I never stated the government's some moral good, nor that they've restricted & advised against the sale of raw milk for "The good of the citizens" - the reason they've been so heavy on regulating raw-milk is because there's no real beneficial outcome; the socioeconomics of raw-milk consuming demographics aren't attractive to major healthcare corporations: they're largely poorer, more rural, and distrusting people - rather than the type who'd pay for a full treatment plan if they were to fall ill from drinking unpasteurized milk.
Also, subsequent of their working-class nature, it's not an ideal outcome their numbers should dwindle. And raw-milk epidemics are a royal pain in the ass for the government to handle because they rapidly spiral out of control & cost large amounts of money to contain:
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The Cost Estimates of Foodborne Illnesses data product provides estimates of the cost of foodborne illnesses in the United States. Total and per-case costs are provided for foodborne illness as a whole, and for individual pathogens.
www.ers.usda.gov
Obesity, alcoholism, and addictive-foods on the other hand are the exact opposite: they're self-contained from person-to-person, warrant profit for the manufacturers, have a strong social acceptance, and directly profit healthcare corporations due to the long-set nature of adverse effects & the consequential treatments provided; obesity/liver-failure > E.coli for profit.
And seed oils aren't
all bad, I'm skeptical of some data regarding them because they directly profit corporations like McDonald's, but there's no genuine evidence of any sort of short-term consumption being inherently harmful; because most seed-oil related studies focus on typical junk food, it's hard to conclude it's the seed oils
alone that are responsible for some of the reported side-effects.
TLDR; raw milk's not profitable since the
dangers (not the benefits) don't aid the economy or government, that's why it's heavily restricted