> It's always been raw milk, warm and fresh from the udder. And the first thing they do is to boil it.

Two things: Firstly, it's not raw if they boil it. Most store-bought milk has gone through two processes: Pasteurisation and homogenisation. Pasteurisation is simply heating the milk. If your family boiled it before drinking, you've actually heated the milk more than commercial pasteurisation does. Normally pasteurised milk is heated to only 72 degrees celsius for only 15 seconds. Homogenisation is essentially forcing the milk through filters that breaks up the globs of fat. Only pasteurisation is necessary for food safety.

And secondly, pasteurisation is most necessary if you intend to store the milk. If, as you say, it's "warm and fresh from the udder", there's little risk from drinking raw milk.

The parent of your post specifically said selling raw milk through the normal store channels. The issue is not raw milk, but selling raw milk, which when you combine storage and transport, and the consumer storing it, means plenty of time for massive amounts of bacteria growth. As I'm sure you know, even with normal pasteurisation milk spoils relatively quickly.

> If I were to conjecture, it's that the "no raw milk" diktat forces farmers to go to big distribution companies with the requisite facilities for pasteurization.

Health authorities first started to push for pasteurisation after its extensive success in massively reducing illnesses - and deaths - due to spoiled milk.

Boiled milk is also known as pasteurized milk. It's no longer raw milk if you've boiled it.

Boiling milk? No thanks, boiled milk tastes funny.

You should remember that not everyone live in the same hot climate as you where milk generally don't go bad immediately, and that there are plenty of people around in cooler climates that have stomachs that usually can handle milk without problem.

I would love to see the data with comparison to baseline too. and it is an example of a nanny state (the FDA is literally saying, we have to protect you from this) rather than acting as a licensed-milk-producer-seal issuer.

It's the same nanny state issue when the FDA shut down more beneficial AIDS treatments in the 80s and 90s when the only drugs on the market, that the FDA approved of (AZT), were essentially toxic and killed about the same number of people that they "helped". Why should the FDA decide what goes into the bodies of supposedly "free" people? They should only act to say, "This is the only type of drugs or milk the FDA approves of"