Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm guessing that the risk depends on how the cows are kept. Industrialization of milk farming introduced high concentration of cows in cramped spaces, which led to disease/bacteria spread. I'm guessing this, because we kept milk cows for thousands of years and didn't use pasteurization. If that's true, and you know that your milk cow is kept in good conditions, you should feel comfortable drinking its milk raw.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

It’s rather the other way round. Pasteurization was invented at the end of the 19th century and quickly becoming widespread in the beginning of the 20th century (1910 in NY) when it was no longer feasible to have cows in urban centers and transportation took significant time. However, since then, the industrialization of milk production and the introduction of safety standards (cold storage, stainless steel vats to transport, mandatory testing,...) made processing raw milk safer, rather than riskier. Major TBC outbreaks were linked to raw milk - TBC linked to milk is basically a non-issue nowadays, even for raw milk.

Milk contamination may occur in these ways:

* Animal feces coming into direct contact with the milk

* Infection of the udder (mastitis)

* Cow diseases (for example, bovine tuberculosis)

* Bacteria that live on the skin of animals

* Environment (for example, feces, dirt, and processing equipment)

* Insects, rodents, and other animal vectors

* Unsanitary conditions in milk processing plant

* Cross-contamination from dairy workers, such as contact with dirty clothing or boots

Source as linked in another comment: https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-an...

From my reading raw milk can be contaminated inside and outside the cow from such a myriad of sources and while cramped industrial farming might increase the likelihood of contamination it doesn't remotely eliminate the risks. Also note pasteurization practices originated prior to industrial farming

Yes and no. Different nation has different laws and testing, and different methods for animal handling can increase disease risks. To take an direct example here from Sweden, if a farmers animal get tested positive for salmonella then most if not all the nearby animals are killed and possible even nearby neighboring farmers flocks just to be on the safe side. Raw milk also get tested a lot more since the risk are higher.

That said, while its true that we have kept cows for thousands of years without using pasteurization, there is a reason why the average life span is high and child mortality is low. We also used to milk the cow and then directly drink it, rather than collect it and store it for a extended period of time.

Raw milk is objectively tastier, more nutritious, and keeps for longer; the dangers of foodborne illness can be greatly mitigated with proper sourcing, which will also help control the amount of pesticides and antibiotics that make their way into the milk (something you can't really do with processed milk).

There are certain gourmet cheeses that can only be made with raw milk; to make them with pasteurized milk is not only blasphemous, it yields objectively inferior product.

That's not what "objectively" means.

Do you know of anyone who prefers the taste of Maillard browning in their milk or cheese?