Here's the untold story of raw milk. Raw or pasteurized? It should be your choice.

written by

Marie Reedell

posted on

May 20, 2022

A Brief History of Raw Milk

Raw milk has been a highly contested issue in modern history.

Is it a healthy nutrient-dense “cure-all” for nourishing your body, or is it a dangerous vector for spreading life-threatening disease? The two camps are split. It is a complicated issue with mixed battles of bad science vs. personal testimony, morals vs. politics, education vs. advertising, and big agri-business vs. small farms.

For thousands of years, nutrient-dense fresh raw milk has been a staple food for many cultures worldwide. This has never been a problem until recent history.

During the Industrial Revolution in the early 1800s, whisky and milk were the two most popular beverages. A cutthroat entrepreneur came up with the unbelievable and revolutionary idea to confine cows in a factory-like setting and force feed them the hot swill byproduct from making whiskey.

Produced in these unclean and unnatural conditions, this blue-tinted “swill milk” made many people sick and led to many deaths. This was a true public health issue, resulting in many infant deaths and a rise in life threatening illness.

This historical pinpoint is the origin of raw milk getting its bad reputation.

Policy makers and businesses had two options: (1) Higher quality farming practices in city or rural dairies; or (2) Pushing infected products from unhealthy animals.

Can you guess which choice big business made?

The swill milk industry chose to mask the symptoms of swill milk by using additives like plaster, chalk, sugar, eggs, starch, flour, and pigments. These “bad” distillery dairys gave “good” small clean dairys a bad name.

Eventually this truly horrid milk was busted for harboring deadly diseases. Pasteurization was presented as a cheap solution.

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was a scientist who promoted pasteurization as a way to make milk safe for consumption. Philanthropist Nathan Strauss (1848-1931), co-owner of Macy’s, jumped on the pasteurization bandwagon and created milk factories that sterilized diseased milk. He, along with other big dairy owners, used his wealth to influence government agencies and advertise pasteurized milk to the public, including scary fake news articles in popular magazines.

Of course, there’s always the flip side: Better standards for clean raw milk production.

The Certified Milk Movement was led by Dr. Henry Coit (1854-1917). Dr. Coit believed in milk as a necessary healthy food. He influenced and created the Medical Milk Commission and its standards to ensure production of clean, healthy raw milk from small farms.

However, this milk cost 4x more than the unclean kind. Given the advertising efforts of the pasteurized milk businesses, can you guess which milk the public latched onto? Yup, pasteurized milk.

And the story goes on in a similar manner throughout the 1900s, with the two sides being divided and working against each other.

Big agri-business advertises and lobbies for pasteurized milk (Got Milk?), which can be produced more cheaply. Small farms and families fight for their right to choose what foods are healthy to consume.

Raw Milk Laws Today

The biggest game changer for raw milk access happened in 1987. Ronald Reagan promoted the ban on interstate commerce of raw milk to the FDA, and it became law.

Goodbye, free market. This devastated (and continues to devastate) small farmers and the families that choose to consume raw milk.

The 35-year-old ban means that, even though a farm like ours can be legally certified by the State of Pennsylvania for raw milk production for humans, we can sell that milk in Pennsylvania only.

Raw milk for human consumption cannot be sold across state lines. Raw milk laws change state by state. You can view a real milk legal map here.

For example, New Jersey’s laws do not allow raw dairy for humans at all. We cannot legally deliver raw milk for human consumption to NJ. However, a person from NJ can drive to PA, buy or pick up milk, and then drive back to their home and consume it. That’s perfectly legal.

Additionally, no US government recognizes fresh raw dairy products (cream, butter, yogurt, kefir, etc) as fit for human consumption in any capacity.

No US farm is permitted to sell these foods for human consumption (with some “gray area” exception for herd shares in some states).

And I mean, it’s kind of ridiculous. If a state allows raw milk for humans. Why not cream? It’s the same thing!

With the proper certifications and paperwork, raw dairy for pets is legal, even across state lines.

Miller’s Bio Farm believes in raw. That’s why we offer a huge selection of raw A2/A2 dairy for cats & dogs. Even if we can only sell it and support the health of your furry family members, we’ll do it. We believe that it’s a step, albeit small, in the right direction.

It's important to note that raw cheese aged at least 60 days and under the right conditions is also legal across state lines.

This law is based on scientific evidence showing that aging cheese for 60 days under proper conditions produces chemical activity in the cheese that kills harmful bacteria.

Side Note: The cottage laws in Pennsylvania allow someone to get certified to prepare food in their home kitchen (beef jerky, cookies, jams, salsa, etc) and legally sell it across state lines. It makes me think: Is certified raw milk potentially more dangerous than this?

The Future of Raw Milk

Miller’s Bio Farm will continue to advocate for high quality, low risk raw dairy for humans. Here are 4 reasons why.

1. There are many proven health benefits.

2. The food landscape has changed. With the rise of eCommerce and delivery services, our food world is expanding. State by state laws don’t make as much sense anymore.

3. Modern technology allows us to produce an ultra low risk raw product. We have meticulous safety standards and test every batch of milk on site. You can learn more about our milk safety standards and view our test results here. We’re meeting the requirements for pasteurized dairy plus some. We follow these standards for both human and pet dairy products.

4. People who want raw dairy will get it no matter what. If raw milk is not legalized, then the government is ultimately supporting black market milk (just like marijuana, folks). Now, that’s really not good and could be potentially dangerous.

Even if we cannot provide raw dairy products for everyone everywhere now, we have hope for a better food future. A future filled with honesty, transparency, safety, and choice.

Yes, the two camps are split. But, perhaps both are in the right, depending on the situation.

It is undoubtedly true that unpasteurized milk produced in unclean conditions can be very dangerous. However, it is also true that clean raw milk can be a completely safe and nutritious food choice, especially with modern refrigeration, transportation, and testing technology.

I would hope there is a way for both points of view to co-exist, to agree to disagree, and create policies that allow for basic human choice to consume what they view as healthy.

Let’s put a little more perspective on it, too. Is food and raw dairy really that dangerous?

The CDC estimates that there are about 3,000 deaths from food-borne illnesses every year. About 46% percent come from produce (mostly leafy greens), 22% from meat or poultry, and 14% from dairy.

From 1993-2006, there have been 3 deaths attributed to raw dairy. That's 0.23 deaths per year, which means raw dairy accounts for 0.008% of all deaths attributed to food-borne illnesses.

There are 35,000+ deaths from automobile accidents every year. You tell me. What should be our biggest concern?

What do you think? Would you change the raw milk laws? How? Has modern eCommerce, food delivery services, and safety technologies changed the food world, and should the laws change too? Why is raw milk still so vilified?

I’d love to hear from you. Comment below (no account required) or contact us .

If you are interested in learning more about raw milk history and laws, I recommend the very informative videos created by Nourishing Liberty or perusing the realmilk.com website.

PS: Miller’s Bio Farm believes in raw. But, more than that, we believe in choice. That’s why we are working to launch a line of lightly pasteurized and minimally processed A2/A2 dairy starting now, with more in the coming months.

Raw Dairy

Opinion

Health and Nutrition

Farming Practices

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