How raw milk has become a rallying cry for the US right wing

Once considered a fringe food item preferred mainly by tree-hugging hippies, raw milk has become the talk of the town.

Raw milk is different from packaged milk available in grocery stores because it has not been heated to kill harmful bacteria.

Proponents of raw milk say it contains gut-friendly microorganisms and extra nutrients that are absent in homogenised milk due to the industrial pasteurisation process.

For its opponents, however, human consumption of raw milk causes serious illness, especially among infants, pregnant women as well as elderly and immunocompromised people.

One key reason for raw milk’s newfound popularity especially amongst the right-wing adherents of the Republican Party is its forceful endorsement by Robert F Kennedy Jr, who is expected to join the cabinet of President-elect Donald Trump as secretary of Health and Human Services.

“I only drink raw milk,” said Kennedy, who will soon be overseeing a wide array of public health services across the US.

Pros and cons

The strongest argument in favour of raw milk is that it has been consumed by humans for thousands of years, long before the advent of modern pasteurisation—a process involving heating, and then rapidly cooling, liquids to kill microbes that may cause disease.

Raw milk is packed with essential vitamins and enzymes. These nutrients remain in their natural, bioavailable state, allowing the body to absorb them more efficiently compared to processed milk.

It is also promoted as a natural source of probiotics, the beneficial bacteria that support gut health. Some experts say consuming raw milk helps maintain a balanced gut microbiome, which leads to improved digestion, better immune function and even mental health benefits.

Furthermore, many Americans are turning to raw milk in a bid to support local farmers who sell directly to consumers in their communities. Such farmers garner public support because they are part of the local community and lack resources to compete against faceless corporate dairy producers with capital-intensive pasteurisation machinery.

On the other hand, opponents of raw milk – especially among federal health officials – say its consumption without pasteurisation exposes humans to extremely harmful bacteria like E coli.

Agencies of the US federal government like the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention strongly recommend that people consume only pasteurised milk.

Shifting legal status

The entire human consumption of milk was in raw form until the late 19th century. It was only in 1910 that New York City became the first urban centre in the US to make pasteurisation mandatory. Other cities soon followed suit.

The dairy industry welcomed the curbs on raw milk as it used its financial wherewithal to produce and sell pasteurised milk at mass levels.

Finally, all interstate sales of raw milk were banned in 1987 by a federal judge. For any interstate sales, milk must be pasteurised. However, states control raw milk sales within their borders.

Raw milk made a spectacular comeback into mainstream US society in the 2000s.

As opposed to the earlier decades when the preference for raw milk was a province of fad-chasing liberal foodies, large swathes of rural America started embracing the trend to demonstrate their disdain for credentialed expertise.

Quoting an FDA study, a Politico story said 4.4 percent of Americans consumed raw milk in 2019, even though the number has “almost certainly” grown since then.

Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, Alaska, Georgia and Wyoming have legislated since 2020 to legalize the sale of raw milk.

Why is raw milk making headlines?

Kennedy’s support for raw milk has stirred a debate in view of his recent nomination for a cabinet role overseeing a number of federal public health services. His stance resonates with the right-leaning segments of the US population that prefer personal choice and deregulation in food policies.

But many experts worry that Kennedy’s advocacy as the head of US Health and Human Services Department can undermine science because he will now speak from a “position of authority”—something that might be misinterpreted as scientific fact, says Meghan Davis, associate professor at Johns Hopkins University who studies environmental health and infectious disease.

In addition, social media influencers have also been promoting claims about raw milk’s health benefits, which may not always be scientifically verified.

That’s because public health agencies have struggled to effectively communicate scientific evidence to the general public since Covid-19.

Supporters of the Republican Party rallied against lockdowns during the pandemic in the name of personal freedom while Democrats largely supported the restrictions on mobility in line with expert recommendations.

This divide further amplified the lack of trust in public health guidance among the right-leaning segments of the US population, leading to renewed debates over food safety regulations.

“I think Covid had a lot to do with [people’s newfound interest in raw milk]. A lot of people don’t believe everything the government says anymore,” says Sally Fallon Morell, president of the pro-raw milk Weston A. Price Foundation, which lists 3,000 locations in America where one can purchase raw milk.