I was not aware they were being denied a means to do so. But okay. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Depends on how you're interpreting 'denied'. By all means, this is a free country and we are free to make many decisions regarding our lifestyle, but that's an awfully sunny outlook on what isn't actually. Look at the price of various types of foods, for starters -- the impoverished are ironically some of the heaviest, most unhealthy people out there simply because buying 10 frozen, sodium-laden, but complete dinners for $10 makes more sense than spending $10 on the produce and other ingredients it takes to make one, maybe two healthful dinners. They're free to choose, but what kind of choice are they making, exactly?
And food deserts -- places where the nearest outlet for fresh fruits and vegetables is beyond reasonable distance to travel for it or the actual availability is poor quality and/or too expensive -- are also cropping up in somewhat depressing amounts in more impoverished areas. There are no regulations for this, it is simply being driven by stores who do not see a demand for fruits and vegetables in a certain area (because the poor can't afford it in comparison to prepackaged foods), so they pull up the anchor and sail on past.
Tack that on to the rising cost of insurance, the disturbing lack of availability even for those with a full-time job (I fall into this category), the high cost of medical treatment for conditions that can arise from poor eating habits and lack of proper exercise, and you've got yourself a recipe for disaster. Are they being denied? Technically, no. Does that mean that a laissez-faire approach is doing them any favors? Absolutely not.
We already have a kind of rewards system in place for those who do choose to partake in preventative care and drawbacks for those who don't. People who are obese pay higher premiums, and I think it's becoming increasingly common for insurance companies to offer incentives (lower premiums, free membership, etc.) for those who join gyms or make a certain weight (signed off by a doctor). It's certainly not dictating the kind of lifestyle people lead, but it is a bit of a goad in a certain direction.
But let's bring this back around to the raw milk debate. I'd like to liken it to holistic healing. People are feeding this stuff to their kids, who are also coincidentally at higher risk (along side the elderly) than your average, healthy adult of contracting diseases from any kind of mishandled raw milk product. It's not just a matter of letting adults make adult decisions for themselves, it's about the kind of impact those decisions have on those who are dependent on them and have no legal standing or otherwise to decide for themselves. No decision is truly insulated, at least not in a society that is as interconnected as ours is. If you get sick from consuming raw milk, you suddenly take time off of work, which is a loss in profit for the company, a larger burden on other workers who must compensate for your absence; conversely, if you decide to go to work anyway, there's decreased productivity, not to mention a potential burden on the health system, and you become infectious if you're carrying something like E. Coli. No big deal??