🎉 NEW soft, tangy, delicious corn & soy free goat chevre! BUY CHEVRE.

A fresh perspective on the raw milk movement

written by

Marie Reedell

posted on

February 14, 2020

Last week farmer Aaron attended the Pennsylvania Association of Sustainable Agriculture (PASA) Sustainable Agriculture Conference in Lancaster County. It’s a place where farmers, food system professionals, educators, advocates, homesteaders, and more gather yearly to learn about food and farming topics.

A highlight of the conference was hearing Mark McAfee, founder of the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) and Organic Pastures in California, speak about the safety and quality of raw milk. It was a boost of confidence for Aaron, confirming that he’s holding his farm to the highest possible standards. 

Another thing gained from the conference was a refresher on the benefits of raw grass-fed milk. You see, RAWMI has been collecting testimonials and science-based research that backs what has been generally known for thousands of years - raw milk is good for you!

Listen, this is a huge topic. I’m going to focus on three of the many important topics discussed at the conference.

Raw milk reduces the risk of asthma and allergies in kids. 


This is pretty big news to some of the most pressing problems in today’s American kids. And yes, there’s science-based research to back it up

A study of over 8,000 European children showed that raw milk consumption is associated with significantly lower rates of asthma and allergies. And, in fact, consumption of pasteurized milk increases the likelihood of milk allergies, which is a huge problem in America today.

A study of over 900 European children concluded that, "Continuous farm [raw] milk consumption in childhood protects against asthma at school age.”

A study of over 4,000 European children found that consumption of raw milk was associated with a strong protective effect against eczema.

Raw milk is not dangerous.


It is true that milk produced as “intended for pasteurization” and produced by confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) is generally unsanitary and not safe for raw consumption. 

CAFOs’ animals are not raised in nice conditions. They rely on antibiotics for health and hormones for adequate milk production. And, there’s lots of manure everywhere and all the time. This is a recipe for a dangerous disaster if the milk is consumed raw.

However, raw milk that is intentionally produced for human consumption is a completely different story. It’s a low-risk food with incredible health benefits.

This type of milk is usually farmed with great care and attention to the animals’ health and well-being. 

Doctors and healthcare professionals routinely warn patients that raw milk is unsafe to consume, but there is ample evidence that this conclusion is not applicable to carefully-produced raw milk. 

And I mean, come on, it’s probably more dangerous to eat lettuce from a supermarket than to consume properly produced raw milk.

Easy access to modern testing of raw milk makes it inarguably safe.


Although Miller’s is pretty darn old fashioned, it does use modern technology in a few really smart ways to produce the highest quality dairy possible. In addition to the off-site pathogen testing required by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Miller’s also has a small on-site testing lab. 

The farmer tests every batch of milk for Coliform and SPC/APC. These tests are for general bacteria count and help the farmer quickly diagnose and fix any cleanliness issues in the milk production lines. You can check out his test results here.

This is how the farmer realized that, despite cleaning udders and teats with iodine, his method wasn’t enough. There was still manure in the milk. He needed to clean more thoroughly. Now, the farmer can confidently say he produces manure-free milk that doesn’t taste like a barn and lasts two weeks without souring!

The farmer hopes to join RAWMI one day. 


He’s already following its standards. It’s simply time and money that’s holding him back right now. But, he’d love to have that certification as extra proof of what he’s producing.

Any questions about our milk? Shout it out!

Raw Dairy

Opinion

More from the blog

Raw milk or fermented dairy and lactose intolerance. Why might it help?

I was misinformed. At some point, I read that raw milk contains lactase. As it turns out, this is not true! It is true that raw milk contains many live enzymes that are inactivated during pasteurization. But, what about lactase? I’ve heard many anecdotal stories from people who are lactose intolerant... but can handle raw milk or fermented dairy. If raw milk, yogurt, kefir, or cheese doesn’t contain lactase, then why is that?

Our bone broth tested negative-ish for heavy metals 🥳 NATURAL AND CLEAN

Over the past few months a bunch of people asked us if we tested our bone broth for toxic heavy metals. When we get the same question a lot, we of course look into it. My first question was --- Is there an issue with toxic metals in bone broth? As it turns out, yes, there "can" be an issue! Heavy metals are naturally present in our environment. We need the "good" heavy metals to thrive: iron, zinc, magnesium, copper, etc. But, we can 100% do without the toxic heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, etc. Too many toxic heavy metals can lead to a host of pretty awful issues: nervous system damage, cardiovascular issues, cancer, endocrine disruption, kidney damage, and so on. Our body is designed to excrete heavy metals through urine (and a little bit through sweat, hair, and breastmilk too)... but only so much. There's a limit. If you're overloaded, your body will store those heavy metals in your bones, blood, tissues, and organs. Similarly, if an animal is exposed to heavy metals via food, water, air, dust, or soil, those heavy metals accumulate in the bones. Maybe the farm's soil or air is contaminated from a nearby factory. Maybe the pipes for the water has lead solder connecting them. Maybe the feed a farm is buying was grown on contaminated soil or processed on contaminated equipment.  And, of course, a main purpose of bone broth is drawing out as much as possible from the bones. If there are heavy metals in bones, they will make their way into the broth. This is especially true when you pre-soak with apple cider vinegar and simmer for 48 hours to make it thick and gelatinous (like our broth). And that led me to my second question --- Should I be concerned about every bone broth? Where is the fear coming from? Well... it seems it might be a little political. There was a study done in the UK in 2013 that scared a lot of people. It's titled "The Risk of Lead Contamination in Bone Broth Diets". This study found high levels of lead in organic chicken bone broth, which is quite concerning. And, in fact, this one study is still cited in articles written today! Let's dig a little deeper. Let's go farther than the short abstract. Here are the broths tested in the study and their test results for lead:  (9.5 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus skin and cartilage(7.01 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus bones(2.3 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus meat(0.89 parts per billion): Tap water alone cooked for the same amount of time as a control. But, they only used organic chicken from one farm. And, there's zero information about that farm, their practices, the feed, and the broth recipe. Did they use vinegar or wine in the broth? Was the chicken's water contaminated with lead? What was the quality of the feed and the soil? Were the chickens raised indoors or outdoors? So many unanswered questions! All we get is that it was one "organic chicken" that created a lead issue with broth. Another curious thing is that the broth with skin and cartilage contained more lead than the broth made with just bones. Bones are where lead is stored, so why wouldn't the broth made with bones only contain more lead? It's an odd result. Moreover, the abstract of the study specifically called out "bone broth diets" like GAPS and paleo. They even go so far as to write, "In view of the dangers of lead consumption to the human body, we recommend that doctors and nutritionists take the risk of lead contamination into consideration when advising patients about bone broth diets." That's quite curious. Why are they worried about these diets? Are the researchers anti healing through food? Who funded the research? Is it political? My opinion? This study is not comprehensive. It does not speak to all bone broths. But it does cover a potential issue if the water or animals are overloaded with heavy metals. What I glean from this study is that we need more research. We don't need fear to spread and people to stop drinking broth from this one study. Regardless of whether the fear was fabricated or legit, we tested our bone broth anyway. After all, it's always nice to validate that your food choices are as clean as you think. For Miller's, here were my concerns before testing: What if there's mercury in the fishmeal in our chicken feed?What if the soil that our animals live on is contaminated?What is the well water that the broth is made with is contaminated?What if the Celtic sea salt has lots of heavy metals? We got the test results back. I was super excited. But, I was also confused. At face value, it appeared that our bone broth tested NEGATIVE for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. You can find the test results right here! You'll notice that, for every sample, the results are "<0.01 mg/kg" and "<0.02 mg/kg".  I asked the lab what the "<" means. They said that it indicates their limit of quantitation (LOQ), the lowest concentration that can be accurately tested using the test procedure in that sample type. So the results simply report that none of the metals tested were found in the sample above the specific reporting LOQs. Whether or not they were present below this LOQ is information that is not provided by the test. When talking to the lab, I told them what we needed and assumed that this test would go below a 1 ppb. So, when the results came in, I assumed that a "mg/kg" was the same as a part per billion (ppb). Ummm... that math wasn't write! A "mg/kg" is actually a part per million (ppm). That means that the test we ran had results saying that the broth had less than 0.02 ppm (or 20 ppb) of arsenic and lead. And, it had less than 0.01 ppm (or 10 ppb) of cadmium and mercury. For some reference, the EPA says that less than 15 ppb of lead is safe in drinking water. Not saying that I agree, but it's a good reference point.  These results are good. It means the broth definitely isn't overloaded with toxic heavy metals. But, it's not good enough!!! We need to test again! We really need to a lower LOQ. We need to know the results with an accuracy of as low as 1 ppb. It looks like the lab we sent the original samples to doesn't have an LOQ that low. So here I am on the hunt for a lab to do it again. As soon as I can, I'll send samples in again and paying for more expensive testing to get the info you deserve. Stay tuned! I hope to have the new results in by the end of April 2025. Do you worry about toxic metals (or other junk) in your food? Where have your fears stemmed from? I'd love to hear from you. You can comment below (no account required) or contact us 😊 ----- Sources The risk of lead contamination in bone broth dietsBone Broth and Lead Toxicity: Should You Be Concerned?Bone Broth and Lead Contamination: A Very Flawed Study in Medical HypothesesBone Broth, Collagen, and Toxic Metals: A Research Review