A Grandmother's Letter to the Editor and Campaign
This blog is begins with material based on a letter to the editor by me, grandmother Peg Coleman. The letter was published in the Syracuse Post Standard (12 May 2026) in response to an Associated Press article by Laura Ungar and Jonel Aleccia (3 May 2026) and reprinted in the Wise Traditions journal (summer 2026).
I am concerned that articles about raw milk like that by Ungar and Aleccia printed in the Syracuse NY newspaper replay a common pro-pasteurization narrative and fail to provide scientifically accurate information or context that my neighbors in upstate NY and beyond deserve to know when making dietary and health decisions.
The assumption or belief that raw milk is ‘inherently dangerous’ is common in pro-pasteurization narratives. This assumption is outdated based on current epidemiologic and microbiologic evidence documented herein (Berge and Baars, 2020; Coleman et al., 2023; Stephenson et al., 2024, 2026). In addition, major scientific advances of the past decade point to strong evidence of the loss of raw milk benefits after pasteurization, related to loss of naturally present heat-sensitive bioactive components (including microbes) and allergenicity of heat-damaged milk components (Abbring et al., 2019; Dietet et al., 2022). Multitudes of diverse microbes in breastmilk and cow milk (the milk microbiota) promote gut health, balance immune function, and protect infants, children, and adults from infectious and inflammatory disease.
If you want to learn more, continue reading. Longtime collaborators reunited this year to develop a case study on benefits and risks of pasteurizing raw donor breastmilk and cow milk that is undergoing open, transparent, and independent panel peer review. People from all perspectives, including pro-raw, pro-pasteurization and all those inbetween, will will have the opportunity to register and listen-in on the independent panel peer-review of raw milk benefits and risks organized by the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA).
Whole Truth, Whole Milk Campaign
Meet ‘Veri’ the campaign cow on the right whose name is the root of TRUTH in 8 languages. She was campaign cow in 2018 when Upstate NY Society for Risk Analysis hosted the campaign to compile evidence on benefits and risks of pasteurizing donor breastmilk and cow milk. The products of the 2018 campaign (Coleman et al., 2021; Dietet et al., 2022) form the basis for the 2026 case study. The Campaign is raising funds that put our case study on the agenda for panel peer-review.
The 2026 Campaign hosted through Coleman Scientific Consulting is poised to counter the flood of misinformation about raw milk in the media and scientific journals. Colleagues introduce below will present the case study to the independent panel convened by the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA) to support deliberation of current evidence and misinformation important for the public and technical audiences.
Are you wondering why millions of longtime raw milk consumers like me, my kids and grandkids, farmers and farm workers ignore warnings about imminent danger and choose raw milk hygienically produced for direct human consumption over pasteurized milk?
Pro-pasteurization narratives do not address the breadth of evidence listed below on benefits and risks of pasteurizing milk, with documentation listed below from a rebuttal and my letter to the editor. The wisdom of SRA’s commitment to ‘let the data speak’ is sorely needed in broader public discourse to bridge the chasm of mistrust in our society about food freedom and access to local raw milk.
The article below on the American Council for Science and Health (ACSH) website provides a concise, readable, and referenced description that challenges outdated assumptions and misleading narratives consistent with the pro-pasteurization worldview:
The organization not only posted this rebuttal to misinformation from a previous post on their site, but then posted an apology for missing the mark on evidence-based communication.
Highlights from recent studies below reveal a divergent view of benefits and risks of pasteurizing raw donor breastmilk and raw cow's milk, based largely on a 2024 analysis of CDC data spanning 16 years (2005-2020; Stephenson et al., 2024) and previous collaborative studies, all challenging the pro-pasteurization narrative.
1. Raw milk outbreaks, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths are not increasing, contributing less than 1% of the burden of infectious disease in the US over 16 years: 0.4% outbreaks, 0.1% illnesses, 0.5% hospitalizations).
2. Annual rates of raw milk illness per serving for available data from CA were low and not increasing (<1 illness per million servings for 14 of 16 years, and <5 illnesses per million servings for 2015 and 2023).
3. Pasteurizing milk did not prevent 4,313 acute illnesses, 343 hospitalizations, and 26 deaths for dairy-borne infectious disease over 16 years.
4. Pasteurized not raw milk contributed to an estimated 15 million chronic illnesses (intolerance or allergy), with 15 fatalities reported in the National Food Death Allergy Registry for 2005-2025. Eleven of the 15 milk allergy deaths disproportionately affected children aged 3-17.
5. Children with milk allergy all tolerated the maximum volume of raw milk (50 mL) but suffered allergy symptoms at an average of 8.6 mL pasteurized milk in a small provocation study (Abbring et al., 2019).
6. Pasteurized dairy was associated with significantly higher outbreaks, hospitalizations, and deaths compared to raw dairy, as well as 20 cases of stillbirth, miscarriage, or premature delivery, none reported in raw milk (Sebastianski et al. 2022).
7. Raw milk feeding of infants, compared to heated milks, provided the highest level of protection against respiratory and ear infections in a large prospective cohort study (983 infants), comparable to breastfeeding. Diarrhea was not associated with raw milk feeding to infants (Loss et al., 2015; see ACSH post Epidemiologic Associations for Protection of Infants: 2015 Clinical Study), comparable to breastfeeding.
8. Pasteurizing human donor breastmilk unequivocally causes a loss of benefits to NICU infants. Denial of evidence on benefits from dozens of human studies for breast milk and bovine milk reveals bias. Follow the money.
What else do my NY neighbors and those in other states need to know? Most states have excellent records of raw milk safety based on CDC data. NY reported only 4 illnesses (no hospitalizations, no deaths) associated with raw milk in the past 10 years, while numbers of licenses for dairy farms selling raw milk direct-to-consumers increased. CDC data on milkborne deaths (4 for pasteurized and 1 confirmed for raw milk) over 16 years are too sparse for reliable prediction of future milkborne mortality. Many articles cite opinions claiming that increasing access will increase outbreaks or deaths. The CDC data refute those opinions.
I work to protect the rights of my grandkids and their grandkids to choose fresh unprocessed local milk, complete with the natural protective milk microbiota. Advances in understandings of the protective effects of the milk microbiota call for more balanced, evidence-based dialogue about actual studies, not just opinions or positions of individuals and organizations who promote their own agendas that threaten farm families and rob consumers of our freedom to choose our 21st-century diets.
Want to learn more?
Learn more about the 2026 Whole Truth, Whole Milk Campaign here and listen to the short video below..
Three collaborators reunited to prepare a case study for a first-ever panel peer-review on the loss of benefits with pasteurizing raw donor breastmilk and raw cow milk:
Cornell Emeritus Professor of Immunology Rodney Dietert,
decision scientist and Past President of SRA D. Warner North, who accepted the SRA Distinguished Achievement Award last year for his extraordinary contributions and leadership in risk analysis, and
medical microbiologist and SRA Fellow Peg Coleman.
REGISTER at the button below and LISTEN IN to the virtual ARA panel peer-review of this case study on Monday, 26 October 2026, 10:30 am to 12:30 pm, Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST; UT-4).
The panel peer-review is free and open to the public. Register and participate to get your questions and comments in the public record.