HYPE: Raw milk is healthier, more nutritious and easier to digest than pasteurised milk.
But what does the evidence actually show?
Raw milk contains nutrients, but convincing evidence does not establish a meaningful overall nutritional or digestive advantage over pasteurised milk. Separately, raw milk can carry pathogens and has a higher foodborne-infection risk. Those are two different questions, and each deserves its own evidence.
Why people believe this
The strongest argument is that heating can alter a food. Raw milk retains some heat-sensitive components and has observational links with lower allergy rates in certain farming populations. People may also prefer its taste or feel better after switching. These are reasonable starting points for questions, not proof that all less-processed milk is healthier. [1]
Pasteurisation is heat treatment to reduce harmful microorganisms. It is not the same process as homogenisation, which changes the distribution of fat droplets. Comparisons should be between otherwise similar milks, rather than attributing differences in fat content, farming or processing entirely to pasteurisation. [3]
A. Are the nutritional and health advantages supported?
Macdonald et al. (2011)
Forty studies examined vitamin changes after pasteurisation. Some vitamin concentrations decreased, while others showed no clear reduction. The authors judged the overall nutritional impact minimal, while noting that milk’s contribution to vitamin B2 deserves consideration. A measurable chemical difference is not necessarily a meaningful difference in health. [1]
Read the researchThe same review found observational allergy associations, but farming exposures and other differences could confound them. Its authors highlighted methodological weaknesses. That signal warrants research; it does not demonstrate that drinking raw milk safely prevents allergy or broadly strengthens immunity. [1]
Enzymes, beneficial bacteria and gut health
Milk enzymes have functions in the milk itself, but their presence does not establish improved human digestion. The FDA’s scientific assessment does not support claims that raw-milk proteases or lipases provide a meaningful digestive advantage. Pasteurisation also does not remove lactose or turn milk into a nutritionally empty liquid. [3]
Finding live bacteria is not the same as finding a proven probiotic treatment. A health claim needs an identified organism, preparation and demonstrated outcome. Uncontrolled raw-milk microbial content cannot borrow evidence from a tested fermented product or probiotic strain. “Contains bacteria” leaves the clinical question unanswered. [3]
A newer milk trial is not a raw-milk trial
The MARTHA feasibility study enrolled 260 infants and used minimally processed, microbially safe milk, compared with UHT milk. Its 2024 report concerned feasibility and safety; primary and secondary efficacy outcomes were to be reported separately. It cannot be cited as proof that ordinary raw milk prevents allergy. This is an important example of investigating potentially useful milk components while retaining a safety treatment. [7]
Does raw milk help lactose intolerance?
Mummah et al. (2014)
Sixteen adults with confirmed lactose malabsorption tried raw, pasteurised and soy milk in separate eight-day periods. Raw milk did not improve lactose malabsorption or symptoms compared with pasteurised milk. The study was small and short, but it directly tested the claim rather than relying only on testimonials. [2]
Read the researchBoth raw and pasteurised milk contain lactose. A personal improvement after switching could involve serving size, accompanying food or another difference. A controlled comparison is better able to isolate rawness itself. This pilot does not prove identical responses in every person, but it does not support recommending raw milk for lactose intolerance. [2] [3]
B. What does the evidence show about infection risk?
This question stands independently of nutrients. Raw milk can contain pathogens such as Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria and harmful E. coli. Careful farming and refrigeration reduce some hazards but cannot make the absence of pasteurisation equivalent to a validated heat-treatment step. [5]
Costard et al. (2017)
Using US data from 2009–2014, the authors estimated a substantially higher outbreak-related illness burden per consumption from unpasteurised dairy. The model included both milk and cheese and depended on consumption estimates and reported outbreaks. Its relative-risk figures should not be presented as the exact probability that a particular glass in the UK will cause illness. [4]
Read the researchPasteurisation does not make food handling irrelevant, and pasteurised products are not incapable of contamination. The evidence supports a meaningful reduction in pathogen risk, not a promise of zero risk from any dairy product. [3] [4]
UK context and the catch
The sale of raw drinking milk and cream for direct consumption is prohibited in Scotland. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, raw cow’s drinking milk sales are restricted to specified direct-to-consumer routes. Rules elsewhere differ; legal sale does not itself demonstrate nutritional superiority or eliminate infection risk. [5] [6]
UK advice is especially cautious for pregnant people, infants and young children, older adults and people with weakened immune systems, who should not consume raw drinking milk. Healthy adults can also become ill; being healthy is not a guarantee against foodborne infection. [5] [6]
The older vitamin review and small digestive trial leave gaps. Newer, well-controlled health-outcome studies could change parts of this assessment. An attractive natural-food story and the absence of illness after previous drinks cannot establish either a benefit or future safety.
What this means for you
Judge the nutrient claim and the safety claim separately. Current evidence provides no convincing reason to choose raw milk for a general health or digestive advantage, while public-health evidence supports choosing pasteurised milk to reduce infection risk. [1] [2] [5]
For digestive goals, our probiotics investigation explains why living microorganisms need specific clinical evidence. Our seed-oil investigation examines another case where “processed” alone does not settle the health question.
Meaningful overall health superiority is not established. Infection risk is a separate, well-supported reason to favour pasteurisation.
Research & Sources
1. Macdonald et al. (2011)
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of pasteurization on milk vitamins, and evidence for raw milk consumption and other health-related outcomes.
Read the source2. Mummah et al. (2014)
Effect of raw milk on lactose intolerance: a randomized controlled pilot study.
Read the source3. FDA
Raw Milk Misconceptions and the Danger of Raw Milk Consumption — scientific assessment of enzymes, nutrients and health claims.
Read the source4. Costard et al. (2017)
Outbreak-Related Disease Burden Associated with Consumption of Unpasteurized Cow’s Milk and Cheese, United States, 2009–2014.
Read the source6. Food Standards Agency / GOV.UK
Raw drinking milk — safety advice and UK sales rules.
Read the source7. Weber et al. (2024)
Prevention of allergies and infections by minimally processed milk in infants — The MARTHA feasibility and safety trial.
Read the sourceEvidence reviewed: October 2026
Evidence vs Hype explains scientific research for educational purposes and does not provide individual medical diagnosis or treatment.
This is an editorial investigation, not an exhaustive systematic review. Searches considered current research alongside relevant earlier studies. Conceptual imagery illustrates the topic; it is not a study result.