[flagged]
Why do you think this is a strong enough reason to allow a dangerous product that used to kill people onto the market? This anecdote isn't a strong empirical justification for the safety of raw milk, just like saying that you often don't crash your car isn't a good argument for the unnecessity of seatbelts. Food poisoning incidents are not that common, even in unsanitary conditions - pasteurisation is about making it so that kids don't get unlucky.
How does your underdeveloped country compare to developed countries in a bunch of health related indicators?
Oh, whole nations and hundreds of years are now "an anecdote".
> How does your underdeveloped country compare to developed countries in a bunch of health related indicators?
Comparable, probably soon to overtake all US stats given how much of a shitshow the healthcare here is.
We have plenty of non-anecdotal actual data from that time. It’s precisely why pasteurizing is now required.
But let’s not confuse the accessibility of good health care for the poor with simple sensible food handling.
Drinking raw, uncooked milk is full of micro-organisms (salmonella, …) By your standards, any kind of food regulation is totalitarian.
The attitude "if something is rare enough that I don't personally see a problem means there IS no problem" is dumb in a country with 300 million people or a world with 9 billion people.
Like smoking: most people who smoke don't get lung cancer. But the risk increases enough that it ends up costing the public coffers quite a lot of money. Thus it is within the remit and interest of the public to curtail smoking, even if your grandmother smoked every day of her life till she died at 100 in a bungie jumping accident.
It is one thing to believe that it would be better to have libertarian system that let you personally take the risk of drinking raw milk. But its dumb to call the regulation totalitarian.