The Raw Milk Hype, a Mom’s Lawsuit, and, Of Course, Florida

A woman in central Florida is suing a dairy after consuming the farm’s milk claiming it made her sick and, ultimately, caused her to miscarry.

That statement is one of the worst-case scenarios that could possibly happen to a farmer. We take pride in what we grow and produce, and the idea that someone would be harmed by our farm products is an absolute nightmare.

But the devil is always in the details. In this case, the woman purchased raw, unpasteurized milk from an organic market. The container wasn’t subtle: labeled in prominent print, “Not for Human Consumption” (as is legally required in the state of Florida). When she asked about the warning, she claims she was told it was merely a “technical requirement to sell ‘farm milk.’ ” Purportedly believing the product was harmless, she gave it to her toddler, who then fell violently ill.

According to the lawsuit, the toddler was hospitalized three times in just over a week — treated for severe gastroenteritis, tested positive for both E. coli and Campylobacter, underwent surgery for a bowel blockage, and was evaluated for hemolytic uremic syndrome. By the second week, the mother herself fell ill. Racked with sepsis, she was rushed into emergency care. Tragically, her 20-week-old fetus did not survive.

There’s no joy in recounting such an awful loss, and I would never minimize this woman — and her family’s — suffering. But there’s plenty of blame to go around. The woman purchased and allowed her toddler to consume raw milk that clearly stated it wasn’t for human consumption, then had the audacity to sue Natures Natural Foods LLC, which was the market that sold her the product, and the farm for her suffering. The market sold the raw milk and told its customers, supposedly saying that the label was nothing more than a technicality. The farm allowed the market to sell its raw milk alongside other human food.

But I daresay the parties were all victims of the raw milk fad popular among crunchy and MAHA folks. That crowd has elevated raw milk as a magical elixir with the power to improve health and combat ailments. It also demonizes pasteurization and downplays its importance in public health. If those voices were quiet, then it’s possible none of this would have happened.

The raw milk fallacy

Despite everything we know about the dangers of raw milk, some people can’t resist its appeal. In fact, you’ll often hear claims that raw milk is healthier, more natural, or full of enzymes that pasteurization allegedly destroys. You’ll recognize these claims as the same anti-science drivel we hear from wellness influences about a lot of proven public health measures.

Let’s be clear: There are no scientifically proven health benefits to drinking raw milk. None. The only vitamin that is ever significantly affected by heat (like what is done via pasteurization) is vitamin C, but milk is an insignificant source for vitamin C.

The Food and Drug Administration has concluded that “there is no meaningful difference in nutrition between pasteurized and raw milk.” The biggest difference is that raw milk does have a much higher chance of carrying pathogens that can land you or your child in the ER.

The hospitalization rate for patients in outbreaks linked to raw milk has been found to be 13 times higher than the rate for people in outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is partly due to the fact that the outbreaks due to raw milk were caused by bacterial infections, which are typically much more severe than the mild viral infections that were common causes of the outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk.

And guess who is one of the biggest advocates of raw milk? That’s right, our Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Along with his Make America Healthy Again acolytes, Kennedy has championed raw milk (though he’s angered his fans by failing, as of yet, to change any actual policy).

The irony is obvious: Kennedy and MAHA reject a simple, safe practice in favor of a known and certain risk — and then call it healthy!

Why we pasteurize

Pasteurization is the standard for milk, but it’s not because farmers or food processors want to ruin anyone’s “natural” lifestyle. It’s because pasteurization saved lives.

Before pasteurization, raw milk was one of the leading sources of foodborne illness. It carried tuberculosis, brucellosis, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and a whole parade of bacteria we don’t want near our families. When French scientist Louis Pasteur discovered that heating liquid to a specific temperature for a short period could kill harmful microbes — without changing its basic qualities — he revolutionized food safety.

The CDC has tracked dozens of outbreaks tied directly to raw milk in just the past two decades. Between 2013 and 2018 alone, raw milk was linked to 202 outbreaks, 2,645 illnesses, and 228 hospitalizations. The culprits are usually familiar names: Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, and Campylobacter. These aren’t minor stomach bugs; they can cause long-term health problems, kidney failure, or worse.

And it’s not just the unlucky few. Children, pregnant women, and people with weakened immune systems are especially vulnerable. For kids in particular, a single exposure can be life-threatening. That’s why pediatricians, public health experts, and food safety agencies are united on this issue: pasteurization is non-negotiable if we want milk to be safe.

Today, pasteurization is simple: Milk is heated to at least 161°F for 15 seconds, then cooled quickly. That’s it. No chemicals, no preservatives, no tricks — just heat. The nutrients remain intact, the flavor stays fresh, and the milk becomes safe. It doesn’t strip milk of vitamins or minerals, a fact repeatedly confirmed by the CDC. But it does eliminate pathogens that can send kids to the hospital — or worse.

Pasteurization is literally one of the most important public health tools we’ve ever implemented. It’s the reason we can pour a glass of milk without a second thought about whether it’s going to make us sick.

Let’s make this easy

Milk is one of the most nutritionally complete foods we have. It’s packed with protein, calcium, vitamins, and energy. But it’s also susceptible to contamination. Even with today’s high standards on dairy farms, it can happen — and when it does, the results can be severe.

And the reality is that pasteurization is simple and effective. A little heat eliminates a key source of foodborne illness. Pasteurization protects the nutritional content of milk while virtually eliminating the risk.

I know that some farmers, especially those owning dairy cows, enjoy raw milk — and have never gotten sick from it! But drinking raw milk from your cow on your farm is a lot different than picking it up off the shelf without any knowledge about where that milk comes from, who handled it, or whether it was exposed to anything. Ultimately, if you’re willing to take that risk, then that’s on you, but we shouldn’t minimize the potential risks or promote consumption.

Which brings us back to our litigation mama. Did she really not know about the importance of pasteurization? Did the market clerk really tell her the label didn’t matter? We’ll probably never know. But we can each be more responsible by carefully vetting information that we take in and share.

Amanda Zaluckyj blogs under the name The Farmer’s Daughter USA. Her goal is to promote farmers and tackle the misinformation swirling around the U.S. food industry.