Grace Ordoña
Associate Editor
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2028
Milk that has not undergone pasteurization to kill potentially harmful pathogens, known as raw milk, is at the center of a growing regulatory debate. In 2026, state legislators introduced more than forty bills seeking to expand access to unpasteurized dairy products. Now, federal legislators have entered the conversation with the proposed bipartisan Interstate Milk Freedom Act (Milk Act), which would prevent federal interference with raw milk sales between states that have legalized the product. Supporters frame these proposals as a matter of personal freedom, claiming that if adults understand the risks, there is no reason for the government to prevent them from drinking milk straight from a farm. That argument, however, assumes that consumers receive enough reliable information about raw milk to fully understand those risks. Under the current patchwork of state laws, that assumption is unlikely.
A state-by-state compliance framework
Federal regulations generally prohibit the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk for human consumption. States, on the other hand, control sales within their borders. As a result, raw milk may be sold in retail stores in one state, restricted to on-farm purchases in another, or prohibited entirely elsewhere. However, the differences extend far beyond where raw milk can be purchased. States also vary considerably in raw milk production oversight and required disclosure to consumers. In Illinois, only farms holding a state raw milk permit may sell raw milk, and sales must occur on the farm premises. Illinois also mandates routine sampling, on-site inspections, transaction logs, recall procedures, and a consumer advisory displayed at the point of sale. Oregon, by contrast, allows farms with no more than two milk-producing cows to sell raw milk directly to consumers on the farm without a dairy license.
Regulation cannot fully eliminate risk
Even a strict, uniform procedure cannot eliminate the underlying risks of an unpasteurized product. Raw milk can carry pathogens including E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Listeria. Although Illinois requires routine sampling, the Illinois Department of Public Health has explained that its testing focuses on temperature, antibiotics, and indicators of contamination, not specific pathogens like E. coli. The limits of this system became clear during a recent Illinois outbreak that resulted in 66 Campylobacter infections. However, Illinois is not alone. For example, in 2023 and 2024, a multistate Salmonella outbreak linked to California raw milk produce resulted in 171 identified cases, 70% of which involved children and adolescents.
Informed choice requires more than legality
To make consumer choice meaningful, states that legalize raw milk should establish a minimum compliance floor that helps consumers understand the risks and enables regulators to respond effectively to outbreaks. The contrasting state rules show why: legal access alone does not tell consumers which safeguards stand behind a product. The Network for Public Health Law identifies permits, warning labels, periodic testing, and temperature controls as measures that reduce consumer risk. These safeguards should form the foundation of every state framework permitting raw milk sales. Together, they can help detect contamination, inform purchasing decisions, and trace affected products when an outbreak occurs. Warnings are especially important because the risks are not distributed equally amongst individuals. According to the CDC, children under five, pregnant people, adults over sixty-five, and people with weakened immune systems face a greater risk of serious illness. A label that merely identifies a product as raw does little for consumers who may not understand what that term means or realize that they are especially vulnerable.
States do not need to choose between a complete ban and a regulatory free-for-all. Consumers may ultimately decide that raw milk is worth the risk, but that decision should be based on clear warnings and supported by safeguards that hold producers accountable. Without consistent testing, disclosure, and traceability requirements, legal access creates only the appearance of informed choice. If states choose to legalize raw milk, they must ensure that the freedom to buy it is accompanied by the information necessary to choose it knowingly.