Shocking Truth About Pasteurization and Nutrient Loss

In the fields of public health and nutrition, raw milk has generated intense discussion. Proponents assert that it is a more "natural" choice because it is full of minerals and enzymes that pasteurization eliminates. Critics contend that any possible advantages are greatly outweighed by the safety dangers. The argument is still continuing strong, ranging from worries about harmful microorganisms to issues with allergies and digestibility. What does science say, though? In order to help you decide what is actually best for your health, this page explains the main nutritional, medicinal, and legal distinctions between raw and pasteurized milk.


The fact that raw milk maintains more nutrients than pasteurized milk is one of the primary justifications for its use. To destroy dangerous bacteria, milk must be pasteurized, which entails heating it to a certain temperature for a brief period of time (often approximately 161°F or 72°C). Although some of the milk's constituents are marginally impacted by this process, the nutritional losses are negligible. Pasteurization can lower the amounts of heat-sensitive vitamins, such as vitamin C and the B-complex vitamins, especially B1 (thiamine) and B12. Nevertheless, milk is not a significant source of vitamin C, and the loss of B vitamins is minimal—usually insufficient to affect general health in a diet that is balanced.

Proponents assert that the natural enzymes found in raw milk, such as lactase and lipase, facilitate digestion. The process of pasteurization largely destroys these. However, for most people, this loss is less serious because the human digestive system manufactures its own enzymes. Crucially, pasteurization leaves minerals like calcium, phosphorus, and potassium essentially unaltered. In conclusion, the nutritional difference is minimal when compared to the safety advantages of pasteurization, even if raw milk maintains a few heat-sensitive vitamins and a few more enzymes.


The possibility of contamination by dangerous germs like Salmonella, E. Coli, Listeria, and Campylobacter is one of the biggest worries with raw milk. Raw milk can act as a direct conduit for foodborne illnesses since it has not been pasteurized, which eliminates harmful bacteria. These bacteria have the potential to cause serious illness, especially in susceptible populations like small children, the elderly, expectant mothers, and people with compromised immune systems. Serious side effects such as renal failure (caused by E. coli O157:H7), miscarriage (caused by Listeria), or persistent gastrointestinal problems can result from raw milk infections in these populations.

Even in places with stringent hygiene regulations, outbreaks connected to raw milk continue to happen annually, according to health agencies including the FDA and CDC. Although proponents of raw milk sometimes point to small, nearby farms with strict hygiene regulations, no raw milk is completely risk-free, particularly when ingested untested or unregulated. Over the past century, pasteurization has been credited with dramatically reducing the prevalence of milk-borne illnesses. It was created expressly to mitigate these dangers. A few nutritional benefits of raw milk might exist, but they are not worth the possible health risks, especially for vulnerable groups.


In contrast to pasteurized milk, proponents of raw milk frequently assert that it is easier to digest and less prone to cause lactose intolerance. One explanation given is the existence of natural enzymes, particularly lactase, which aids in the breakdown of lactose, the milk sugar that upsets the stomachs of people who are lactose intolerant. Some people think that raw milk facilitates easier digestion because pasteurization eliminates the majority of these enzymes. There is, however, conflicting and scant scientific support for this assertion. Larger, well-controlled investigations have not supported the idea that some persons with moderate lactose intolerance digest raw milk better, despite a few small studies and anecdotal accounts to the contrary.

In actuality, the body breaks down lactose mostly using its own lactase synthesis rather than enzymes from milk. Therefore, raw milk is not a cure-all for people with actual lactose intolerance and can still result in symptoms like diarrhea, cramping, and bloating. Raw milk hasn't been shown to be any less allergenic when it comes to milk allergies, which are immunological reactions to milk proteins like casein. In certain instances, the presence of naturally occurring germs may even make it more dangerous.

Although there may be a tiny increase in enzymes and heat-sensitive vitamins in raw milk, these nutritional benefits pale in comparison to the actual health concerns offered by dangerous bacteria. The risks are significant, especially for vulnerable groups. One of the best ways to avoid milk-borne infections without seriously sacrificing nutritional value is still pasteurization. In the end, selecting pasteurized milk is a safer, scientifically supported choice that provides almost the same nutrition without the danger.

Explore the latest trends and tips in Health & Fitness, Travel, Life Hacks, Fashion & Beauty, and Relationships at Times Life!