Let’s Update Raw Milk Laws to Align with Modern Agricultural Progress
Summary of My November 18, 2008 Position Paper Presented at Press Conference, Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Introduction
Approximately 100 years ago, pasteurization was introduced to combat diseases such as tuberculosis, infant diarrhea, and other ailments caused by poor animal nutrition and unsanitary production methods. However, advancements in science and technology, including refrigerated transport, stainless steel tanks, modern milking machines, and rigorous inspection methods, have revolutionized dairy farming. These innovations make it possible to produce local, safe, and clean raw milk. In Ontario, consumers are calling for a revision of the laws banning raw milk sales to reflect these 21st-century advancements.
Historical Context
Even before mandatory pasteurization laws, public health officials recognized significant differences in the hygiene and quality of milk produced by grass-fed versus stall-fed cows. A statement published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1928 highlighted:
“Milk varies with the season and with the feeding of the cow…the public deserves to have the information that there is a great difference between the milk derived from pasture-fed cattle and that obtained in winter from stall-fed animals, unless particular attention is paid to their diet, and that dirty milk is a menace rather than a blessing.”
In 1938, the Milk Act banned the sale of raw milk in Ontario. This decision was predicated on the assumption that all raw milk was inherently unsafe, failing to consider that milk from healthy, grass-fed cows, raised under proper conditions, is naturally low in bacterial counts and poses minimal health risks. In contrast, milk from cows raised in industrial, indoor environments has significantly higher bacterial counts, necessitating pasteurization. This blanket approach ignored the inherent safety of clean, properly monitored raw milk.
The Case for Clean Raw Milk
When produced under optimal conditions, raw milk contains about 1 to 3,000 bacteria per milliliter. In contrast, milk from conventional large-scale dairy operations is permitted to have up to 50,000 bacteria per milliliter, and creameries can have counts as high as 200,000 per milliliter. While pasteurization can reduce bacterial counts, it is not foolproof against certain pathogens. Consequently, prioritizing cleanliness in milk production is far more effective than relying on pasteurization as a “band-aid” solution for dirty milk.
“The opposite of dirty milk is not pasteurized milk. The opposite of dirty milk is clean milk.” William Campbell Douglass II, MD
The argument that raw milk is inherently dangerous ignores the fact that nature has long provided cows and humans with the ability to produce food that sustains life. By this logic, human breast milk should also undergo pasteurization. Public health officials often attribute foodborne illness outbreaks to raw milk while neglecting to address outbreaks caused by pasteurized dairy products. For instance, between 1980 and 2005, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that pasteurized milk and milk products were responsible for 19,531 illnesses—10.7 times greater than illnesses attributed to raw milk during the same period.
Pathogens and Milk Safety
It is essential to address common pathogens that can survive pasteurization, including Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, and E. coli. A report from the U.S. Public Health Service covering 1922-1944 documented 37,965 cases of milk-related illnesses, most of which were linked to pasteurized milk. For example:
· In 1944, of 1,449 milk-related cases, 1,019 were attributed to pasteurized milk, compared to 430 linked to raw milk. Of the 20 deaths recorded, only one was associated with raw milk.
· In 1945, 1,942 milk-related cases were reported, with 1,492 linked to pasteurized milk and 450 to raw milk.
These numbers challenge the narrative that pasteurization is a failsafe method for ensuring milk safety.
The Swill Milk Scandal
The origins of milk contamination can be traced to the 1820s and 1830s when distillery and brewery owners began selling grain mash ("distillery slop") as cattle feed. This practice led to the production of "swill milk" from cows confined to unsanitary conditions and fed an unnatural diet. Swill milk was often adulterated with substances like starch, chalk, and molasses to mask its poor quality. These practices caused widespread public health issues and contributed to the demand for pasteurization.
Scathing reports in the New York Times from the late 19th and early 20th centuries exposed the dangers of swill milk. Despite the introduction of pasteurization, the root problem of unsanitary milk production remained unaddressed.
Raw Milk as Medicine
In the early 20th century, raw milk was widely regarded as a healthful food and even used as a medical treatment:
· Dr. J.R. Crewe’s “Milk Cure” at the Mayo Clinic successfully treated conditions such as tuberculosis, cancer, and chronic fatigue.
· Dr. George Goler, Director of the Board of Health in Rochester, New York, switched from pasteurized to raw milk to reduce infant mortality, with significant success.
· St. Vincent’s Hospital in Manhattan reduced infant gastroenteritis deaths by 94% after switching to raw milk.
· The Hartford Hospital in Connecticut used certified raw milk for infants and expectant mothers.
Infant Mortality and Misattributions
While pasteurization contributed to lower infant mortality rates, it was not the sole factor. Economic growth, improved nutrition, sanitation measures (e.g., flush toilets, chlorinated water), and advances in infant care also played critical roles. The decline in mortality was a multifactorial achievement, not solely attributable to pasteurization.
A Path Forward
Raw milk consumers represent a niche but growing market of individuals seeking the freedom to choose unprocessed, clean milk from local family farms. Modern advancements in dairy farming and stringent hygienic practices make this choice both feasible and safe. Revising the 1938 Milk Act to permit raw milk sales would allow for proper monitoring and regulation, ensuring consumer safety without denying choice.
Conclusion
Advocates for raw milk are not calling for the elimination of pasteurized milk but for the recognition of advancements in science and technology that make raw milk a safe and viable option. By working together, government officials, farmers, and consumers can establish a framework that allows for the legal sale of raw milk while maintaining public health standards. After all, in North America, we already purchase raw meat, eggs, and fish with the responsibility to prepare them safely at home. The same principle should apply to raw milk—a product steeped in tradition and rich in health benefits.
Additional Information
E24 Circadian Reboot with Pam Killeen — Mark McAfee Explores the Health Benefits and History of Raw Milk
The Benefits of Farm-Fresh Raw Milk by Pam Killeen
Pam Killeen Resources
Websites -- www.pamkilleen.com and www.truthoverspin.com
Facebook -- https://www.facebook.com/pam.killeen.9/
Instagram -- https://www.instagram.com/circadianpam
Spotify — Circadian Reboot or Truth Over Spin
YouTube -- http://www.youtube.com/pamkilleen
Rumble -- https://rumble.com/c/c-6784666
LinkedIn -- https://www.linkedin.com/in/pam-killeen-bab652218/
Substack -- pamkilleen.substack.com
For those who want more in-depth health guidance, please contact me about 1-1 consultations. In addition, I invite you to join my paid membership community, The Sleep Better Forum. Together, we’ll explore the science behind circadian principles, and learn how to optimize sleep for lasting health. You can find more information either here or on my website at www.pamkilleen.com.