Editorial: Raw milk for thought

The news that at least 10 people recently became ill from unpasteurized milk in California raises important questions for science journalists.

Journalists’ instinct is to explain the pasteurization process and the threats of untreated milk more clearly and with more emphasis.

But this approach makes assumptions about how science journalism affects change.

At C&EN, we spent some time reflecting on whether it was a good idea to write about the issues of raw milk because that act provides a platform for what amounts to an unscientific movement.

Also, our attempts at educating the public may reach only those whose behavior needs no change.

Our readers are no doubt well aware of how pasteurization destroys common pathogens in raw milk, and they’re unlikely to be part of the consumer group increasing sales of unpasteurized milk. In the US, less than 1% of the population drinks raw milk, according to the US Food and Drug Administration. But, US sales may have jumped by as much as 65% since 2023.

It is nonetheless interesting to explore what is behind this increase in raw milk’s popularity in the US. Is it an issue of ignorance? And if so, ignorance of what?

When people don’t behave in a way consistent with the global scientific consensus, it is not necessarily about a lack of education. Typically, individuals will make behavioral decisions on the basis of several calculations, including their experience of the particular institutions associated with the research or policy and their assessment of the net benefits of compliance.

A further consideration is how an individual’s political allegiance shapes their feelings about some science. Political leaders may adopt positions that inform policy on various areas of science, based on advice which is not led by science. For instance, decisions about research funding are often based on what party is in power and hence their value systems and worldviews. For example, in some countries, levels of commitment to climate adaptation or responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have reflected the views of charismatic politicians or ruling parties as opposed to the scientific consensus.

At the heart of the general public’s calculations about behavior are ideas about whose interests are served and who loses. This is reflected in studies, such as one from Erasmus University Rotterdam, which reveal surprisingly complex relationships between levels of education social status, and scientific positions. But of course understanding how science works matters.

Even though there is no scientific evidence supporting the health benefits of raw milk, some who advocate consuming it believe that it has nutritional benefits. They staunchly believe this erroneous claim perhaps because they generally mistrust big businesses and what they perceive as the submission of doctors, researchers, and governments to the agenda of those businesses.

Public policy is itself nuanced on the consumption of raw milk. For instance, in the European Union, a bloc known for aversion to regulatory risk, raw milk is available for sale in some member countries, although typically with an advisory.

And around the world, some communities regularly consume raw milk or its by-products. In France, some consider it an affront to make certain cheeses with pasteurized milk. Without also seeing data on the health impact, these practices can be misrepresented.

Raw milk advocates cite studies that describe an association between consuming the product and a reduction in the incidence of asthma and allergies. But these studies are rare and require careful qualification and further research.

This dynamic points to a more fundamental type of education—one of science literacy.

Yes, science journalists should explain how scientific authority works, detailing the role of peer review in scientific advancement. But it is also important to consider the other side of scientific authority, the capacity for persuasion. For better or worse, we now live in a society where trust is no longer inherent but must be earned. So it matters who does the educating.

The implications of that are something both journalists and scientists can reflect on.

This editorial is the result of collective deliberation in C&EN. For this week'’'s editorial, lead contributors are Nick Ishmael-Perkins and Aayushi Pratap.

Views expressed on this page are not necessarily those of ACS.