With bird flu in raw milk, many in U.S. still do not know risks of consuming it

Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey, February 2025.

view more 

Credit: Annenberg Public Policy Center

PHILADELPHIA – Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) located H5N1 bird flu virus in samples of raw, or unpasteurized, milk in tests in four states in April 2024, and bird flu has been detected in commercially sold raw milk, many Americans do not know that consuming raw milk and its products poses greater health risks than consuming pasteurized milk and its products, especially for children. Consuming raw milk can expose one to Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Listeria, and Brucella – and, potentially, H5N1 bird flu.

A majority of U.S. adults (56%) knows that drinking raw milk from cows, sheep, or goats is less safe than drinking pasteurized milk. But over 4 in 10 Americans either are not sure (25%), think raw milk is “just as safe to drink” as pasteurized milk (12%) or think it is “safer to drink” (6%), according to a recent survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania. The findings are statistically unchanged from APPC’s July 2024 survey. Almost a third of people (32%) know that drinking raw milk increases a person’s risk of foodborne illness, though 14% think it has no effect and 51% are not sure.

The survey, conducted Jan. 30-Feb. 10, 2025, among more than 1,700 empaneled U.S. adults, also finds that two-thirds (66%) do not know that children are more vulnerable than adults to getting sick from the viruses and bacteria that can occur in raw milk. (See the topline for data.)

“Consuming raw milk and raw milk products can make you sick and pasteurization reduces the risk of milk-borne illness,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute. “Looking for the pasteurization label before buying or consuming milk or milk products such as cheese is good practice.”

Bird flu

As of March 10, 2025, 70 confirmed U.S. cases of H5 bird flu have been detected in people in 13 states, nearly all from exposure to infected poultry or dairy herds, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). One death from bird flu has been reported, involving a patient in Louisiana. To date there have been no reported cases of human-to-human transmission.

From January 2022 through March 11, 2025, bird flu has been detected in nearly a thousand dairy herds in 17 states, and it has affected over 166 million poultry and wild aquatic birds, covering all states. Globally, according to the World Health Organization, from Jan. 1, 2003-Dec. 12, 2024, “954 cases of human infection with avian influenza A(H5N1) virus were reported from 24 countries. Of these 954 cases, 464 were fatal.”

Researchers have found that mice can be infected with bird flu by drinking raw milk. Although the FDA does not currently know whether H5N1 can be transmitted to humans through the consumption of raw milk, a study with mice suggests that the virus in “untreated milk can infect susceptible animals that consume it.” The National Institutes of Health says this suggests “that drinking raw milk may pose a risk of transmission to people.”

Raw milk and bird flu

Bird flu in raw milk: The vast majority of U.S. adults do not know that bird flu has been detected to date only in raw milk, not pasteurized milk. Just 17% know that bird flu has been found only in raw milk. Two percent incorrectly say bird flu has been found only in pasteurized milk, 7% say it has been found in both, 7% say it has been found in neither, and over two-thirds of those surveyed (68%) are not sure.

Raw milk and your chances of getting bird flu: Almost a quarter of people (22%) say drinking raw milk increases the chances you will get H5N1 or bird flu, up from 15% in July 2024, though this is unchanged from November 2024. An equal number (22%) say drinking raw milk has no effect one way or the other on whether you will get bird flu, though fewer people believe that today than in November 2024 (35%). Over half of those surveyed (53%) are not sure what effect drinking raw milk has on getting bird flu, up from 43% in November 2024.

The FDA has said that by heating milk to a specific temperature for a time pasteurization kills harmful bacteria and viruses, and that pasteurization will inactivate the bird flu virus if it is present in raw milk.

Raw milk and health claims

APPC’s survey, which included non-milk drinkers, finds a small proportion of respondents (4%) who report having consumed raw or unpasteurized milk in the past 12 months, unchanged from our July 2024 survey. Another 2% were not sure whether they had consumed raw milk.

Survey respondents are equally split between those who say raw milk has more nutrients than pasteurized milk (28%) and those who say it has about the same amount of nutrients (28%). Forty percent are not sure. The FDA says pasteurization kills pathogens in raw milk “without any significant impact on milk nutritional quality.”

Promoters of raw milk have made many claims about its health benefits – but the FDA has  categorized a number of them as misconceptions, as is explained here (current as of March 5, 2025). Though minorities believe in these claims, the survey finds that many more people – about half of U.S. adults or more – are not sure whether the claims are true or false:

• Bone thinning (osteoporosis): About 1 in 4 people (26%) believe that raw milk is “about as effective” as pasteurized milk at preventing osteoporosis, although 10% incorrectly believe raw milk is more effective and 59% are unsure. The FDA says raw milk is not more effective than pasteurized milk at preventing osteoporosis.
• Lactose intolerance: 40% believe that it is false to say that regularly consuming raw, unpasteurized milk cures lactose intolerance. But 10% incorrectly say this is true and 50% are not sure. The FDA says raw milk does not cure lactose intolerance.
• Asthma: 39% believe it is false to say that regularly consuming raw milk reduces the symptoms of asthma, but 7% believe it is true and 54% are not sure. The FDA says that raw milk does not cure or treat asthma and allergy.
• Immune system: 30% believe it is false to say that regularly consuming raw milk enhances the human immune system, but 23% think it is true and 47% are not sure. The FDA says raw milk “is not an immune system building food and is particularly unsafe for children,” who are usually more vulnerable to pathogens in raw milk than adults.
• Children’s vulnerability to sickness: About a third (35%) know that children are typically more vulnerable than adults to getting sick from the viruses and bacteria that can occur in raw milk. But 5% incorrectly think they are less vulnerable, 16% think they are “about as vulnerable,” and 45% are not sure.

Government regulation of raw milk

The FDA has prohibited the interstate sale of raw milk since 1987, but 30 states in the United States allow its sale in some form, according to the FDA. Survey respondents were asked for their views on government regulation of raw milk sales and sellers:

Interstate raw milk sales: Nearly a quarter of those surveyed (24%) favor the interstate sale of raw milk, and a slightly larger group (28%) opposes it, statistically unchanged from September 2024. Nearly half of respondents either are not sure (18%) or neither favor nor oppose it (29%).

Raw milk sales within a state: Nearly a quarter (24%) favor the unrestricted sale of raw milk in the state in which they live, and another quarter (25%) say the sale of raw milk should be banned, except for farmers selling from their own dairy herds on their own land. Fourteen percent say the sale of raw milk should be banned in their states, and 37% are not sure.

Government intrusion: Nearly a third (32%) agree that federal government regulations of raw unpasteurized milk are “another example of unnecessary government intrusion in people’s lives,” while a like number (34%) disagree. A third (33%) neither agree nor disagree.

The rights of raw milk sellers: A quarter (25%) agree that state laws prohibiting the sale of raw milk violate the constitutional rights of raw milk sellers, while a third (34%) disagree, and 41% neither agree nor disagree. (Asked of a random half-sample.)

Warning labels: Over half (56%) do not think that state laws requiring labels on raw milk containers warning about the risks of consuming raw milk violate the constitutional rights of raw milk sellers, while 14% think the state laws do violate their rights. Nearly a third (30%) neither agree nor disagree. (Asked of a random half-sample.)

USDA testing of raw milk: Asked in how many of the states the U.S. Department of Agriculture is testing raw milk for bird flu virus, 74% are not sure. Two percent say “none,” and a quarter of those surveyed say either “some” (10%), “most” (9%), or “all” (5%).  As of Jan. 8, 2025, the USDA says its National Milk Testing Strategy has enrolled 28 states, accounting for nearly 65% of the nation’s milk production.

APPC’s Annenberg Science and Public Health knowledge survey

The survey data come from the 23rd wave of a nationally representative panel of 1,716 U.S. adults conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. Most have been empaneled since April 2021. To account for attrition, replenishment samples have been added over time using a random probability sampling design.  The most recent replenishment, in September 2024, added 360 respondents to the sample. This wave of the Annenberg Science and Public Health Knowledge (ASAPH) survey was fielded Jan. 30-Feb. 10, 2025. The margin of sampling error (MOE) is ± 3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.

Download the topline and the methods report.

The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through this survey panel for nearly four years. In addition to Jamieson, APPC’s team on the survey includes research analysts Laura A. Gibson and Shawn Patterson Jr.; Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research; and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of APPC.

 

Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey, February 2025.

Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey, February 2025.

Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey, February 2025.

Credit

Annenberg Public Policy Center

See other Annenberg health knowledge surveys:

• Gun safety: Over 1 in 3 adults in households with guns do not store all in locked locations (March 11, 2025)
• Low-dose aspirin: Nearly half of adults mistakenly think benefits of daily aspirin outweigh risks (Feb. 3, 2025)
• Vaccination mandates: Most Americans favor school vaccination requirements, but support is rising for opt-out options (Jan. 28, 2025)
• The RSV vaccine & vaccine hesitancy: Greater acceptance of RSV vaccine seen as vaccine hesitancy appears to have plateaued (Dec. 23, 2024)
• Whooping cough: Cases of whooping cough growing, but knowledge about it is lacking (Dec. 17, 2024)

The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels. Connect with us on Facebook, X, Instagram, and Bluesky.

Raw milk health risks significantly outweigh any potential benefits

The Conversation
June 21, 2024 

Milk Cow (JUSTIN SULLIVAN/AFP)


Despite an ongoing outbreak of bird flu in dairy cows, the popularity of raw milk has only risen. Advocates claim raw milk has superior health benefits over pasteurized milk. There is little evidence to support these claims, however, and the risk of serious illness is much greater.

Mississippi State University food scientists Juan Silva and Joel Komakech and nutritionist Mandy Conrad explain the difference between pasteurized and raw milk, addressing common misconceptions about the health risks and purported benefits of consuming unpasteurized milk. These questions are more important than ever, since cattle can shed viral material into their milk. Not only can pathogens end up in milk, but at least three farmworkers reportedly have contracted H5N1, the virus that causes avian influenza, in 2024. Farmworkers can get sick by handling infected animals or their byproducts, such as raw milk.

What is pasteurization? Does it destroy nutrients?

Pasteurization is a process that involves heating beverages and foods at high temperatures – over 145 degrees Fahrenheit (62.78 degrees Celsius) – to kill harmful microorganisms, such as bacteria, viruses and parasites. This reduces the total number of microorganisms in the product and also inactivates enzymes that could contribute to spoilage.

The taste, nutritional value and quality of pasteurized products aren’t significantly affected by the process.

While pasteurization can lead to some nutrient losses, the changes are generally minimal and outweighed by the benefits. Pasteurization typically causes minor denaturation of proteins and has little effect on fats and carbohydrates. While water-soluble vitamins such as vitamin C and some B vitamins, usually not abundant in milk except vitamin B2, can be partially degraded during pasteurization, fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K, found in significant amounts in milk) are more heat stable and suffer minimal loss.

Thus, nutritional losses in milk due to pasteurization are generally small compared with the significant benefits of reducing foodborne illnesses and spoilage.
Is raw milk healthier than pasteurized milk?

Studies have compared the benefits of raw milk with pasteurized milk and have found little evidence that raw milk is superior to pasteurized milk. The perceived advantages of raw milk are outweighed by its health risks.

First, raw milk does not improve lactose intolerance.

Raw milk also does not have more vitamins than pasteurized milk. Milk is not a good source of vitamin C or other heat-sensitive vitamins, and pasteurization does little to reduce vitamin B2 or riboflavin, which is not as sensitive to heat. Moreover, Vitamin D is added to pasteurized milk to enhance your body’s ability to absorb the calcium in milk.


Pasteurized milk is fortified with vitamin D and other nutrients. 

Burke/Triolo Productions/The Image Bank via Getty Images

Fortified milk replaces nutrients that may be lost in the pasteurization process. Vitamin D is added to milk to enhance uptake of the calcium found in the milk. No single food is perfect, so it is OK for milk to lack some nutrients, as these can be obtained from other foods.

Some people believe that probiotics – foods or supplements that contain live bacteria beneficial to health – are more prevalent in unpasteurized milk and products made from raw milk. However, raw milk is generally lacking in probiotics and has significantly more harmful bacteria. Probiotics are added to many dairy foods such as yogurt after pasteurization.

Furthermore, a 2011 review of the available research on the health benefits of raw milk found that many of these studies were conducted with poor methods, meaning their results should be interpreted with caution.
What are the health risks of consuming raw milk?

The health risks of consuming raw, unpasteurized milk come from the harmful microorganisms that may be present.

Raw milk has been associated with hundreds of foodborne disease outbreaks. Between 1998 and 2018, 202 outbreaks resulted in 2,645 illnesses and 228 hospitalizations. More recently, from 2022 to 2023, there were 18 outbreaks and recalls associated with raw milk. A number of outbreaks and recalls associated with pathogens in raw milk have already occurred in 2024. In all cases, pathogens in the raw milk that cause human diseases were directly responsible for these illnesses.


Pathogens from infected cattle can be found in their raw milk. 

Tunvarat Pruksachat/Moment via Getty Images

Some illnesses from the pathogens in raw milk can have serious long-term effects, including paralysis, kidney failure and death.

Researchers found that areas where raw milk was legally sold in the U.S. from 1998 to 2018 had over three times more outbreaks than areas where selling raw milk was illegal. Areas where raw milk was allowed to be sold in retail stores had nearly four times more outbreaks than areas where sales were allowed only on farms.

Is it safe to eat foods made from raw milk?


Many, if not all, dairy products made from unpasteurized milk are not safe to eat. A number of products can be made from raw milk, including soft cheeses, such as brie and Camembert; Mexican-style soft cheeses, such as queso fresco, panela, asadero and queso blanco; yogurt and puddings; and ice cream or frozen yogurt. Pathogens in raw milk can survive the processes involved in making these types of dairy products and thus be unsafe for consumption.

Only products that undergo a process to inhibit or kill harmful microorganisms may be safe enough to be made from unpasteurized milk. However, the potential for cross contamination of raw and cooked food as well as the survival of pathogens from inadequate processing is high when products are made with raw milk.

Can pasteurized milk still get you sick?

The few reported outbreaks associated with pasteurized milk can be traced to contamination after pasteurization. When handled properly, pasteurized milk is a very safe product.

The U.S. government requires farmers to destroy milk from herds infected with avian influenza. As of June 2024, 12 states have reported herds positive with H1N5, the virus that causes bird flu.

There is currently no evidence that consuming pasteurized milk from infected cows causes illness in people. Based on the evidence available, the Food and Drug Administration currently states that pasteurization is able to destroy or inactivate heat-sensitive viruses such as H5N1 in milk.

Consuming raw milk, however, may pose a risk of disease transmission to people.

Can you gain immunity from H5N1 from drinking raw milk?

Some people believe that drinking raw milk can strengthen their immune system. However, there is no scientific evidence to support that drinking raw milk can improve immunity against disease.

Vaccines train your body to protect itself from future infections without actually getting sick from that infection. They do this by exposing your immune system to very small amounts of dead or significantly weakened pathogen.

Bird flu is spreading among dairy cows in the U.S.

Raw milk contains live H5N1 virus, meaning it could still infect you and make you sick. Rather than contributing to your immunity, raw milk exposes you to the virus at its full strength and can result in severe illness. Any protective antibodies that may be present in raw milk are likely degraded in stomach acid.

Moreover, people who contract bird flu from raw milk run the risk of transmitting it to other people or animals by giving the virus a chance to adapt and improve its ability to spread between people. This increases the risk of more widespread disease outbreaks.

Juan Silva, Professor of Food Science, Nutrition and Health Promotion, Mississippi State University; Joel Komakech, Assisstant Professor of Food Science, Nutrition and Health Promotion, Mississippi State University, and Mandy Conrad, Assistant Clinical Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, Mississippi State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

Public fails to appreciate risk of consuming raw milk, survey finds

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM:

Under half of Americans know raw milk is less safe to drink than pasteurized milk

ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

IMAGE: 

LESS THAN HALF OF THOSE SURVEYED (47%) SAY RAW MILK IS LESS SAFE TO DRINK THAN PASTEURIZED MILK. FROM AN ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER SURVEY OF 1,031 U.S. ADULTS IN JUNE 2024.

view more 

CREDIT: ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER

PHILADELPHIA – Consuming raw milk or products made with it is riskier than drinking pasteurized milk. Yet fewer than half of U.S. adults know that drinking raw milk is less safe than drinking pasteurized milk and many Americans do not understand the risks of consuming raw milk, according to the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s latest health survey. 

The survey finds that 47% percent of U.S. adults know that drinking raw milk is less safe than drinking pasteurized milk, while nearly a quarter (24%) of Americans either think incorrectly that pasteurization is not effective at killing bacteria and viruses in milk products (4%) or are not sure whether this is true (20%).

“It is important that anyone planning to consume raw milk be aware that doing so can make you sick and that pasteurization reduces the risk of milk-borne illnesses,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute at the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania.

APPC’s survey was conducted by SSRS, a market research company, on June 7-10, 2024, as a cross-sectional survey of 1,031 U.S. adults who are part of the SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus. The margin of error for total respondents is ±3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. (See the end of this release or the topline for further details.)

Why consuming raw milk is risky

Milk from animals including cows, sheep, and goats that has not been pasteurized to kill harmful germs is called unpasteurized or raw milk. Unpasteurized dairy products are estimated to “cause 840 times more illnesses and 45 times more hospitalizations than pasteurized products.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that consuming unpasteurized milk and products made from it “can expose people to germs such as Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Listeria, Brucella, and Salmonella.”

Heightening these concerns, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported in an open letter on June 6, 2024, that bird flu has been detected in cow’s milk. Cattle infected with avian influenza “shed the virus in their milk.” Technically known as highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAI) of the H5N1 subtype, the CDC has noted that H5N1 bird flu is “widespread in wild birds worldwide and is causing outbreaks in poultry and U.S. dairy cows.” The presence of H5N1 bird flu was confirmed in cattle in the United States in mid-March 2024. As of June 21, 2024, there had been four human cases of H5N1 in the United States since 2022, three in April and May of 2024 following exposure to cows and one in April 2022 following exposure to poultry. As of mid-June, 95 cattle herds in 12 states were identified as infected.

The FDA says it does not currently know whether the HPAI H5N1 virus can be transmitted to humans through consumption of raw milk and products made from raw milk from infected cows. However, a study conducted in mice concluded that the virus in “untreated milk can infect susceptible animals that consume it” and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) says this suggests that drinking raw milk “may pose a risk of transmission to people.” As of mid-June 2024, the FDA concluded “that the totality of evidence continues to indicate that the commercial milk supply [which is pasteurized] is safe.”

Although the FDA has prohibited the interstate sale of raw milk since 1987, 30 states in the United States allow the sale of raw dairy milk in some form, according to the NIH. While an FDA food safety report in 2016 said just 4.4% of U.S. adults reported consuming raw milk at least once in the past year, raw milk sales have been increasing, according to the Associated Press, which reports that weekly sales of raw milk from late March to mid-May grew from 21% to as much as 65% over the same period last year.

What people know about the risks of raw milk and benefits of pasteurization

The CDC notes that “pasteurization is crucial for milk safety, killing harmful germs that can cause illness” and the NIH says “dairy milk purchased in the grocery store has been pasteurized – heated to a level high enough and long enough to kill most viruses or bacteria in the milk.”

Yet in the APPC survey, over half of the respondents (54%) either think drinking raw milk is safer (9%), just as safe (15%), or are unsure (30%) whether it is more or less safe than drinking pasteurized milk. Nearly a quarter of those surveyed question the effectiveness of pasteurization at killing bacteria and viruses in untreated milk – 20% are unsure whether it is effective and 4% incorrectly assert that it is not effective.

Who holds correct and mistaken beliefs about raw milk?

An analysis of survey data shows that adults who are 65 and older, college educated, or who identify with the Democratic Party are more likely to understand the benefits of pasteurization and to believe that pasteurization does not destroy the nutrients in milk. The survey finds that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe that drinking raw milk is less safe than pasteurized milk (57% vs. 37%). People living in an urban environment also are more likely to believe that raw milk is less safe than pasteurized milk than people in a rural environment (49% vs. 32%).

“The difference in views of raw milk that we see between Democrats and Republicans is difficult to disentangle from the difference between rural and urban dwellers,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. “Those in rural areas are both more likely to identify as Republicans and to consume raw milk.”

However, a regression analysis conducted by APPC research analyst Shawn Patterson Jr. shows that both which political party one identifies with and where one lives independently predict an individual’s beliefs about the safety of raw milk. But the analysis also shows that where one lives does not independently predict beliefs about the effectiveness of pasteurization nor the effect pasteurization has on the nutrients of milk. (See the appendix for regression analysis.)

The nutritional value of pasteurized vs. raw milk

Viral online videos championing the purported benefits of raw milk attracted millions of views between late March, when the presence of bird flu virus was first confirmed in U.S. cattle, and mid-May, according to reports in the Associated Press and Washington Post. Drinking raw milk has been encouraged as well by some political leaders, including presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who told the audience at an October 2022 meeting of his Children’s Health Defense that he drinks raw milk exclusively.

Among the arguments advanced in favor of consuming raw milk is that pasteurization destroys valuable nutrients – but the CDC states that pasteurized milk “offers the same nutritional benefits without the risks of raw milk consumption.”

Our survey finds that less than half of Americans (43%) know that pasteurization “does not destroy nutrients in milk,” while 16% believe that it does destroy nutrients and 41% are not sure. Notably, the survey finds that younger people (18- to 29-year-olds) are more likely to believe than older adults (65 and older) that pasteurization destroys the nutrients in milk (25% vs. 5%) and Republicans are much more likely to believe it than Democrats (23% vs. 8%). Whether one lives in an urban vs. rural setting is not significantly different in this belief.

APPC’s survey

This study was conducted for APPC by SSRS, on its Opinion Panel Omnibus platform. The SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus is a national, twice-per-month, probability-based survey. Data collection was conducted from June 7–10, 2024 among a sample of 1,031 respondents. The survey was conducted via web (n=1,001) and telephone (n=30) and administered in English (n=1,005) and Spanish (n=26). The margin of error for total respondents is +/-3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus data are weighted to represent the target population of U.S. adults ages 18 or older.

In addition to Patrick Jamieson, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, and Shawn Patterson Jr., APPC’s survey team includes Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research.

Download the topline, appendix, and methodology statements.

###

The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

FDA begins testing raw cheese for bird flu

Gustaf Kilander
Tue 31 December 2024 

FDA begins testing raw cheese for bird flu

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has started to test cheese for cases of bird flu.

Federal health officials have started to gather samples of aged raw cow’s milk cheese to test for the infectious disease, the FDA said Monday. The collection of the samples started toward the end of this month and is set to be finished by the end of March. The agency noted that it may extend the collection period if needed.

This comes after the Department of Agriculture issued a federal order earlier in December stating that samples of raw milk would be collected and shared with the FDA to be tested for the disease, according to ABC News.

The FDA has said that it’s set to gather 300 samples of raw cow’s milk cheese which has been aged for at least two months.

The samples will then be examined using a PCR test that searches for genetic material from the virus. The tests are set to be completed within a week of collection, the FDA has said. Samples that are found to have the virus will then be subjected to viability testing, which is conducted by injecting part of the virus into an embryonated egg and looking at whether it grows or multiplies, ABC noted.

Cheese with raw milk is made using unpasteurized milk. The FDA noted that in the U.S., raw milk cheese is allowed but it has to be aged for at least 60 days to lessen the risk of pathogens.

The FDA said that positive samples for viable viruses will be "evaluated on a case-by-case basis,” and that the agency may impose measures "such as a recall, follow-up inspection or other possible responses to protect public health."

Previously, the FDA has shared warnings regarding drinking raw milk, which is made without pasteurization, the process that removes viruses and bacteria.

A sign for the Food And Drug Administration is seen outside of the headquarters on July 20, 2020 in White Oak, Maryland. The FDA has started to test cheese for bird flu (Getty Images)

The agency views unpasteurized cheeses and other products made using raw milk as “high-risk.”

Previous studies by federal health officials have revealed that pasteurization kills the bird flu virus. About 99 percent of commercial milk produced on American dairy farms adheres to a pasteurization program.

"Because we have limited research and information on whether [highly pathogenic avian influenza] viruses can be transmitted through raw milk or raw milk products, such as cheese, the FDA recommends that industry does not manufacture or sell raw milk or raw/unpasteurized milk cheese products made with raw milk from cows showing symptoms of illness, including those infected with HPAI viruses or exposed to other cows infected with avian influenza viruses," the FDA told ABC.

Pasteurization kills bacteria by heating milk to a specific temperature and has been a practice in the U.S. for over a century.

The first human case of the bird flu in the U.S. was reported in April. Sixty-six human cases had been reported in seven states as of Tuesday, according to data from the CDC. California has the highest number of cases — 36. Nearly all of the cases have been in close contact with infected animals and most of the cases have been mild.

Up to 5 house cats sick after bird flu found in 2nd raw pet food brand: Health officials

YOURI BENADJAOUD
Updated Tue 31 December 2024 


PHOTO: Three influenza A (H5N1/bird flu) virus particles (rod-shaped). Note: Layout incorporates two CDC transmission electron micrographs that have been inverted, repositioned, and colorized by NIAID. Scale has been modified. (CDC and NIAID)

A second brand of raw pet food sold in farmers markets in California has been found to contain bird flu, according to Los Angeles County health officials. One house cat has been confirmed positive with the virus, and the four cats living in the same house are presumed to be sick, as well.

Last week health officials alerted consumers about a separate brand of raw pet food linked to the death of a cat in Oregon.

The most recent cases involve a brand called Monarch Raw Pet Food, LA County officials said in a press release Tuesday.

A list of locations where the raw pet food was sold was listed on the product website.

PHOTO: Three influenza A (H5N1/bird flu) virus particles (rod-shaped). Note: Layout incorporates two CDC transmission electron micrographs that have been inverted, repositioned, and colorized by NIAID. Scale has been modified. (CDC and NIAID)

MORE: FDA begins testing aged raw cow's milk cheese samples nationwide for bird flu

Health officials in L.A. warned against feeding pets raw food following the detection of bird flu in a raw pet food brand last week.

Earlier this month, officials confirmed bird flu in four house cats in another household. They consumed raw milk, became sick and died, officials said.

MORE: Oregon house cat died after eating pet food that tested positive for bird flu

Cats infected with H5 bird flu can develop severe illness that can include neurologic signs, respiratory signs or liver disease that can rapidly lead to death.

There have been no human cases of bird flu associated with house cats, L.A. officials said.

MORE: CDC confirms 1st case of severe bird flu in US

Health officials say the overall risk of H5 bird flu to the public remains low.

Most human cases of bird flu in the U.S. involve people who had direct contact with infected cattle or livestock.

Overall, there have been 66 confirmed cases of bird flu involving humans across 10 states, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. California has the highest number of cases with 37.

Most bird flu cases affecting humans in the U.S. have been mild, and patients have typically recovered after receiving antiviral medication.

Federal health officials have begun testing raw cow's milk cheese and raw milk nationwide to test for bird flu.

How does raw water compare to tap water?

The Conversation
January 27, 2025 

Tap Water (Photo: EPA/Flickr/cc)

Water that comes straight from natural sources, dubbed “raw water,” is gaining popularity. Raw water advocates reject public water supplies, including tap water, because they don’t enjoy the taste or believe it’s unsafe and depleted of vital minerals.

On the surface, raw water might seem alluring – the natural surroundings may look beautiful, and the water may look clean and taste refreshing. But unlike tap or commercially bottled water, raw water is not evaluated for safety. This leaves the people who drink it vulnerable to infectious microbes or potentially other toxic contaminants.

I’m a microbiology researcher studying infectious diseases. From a public health perspective, clarifying misconceptions about tap water and the health hazards of raw water can protect consumers and curtail the spread of infectious diseases.

A short history of public drinking water

Archaeological evidence suggests that humans have long associated dirty water with negative health outcomes. As early as 1500 BCE, ancient Egyptians added a binding agent to their water to clump contaminants together for easy removal.

Two major developments in the mid-1800s showed why impure water is dangerous. First, physician John Snow traced a deadly cholera outbreak to contaminated water from London’s Broad Street pump. Second, Louis Pasteur advanced the germ theory of disease, which postulated that microbes can cause illness. Pasteur established that consumable liquids like raw water and milk can harbor disease-causing pathogens.




Physician John Snow’s 1854 map of cholera cases in London, highlighted in black, clustered around a contaminated pump. John Snow/Wellcome Collection

These discoveries paved the way for large-scale infrastructure projects in the 20th century to ensure the public water supply is safe.

Today, the process of cleaning water begins with the same steps employed by the ancient Egyptians, followed by extensive filtration to get rid of debris as well as most germs and chemicals. Chlorine is added to kill lingering pathogens, including those that may reside in the service pipes carrying the water to the faucet. Beginning in the 1940s, a small amount of fluoride was added as an inexpensive, safe and effective means to improve dental health.

The cleanliness and fluoridation of the water supply has dramatically reduced infectious disease and cavities, and has been heralded as one of the 20th century’s greatest public health achievements.

Is raw water healthier than tap water?

People who champion raw water claim it has health benefits, such as essential minerals and beneficial bacteria called probiotics, that are stripped from tap water. Let’s unpack each of these claims.

Water dissolves bits of soil and rock at its source; therefore, its mineral content depends on the local geology. Areas with a lot of limestone, like the Midwest, have water that is higher in calcium. Water from deeper in the ground may have higher mineral content since it passes through more rock on its way to the surface.


The mineral content of water largely depends on its source and location. 

Sergii Zyskо/iStock via Getty Images Plus

The idea that tap water is depleted of essential minerals is not true, as these nutrients are too small to be excluded by the filtration process. Test kits can determine the mineral content of your water, and if you find it lacking, mineral supplements can be added. Experts suggest, however, that most minerals you need come from your diet, not water.

Some also claim that raw water contains probiotics that are removed from tap water. The amount of probiotics in water would also vary by location, and the notion that health-promoting bacteria reside in raw water has not been proved.


There are no studies associating raw water with any health benefit. Anecdotal claims about smoother skin or increased energy are likely to be placebo effects. Even the idea that raw water tastes better might be more psychological than physiological – a 2018 study showed that most people preferred tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.
Risks of drinking raw water

Raw water carries the risk of serious gastrointestinal infection from a wide variety of pathogens.


Water-borne viruses include rotavirus and norovirus, which cause rapid-onset diarrhea and vomiting, and hepatitis A, which infects the liver. Bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella, or parasites like Cryptosporidium and Giardia, also cause severe diarrhea that can lead to dangerous levels of dehydration. Toxoplasma gondii can also lurk in raw water and can cause miscarriage or birth defects if consumed during pregnancy.



Tap water undergoes several treatment steps before it reaches your faucet. CDC

Carriers of diarrheal infections can transmit them to others if they swim in public pools or fail to properly wash their hands before touching others or preparing food. Norovirus is particularly durable and can survive on surfaces for days, increasing chances of it infecting someone else.

Raw water can also contain algae that release toxins causing abdominal issues and damage to the brain and nervous system.

Cholera, dysentery and typhoid fever are no longer health burdens in the U.S. thanks to a robust water treatment system. But areas of the world lacking this privilege suffer high child mortality and widespread diarrheal diseases.

How safe is tap water in the U.S.?

Tap water in the U.S. is among the safest to drink in the world. The Biden administration took steps to further improve it, including funding to replace lead pipes and new rules to monitor forever chemicals like perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and developmental disorders.

Importantly, raw water is not necessarily free from lead, arsenic, pesticides or industrial contaminants. Raw water sources are not reliably monitored by experts, so it is difficult to say which ones pose less risk. In addition, the water may be acceptably safe one day, but not on another. For example, soil runoff from a storm could introduce new germs or pollutants into the area.

The Environmental Protection Agency routinely screens for nearly 100 contaminants to ensure tap water is safe. In contrast, raw water remains untested, unregulated and untreated, leaving its safety to drink in question. In terms of risks and benefits, there are no demonstrated health benefits from drinking raw water, but clear evidence that you may be exposing yourself to harmful infectious and toxic contaminants.


Bill Sullivan, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.