Raw milk, long debated as healthier and nutritious than pasteurized milk by enthusiasts but strongly cautioned against by health practitioners, is now a hot topic in health and wellness circles with the increasing popularity of "natural" and "unprocessed" foods. The dangers surrounding raw milk have been brought to the forefront with the outbreak of H5N1 bird flu, highlighting the risk of contamination in raw milk supplies. All about raw milk, its risks, and the latest science.

What Is Raw Milk?

Raw milk is unpasteurized milk taken directly from cows, goats, or other similar animals. Unpasteurized milk does not go through the heat treatment process meant to destroy harmful pathogens and bacteria. Raw milk proponents say that pasteurization kills nutrients and enzymes. And that might be one false claim after another, as science continues to disprove it.

According to Dr. Meghan Davis of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, pasteurization does not significantly alter the concentration of minerals or the quality of proteins in milk. In fact, it's a critical step to ensure food safety, particularly for animal-derived products prone to contamination.

Wellness influencers have in recent times advocated for raw milk as the "clean" and "natural" alternative to commercial milk distributed in stores, using claims from improved digestion to the stimulation of the immune system. However, these claims are not scientifically proven. Although raw milk contains antibodies, the amounts are too small to be worth anything for health.

Health Risks of Drinking Raw Milk

Raw milk consumption poses immense risks. It can become contaminated in two major ways:

1. Internal Contamination: Pathogens such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Campylobacter can seep into milk through infected animals.

2. External Contamination: Polluted water, dirt, manure, and contaminated equipment introduce harmful microorganisms.

The infections acquired from raw milk include diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea, and fever, and severe effects can be experienced by infants, the elderly, pregnant women, and even immunocompromised people. Some other rare but serious diseases like hemolytic uremic syndrome, which may bring about renal failure or stroke, have also been associated with raw milk.

Bird Flu Impact on Raw Milk Safety

Raw milk has become a focal point of the latest bird flu outbreak as preliminary genetic analysis indicates the H5N1 virus, which causes avian flu, may have begun infecting cattle earlier than thought. And the CDC says viral particles have been found in raw milk, which adds one more risk to consuming unpasteurized dairy.

A notable case was with sick and dead cats on a Texas dairy farm that resulted from ingesting unpasteurized milk from infected cows. This presents how unpasteurized milk can be a vector for transmitting diseases.

Legal Status of Unpasteurized Milk

To reduce the risk, the FDA prohibited the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk in the United States. Different states, however, have their respective regulations on this matter:

- 20 states completely banned the sale of unpasteurized milk.

- 30 states allow raw milk sales under specified conditions.

Although these laws exist for protection of public health, many consumers are not even aware of the dangers associated with their consumption.

Why Pasteurization Is Important

Pasteurization destroys harmful bacteria without affecting the nutritional content of milk. Several studies in *Nutrition Today* report that pasteurization does not change the nutrient profile of milk. Pasteurized milk is free from pathogens and, therefore, also a safer alternative for all consumers, especially vulnerable ones.

Myths About Raw Milk Products

It's not just raw milk that's hazardous. Cheese, yogurt, and ice cream with unpasteurized milk carry the same dangers. To anyone tempted by the supposed health value of raw dairy, experts say in one voice: stick to pasteurized, and avoid illnesses like bird flu or salmonella infection.

Should You Drink Raw Milk?

Health organizations, including the FDA, CDC, and American Academy of Pediatrics, strongly advise against consuming raw milk. Beyond the personal health risks, drinking raw milk can also endanger others by increasing the spread of harmful bacteria and viruses.

The emergence of H5N1 in cattle and its link to raw milk calls the world to wake up to better preparedness. Like COVID-19, bird flu has demonstrated vulnerabilities in our food safety systems. The presence of avian flu in raw milk underscores the imperative for strict rules, public education, and investments in the prevention of these diseases.

Could this outbreak push governments and health organizations to step up surveillance and vaccination efforts against zoonotic diseases? The lessons learned from COVID-19 suggest a coordinated approach is essential to prevent future pandemics.

On the other hand, raw milk is far riskier and has far fewer benefits than its apparent healthy, "natural" choice. From bacterial contamination to the allowance of viruses like H5N1, there is evidence that is clear: pasteurization cannot be wished away. As we face new health challenges, it will be science over trends that safeguard public health.

A particular brand of granola marketed for breastfeeding mothers has been recalled in the US over concerns that it could be contaminated with Salmonella.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said The Hampton Grocer, Inc. recalled around 8-ounce packages of its Lacnola Lactation Granola after being alerted by an ingredient supplier about possible contamination. No illnesses linked to the granola have been reported so far.

Popular Granola For New Mothers Recalled

The issue traces back to organic moringa powder, an ingredient that is used in the recalled granola. The Hampton Grocer was notified by its supplier, Food to Live, that a sample of its Organic SuperGreens Powder Mix had tested positive for Salmonella. The same supplier’s moringa powder is used in the affected Lacnola batches.

US FDA said that neither the finished Lacnola granola nor the specific moringa powder used in it had tested positive for Salmonella at the time of the recall. The exact source of possible contamination remains under investigation. The company has suspended production while the investigation continues.

Also read: 6-Year-Old Australian Kid Dies From Rarely Seen ‘19th Century Disease’: Why Is Scurvy Still A Risk Today?

Which Products Are Affected?

The recall applies specifically to 8-ounce pink stand-up pouches of Lacnola Lactation Granola with UPC 850035324554. Consumers should check the lot information printed on the back of the package. The affected products are:

• Lot HGLC-102125 | Expiration: October 21, 2026
• Lot HGLC-021326 | Expiration: February 13, 2027

The granola was sold nationwide through mail orders on The Hampton Grocer’s website and through Amazon between October 21, 2025 and August 12, 2026.

Also read: New Less-Toxic Radiation May Kill Cancer In Under 1 Second: All About FLASH Proton Therapy

What Is The Risk From Salmonella?

Salmonella is a kind of bacteria that can cause an infection called salmonellosis. It causes food-borne illnesses. In otherwise healthy people, this infection can commonly lead to symptoms like diarrhoea, fever, nausea, vomiting and stomach or abdominal pain. Symptoms can sometimes become severe, particularly when the infection spreads beyond the intestine.

The FDA notes that young children, older people and those with weak immunity are at greater risk of serious illness if they get infected by salmonella.

For breastfeeding mothers, the recall is particularly concerning because the product is specifically marketed as a lactation granola. However, the recall does not mean that Salmonella from contaminated food automatically passes into breast milk.

The immediate concern is the mother’s exposure to the contaminated granola and the possibility of foodborne illness. This could cause the mother as well as the newborn to get sick.

What Should You Do If You Have The Granola?

If you have Lacnola Lactation Granola at home, check the lot code and expiration date before eating it. If it matches either recalled lot, the FDA advises consumers to dispose of the product and contact the place of purchase for a refund.

The FDA says no illnesses have been reported in connection with the recalled granola to date. The recall is a precautionary measure while authorities and the company investigate the contamination.

Love your daily coffee but worried about bone health as you age? A new study suggests that drinking more than five cups of coffee a day may be linked to lower bone density in older women, while tea drinkers showed slightly higher hip bone density.

The findings, published in Nutrients, offer a closer look at how two of the world’s most popular beverages may be associated with bone health in older women. Importantly, moderate coffee consumption was not associated with overall harm to bone health.

“While calcium and vitamin D remain cornerstones of bone health, what’s in your cup could play a role too. For older women, enjoying a daily cup of tea may be more than a comforting ritual; it could be a small step toward stronger bones,” said Enwu Liu, Adjunct Associate Professor from the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University.

More Than 5 Cups Of Coffee Linked To Lower Bone Density

Also read: Coffee Is Good For The Heart, But Your Choice Of Brew May Raise Bad Cholesterol: American Heart Association

Researchers at Flinders University in Australia analyzed data from 9,704 women aged 65 and older who were followed for about 10 years.

The researchers repeatedly assessed how much coffee and tea the women consumed and measured bone mineral density (BMD) at the total hip and femoral neck — areas closely linked to fracture risk.

They found that moderate coffee consumption — around two to three cups a day — was not associated with overall harm to bone health.

However, drinking more than five cups of coffee a day was linked to lower BMD, suggesting that very high coffee intake may have negative effects on bone health. The association was also stronger among women with higher lifetime alcohol consumption.

Importantly, the researchers found no significant overall association between coffee consumption and BMD. The potential link with lower BMD emerged when they examined very high coffee intake.

Tea Drinkers Had Slightly Higher Hip Bone Density

Tea showed a different pattern. Women who drank tea had slightly higher total hip BMD than women who did not drink tea. The difference was small but statistically significant.

The researchers also found that the association between tea consumption and higher bone density was more pronounced among women with obesity.

Read More: Can Drinking Coffee Make You Leaner, Healthier? Study Decodes The Link

Ryan Yan Liu, co-author of the study, explained that compounds called catechins, which are abundant in tea, may promote bone formation and slow bone breakdown.

Caffeine found in coffee, meanwhile, has been shown in laboratory studies to interfere with calcium absorption and bone metabolism. However, the researchers noted that these effects are small and can be offset by adding milk.

Should You Give Up Coffee?

Not necessarily. The researchers stressed that the differences observed were modest and do not justify dramatic changes to an individual’s daily habits.

“While moderate coffee drinking appears safe, very high consumption may not be ideal, especially for women who drink alcohol,” said Liu.

The findings also do not prove that coffee causes bone loss or that tea prevents osteoporosis. The study found associations between beverage consumption and bone mineral density in older women.

For women concerned about bone health, the researchers emphasized that calcium and vitamin D remain important.

The study suggests that what you drink may also play a small role — but there is no need to swap coffee for gallons of tea.

Vitamin D, better known as the sunshine vitamin, is not only important for bone health but also plays a role in maintaining muscle and cardiovascular function.

An animal study led by researchers at the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN), Hyderabad, found that Vitamin D3 was more effective than Vitamin D2 in maintaining and restoring skeletal muscle and heart function in male rats.

Vitamin D2 Vs Vitamin D3: What’s The Difference?

Vitamin D occurs naturally in two forms: Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) and Vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol). Vitamin D3 is produced in the skin following exposure to sunlight and is also obtained from animal-based foods such as eggs, fish and organ meats, as well as supplements.

Vitamin D2 is derived from wild, cultivated or sun-dried mushrooms, UV-B-irradiated yeast, plant-based sources and some dietary supplements.

Amid increasing vitamin D deficiency, both forms are used for food fortification. However, D2 is preferred in some countries because of widespread vegetarianism and among people following strict vegan diets.

Also read: India Gets Its First Plant-Based Vitamin D3: What You Need to Know

How Was The Study Conducted?

Researchers compared the effects of Vitamin D2 and Vitamin D3 on skeletal muscle and cardiac parameters in rats during both maintenance and recovery from vitamin D deficiency.

The study used weaning male Sprague-Dawley rats, which were given diets containing Vitamin D2, Vitamin D3, a combination of both forms, or a vitamin D-deficient diet.

Researchers assessed several parameters, including body composition, muscle strength, skeletal muscle structure and metabolism, along with markers associated with cardiac function.

Vitamin D3 Showed Greater Benefits

The study found that Vitamin D3 produced greater improvements in muscle mass, muscle fibre size and grip strength compared with Vitamin D2.

Vitamin D3 also showed stronger effects on markers associated with muscle development and energy metabolism.

Similar differences were observed in cardiac parameters, with Vitamin D3 showing greater effects on markers related to cardiac contractility and metabolism.

The differences between the two forms were particularly pronounced during the recovery phase following vitamin D deficiency, according to the researchers.

Dr Ayesha Ismail, Scientist F at ICMR-NIN and corresponding author of the study, said both forms were effective in improving calcium-related parameters, but Vitamin D2 was less effective on several measures linked to muscle and heart structure and energy metabolism.

“Although both forms of vitamin D were effective in improving calcium-related parameters, vitamin D2 was less effective than vitamin D3 in several parameters related to muscle and heart structure and energy metabolism,” Ismail said, ANI news agency reported.

Read More: Sweetener In Sugar-Free Gum Linked To 57% Higher Heart Attack And Stroke Risk: What Is Xylitol?

Can The Findings Be Applied To Humans?

Dr Bharati Kulkarni, Director, ICMR-NIN, stressed that further research would be required before drawing conclusions about the effects of the two forms of vitamin D in humans.

“Further studies are needed to establish the effects of the two forms of vitamin D on skeletal and extra-skeletal functions and their implications for supplementation and fortification programs,” she told ANI.

The findings suggest that Vitamin D3 may have stronger effects than Vitamin D2 on skeletal muscle and cardiac function. However, the study was conducted in male rats, and whether the same effects occur in humans remains to be established.

The researchers said the study provides additional evidence of differences between Vitamin D2 and D3 beyond their established roles in calcium regulation and bone health.