benefits in spite of public safety concerns. The research outlined in this proposal seeks to
delve into the questions of health and benefits stated prior to better understand not only the rhetorical
discourse taking place but also the significance of this debate.
Is Raw Milk Safe?
Raw milks claimed benefits mean little if there is a risk of serious harm. The argument against
legalization of raw milk sale comes from studies that found in raw milk devastating bacteria, such as
campylobacter, E. coli, and salmonella (Claeys et al). One mothers account describes 48 families who
received raw milk from the same farm where a life-threatening outbreak of E. coli infected 19 people 4
of whom were young children hospitalized for kidney failure (Beecher). To prove the link between these
outbreaks and raw milk, detractors often cite the 2008 study that discovered 14% of sampled cows milk
was infected with E. coli, as well as other articles reporting infection rates as high as 26.6% (Raw Milk
Questions and Answers; Jayarao, Donaldson, and Straley 2457). Overall, opponents of raw milk
legalization favor increased bans because producers and consumers of raw milk have proved an
unnecessary outlet for the spread of dangerous diseases.
On the other hand, proponents claim raw milk is perfectly safe for consumption, and question the
validity of research sponsored by detractors like the U.S. Center for Disease Control (Mercola).
Proponents suggest that the data used to calculate risk from pathogens is out of date or incomplete, and
independent research describes the rate of infectious cases as comparatively small, roughly 1 in 6 million
(Fresh, Unprocessed (Raw) Whole Milk: Safety, Health and Economic Issues; Kresser). Although
proponents acknowledge the potential dangers of raw milk consumption, they argue that mass-produced
pasteurized milk on large scale dairy factory farms can be contaminated with dangerous pathogens more
easily than raw milk, and on a larger scale. Milk in large scale farms is all combined into large vats,
meaning one contaminated cow could infect an entire vat and as many as 200,000 consumers from. Raw

milk is higher quality because of more stringent regulation standards, and as a result infections are rare
(Fresh, Unprocessed (Raw) Whole Milk: Safety, Health and Economic Issues). While the data seems to
validate concerns surrounding raw milk, the CDCs findings are not without problems. Proponents of
legalization have brought new research to the forefront of this debate that may challenge Americans
perspectives on food safety; raw milk may be harmful, but perhaps only as a result of modern farming
practices.
Is Raw Milk Beneficial?
Milk contains a variety of nutrients, and studies find that various forms of pasteurization alter
their benefits. Although the range of these nutrients is debatable, research commonly finds calcium,
potassium, protein, and vitamins D, B2, B6, and B12. Raw milk legalization proponents posit that
pasteurization destroys these nutrients or renders the human body unable to use them by changing their
chemistry. A literature review compiled by Claeys
suggests pasteurization affects the content of different
vitamins to varying degrees. However, important
minerals such as calcium and potassium are heat-stable
and suffer no loss (Claeys et al 255). Claeys concludes
that some nutrients are destroyed, and while not as many
as proponents claim, enough to make a difference.
Current research corroborates claims that raw
milk treats asthma, but these claims are not conclusive; a
study examining almost 15,000 children in 5 European
countries found an inverse correlation between asthma
and raw milk consumption (Waser et al 664). Georg Loss
and the GABRIELA study group published a similar
study in 2011, suggesting whey proteins found in raw
milk protect against asthma. However, it also likely that
asthma resistance comes from exposure to a rural
Figure 1: A meta-analysis by Claeys
environment, and studies do not take this into account
suggests pasteurization affects the content of
(Lucey 192).
different vitamins to varying degrees. The loss
Proponents claim that raw milk contains
of vitamin B12 in particular is very high.
probiotic bacteria, but that is not supported by current
However, this graph uses data from several
research findings. While lactobacillus and
different studies, so it may not paint an
bifidobacterium are present in unpasteurized milk, they
accurate picture of milks benefits.
are not found in large enough concentrations to provide
any real benefit. Additionally, bifidobacterium comes primarily from cow feces, and is often used as an
indicator of contamination (Claeys et al 256).
In quite a few studies, unpasteurized milk has proven to have more health benefits than its
pasteurized form, but the benefits extent is not what its proponents claim. There are many theories, like
raw milk treating asthma and lactose intolerance, that require deeper, more conclusive research. Many
other claims have no support and do not outweigh the risks.
Rhetorical Discourse
Because both sides have merit and scientific evidence to support their beliefs, the raw milk debate
is ultimately about whether public safety outweighs personal choice. Proponents of raw milk legalization
believe in freedom of choice and argue that food choice is too personal to be regulated, while opponents
worry raw milk consumers will spread infections to others, especially children, who cannot make their
own dietary decisions. Each side has the evidence to support their views, but many of those studies
contain manipulated data, such as in Figure 1 above; a fact each sides antagonists are quick to point out.

Both sides of the controversy cite studies with faulty research methods. Opponents studies, such
as Claeys analysis, are poorly designed and skew data to match their needs, as Figure 1 shows. On the
other hand, proponents of legalizations studies are often underfunded or manipulated by larger
organizations. In one case, we found that the Weston A. Price organization funded a study and reported its
pro-raw milk findings as though it garnered results despite not paying for it to complete. Despite its
glaring problems, numerous sources cite that study and continue to mislead the public into believing its
conclusions. Other proponents studies are purely anecdotal, with little evidence to support their claims.
As surmised by MacDonald, "Overall, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the poor
quality of reported methodology in many of the included studies (1814). It is clear that unbiased
researchers must fill in these gaps in the research, or the raw milk debate will never reach an acceptable
conclusion: either banning this perilous substance or allowing it to improve the lives of many.

Presentation Outline
In order to inform our audience of the specifics of the raw milk controversy, we will present its
two main areas of inquiry: the safety and benefits of raw milk, as well as the quality of raw milk research.
We will highlight the controversial nature of the debate and document the way arguments are built in the
food science and public health fields.
Time

Segment

Topics

0:00- 10:00

Introduction

Opening statement: We have here today a highly regulated, and in

some cases illegal, substance
Introduction to regulation history
Pasteurization and outbreak reduction efforts

10:00- 20:00

The Safety
Debate

Why the regulations?

The health risks of unpasteurized milk; tuberculosis, E. coli,
salmonella, etc. Explains the reduction in outbreaks following
pasteurization regulations.
Counterargument: probability of infection from raw milk is 1 in 6
million, lower than fish or poultry. Milk has a quality problem, not a
pasteurization problem.

20:00-35:00

The Benefits
Debate

Why do people want to drink it?

Purported health benefits: increased resistance to allergens and
pathogens, more complete nutritional content, etc.
Raising the question of ethical practices versus freedom of choice
Anti-raw milk argument: the difference in benefits from raw milk and
pasteurized milk may be insufficient to justify the risk.

35:00-45:00

Rhetorical
Discourse

How the sides treat each other: discrediting research and scare tactics.
What they ignore: studies are mentioned that do not truly support the
argument, or discredited as if the findings are not conclusive.

45:00-60:00

Research
Moving
Forward

What facts need to be further developed?

Other alternatives
Call to consider: what do these gaps say about the quality of food
science research?
Table 1: Presentation Outline

Personnel
Todd Gonda has a background in copy editing for a newspaper, which often entails revising others
writing for mechanics and style issues, as well as ensuring that articles conform to writing guidelines.
Because of this experience and his desire to become a technical writer, which requires a great amount of
writing competency, he is uniquely qualified to assist with the editing, writing, and formatting portions of
this presentation.
Ashley Weiler is a student working on her Bachelor of Arts in English at George Mason, focusing on
rhetoric and the impact of language on the understanding of controversial topics and fiction. Shes worked
in food service as a barista for almost three years with a certification in food safety, giving her perspective
on how retail availability of food affects the general public. Food science and politics as well as the
function and purpose of government regulations are personal interests and through this research she hopes
to prepare herself for similar work.
Anna Shevchenko is a student at George Mason University, who has purchased and consumed raw milk
herself, and originates from a country where the sale of raw milk is legal. Due to this experience, she is
able to provide a unique view on the issue, and has a personal interest in the study of the controversy.
Finally, due to her experience as a research assistant, she has the skills and tools that can be of great aid to
the research.
Xaviar Jenerette has six years of research experience to offer to this project. Operating with a range of
topics culminating into several presentations, this will prove to be useful moving forward with this
proposal. Additionally, several of those projects brought him into contact with scholars and experts within
their respective fields and even once finalized into a documentary interviewing several experts in
astronomy. This experience will be invaluable as we move forward to discuss this with experts of
nutrition and biology.

Budget and Budget Justification

We request a total of $920.00 for two purposes: to finance the study outlined above, and to
present the research during the Public Debates in Science and Technology Symposium. Additional team
members, database subscriptions, and original interviews are required to broaden our available
information on raw milk, and credulously interpret and present our conclusions. Furthermore, the
supplemental materials will attract and interest an audience, visualize our findings, and leave a greater
impact on attendees.

Item

Description

Purpose/Justification

Approximate
Cost

Title Banner

A banner with the topic

title for the symposium

The banner will attract audience members

and interest them in the topic.

$20.00

Pamphlets

200 pamphlets with

basic information on
the topic

Handouts will help illustrate the issue and

provide the audience with a supplement to
take home.

$160.00

Raw and
pasteurized
milk samples

A sample of raw and

pasteurized milk,
gallon each; two (2)
clear glass containers

Presenting a sample to the audience will

show a visceral difference in the makeup of
pasteurized milk.

$40.00

One (1) biochemist

One (1) nutritionist

Two additional team members are required

to interpret the biochemical research on milk
$200.00
pasteurization and the effects of raw milk on
the human body.

Travel and
Lodging

Car rental, gas, plane

tickets, hotel rooms.

A trip to Pennsylvania is required to study

the conditions on raw milk farms and
interview farmers and consumers firsthand
to gain further insights into the perspective
of raw milk supporters.

Dairy Farm
Tour

A visit to a dairy farm in Virginia to gather

6 dairy farm tour tickets additional information on the treatment of
cows.

Research
Database
Access

A subscription to an
academic database of
articles and journals

Two
additional
personnel
members

$400.00

$50.00

Certain articles on the topic are not available

via the Universitys subscriptions, therefore
$50.00
additional subscriptions are necessary to
view all the data.

Total

$920.00
Table 2: Detailed Budget

Works/References Cited
"About Us - Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund." FarmtoConsumer.org. Farm-to-Consumer Legal
Defense Fund, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.
"About Us - Raw Milk for All - A Campaign for Real Milk." A Campaign for Real Milk. Weston A.
Price Foundation, 01 Jan. 2000. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.
Axe, Josh. Raw Milk Heals Skin, Allergies and Immunity. Dr. Axe. Web. 20 April 2016.
Beecher, Cookson. "A Mom and Dairyman Plea: Don't Feed Children Raw Milk."
Food Safety News. 18 February 2014: Web. 24 March 2016.
Butler, Kiera. "Is Raw Milk Really Good For You?" Mother Jones. September/October 2012: n.p.Web. 4
April 2016.
Claeys, Wendie, et al. "Raw or Heated Cow Milk Consumption: Review of Risks and Benefits." Food
Control 31.1 (2013): 251-62. Web. 29 Mar. 2016. The Daily Athenaeum. 24 March 2016.
"Fresh, Unprocessed (Raw) Whole Milk: Safety, Health and Economic Issues." A Campaign for Real
Milk. Weston A. Price Foundation, 19 Nov. 2009. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
Jayarao, B M, et al. "A Survey of Foodborne Pathogens in Bulk Tank Milk and Raw Milk
Consumption Among Families in Pennsylvania." Journal of Dairy Science 89.7 (2006): 2451-58.
Web 24 March 2016.
Kresser, Chris. "Raw Milk Reality: Benefits of Raw Milk." Chris Kresser. N.p., 18 May 2012. Web. 24
Mar. 2016.
Lucey, John A. "Raw Milk Consumption: Risks and Benefits." Nutrition Today 50.4 (2015): 189-93.
Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
MacDonald, LE, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of pasteurization on milk
vitamins, and evidence for raw milk consumption and other health-related outcomes. Journal of
Food Protection, 74.11 (2011): 1814-32. Web. 29 March 2016.
Marler, Clark. "Raw Milk State Laws and Regulations - Real Raw Milk Facts." Real Raw Milk Facts.
Clark Marler. N.d. Web. 04 April 2016.
Mercola, Joseph. The Real Reasons Why Raw Milk is Becoming More Popular. Mercola.com, Natural
Health, 24 April 2004. Web. 24 Mar. 2016.
Mungai, Elisabeth, Vasey Behravesh and Hannah Gould. "Increased Outbreaks Associated with
Non-Pasteurized Milk, United States, 2007-2012." Emerging Infectious Diseases. 21.1 (2015).
Web. 04 April 2016.
Raw Milk Questions and Answers. CDC. Center for Disease Control . 20 February 2015. Web. 7 April
2016.
"Salmonella Typhimurium Infection Associated with Raw Milk and Cheese Consumption --Pennsylvania, 2007." CDC. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 7 Nov. 2007. Web. 29
Mar. 2016.
Waser, M, et al. "Inverse Association of Farm Milk Consumption with Asthma and Allergy in Rural and
Suburban Populations across Europe." Clinical & Experimental Allergy. 37.5 (2007): 661-70.
Web. 7 April 2016.
Weisbecker, Andy. "A Legal History of Raw Milk in the United States." Journal of Environmental
Health 69.8 (2007): 62-63. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.