This quote highlights a critical perspective on the motivations behind certain health and safety regulations in the food industry. While measures like pasteurization are widely regarded as essential for public health, the suggestion that these policies serve the interests of large food processors rather than consumers prompts us to reconsider the underlying motives. It invites reflection on how regulatory frameworks can sometimes contribute to monopolistic practices, potentially restricting alternative producers or traditional methods that might be equally safe or even superior. The emphasis on pasteurization, although historically justified by health concerns, could also serve to standardize and control the market, favoring big corporations that can afford compliance costs over small-scale or artisanal producers. Such regulations might inadvertently create barriers to entry, reducing diversity and innovation within the food sector. This perspective encourages us to balance genuine health concerns with awareness of economic and political influences. It underscores the importance of scrutinizing regulatory motives, ensuring that public health policies truly prioritize consumer welfare rather than corporate interests. As consumers, being aware of these dynamics allows us to make more informed choices, advocating for regulations that are transparent, just, and aimed at serving the broader community's interests rather than reinforcing existing monopolies.