Food Protection Trends - March/April 2018 - 110

our results. Second, while online social media ads targeted
users living in the Idaho, Oregon, and Washington based
on their profiles with the social media site, we could
not confirm the state or residence for subjects, in order
to allow them to stay anonymous. Therefore, we do not
know the distribution of respondents across the three
states. Third, all information was self-reported, and recall
bias may have occurred. Additionally, we did not collect
information regarding perceived health benefits among
former or never raw milk consumers; therefore, our results
can only be compared with results obtained from other
raw milk consumers. Lastly, approximately three-fourths
of our survey respondents were female, possibly indicating
a response bias in our results. Our results of consumption
practices were similar to those of raw milk consumers in
Michigan, where the response rate of females was 43% (7).
Given the similarities in our results with different response
rates, we believe the difference in response rates has
produced a negligible effect on the results. However, future
research in consumption practices of this consumer group

should consider whether consumption practices differ
based on gender.
CONCLUSIONS
The study's results highlight the wide range of reasons
why people consume raw milk, the low (or entirely
absent) perception of risk among raw milk consumers,
and the lack of trust that current raw milk consumers have
in state health officials regarding food safety. Consuming
raw milk carries an inherent risk of illness, particularly
among at-risk populations, including the chronically ill or
immunocompromised. If consumers continue to choose to
consume raw milk, more research is needed to address the
most effective means of communicating misperceptions
and risks to consumers. Additionally, the development
of rapid microbiological testing kits are needed to ensure
the safety of the products. It is hoped that addressing
these topics will decrease the morbidity associated with
consuming raw milk products.

REFERENCES
1. Anonymous. 2010. Perceptions of raw milk's
risks and benefits. 83. Research Brief, Center
for Integrated Agricultural Systems, UWMadison College of Agricultural and Life
Sciences.
2. Barnes, M., P. Cullinan, P. Athanasaki,
S. MacNeill, A. M. Hole, J. Harris, S. Kalogeraki,
M. Chatzinikolaou, N. Drakonakis,
V. Bibaki-Liakou, A. J. Newman Taylor, and
I. Bibakis. 2001. Crete: does farming explain
urban and rural differences in atopy? Clin.
Exp. Allergy J. Br. Soc. Allergy Clin. Immunol.
31:1822-1828.
3. Buzby, J. C., L. H. Gould, M. E. Kendall,
T. F. Jones, T. Robinson, and D. P. Blayney.
2013. Characteristics of consumers of
unpasteurized milk in the United States.
J. Consum. Aff. 47:153-166.
4. Claeys, W. L., S. Cardoen, G. Daube,
J. De Block, K. Dewettinck, K. Dierick,
L. De Zutter, A. Huyghebaert, H. Imberechts,
P. Thiange, Y. Vandenplas, and L. Herman.
2012. Raw or heated cow milk consumption:
Review of risks and benefits. Food Control
31:251-262.

110

5. Costard, S., L. Espejo, H. Groenendaal,
and F. J. Zagmutt. 2017. Outbreak-related
disease burden associated with consumption
of unpasteurized cow's milk and cheese,
United States, 2009-2014. Emerg. Infect. Dis.
23:957-964.
6. Farquhar, D. 2016. State Milk Laws. Natl.
Conf. State Legis. Available at: http://www.
realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-regulations.
Accessed 01 April 2016.
7. Katafiasz, A., and P. Bartlett. 2012. Motivation for unpasteurized milk consumption in Michigan, 2011. Food Prot. Trends
32:124-128.
8. Leamy, R., S. Heiss, and E. Roche. 2014.
The impact of consumer motivations and
sources of information on unpasteurized milk
consumption in Vermont, 2013. Food Prot.
Trends 34:216-225.
9. Loss, G., S. Apprich, M. Waser, W. Kneifel,
J. Genuneit, G. Büchele, J. Weber, B. Sozanska,
H. Danielewicz, E. Horak, R. J. J. van Neerven,
D. Heederik, P. C. Lorenzen, E. von Mutius,
C. Braun-Fahrländer, and GABRIELA study

Food Protection Trends March/April

group. 2011. The protective effect of farm
milk consumption on childhood asthma and
atopy: the GABRIELA study. J. Allergy Clin.
Immunol. 128:766-773.e4
10. Mungai, E. A., C. B. Behravesh, and L. H.
Gould. 2015. Increased outbreaks associated
with nonpasteurized milk, United States.
Emerg. Infect. Dis. 21:119-122.
11. Oliver, S., K. Boor, S. Murphy, and
S. Murinda. 2009. Food safety hazards
associated with consumption of raw milk.
Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 6:793-806.
12. Sillence, E., C. Hardy, L. C. Medeiros, and
J. T. LeJeune. 2016. Examining trust factors
in online food risk information: The case
of unpasteurized or "raw" milk. Appetite
99:200-210.
13. Vranjes, A. P., M. Popovic, and M. Jevtic.
2015. Raw milk consumption and health.
Serbian Arch. Med. 143:87-92.
http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-regulations http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-regulations
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - March/April 2018
