Raw milk advocates wonder: Where is Kennedy?
'FDA's war on public health is about to end,' he wrote shortly after the November election.
But Kennedy hasn't actively taken up the cause yet — even amid his sweeping effort to upend federal health agencies and his Make America Healthy Again campaign to change how Americans eat, frustrating and concerning some of the most prominent raw milk advocates.
Federal officials have long warned that raw milk is unsafe for drinking because it hasn't gone through the heat process of pasteurization that kills off harmful bacteria, and sales across state lines have been banned since 1987.
Kennedy helped champion and elevate raw milk and has criticized resistance from health officials, but he has yet to relax federal rules or reverse warnings against drinking it. His inaction so far is in contrast to his campaigns against childhood vaccines and artificial food dyes, longtime causes now at the center of his efforts as secretary.
The Department of Health and Human Services didn't respond to questions seeking comment about Kennedy's plans.
Mark McAfee, one of the country's leading raw milk producers, had expected to advise Kennedy's department on ways to support raw milk farmers and expand access to consumers and hoped to help reverse the federal government's official stance that raw milk is too risky to consume. McAfee said he had been in close touch with Nicole Shanahan, Kennedy's presidential running mate, who interviewed him for a video she produced about raw milk.
McAfee said that Kennedy texted him in February, shortly after his confirmation, that he would be in touch — but that there has been silence since then. A recent federal report on children's health commissioned by President Donald Trump — titled 'The MAHA Report'— stressed the importance of whole milk and other unprocessed foods but made no mention of raw milk, even though Kennedy celebrated its release by doing shots of raw milk at the White House with a leading health influencer last month.
The Food and Drug Administration's stance that 'raw milk puts all consumers at risk' because of potential contamination hasn't been changed or updated, nor has the federal ban on selling it across state lines. And when McAfee recently reached out to the FDA for a meeting, he was rebuffed.
'It appears that the FDA culture will continue its war against raw milk,' McAfee said.
There's a long-standing consensus among U.S. public health agencies that pasteurization is an essential step to kill bacteria in milk — one of the most important mainstays of the American diet, especially for children. Then again, there's also consensus that vaccines don't cause autism and that they're necessary for public health and safety, and that hasn't stopped Kennedy from raising the issue.
'We've had this message, all of these decades, that raw milk is dangerous,' said Judith McGeary, executive director of the Farm and Ranch Alliance in Texas, which has advocated for expanding access to raw milk. 'It's not going to change overnight, no matter who's in charge.'
Meghan Davis, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, said the federal warnings and restrictions on selling raw milk have been in place for good reason. 'Humans drank raw milk for a long time, but they got diseases from it for a long time,' said Davis, a former dairy veterinarian. 'Raw milk is among the more risky of the foodstuffs that we can consume.'
Without pasteurization, which heats milk to high temperatures, raw milk is likelier to transmit dangerous pathogens like E. coli, salmonella, listeria and campylobacter, Davis said.
But raw milk advocates like McAfee argue that the risks have been overstated and the health and nutritional benefits have been undersold, arguing that consuming raw milk provides healthy gut bacteria, decreases asthma and allergies and strengthens our immune systems — all claims the FDA challenged in a post last year about 'raw milk misconceptions.'
Peg Coleman, a raw milk advocate and former Agriculture Department microbiologist, argues that a 'pro-pasteurization bias' remains entrenched in federal agencies and wants Kennedy's Health and Human Services Department to take down such information.
But even despite the persistence of such warnings, 'there is the demand,' she said. 'People are still choosing raw milk.'
Like many of the other health trends and beliefs that Kennedy has embraced, raw milk was once considered a fringe health food associated with the new-age left that has transformed into a signifier of the right — a mainstay of the MAHA health influencers in Kennedy's orbit and a rallying cry for conservatives who have pushed states to legalize raw milk sales and oppose government crackdowns on unlicensed raw milk producers.
Small farmers, especially, have successfully lobbied both blue and red states to legalize sales as a way to diversify their offerings, overcoming major opposition from the pasteurized milk industry.
But the sale of raw milk remains banned across state lines. And even though new state laws have expanded access and expanded raw milk production, sales remain highly restricted in most states: Only 14 permit retail sales to consumers. In many others, consumers must buy it on site from farms. And state health officials typically look to federal health agencies for guidance about safety.
While some states have their own safety rules and testing requirements for raw milk, there are no federal standards or guidance for producers.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that from 1998 to 2018, drinking raw milk was linked to 2,645 illnesses and 228 hospitalizations. The agency also found that outbreaks linked to unpasteurized dairy products are far more likely than those linked to pasteurized dairy.
While the overall numbers are low compared with other raw foods like oysters and leafy greens, such foods are consumed far more widely.
Davis added that more research is necessary to prove that specific standards or testing protocols are effective at making raw milk safe or safer to consume. 'We have to do that study,' she said.
McAfee's own raw milk has been subject to multiple voluntary recalls, as well as outbreaks of foodborne illness. California officials linked raw milk from his company, Raw Farm, to dozens of salmonella cases in 2023. McAfee said the company has since strengthened its testing protocols and created an on-site pathogen lab to prevent future problems.
'We learned from that incident,' he said. 'We owned that we had a problem, and we fixed it.' Last year, the company also issued a recall after its raw milk tested positive for bird flu but said its products were never associated with any infections.
McAfee says that proper guidelines and testing can make raw milk safe to drink — and that the federal government has an important role to play in establishing safety standards. He drafted a proposal for the FDA to develop standards and guidance for raw milk producers, which he sent to the agency after Kennedy became health and human services secretary.
'We are not looking for the FDA to regulate raw milk, but we would love to have the best FDA scientists in the world acknowledge the benefits of raw milk, if it is produced under the High Standards that we will discuss,' McAfee wrote in a recent email to FDA officials that he shared with NBC News.
The FDA turned him down. 'Given our need to balance agency priorities, the Human Foods Program respectfully declines your request for a meeting at this time, though we remain open to dialogue with the raw milk industry,' Donald Prater, principal deputy director of the FDA's Human Foods Program, wrote in response.
The FDA didn't respond to a request for comment.
Kelsey Barefoot of Dunn, North Carolina, who became a raw milk producer in 2021, said, 'It's our basic human right to be able to have the freedom to choose our food.' As a former critical care nurse, Barefoot was taught about the dangers of raw milk, but she said she was won over after she tried it herself.
'I had been prepared to think that raw milk was going to kill me,' Barefoot said. 'I started drinking it. I loved it. I didn't die, and my kids drank it, and so I started producing the milk for myself.'
She now works for the Raw Milk Institute, founded by McAfee, which seeks to support 'low-risk raw milk production' through safety standards and testing protocols, including test results that are publicly posted.
The advocates haven't given up on Kennedy, bolstered by the MAHA movement's push to eradicate food dyes and other top concerns. It may just take more time for him to come around, McAfee said. 'It's really, really crowded with people trying to saturate him. He's trying to sort things out.'
Sally Fallon Morell, founding president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nonprofit alternative nutrition organization, said she first spoke with Kennedy about milk in 2021, when she was seated next to him at the foundation's annual holistic health conference, held that year in Texas.
She said Kennedy recalled drinking raw milk when he was a child and said he wished he were drinking it again but wasn't sure where to find it. Morell directed him to a website her foundation had set up, which had a searchable database of raw milk purveyors. The following year, Kennedy was invited to speak at the same conference.
'Since I was here last year, I only drink raw milk,' he said from the stage. The audience burst into applause.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Coke with cane sugar or corn syrup? Here's what health experts say
President Trump said Wednesday that Coca-Cola has agreed to use cane sugar in its U.S. cola, which currently relies on high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener. In a social media post, he called the cane sugar version "just better!" But is one of them actually better for your health? While there are some slight differences between the two sweeteners, experts say too much of either isn't good. "Despite minor differences in chemical structure and metabolism, both cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup have similar health impacts when consumed in excess, especially in the form of sugar-sweetened beverages like soda," Avery Zenker, a registered dietitian, told CBS News. Cane sugar, Zenker explained, is nearly 100% sucrose, which consists of approximately 50% glucose and 50% fructose — two different forms of sugars. It's "essentially the same as table sugar," she said. The most common form of high-fructose corn syrup contains 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Fructose is handled differently in the body than other sugars like glucose, so the higher amount of fructose does concern some experts. "The increased fructose amount in the (corn syrup) may seem slight, but our exposure is linked to Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, increased appetite (and) liver disease," said Hope Barkoukis, registered dietician and chair of the department of nutrition at Case Western Reserve University. The amount of processing involved in these products is different too, said Adrianne Kartholl, a registered dietician and clinical nutrition supervisor at provider network Parkview Health. "Corn syrup is added to many processed foods for sweetness, and is relatively easier to acquire, inexpensive and provides more stability to products they are added to," she said. "While cane sugar still involves processing, it is less overall than corn syrup, as it's derived from the sugar cane plant." Both, however, have a similarly high glycemic index, meaning they raise blood sugar similarly, and have the same amount of calories (about 4 calories per gram), Zenker said. Research has also shown their metabolic and cardiovascular impacts to be similar. A 2022 meta-analysis found both high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose have similar impacts on weight and body composition markers, including waist circumference, body mass index (BMI) and fat mass. The study also found similar impacts on cholesterol, triglycerides (a type of fat found in the blood) and blood pressure. The findings did, however, suggest that high-fructose corn syrup was associated with higher levels of inflammation compared to sucrose. "Anything in our diets that increases overall inflammation is very concerning because inflammation is related to a wide variety of metabolic illnesses," Barkoukis said. In terms of dental health, Dr. Sandip Sachar, a New York-based dentist, told CBS News "neither is significantly 'less bad' when it comes to risk of dental cavities." "While these sweeteners differ in origin and processing, their impact on oral health is largely the same," Sachar said. When looking at sugars overall, whether it's cane or corn syrup, Kartholl says it's important to note both provide empty calories. "Empty calories are those that provide energy, but lack other nutrients such as protein, healthy fats as well as micronutrients," she said. "For most Americans, intakes of corn syrup are higher than recommended levels due to widespread use in our food products." The American Heart Association recommends limiting added sugar intake to 25 grams, or about 6 teaspoons, per day for women and 36 grams, or 9 teaspoons, per day for men. But on average, U.S. adults eat more than 2 to 3 times the recommended amount of sugar each day, according to the organization. It lists both high-fructose corn syrup and cane sugar as added sugars to be mindful of. "Moderation is key," Kartholl said. "These foods ideally should not be consumed every day, and when consumed, are consumed in appropriate portion sizes." "Key is to limit consumption of both added sugars and corn syrup," Barkoukis agreed. Son of man who was violently detained by ICE reacts after release Mike Johnson breaks from Trump, calls on DOJ to release Epstein files 7.3 magnitude earthquake hits southern Alaska Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The House is poised to OK Trump's $9 billion cut to public broadcasting and foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House is expected late Thursday to approve President Donald Trump's request to claw back about $9 billion for public broadcasting and foreign aid as Republicans target institutions and programs they view as bloated or out of step with their agenda. The White House had described the package as a test case and said that if Congress went along, more would come. The House's approval would mark the first time in decades that a president has successfully submitted such a rescissions request to Congress, and even then the results were more mixed. Unlike other presidents, Trump is getting nearly all the cuts he requested. Opponents voiced concerns not only about the programs targeted, but about Congress ceding its spending powers to the executive branch as investments approved on a bipartisan basis are being subsequently canceled on party-line votes. No Democrats supported the measure when it passed the Senate, 51-48, in the early morning hours Thursday. Two Republicans also voted no. 'We need to get back to fiscal sanity and this is an important step," House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters. The package cancels about $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and nearly $8 billion for a variety of foreign aid programs, many designed to help countries where drought, disease and political unrest endure. The effort to claw back a sliver of federal spending comes just weeks after Republicans also muscled through Trump's tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic support. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that measure will increase the U.S. debt by about $3.3 trillion over the coming decade. A heavy blow to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting The cancellation of $1.1 billion for the CPR represents the full amount it is due to receive during the next two budget years. The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense. The corporation distributes more than two-thirds of the money to more than 1,500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service to support national programming. Democrats were unsuccessful in restoring in the Senate. Lawmakers with large rural constituencies have voiced particular concern about what the cuts to public broadcasting could mean for some local public stations in their state. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Ala., said Tuesday that the stations are "not just your news — it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert.' Less than a day later, as the Senate debated the bill, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck off the remote Alaska Peninsula, triggering tsunami warnings on local public broadcasting stations that advised people to get to higher ground. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he secured a deal from the White House that some money administered by the Interior Department would be repurposed to subsidize Native American public radio stations in about a dozen states. But Kate Riley, president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, a network of locally owned and operated stations, said that deal was 'at best a short-term, half-measure that will still result in cuts and reduced service at the stations it purports to save.' Inside the cuts to foreign aid Among the foreign aid cuts are $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and family reunification for refugees and $496 million to provide food, water and health care for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. There also is a $4.15 billion cut for programs that aim to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing nations. Democrats argued that the Republican administration's animus toward foreign aid programs would hurt America's standing in the world and create a vacuum for China to fill. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said the amount it takes to save a starving child or prevent the transmission of disease is minuscule, even as the investments secure cooperation with the U.S. on other issues. The cuts made to foreign aid programs through Trump's Department of Government Efficiency were having life-and-death consequences around the world, he said. 'People are dying right now, not in spite of us but because of us,' Schatz said. 'We are causing death.' After objections from several Republicans, GOP leaders took out a $400 million cut to PEPFAR, a politically popular program to combat HIV/AIDS that is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under Republican President George W. Bush. Looking ahead to future spending fights Democrats say the bill upends a legislative process that typically requires lawmakers from both parties to work together to fund the nation's priorities. Triggered by the official rescissions request from the White House, the legislation only needs a simple majority vote to advance instead of the 60 votes usually required to break a filibuster. That meant Republicans could use their 53-47 majority to pass it along party lines. In the end, two Republican senators, Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, joined with Democrats in voting against the bill, though a few other Republicans also raised concerns about the process. 'Let's not make a habit of this,' said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who voted for the bill but said he was wary that the White House wasn't providing enough information on what exactly will be cut. Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the imminent successful passage of the rescissions shows 'enthusiasm' for getting the nation's fiscal situation under control. 'We're happy to go to great lengths to get this thing done,' he said during a breakfast with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. In response to questions about the relatively small size of the cuts -- $9 billion -- Vought said that was because 'I knew it would be hard' to pass in Congress. Vought said another rescissions package is 'likely to come soon.' 'But we're not there yet,' he said. ___ Associated Press writers Becky Bohrer in Juneau, Alaska, and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report. Kevin Freking And Mary Clare Jalonick, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio


CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Why Elon Musk's third party is likely to fail
One of the most unpopular people on the American political scene says he'll launch a new political party to take on the Democrats and Republicans. It will likely fail. That's the only conclusion you can draw from the data about Elon Musk and his new 'America Party.' Take a look at CNN's new poll on Musk and his political aspirations. Just 25% of all adults and 22% of voters favor a Musk-run third party to compete against Democrats and Republicans. The vast majority of both adults (74%) and voters (77%) oppose such an endeavor. The CNN poll isn't alone on the subject. Quinnipiac University also polled about Musk's party this week, and the results were just as devastating. Only 17% of voters would consider joining Musk and his venture to compete with the GOP and Democrats. More than three-quarters (77%) gave a thumbs-down. It really shouldn't be surprising that Americans are against a party named after them. History hasn't been too kind to third parties, independents or write-ins that seek to shake up the political scene. George Washington has been the only independent to ever win a presidential election. Washington did so before political parties were a real thing in this country. And last I checked, Musk did not lead the Continental Army across the Delaware as the top general during our country's revolution. (He is also not eligible to run for president given that he was born in South Africa.) Alabama's George Wallace was the last third-party candidate to win a state in a presidential election. That was so long ago (1968) that we hadn't yet landed on the moon. Musk, smartly, seems to be more interested in taking on Democrats and Republicans in congressional races than trying to run a presidential candidate. The track record there for third parties, independents or write-ins isn't too hot to trot, either. By my count, there have been a bit more than 13,000 congressional elections since 1970. These non-major party candidates have won about 24 of them. That's about 0.2% for those counting at home. Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont account for more than half those winners. Such daunting math might make you wonder why anyone would spend any time pounding the keyboard to discuss Musk's potential third party. The answer is money. Many third parties fail because they can't get their message out. Musk's party wouldn't have that problem given that he is one of the richest men in the world. But money isn't enough. Businessman Ross Perot had a lot of money that helped get him to get nearly 20% of the popular vote in the 1992 presidential election. Perot didn't win a state as an independent. His showing did, however, lead him to start a third party. He started out in a much better place politically than Musk. Even so, his Reform Party saw minimal success. It reached its apex when Jesse Ventura won on its line in the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election. Today, the Reform Party is remembered by few. Back in 1993, 50% of Americans supported a Perot-formed third party in CNN polling. Fewer (37%) opposed. That's quite different from the three-quarters who are against Musk's third party now. And Perot, in 1993, actually sported net positive favorable ratings in poll after poll. The potentially good news for Musk is that the ground is arguably as fertile for a third party now as almost any point in recent history. Our CNN poll showed that 63% favored one to take on the Democrats and Republicans. Musk is just the wrong guy to lead such a journey. He is, as I said at the top, one of the most unpopular political figures in the country. CNN's poll puts his favorable rating at a mere 23%. More than double that (60%) view him unfavorably. That gives Musk a net favorable rating of -37 percentage points. Oof. Other polls aren't nearly as unkind to the electric car builder and rocket ship maker, but they all paint the picture of a man who is far from beloved. The sad thing about this is that Musk was once quite popular. During the 2016 campaign, Musk's net favorable rating clocked in at +29 points in a Bloomberg survey. He had the highest net favorable rating of any person polled. Now, he's routinely the least popular person in any given poll. Musk's drop didn't occur overnight. It's been happening through the years and has accelerated as he entered the political arena. Musk's woes went into hyperdrive during his divorce from President Donald Trump. All in all, the more Americans see of Musk in politics, the less they like him. Musk's unpopularity makes the normally very difficult efforts to start a third party become herculean.