Commentary
Benefits of raw milk are anecdotal, but the dangers are terrible
(William Marler, a personal injury lawyer and national expert in foodborne illness litigation, has represented plaintiffs pursuing claims against food companies.)
By William Marler
Seattle, Wash. -- There seems to be no middle ground in the debate over raw milk. On one side, you have farmers happy to sell a product for $10 to $18 a gallon, and consumers who believe they are purchasing a product that is not only more healthful but will also cure everything from allergies to autism. On the other side, you have public health officials defending the time-tested benefits of pasteurization as a way to make milk safe to consume.
But even though the argument appears to have two sides, the reality is as simple as it is undeniable: Raw milk is seriously risky, and should be consumed, if at all, with extreme caution.
Health department officials in Minnesota last week reported three, and possibly four, E. coli infections linked to drinking raw milk from a dairy in Gibbon. One infected child has now developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a potentially deadly complication.
There have now been at least nine outbreaks of illness tied to raw milk since January 2010. The other states with outbreaks include Nevada, Utah, New York and Pennsylvania. There was also a multistate outbreak with illnesses confirmed in Michigan, Indiana and Illinois. Washington has had two as well. And, even worse, these outbreaks involved at least three different pathogens.
In January, a dairy farm in New York was linked to five Campylobacter infections. Another outbreak of Campylobacter was reported in February in Pennsylvania. State health officials there said approximately 10 people became ill after drinking raw milk. One of the ill developed Guillain - Barre Syndrome, became paralyzed, and is still hospitalized.
In March, raw milk caused at least 17 Campylobacter infections in Michigan, Illinois and Indiana. In April, Utah was the site of Salmonella and Campylobacter outbreaks tied to raw milk. Earlier this month, Nevada health officials reported that a child became seriously ill with a Campylobacter infection after eating homemade raw milk cheese that was illegally sold door-to-door.
Over the last several years I have tried to bring some level of rationality to the debate over the consumption of raw milk. I first published on my blog a summary of the findings of a review of peer-reviewed literature on the topic of the "pros" of the consumption of raw milk. Most alleged benefits were anecdotal, with a reduction in allergies as the only scientific observation. I then posted about the "cons." The overwhelming con of drinking raw milk, according to the scientific literature, is the serious risk of infection, and the injury, disability and death that result.
In trying to base the debate over the pros and cons of raw milk more firmly on facts, and not anecdote and emotion, I have found that the most instructive thing that I can do is to remind readers of real-world effects that drinking raw milk can cause. For example:
Chris Martin, then age 7, developed an E. coli infection in September 2006 following consumption of raw milk. He was hospitalized with severe gastrointestinal symptoms. Shortly thereafter, he developed severe hemolytic uremic syndrome. He was hospitalized through November, after incurring over $550,000 in medical bills. Renal experts have suggested that Chris is likely to develop severe renal complications in the future.
Mari Tardiff was one of those sickened in the June 2008 outbreak of Campylobacter connected to raw milk. As a result of her campylobacter infection, Mari developed Guillain Barre syndrome, or GBS, a potentially fatal inflammatory disorder. She was essentially paralyzed. Her goal, as yet unreached, is to walk again. Medical expenses to date exceed $1 million.
Kalee Prue, a 27-year-old mother of one, became infected with E. coli in June 2008, as the result of consumption of raw milk. Her symptoms began in early July, and intensified for several days. Twice she sought treatment in the emergency room. In July, it became apparent that she was developing hemolytic uremic syndrome. By the time she was released from the hospital she had incurred over $230,000 in medical bills. Kalee has not recovered full renal function. She is at severe risk for long-term renal complications.
I understand the desire of a farmer to sell a highly profitable product, just as I can understand the desire of consumers to make up their own minds about drinking raw milk. But farmers and consumers need to be fully informed, and the risks need to be fully understood. Because of the debate and the risks, I helped fund the building of www.realrawmilkfacts.com as a place where the pros and cons of raw milk production and consumption can be discussed against the background of scientific facts.
Bottom line: Be informed.
----
William Marler, a personal injury lawyer and national expert in foodborne illness litigation, has represented plaintiffs pursuing claims against food companies.
Comments (10)
Bill Marler makes his living representing plaintiffs who sue farmers after the plaintiffs decided, on their own, to drink raw milk. His interest in this issue is almost purely financial.
Actually, Robin you are partially correct. Most of the plaintiffs I represent are children who did not have a say in what they consumed. Is it in my financial interest to suggest that people not drink raw milk? How would that work? I suggest that you spend sometime on www.realrawmilkfacts.com
Bill, do you have data on the number of illnesses traceable to raw milk in Italy or other EU countries, where raw milk is retailed legally?
Mr. Marler has said he also considers hamburger and all deli meats to be unsafe, even if they're from grass-fed, hormone-free, antibiotic-free cattle. In his list of the "top 10 food safety challenges for 2009," the second item was "Outbreaks linked to local foods and/or farmer's markets."
Dr. Ted Beals, a retired University of Michigan pathologist and milk expert, says that your chances of developing an illness from drinking raw milk are 1 in 200,000. To put that in perspective, the National Safety Council lists the one-year odds of dying in an automobile accident to be 1 in 12,300. If you take one round-trip flight per year on the safer airlines, your lifetime odds of dying in a plane crash are about 1 in 66,000.
Based on the CDC's own numbers, raw milk caused 1,007 illnesses and 2 deaths from 1998 to 2005 (these numbers are unsubstantiated and likely greatly inflated), while during the past several decades, pasteurized milk has led to over 200,000 cases of illness and over 600 deaths. The Center for Science in the Public Interest reported that between 1990 and 2004 there were: 31,496 illnesses from produce, 16,280 illnesses from poultry, 13,220 illnesses from beef; 11,027 illnesses from eggs; 9,969 illnesses from seafood.
To read for yourself how faulty the data is upon which Mr. Marler bases his conclusions that raw milk is unsafe, go to http://realmilk.com/, where you'll find a point-by-point refutation of his proof that raw milk is unsafe.
I forgot to mention that Mr. Marler has stated that he considers the irradiation of meats and produce to be "quite safe."
I live in a community in England of just over 100 people that has Demeter (that is, Biodynamic) status. The community have consumed raw milk for over 20 years with no report of illness. If TB or other disease is suspected in dairy cattle, pasteurisation is resumed until the results are reported negative. We occasionally have referrals from GPs for patients who could benefit from raw milk. I think your estimation of raw milk consumption is skewed or perhaps there exists less strict legislation in the US about animal welfare and food hygiene? I would be interested in your reply. Thank you.
Keep up the good work, Mr. Marler.
Since when does a Lawyer become an expert on matters of biological science?
If he really "cared" he would be better served trying to outlaw peanuts, since thousands of kids are harmed by these pellets-of-danger every year.
Mr. Marler had his opportunity to express his opinion via the MPR site. I also have heard MPR's coverage of the Hartmann Farms case, and it seems that MPR has taken a decidedly pointed editorial stance. Last year, I did hear Dag Knudsen make a very rational case for raw milk, but the commentator seemed to "poo poo" his comments in the wrap up.
MPR, would you be willing to offer a stronger counterpoint so that those of us who thrive on raw milk can be heard?
Hello, I have ben drinking raw milk for a wile now... i have lost 80 pounds on it... Now i ask you William Marler how is your health?? Since i went on this Raw milk i can run a mile non stop and not even be out of breath... I have a question.... Are people paying you to say that what God put in raw milk is complete posion??? Look people... Dont listen to this guy... OK?? All he cares about is money... Soo go ahead buy that raw milk... Just make sure its from a good farm and from a grass fed cow... and you should be just fine..... But no food is immune to harmful bateria though... So be careful.. Even pasturized milk can contain harmful bacterias...
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.


