1. (And this is the most important) we literally have a solution to it not being safe.
2. When things are unsafe, we (generally) make sure that people are properly educated about the risks. The people pushing raw milk are doing the exact opposite.
3. When something is unsafe, we try to figure out how to make it safe or find an alternative (see 1)
From what I can tell, raw milk per se is not likely to be problematic, but problems can get injected if the cows and/or general milking operation are not handled well. Pasteurizing milk could plausibly be seen as a quick fix to not have to deal with such things well. On the other hand, who would I trust to actually handle raw milk with excellence?
Sounds to me like low-temperature pasteurization might be the best compromise? Kills off what is harmful, but supposedly retains more of the original nutrients?
Part of the issue is that the current farms doing it are heavily regulated and also specialize in this product. If there's deregulation, you're going to see a free for all in states with light regulation.
I personally think the whole thing is very stupid, and considering all of the raw milk illnesses that have been occurring (especially with bird flu), the status quo is fine. But if exposure is expanded...
I do care that it won't give me food poisoning though, that's a lot higher up the list of concerns than vitamin provenance.
More controversial assertions circulate around protein and enzyme content, but studies have failed to find anything making raw milk more "digestible" or causing any detectable contribution to immunity or allergy. The FDA has an extensive discussion on this: https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/raw-milk-...