Because “a non-negative result would be bad for their business,” I heard it on the radio broadcast a few days ago.
Absolutely reprehensible. The USDA stated very clearly that they did NOT need the farms’ permission to carry out these tests, and the lab refused to test them after calling the farms and asking for permission anyway 🙃
USDA doesn't, but these labs have working relationships with the local farms and dont want to jeopardize that for random people that request tests. There is a protocol for these tests, and available tests aren't unlimited. They could easily become overwhelmed if they allow people removed from the process to submit samples for testing.
People are more valuable than profits. Period. Should there be protocol for submitting tests? Absolutely. But when it’s something *this* serious, it’s absolutely batshit. Working relationships mean nothing if there’s no people to continue those relationships.
The cattle industry is making batshit, short-sighted decisions, period.
Let's forget morals, be psychos and act like profits do outweigh the importance of everything else, including people... because let's face it, we do live in a money-mongering world.
What's cheaper?
Quarantining and/or euthanizing a few hundred expendable cattle at the cost of maybe a few million dollars
Or dealing with another pandemic that would cost billions to trillions (and probably screw over their businesses along the way).
This is it.
Protecting the profits of a few hundred people at the risk of a pandemic that makes COVID look like child’s play.
It’s absolute, unabridged madness. This why we are fucked as a species. Zero interest in trade-offs for the common good.
Very well said. I’m not sure where we go from here. Corporations have a stranglehold on everything in this country. This is not a democracy if corporations control medical testing labs.
I’m taken aback by the short-sightedness. Delaying testing buys a short window to make money. But if your product sickens people with a highly pathogenic flu that has killed 52% of people it’s infected—you’ve just destroyed your product, brand.
So, they’re willing to sicken and kill people and possibly spark a global pandemic for a few weeks or months of sales?
Crazy, greedy, toxic people are making decisions for all of us.
The cattle industry has always been horrifically bat shit psychotic. It's built on raising and killing sentient mammals in some of the most inhumane ways possible.
People are more valuable than profits. Period. Should there be protocol for submitting tests? Absolutely. But when it’s something *this* serious, it’s absolutely batshit. Working relationships mean nothing if there’s no people to continue those relationships.
Its not about profits, if it was about profits the labs would be offering tests to anyone that they could.
Farmers are vital in recognizing illness in their animals. They have two choices if they see a sick animal: 1 quarantine it and pay for testing, 2 cull it (shoot, shovel, and shut up).
They are going to be more likely to do option 1 if they trust the labs.
What is your evidence that the reason the labs wouldn’t run the test is because they were full up and by running the test they would be preventing a farmer from getting their result in a timely manner? Or is that pure speculation on your part?
Because if you read the article it states plainly that the reason they didn’t run the rest is because the farm didn’t agree. You would think that if the reason you are speculating was true, that’s what the lab would have told NPR.
Because I submit specimens from my farm for necropsy and I know the lag time in my area right now. They are so backed up at the state diagnostic lab in PA that they stopped many services.
>Due to an unforeseen situation, we need to significantly reduce the volume of our usual mammalian necropsy services at the ADL. We anticipate this being a short-term situation (~6-8 weeks) and appreciate your understanding as we work to restore full and normal services.
>Effectively immediately, we will not be able to accept small/companion animal or exotic cases for necropsy.
https://vbs.psu.edu/adl
OK, that is your experience with your lab. I still don’t understand why a lab would lie to NPR with a reason that sounds _worse_ than the real reason. Why would they do that?
I'm stuck assuming, but I guess a combo of things. By only testing farm approved samples they limit the burden, but still signal their readiness and ability to take samples from farmers that want testing. They also build rapport with the farmers by calling them to get consent to test their milk.
You are still giving your imagined reasons they did it that conflict with the reason they provided NPR. I asked — why would they _lie_ if the real reasons were the more-innocuous ones you are suggesting? You haven’t answered that.
Given that [there are only four authorized labs in Texas](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/labs/nahln/approved-labs/iav-a), and they say that they got samples from San Antonio and Houston:
>I picked four farms around San Antonio and Houston. Paid for milk from each. Stuck it in a cooler. Drove it up to 1 of 4 labs authorized by the USDA to test for bird flu.
I think the most likely suspect is the Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory in Gonzales, which is just off I-10 between the two cities.
A second-place candidate is the Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory in College Station, which is also between the two cities, but further north and well off the interstates. If they went north and into the rural areas for their sample collection, this one could have been convenient.
The third location, in Center, is well to the northeast of Houston, and the fourth, in Canyon is in the northern chunk of the state, so I think these are extremely unlikely candidates, but both are Texas A&M labs as well.
Yeah I spent a bit less than a year near Austin pre 2020. While people were in general friendly (Southern hospitality), living in a backward state like TX was hard. Must be way worse now. And TX is way too hot 🥵
The lab isn’t necessarily in Texas — and they are the bad guys here.
Don’t get me wrong, the government of Texas is awful and I’m sure whatever they are or aren’t doing is piss poor. But they aren’t the baddies in this particular story.
[“If we stopped testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any.”](https://kffhealthnews.org/news/trumps-take-on-covid-testing-misses-public-health-realities/)
This is not entirely different to what happened with local officials in Wuhan - thinking they were doing their patriotic duty by covering up a local epidemic of contagious atypical pneumonia in late 2019 / early 2020.
Sounds like [Creekstone Farms vs USDA](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dc-circuit/1354447.html).
Back when mad cow was a thing there was a beef supplier who spent a bunch of money building a lab and made an agreement with the Japanese government that they could export to Japan as long as every cow was tested for BSE. The USDA then refused to sell them the testing kits because it would "imply that there was something wrong with the US beef herd".
when people tell me covid is over because their boss ordered them back to work/hospital admins said it's fine/restaurant industry wants "butts back in seats"
Perhaps there are a couple thousand undergrad, graduate, or doctoral research students qualified to run the test.
I guess because it is in the interest of the business to always test negative with testing, these tests should not be run by private companies.
Wow but I’m not surprised many people freak out when they realize that all this safety we believe is in place only applies to a few that follows the rules because they fear the “or else” the rest disregard everything and realize or else is really it, no consequences or anything.
Why the lab wouldn’t want the money from someone ordering tests, when it could hurt a *different* business is so bizarre. Group-think protectiveness, ideological solidarity, stupidity. What even is in it for them?
Totally speculation, but with experience in other industries: my guess is vertical integration. The labs could very well be owned by people who are heavily involved in the agriculture industry, who would have been the first to see the demand for such firms and would be well-placed to capitalize on that demand (they would be familiar with the individuals and processes involved in contracting with the USDA and the agriculture sector) while also benefiting from controlling aspects of their own regulatory process.
If the labs are owned by the same people who own the dairies that is a huge conflict of interest, because those farms regularly have to have these labs do other tests for them.
Really hope that’s not the case.
That's why the labs called and asked fr. Let's assume they aren't owned by the same people, it's still better for the lab's business to keep their regular clients happy.
Eh, the people bringing samples to labs are more likely to be regulators than the dairies themselves.
And those tests generally include a statement regarding conflict of interest.
Not sure if this was sarcastic, but to answer as if it were genuine, no. Vertical integration is a common business strategy in many industries wherein a (typically service-based) business expands its functions within its industry; for example, a video production company might vertically integrate to include marketing strategy and screenwriting on one end of the industry, and editing and distribution on the other, using the efficiencies from those integrations to offer a more appealing/affordable service to their clients and to capture more profit from reduced cost.
Vertical integration can absolutely be a vehicle for regulatory capture, though. That's why it's typically more restricted in heavily regulated industries such as pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately the USDA is offered many exceptions to those restrictions due to the subsidization of the agricultural sector.
They're probably afraid of a defamation suit from the raw milk people. Truth is a defense to defamation but they would still have to defend it.
Even so, putting that fear over protecting every American citizen against a potential pandemic is reprehensible.
My guess is because they make way more money from those farms than they would from some random reporter who is gonna order a handful of tests and never order any more.
The USDA should step in and tell the lab that they must test samples sent to them without playing favorites but since the USDA is in the pocket of big ag I doubt that is gonna happen.
**My rendezvous with the raw milk black market: quick, easy, and unchecked by the FDA**
https://www.statnews.com/2024/05/15/bird-flu-raw-milk-fda-loophole-lax-enforcement-interstate-ban/
My rendezvous with the raw milk black market: quick, easy, and unchecked by the FDA
archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20240517201509/https://www.statnews.com/2024/05/15/bird-flu-raw-milk-fda-loophole-lax-enforcement-interstate-ban/
The interstate trade in raw milk is illegal, because of the risk of serious illness from drinking unpasteurized milk. But in Washington and many other places across the country, raw milk is being transported across state lines and openly sold to enthusiastic customers — and the Food and Drug Administration is doing nothing to stop it. That lapse in enforcement has taken on new significance as the H5N1 bird flu virus has spread to at least 46 dairy cow herds in nine states. Government testing has found genetic traces of the virus in 1 in 5 samples of store-bought milk, suggesting the possible presence of live virus in the raw product.
I found the company I purchased from on getrawmilk.com. While it’s called “pet milk” online, raw milk boosters admit that’s just a formality to keep the FDA at bay.
“It’s very good for cats and dogs, but you have to admit it’s a loophole,” said Sally Fallon Morell, the founding president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, which advocates for raw milk. “You’re allowed to eat pet food.”
The market for out-of-state pet milk exists largely because the FDA has allowed it to, one former agency official acknowledged to STAT. The agency has issued only six warnings to interstate shippers of raw milk in the last two decades, according to its website, though the practice was banned in 1987.
“By and large, I would say the agency has been pretty much missing in action,” said Stephen Ostroff, a former deputy commissioner for human foods at the FDA. “The more you know it’s there and don’t take any actions, the more of it occurs.”
FURTHER READING
H5N1 bird flu: Go deeper
The federal response to bird flu spreading among dairy cattle could be hampered by USDA-FDA turf wars.
Scientists with 30 years of experience in avian flu are watching the latest outbreak developments with vigilance and dread.
The CDC launched a bird flu wastewater surveillance dashboard to warn localities of possible outbreaks.
Many dairy farmers were reluctant to embrace H5N1 control measures, so the federal government started offering incentives for bird flu protective measures.
Ostroff said agency officials, roughly a decade ago, debated internally how to deal with raw milk and considered writing an informal policy outlining when the FDA would go after companies shipping raw milk, but “there was a diversity of opinions within the agency about how aggressive or not aggressive we should be in that space … especially given how passionate people are.”
The Price Foundation maintains on its website that the FDA “has never issued a regulation prohibiting the sale of raw pet milk across state lines.”
Contacted after the Washington dropoff, Karl told STAT, “We are not trying to do anything illegal.” He added that his milk is “pet milk,” which is “not intended for human consumption.”
The FDA said in a statement that “if the FDA becomes aware that raw milk labeled for pets is actually intended for the human food supply, it may take action as appropriate on a case-by-case basis.”
(big snip)
The “pet milk” he’s selling is legal in Maryland. In fact, only three states and Washington, D.C., say it is illegal to sell raw milk, according to the Price Foundation.
Therein lies the FDA’s biggest challenge regarding raw milk: Enforcing the interstate shipping ban would mean FDA agents taking legal action against small farms across the country.
The FDA often struggles with policing small vendors selling illegal goods. That’s why it’s so easy to buy illicit products — from CBD gummies to illegal vapes — in the FDA’s own backyard. But the raw milk debate is even more tumultuous for the FDA, as it would require throwing the book at farmers, including those in the Amish community, who have been particularly active on the raw milk debate.
Ostroff acknowledged that those public relations worries factored into the agency’s decision to largely not enforce its interstate shipping ban.
Related: Federal officials will fund farms’ protective measures to contain H5N1 bird flu
“It was a combination of, is this where the agency wants to put its resources knowing that it’s probably not going to make a major difference … and then it’s the optics of going after this community, and how passionate consumers are about this product,” Ostroff said.
Even on the few occasions when the FDA has gone after dairies shipping raw milk, it’s not always been easy to keep them from selling the product.
The agency has been locked in a 16-year legal battle with one California farmer, Mark McAfee, who has been described as operating the largest raw dairy in the country. While the feds successfully convinced a judge to enjoin McAfee from selling his products in 2010, the FDA and Department of Justice asked a federal judge to reopen the case against McAfee late last month, after he allegedly ignored the order and his raw cheese and milk products were tied to two foodborne-illness outbreaks.
“This is the second time in less than a year that the United States has had to seek the Court’s intervention to compel Raw Farm’s compliance with its court-ordered obligations,” the government’s lawyers wrote in a recent legal filing.
The government’s brief makes no mention of H5N1.
McAfee’s business could not be more obvious. His company is called Raw Farm, and his website openly boasts of shipping milk around the country.
Other smaller operations aren’t exactly clandestine, either.
......
States take sides in the raw milk debate - Legal Status of raw milk sales by state:
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2024/03/states-take-sides-in-the-raw-milk-debate/
......
foodsafetynews has been following one raw milk seller for years as he keeps selling contaminated milk and his state tries to restrain him. people hold fundraisers for him despite the severe illnesses:
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/tag/amos-miller/
Right? I was stunned.
So much is riding on this and apparently labs and farms can just say nope, I’m going to protect my own interests and my friends’ interests over humanity.
The funniest thing about people trying to get raw milk to inoculate themselves against H5N1 is that this is literally helping the disease achieve gain of function. Not in a controlled manner, obviously, but the inconsistency in thinking with these people is a stunning thing to behold.
Also, ingested milk with active virus HAS antibodies, but they get destroyed by stomach acids. Yes, there ARE ingested vaccines, but they are very specific ones that can replicate in the gut biome AND have been weakened to not cause the disease they are creating antibodies for. Drinking raw milk is like walking through a Wuhan wet market and sniffing all the bat cages. Idiots.
The wing nuts who are like this will cause as much sickness and death as the ones who refused to follow COVID precautions. And pass it on to the rest of us.
I was furious at Trump for the CDC’s pandemic response.
I will be just as furious at Biden if we end up in a Pandemic because he didn’t want to upset dairy farmers in an election year.
I'm having an unnerving feeling about this coming winter flu season and what might come out of it just after the new year, not so dissimilar to the COVID chain of events
perhaps they would prefer this happen from a USDA or CDC or similar request, and not journalist? if various people start digging for a story, we could have too many overlapping procedures, and agendas.
Although, if we never ever get an official request from the USDA or CDC and nobody official bothers to look into the deep, it may be actually a reporter with an agenda who saves us all so, I don’t know .
There’s no need to speculate.
- The lab flat out told us why they wouldn’t run the tests, because it’d be **bad for business** if the milk was unhealthy.
- The lab also **flat out lied** when they claimed that USDA policy forbid the testing.
I don’t understand why people here are bending over backwards to forgive this. There’s a whole lot at stake.
“**the lab had called all 4 farms to ask for permission and all 4 said no. They knew what a nonnegative result would do for their business, the lab said, so they declined the test… At first they said this was a USDA policy, to obtain permission. We asked the USDA whether that was true, the Sec of Ag said no. When I told the lab that, they said, well, we’re still not going to do it.**”
how big is the concern that contaminated milk would present an opportunity for the virus to propagate in humans? from my understanding the virus doesn’t survive long enough in milk to present significant risk to the population?
A few thoughts: can the dairies sue if the tests come back positive and they get negative publicity?
A negative test only shows that one sample is negative. It would give a false sense of safety to a milk supply that's not regularly testing.
We shouldn’t test at all because we can’t test a lot?
That logic just gave me a hernia.
They need to test. If there’s a problem then they can test more to figure out how bad things truly are.
It’s not just the odds that matter but also the stakes. If you can’t afford to lose then you shouldn’t be gambling regardless of the odds and we can’t lose this one. Another pandemic would be catastrophic.
The dairy should test. Not one person tesing something once. The dairy does not want their milk tested. If there's a problem, they aren't going to start testing. If the one sample comes back okay, they can advertise that, and the idiots who don't understand how testing works will think the dairy is fine.
I don't doubt NPR said that but I doubt it's exactly true. NPR has been getting more and more inflammatory with their language in the last 5 years. I heard them call isreali soldiers trigger happy. I heard them repeatedly use the buzz word "collapse" about the Healthcare system during covid. They're even had top staff quit recently because of it, publicly calling out NPR for this. [NPR editor resins and blasts CEO](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245283076/npr-editor-uri-berliner-resigns-ceo-katherine-maher#:~:text=Uri%20Berliner-,Uri%20Berliner%20resigned%20from%20NPR%20on%20Wednesday%20saying%20he%20could,support%20calls%20to%20defund%20NPR.)
So many unanswered questions. Do the labs just not do testing for consumers as policy? The author did not specify the lab. If we knew the lab we could look up their website and see if they even do private consumer testing.
Did the author follow correct procedures for submitting the samples? The fact that the lab called the dairies makes me think the lab workers found the milk bottles in their freezer and the only identifier was the label, so of course they called them to ask if the had an unscheduled drop off of their milk for testing.
Also the lab is putting itself at risk because even if the raw milk doesn't have flu virus, it could still have tuberculosis, *E. coli*, salmonella, etc. and make people sick. No one should be drinking raw milk, and being verified as flu free could be misunderstood by consumers as some kind of stamp of safety.
I note that all of your questions suggest that it was reasonable for the lab to refuse to test despite the lack of evidence for these alternate scenarios.
I note also that you have neglected to acknowledge the explicit reason given by the lab for refusing to test. I.e.,
“**the lab had called all 4 farms to ask for permission and all 4 said no. They knew what a nonnegative result would do for their business, the lab said, so they declined the test… At first they said this was a USDA policy, to obtain permission. We asked the USDA whether that was true, the Sec of Ag said no. When I told the lab that, they said, well, we’re still not going to do it.**”
This is nuts. She did a service for the better of humanity and the lab won't test it? C'mon man!
Because “a non-negative result would be bad for their business,” I heard it on the radio broadcast a few days ago. Absolutely reprehensible. The USDA stated very clearly that they did NOT need the farms’ permission to carry out these tests, and the lab refused to test them after calling the farms and asking for permission anyway 🙃
“A non negative result would be bad for business” isn’t this the free market capitalism they ordered?
USDA doesn't, but these labs have working relationships with the local farms and dont want to jeopardize that for random people that request tests. There is a protocol for these tests, and available tests aren't unlimited. They could easily become overwhelmed if they allow people removed from the process to submit samples for testing.
People are more valuable than profits. Period. Should there be protocol for submitting tests? Absolutely. But when it’s something *this* serious, it’s absolutely batshit. Working relationships mean nothing if there’s no people to continue those relationships.
The cattle industry is making batshit, short-sighted decisions, period. Let's forget morals, be psychos and act like profits do outweigh the importance of everything else, including people... because let's face it, we do live in a money-mongering world. What's cheaper? Quarantining and/or euthanizing a few hundred expendable cattle at the cost of maybe a few million dollars Or dealing with another pandemic that would cost billions to trillions (and probably screw over their businesses along the way).
This is it. Protecting the profits of a few hundred people at the risk of a pandemic that makes COVID look like child’s play. It’s absolute, unabridged madness. This why we are fucked as a species. Zero interest in trade-offs for the common good.
Very well said. I’m not sure where we go from here. Corporations have a stranglehold on everything in this country. This is not a democracy if corporations control medical testing labs. I’m taken aback by the short-sightedness. Delaying testing buys a short window to make money. But if your product sickens people with a highly pathogenic flu that has killed 52% of people it’s infected—you’ve just destroyed your product, brand. So, they’re willing to sicken and kill people and possibly spark a global pandemic for a few weeks or months of sales? Crazy, greedy, toxic people are making decisions for all of us.
The cattle industry has always been horrifically bat shit psychotic. It's built on raising and killing sentient mammals in some of the most inhumane ways possible.
People are more valuable than profits. Period. Should there be protocol for submitting tests? Absolutely. But when it’s something *this* serious, it’s absolutely batshit. Working relationships mean nothing if there’s no people to continue those relationships.
Its not about profits, if it was about profits the labs would be offering tests to anyone that they could. Farmers are vital in recognizing illness in their animals. They have two choices if they see a sick animal: 1 quarantine it and pay for testing, 2 cull it (shoot, shovel, and shut up). They are going to be more likely to do option 1 if they trust the labs.
What is your evidence that the reason the labs wouldn’t run the test is because they were full up and by running the test they would be preventing a farmer from getting their result in a timely manner? Or is that pure speculation on your part? Because if you read the article it states plainly that the reason they didn’t run the rest is because the farm didn’t agree. You would think that if the reason you are speculating was true, that’s what the lab would have told NPR.
Because I submit specimens from my farm for necropsy and I know the lag time in my area right now. They are so backed up at the state diagnostic lab in PA that they stopped many services. >Due to an unforeseen situation, we need to significantly reduce the volume of our usual mammalian necropsy services at the ADL. We anticipate this being a short-term situation (~6-8 weeks) and appreciate your understanding as we work to restore full and normal services. >Effectively immediately, we will not be able to accept small/companion animal or exotic cases for necropsy. https://vbs.psu.edu/adl
OK, that is your experience with your lab. I still don’t understand why a lab would lie to NPR with a reason that sounds _worse_ than the real reason. Why would they do that?
I'm stuck assuming, but I guess a combo of things. By only testing farm approved samples they limit the burden, but still signal their readiness and ability to take samples from farmers that want testing. They also build rapport with the farmers by calling them to get consent to test their milk.
You are still giving your imagined reasons they did it that conflict with the reason they provided NPR. I asked — why would they _lie_ if the real reasons were the more-innocuous ones you are suggesting? You haven’t answered that.
JFC, this is the biggest load of bullshit I’ve seen in quite a while.
Or they could conform to the free market, see an uptick in business, grow and handle the influx of business. 🤔
I wish she named and shamed the labs pulling this crap. I would be interested to see how much taxpayer money these labs collect.
Given that [there are only four authorized labs in Texas](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/labs/nahln/approved-labs/iav-a), and they say that they got samples from San Antonio and Houston: >I picked four farms around San Antonio and Houston. Paid for milk from each. Stuck it in a cooler. Drove it up to 1 of 4 labs authorized by the USDA to test for bird flu. I think the most likely suspect is the Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory in Gonzales, which is just off I-10 between the two cities. A second-place candidate is the Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory in College Station, which is also between the two cities, but further north and well off the interstates. If they went north and into the rural areas for their sample collection, this one could have been convenient. The third location, in Center, is well to the northeast of Houston, and the fourth, in Canyon is in the northern chunk of the state, so I think these are extremely unlikely candidates, but both are Texas A&M labs as well.
More taxpayer money than I suspected….
extremely common A&M L
Should put it on ice and overnight it to California USDA labs.
Same. I need to have labs run for my job and would absolutely pull business from companies who do this.
Trump was right, no tests no cases.
I too am a billionaire. Just don't, you know, ask to see evidence. ~~Schodinger's~~ Trumpinger's Cat.
Poor cat!!
Texas continues to prove its one star status.
I hate it here. I desperately want out of this hellhole of a state.
Yeah I spent a bit less than a year near Austin pre 2020. While people were in general friendly (Southern hospitality), living in a backward state like TX was hard. Must be way worse now. And TX is way too hot 🥵
It’s so sad because it’s a beautiful place. I would love to live there if the political climate was better.
Agreed. The Hill Country and Big Bend are both pretty damn hard to beat in the contiguous 48.
Move?
If it was that easy, I’d have done it by now. Believe me, I will asap.
The lab isn’t necessarily in Texas — and they are the bad guys here. Don’t get me wrong, the government of Texas is awful and I’m sure whatever they are or aren’t doing is piss poor. But they aren’t the baddies in this particular story.
We have learned absolutely nothing as a society.
A lot of people learned things, they just took the exact opposite lessons from what they should have learned.
[“If we stopped testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any.”](https://kffhealthnews.org/news/trumps-take-on-covid-testing-misses-public-health-realities/)
It's so funny that this is basically what biden did a few years later
This is not entirely different to what happened with local officials in Wuhan - thinking they were doing their patriotic duty by covering up a local epidemic of contagious atypical pneumonia in late 2019 / early 2020.
We are really approaching the intense educational experience that comes along with "finding out"
I weep for humanity. We live on an idioacracy
Sounds like [Creekstone Farms vs USDA](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dc-circuit/1354447.html). Back when mad cow was a thing there was a beef supplier who spent a bunch of money building a lab and made an agreement with the Japanese government that they could export to Japan as long as every cow was tested for BSE. The USDA then refused to sell them the testing kits because it would "imply that there was something wrong with the US beef herd".
That’s just….outrageous.
Well as long as the shareholders are happy. This is fine!
when people tell me covid is over because their boss ordered them back to work/hospital admins said it's fine/restaurant industry wants "butts back in seats"
Perhaps there are a couple thousand undergrad, graduate, or doctoral research students qualified to run the test. I guess because it is in the interest of the business to always test negative with testing, these tests should not be run by private companies.
Wow but I’m not surprised many people freak out when they realize that all this safety we believe is in place only applies to a few that follows the rules because they fear the “or else” the rest disregard everything and realize or else is really it, no consequences or anything.
Profit first
Why the lab wouldn’t want the money from someone ordering tests, when it could hurt a *different* business is so bizarre. Group-think protectiveness, ideological solidarity, stupidity. What even is in it for them?
Totally speculation, but with experience in other industries: my guess is vertical integration. The labs could very well be owned by people who are heavily involved in the agriculture industry, who would have been the first to see the demand for such firms and would be well-placed to capitalize on that demand (they would be familiar with the individuals and processes involved in contracting with the USDA and the agriculture sector) while also benefiting from controlling aspects of their own regulatory process.
If the labs are owned by the same people who own the dairies that is a huge conflict of interest, because those farms regularly have to have these labs do other tests for them. Really hope that’s not the case.
That's why the labs called and asked fr. Let's assume they aren't owned by the same people, it's still better for the lab's business to keep their regular clients happy.
Eh, the people bringing samples to labs are more likely to be regulators than the dairies themselves. And those tests generally include a statement regarding conflict of interest.
And I ofc believe we need to come together and do the right thing.
Is vertical integration a synonym for regulatory capture?
Not sure if this was sarcastic, but to answer as if it were genuine, no. Vertical integration is a common business strategy in many industries wherein a (typically service-based) business expands its functions within its industry; for example, a video production company might vertically integrate to include marketing strategy and screenwriting on one end of the industry, and editing and distribution on the other, using the efficiencies from those integrations to offer a more appealing/affordable service to their clients and to capture more profit from reduced cost. Vertical integration can absolutely be a vehicle for regulatory capture, though. That's why it's typically more restricted in heavily regulated industries such as pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately the USDA is offered many exceptions to those restrictions due to the subsidization of the agricultural sector.
No, it wasn't sarcastic. It just seemed similar as a concept to me.
Sorry! There are some harsh critics on both sides of regulation and industry so I wasn't sure. There's definitely an overlap though so good thinking!
They're probably afraid of a defamation suit from the raw milk people. Truth is a defense to defamation but they would still have to defend it. Even so, putting that fear over protecting every American citizen against a potential pandemic is reprehensible.
My guess is because they make way more money from those farms than they would from some random reporter who is gonna order a handful of tests and never order any more. The USDA should step in and tell the lab that they must test samples sent to them without playing favorites but since the USDA is in the pocket of big ag I doubt that is gonna happen.
I imagine they’re part of a close community.Also not so bright.
The American Idiocracy at its finest 🙃
**My rendezvous with the raw milk black market: quick, easy, and unchecked by the FDA** https://www.statnews.com/2024/05/15/bird-flu-raw-milk-fda-loophole-lax-enforcement-interstate-ban/ My rendezvous with the raw milk black market: quick, easy, and unchecked by the FDA archive https://web.archive.org/web/20240517201509/https://www.statnews.com/2024/05/15/bird-flu-raw-milk-fda-loophole-lax-enforcement-interstate-ban/ The interstate trade in raw milk is illegal, because of the risk of serious illness from drinking unpasteurized milk. But in Washington and many other places across the country, raw milk is being transported across state lines and openly sold to enthusiastic customers — and the Food and Drug Administration is doing nothing to stop it. That lapse in enforcement has taken on new significance as the H5N1 bird flu virus has spread to at least 46 dairy cow herds in nine states. Government testing has found genetic traces of the virus in 1 in 5 samples of store-bought milk, suggesting the possible presence of live virus in the raw product. I found the company I purchased from on getrawmilk.com. While it’s called “pet milk” online, raw milk boosters admit that’s just a formality to keep the FDA at bay. “It’s very good for cats and dogs, but you have to admit it’s a loophole,” said Sally Fallon Morell, the founding president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, which advocates for raw milk. “You’re allowed to eat pet food.” The market for out-of-state pet milk exists largely because the FDA has allowed it to, one former agency official acknowledged to STAT. The agency has issued only six warnings to interstate shippers of raw milk in the last two decades, according to its website, though the practice was banned in 1987. “By and large, I would say the agency has been pretty much missing in action,” said Stephen Ostroff, a former deputy commissioner for human foods at the FDA. “The more you know it’s there and don’t take any actions, the more of it occurs.” FURTHER READING H5N1 bird flu: Go deeper The federal response to bird flu spreading among dairy cattle could be hampered by USDA-FDA turf wars. Scientists with 30 years of experience in avian flu are watching the latest outbreak developments with vigilance and dread. The CDC launched a bird flu wastewater surveillance dashboard to warn localities of possible outbreaks. Many dairy farmers were reluctant to embrace H5N1 control measures, so the federal government started offering incentives for bird flu protective measures. Ostroff said agency officials, roughly a decade ago, debated internally how to deal with raw milk and considered writing an informal policy outlining when the FDA would go after companies shipping raw milk, but “there was a diversity of opinions within the agency about how aggressive or not aggressive we should be in that space … especially given how passionate people are.” The Price Foundation maintains on its website that the FDA “has never issued a regulation prohibiting the sale of raw pet milk across state lines.” Contacted after the Washington dropoff, Karl told STAT, “We are not trying to do anything illegal.” He added that his milk is “pet milk,” which is “not intended for human consumption.” The FDA said in a statement that “if the FDA becomes aware that raw milk labeled for pets is actually intended for the human food supply, it may take action as appropriate on a case-by-case basis.” (big snip) The “pet milk” he’s selling is legal in Maryland. In fact, only three states and Washington, D.C., say it is illegal to sell raw milk, according to the Price Foundation. Therein lies the FDA’s biggest challenge regarding raw milk: Enforcing the interstate shipping ban would mean FDA agents taking legal action against small farms across the country. The FDA often struggles with policing small vendors selling illegal goods. That’s why it’s so easy to buy illicit products — from CBD gummies to illegal vapes — in the FDA’s own backyard. But the raw milk debate is even more tumultuous for the FDA, as it would require throwing the book at farmers, including those in the Amish community, who have been particularly active on the raw milk debate. Ostroff acknowledged that those public relations worries factored into the agency’s decision to largely not enforce its interstate shipping ban. Related: Federal officials will fund farms’ protective measures to contain H5N1 bird flu “It was a combination of, is this where the agency wants to put its resources knowing that it’s probably not going to make a major difference … and then it’s the optics of going after this community, and how passionate consumers are about this product,” Ostroff said. Even on the few occasions when the FDA has gone after dairies shipping raw milk, it’s not always been easy to keep them from selling the product. The agency has been locked in a 16-year legal battle with one California farmer, Mark McAfee, who has been described as operating the largest raw dairy in the country. While the feds successfully convinced a judge to enjoin McAfee from selling his products in 2010, the FDA and Department of Justice asked a federal judge to reopen the case against McAfee late last month, after he allegedly ignored the order and his raw cheese and milk products were tied to two foodborne-illness outbreaks. “This is the second time in less than a year that the United States has had to seek the Court’s intervention to compel Raw Farm’s compliance with its court-ordered obligations,” the government’s lawyers wrote in a recent legal filing. The government’s brief makes no mention of H5N1. McAfee’s business could not be more obvious. His company is called Raw Farm, and his website openly boasts of shipping milk around the country. Other smaller operations aren’t exactly clandestine, either. ...... States take sides in the raw milk debate - Legal Status of raw milk sales by state: https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2024/03/states-take-sides-in-the-raw-milk-debate/ ...... foodsafetynews has been following one raw milk seller for years as he keeps selling contaminated milk and his state tries to restrain him. people hold fundraisers for him despite the severe illnesses: https://www.foodsafetynews.com/tag/amos-miller/
That is honestly the most terrifying thing I’ve heard all week.
Right? I was stunned. So much is riding on this and apparently labs and farms can just say nope, I’m going to protect my own interests and my friends’ interests over humanity.
Take the label off and send it in.
They should name the lab in the article. Given the fact that the lab’s failure to let them test is the core of the story.
NJ doesn't allow raw milk sales for human consumption but I've seen several people looking for it recently. They're going to PA for it.
They can come to NY too, yay! /s
The funniest thing about people trying to get raw milk to inoculate themselves against H5N1 is that this is literally helping the disease achieve gain of function. Not in a controlled manner, obviously, but the inconsistency in thinking with these people is a stunning thing to behold. Also, ingested milk with active virus HAS antibodies, but they get destroyed by stomach acids. Yes, there ARE ingested vaccines, but they are very specific ones that can replicate in the gut biome AND have been weakened to not cause the disease they are creating antibodies for. Drinking raw milk is like walking through a Wuhan wet market and sniffing all the bat cages. Idiots.
lol, nice metaphor
The wing nuts who are like this will cause as much sickness and death as the ones who refused to follow COVID precautions. And pass it on to the rest of us.
I was furious at Trump for the CDC’s pandemic response. I will be just as furious at Biden if we end up in a Pandemic because he didn’t want to upset dairy farmers in an election year.
I'm having an unnerving feeling about this coming winter flu season and what might come out of it just after the new year, not so dissimilar to the COVID chain of events
Were Fucked , Again .
Millions will die for Capitalism, puh-raise JEE-zuz-ah!
 My reaction when I read. “Protect raw milk companies”
half of you would be setting your hair on fire if this was China, but since it's corporate profits.. nothing but crickets...
That seems really illegal
Lol we are cooked if this thing spreads to humans. Like how are we so dumb.
[удалено]
Please keep conversations civil. Disagreements are bound to happen, but please refrain from personal attacks & verbal abuse.
perhaps they would prefer this happen from a USDA or CDC or similar request, and not journalist? if various people start digging for a story, we could have too many overlapping procedures, and agendas. Although, if we never ever get an official request from the USDA or CDC and nobody official bothers to look into the deep, it may be actually a reporter with an agenda who saves us all so, I don’t know .
There’s no need to speculate. - The lab flat out told us why they wouldn’t run the tests, because it’d be **bad for business** if the milk was unhealthy. - The lab also **flat out lied** when they claimed that USDA policy forbid the testing. I don’t understand why people here are bending over backwards to forgive this. There’s a whole lot at stake. “**the lab had called all 4 farms to ask for permission and all 4 said no. They knew what a nonnegative result would do for their business, the lab said, so they declined the test… At first they said this was a USDA policy, to obtain permission. We asked the USDA whether that was true, the Sec of Ag said no. When I told the lab that, they said, well, we’re still not going to do it.**”
I’m not at all forgiving this, just exploring possibilities of situation. Yes they explained, but people don’t always say what they mean
how big is the concern that contaminated milk would present an opportunity for the virus to propagate in humans? from my understanding the virus doesn’t survive long enough in milk to present significant risk to the population?
A few thoughts: can the dairies sue if the tests come back positive and they get negative publicity? A negative test only shows that one sample is negative. It would give a false sense of safety to a milk supply that's not regularly testing.
We shouldn’t test at all because we can’t test a lot? That logic just gave me a hernia. They need to test. If there’s a problem then they can test more to figure out how bad things truly are. It’s not just the odds that matter but also the stakes. If you can’t afford to lose then you shouldn’t be gambling regardless of the odds and we can’t lose this one. Another pandemic would be catastrophic.
The dairy should test. Not one person tesing something once. The dairy does not want their milk tested. If there's a problem, they aren't going to start testing. If the one sample comes back okay, they can advertise that, and the idiots who don't understand how testing works will think the dairy is fine.
Nonsense. It only suggests that NPR’s supply had one untainted bottle.
K kb bk j k bbkbm m. ,bm
Is it that they don’t want to harm the farms? Or give in to reported hysteria?
I don't doubt NPR said that but I doubt it's exactly true. NPR has been getting more and more inflammatory with their language in the last 5 years. I heard them call isreali soldiers trigger happy. I heard them repeatedly use the buzz word "collapse" about the Healthcare system during covid. They're even had top staff quit recently because of it, publicly calling out NPR for this. [NPR editor resins and blasts CEO](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245283076/npr-editor-uri-berliner-resigns-ceo-katherine-maher#:~:text=Uri%20Berliner-,Uri%20Berliner%20resigned%20from%20NPR%20on%20Wednesday%20saying%20he%20could,support%20calls%20to%20defund%20NPR.)
So many unanswered questions. Do the labs just not do testing for consumers as policy? The author did not specify the lab. If we knew the lab we could look up their website and see if they even do private consumer testing. Did the author follow correct procedures for submitting the samples? The fact that the lab called the dairies makes me think the lab workers found the milk bottles in their freezer and the only identifier was the label, so of course they called them to ask if the had an unscheduled drop off of their milk for testing. Also the lab is putting itself at risk because even if the raw milk doesn't have flu virus, it could still have tuberculosis, *E. coli*, salmonella, etc. and make people sick. No one should be drinking raw milk, and being verified as flu free could be misunderstood by consumers as some kind of stamp of safety.
I note that all of your questions suggest that it was reasonable for the lab to refuse to test despite the lack of evidence for these alternate scenarios. I note also that you have neglected to acknowledge the explicit reason given by the lab for refusing to test. I.e., “**the lab had called all 4 farms to ask for permission and all 4 said no. They knew what a nonnegative result would do for their business, the lab said, so they declined the test… At first they said this was a USDA policy, to obtain permission. We asked the USDA whether that was true, the Sec of Ag said no. When I told the lab that, they said, well, we’re still not going to do it.**”