Raw milk is back in the headlines.
After public figures including soccer star Erling Haaland and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. praised unpasteurized milk as part of a whole-food lifestyle, debate has resurfaced over whether skipping pasteurization offers meaningful health benefits or unnecessary risk.
In a recent expert discussion hosted by Applied Microbiology International, two microbiologists examined the science behind the claims.
At the center of the debate is a basic question: Does raw milk provide nutritional or immune advantages over pasteurized milk?
Professor Nicola Holden of Scotland’s Rural College emphasized that pasteurization exists to inactivate pathogens and said it “works brilliantly at maintaining the nutritional composition of milk.” Both Holden and Dr. Gil Domingue agreed that there are no meaningful differences in overall nutritional value between pasteurized and raw milk.
That finding challenges one of the most common claims circulating in wellness spaces, which suggests heating milk destroys important nutrients.
The conversation becomes more complex when it turns to allergies and asthma. Some observational research from European farming communities has found that children raised on farms who consume raw milk appear to have lower allergy rates. However, the evidence remains preliminary.
Domingue described recent research as “tantalizing” but cautioned that the standards needed to draw firm conclusions are not yet in place. Even studies exploring potential immune effects consistently acknowledge microbial risk. As Domingue said, “raw dairy milk per se is dangerous or has a potential to be dangerous, and the more you drink of it, the more you increase the statistical chances of catching something.”
Unpasteurized milk can contain pathogens such as E. coli, Salmonella and Listeria. Pregnant women, young children, older adults and people with weakened immune systems face the highest risk of severe illness.
Holden offered direct guidance: “Please don’t give raw milk to anyone who’s at risk for foodborne illness.”
The experts also addressed confusion around raw milk cheeses. Soft cheeses made from raw milk generally present higher risk because their moisture levels, pH and storage conditions can allow pathogens to survive. Aged hard cheeses typically pose lower risk, although contamination is still possible.
Raw milk’s appeal often stems from broader interest in natural foods and skepticism toward food processing. Pasteurization, however, was introduced specifically to reduce outbreaks that were once common before milk heating became standard practice.
Early research exploring potential immune effects does not erase established evidence about foodborne illness risk. At this point, scientists say there is no clear nutritional advantage to raw milk, but there is documented microbial risk.
This article is based on an expert discussion hosted by Applied Microbiology International.