E?

My reasoning:
Premise 1 (principle): Pasturization -> destroys many of milk's nutrients.
Conclusion 1: To take advantage of the missing nutrients, use unpasturized milk.
Premise 2 (fact): Govt requires all mass-marketed milk and milk products to be pasturized.

A) The only way to ensure adequate nutrition is to ban pasteurization. - Extreme qualifier; also not supported by stimulus since stimulus only mentions milk nutritients (and not all known nutritients)
B) Pasteurization at slightly lower temperatures can meet government regulations while leaving much of milk's nutritional value unaffected. - out of scope; not mentioned so cannot be inferred
C) Changes in governmental health safety standards will allow some milk products to be sold without undergoing pasteurization - seems wrong because of the word "some". Thinking from a contrapositive point of view, "some" is not the logical opposite of "all milk products". Some includes 1-100% (including 100%) and to negate "all" we must exclude the 100 percent chance of it happening.
D) Government health and safety regulations are not strict enough to control the growth of certain forms of bacteria. - not supported by stimulus; weakens more than supports since stimulus says "... in order to prevent POTENTIALLY harmful...", which to me sounds more precautious than not (e.g. strict enough)
E) Government health and safety regulations make it difficult to conform to some nutritionists' recommendations regarding milk consumption. - at this point by process of elimination; it also is a summary of the argument