I’ll give the French credit for three things (and only three): wine, cheese, and Louis Pasteur. The man is directly responsible for saving millions of lives because he developed the rabies vaccine, the anthrax vaccine — and pasteurization.
His namesake process for preserving perishable food items isn’t all that complicated. One: heat to a specific temperature. Two: keep at that temperature for a set period of time. Three: cool it down. And, as Pasteur might say, voila — potentially deadly microbes are neutralized.
That simple method has rid the food we consume (especially milk) of Salmonella, E. Coli, and other contaminants for over a century.
As Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler has rightly pointed out, pasteurization solved an actual, real-life problem in the 1800s. Why in the world would we roll that back?
But that’s exactly what House Bill 609 would do. The proposed legislation to legalize raw milk sales in North Carolina is framed as a win for consumer choice and small dairy farmers. But it could also pose severe financial consequences for the very farmers this bill intends to help, not to mention prompt the type of disease spread that Pasteur all but eliminated in the 19thcentury.
Raw milk, unlike its pasteurized counterpart, carries significant risks due to the potential presence of pathogens like Salmonella, Listeria, E. coli, and highly pathogenic avian influenza (bird flu). While supporters argue raw milk can be safely produced through proper handling, the reality is that contamination can happen at any point — from production to transport — and no amount of testing can guarantee absolute safety.
In 2024, over 165 people suffered Salmonella poisoning linked to the consumption of raw milk from a single raw-milk supplier in Fresno, California. In fact, CDC data shows that raw milk is 840% more likely to carry diseases compared to pasteurized daily products. Over a century ago, dairy pasteurization led to a dramatic reduction in infant mortality. Legalizing raw-milk production would inevitably lead to increased public health problems, particularly for vulnerable infants.
Beyond public-health concerns, there is another overlooked consequence of legalizing raw-milk sales: liability. Most small dairy farmers — the ones House Bill 609 tries to help — are most likely underinsured against potential lawsuits should a consumer fall ill from contaminated raw milk. Unlike large agribusinesses, small farms often lack the financial resources to withstand legal claims or settlements. A single lawsuit could bankrupt a family farm, erasing generations of hard work. If a child becomes severely ill or worse because of contaminated raw milk, do you really think the parents would hold back a legal claim against the manufacturer?
The bill does include provisions for licensing and health inspections, but these measures offer little protection against the inherent risks of raw milk that mankind has known about for millennia. Even with warning labels, consumers may not fully understand the dangers, and when illness strikes, accountability will inevitably fall on the farmers. Many of these small-scale dairy operations operate with tight margins, and the cost of litigation could be devastating.
Rather than exposing farmers to potential financial ruin, North Carolina should explore policies that support small dairy operations without jeopardizing public health. Initiatives around grants or market expansion programs for value-added pasteurized dairy products would provide real assistance without increasing liability risks.
House Bill 609 may seem like a step toward agricultural freedom, but in reality, it is a risky proposition — both for consumers and farmers. North Carolina must prioritize the health and financial security of its people by keeping the ban on raw milk sales in place.
