If the last couple years are any indication, bird flu is not just for the birds.

Highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as H5N1, has been confirmed in 101 dairy herds in 12 states since March, with Michigan, Texas and Idaho leading the pack. Even more troubling, there have been three confirmed human infections among U.S. dairy workers so far. Evidence of transmission from cows back to domestic and wild birds, and even to dairy farm cats, has also been found.

Since early 2022, wild birds have shouldered the blame for the spread of the current iteration of H5N1 to domestic bird populations, ranging from backyard flocks to farms confining several million animals. Viral diseases commonly spread within the same or similar species. But alarm bells go off when they make the leap into species unrelated to the original host.

The latest spillover from birds to dairy cattle is particularly concerning because of the virus’ ability to spread undetected in cows that are in close contact with vulnerable dairy workers and produce meat and milk that may enter the food supply. The current strain of avian flu has infected at least 48 species of mammals worldwide, and recent reports indicate novel mammal-to-mammal transmission, including from cows directly to humans.

Officials still consider the threat to public health low. But even if the spread doesn’t escalate, it should be a warning to the federal government and the dairy industry.

Each year, millions of dairy cattle are transported long distances in the U.S. under grueling conditions — deprived of food, water and protection from extreme heat and cold. Transport stress additionally compromises animals’ immune systems. In particular, hundreds of thousands of newborn calves are transported on journeys that can exceed 1,000 miles. Male calves, typically considered a “low-value byproduct” of the dairy industry used for veal or beef production, are often fed unpasteurized waste milk, putting them at high risk of contracting H5N1, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Livestock transport is regulated at the federal level by the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, which requires animals traveling domestically for more than 28 hours to be offloaded for food, water and rest, and the Animal Health Protection Act, which gives the USDA broad authority to restrict the movement of animals to control disease. Livestock transported across state lines must also comply with the receiving state’s import restrictions, which may require that the animals have certificates of veterinary inspection.

In theory, these laws act as important tools in protecting animal health and food safety. Unfortunately, enforcement of the Twenty-Eight Hour Law is virtually nonexistent, according to research conducted by my organization, the Animal Welfare Institute.

Additionally, neither the Twenty-Eight Hour Law nor the Animal Health Protection Act establishes specific requirements to ensure animals are both healthy and strong enough to travel. Although certificates of veterinary inspection can help trace the movement of infected animals during a disease outbreak, this system inevitably falls short. That’s because pre-transport assessments of animal health often amount to a quick visual inspection for outward signs of communicable disease instead of verification that animals can physically withstand the journey. Experts in humane livestock handling, including Temple Grandin, consider “fitness for transport” to be a crucial factor in protecting food safety and animal health and welfare.

Veterinary inspections are not even mandated for all transported animals, including many of the approximately 3 million “cull” dairy cows slaughtered annually. These animals often suffer from debilitating conditions that increase transport-related stress and immunosuppression. Meanwhile, of the more than 97 million U.S. birds affected by H5N1 since 2022, most have been killed to mitigate disease transmission. Many died horrifically after their owners induced heatstroke, according to USDA records.

This month, Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) introduced federal legislation that would help address health and safety gaps. The Humane Transport of Farmed Animals Act would direct federal officials to develop a process to enforce the Twenty-Eight Hour Law, increasing active monitoring of long-distance transport. The bill would also prohibit interstate transport of livestock considered unfit for travel based on criteria from the World Organisation for Animal Health, the international authority on the health and welfare of animals.

New research suggests that a single H5N1 spillover event from birds to cattle occurred in Texas as early as last year. Subsequent cattle shipments carried the disease to distant herds around the nation. Stricter regulation may well have limited the spread.

When billions of animals are intensively raised, transported and slaughtered each year, conditions are ripe for pathogens to mutate, spread and seriously endanger animal and public health. The Humane Transport of Farmed Animals Act cannot stop the spread of bird flu on its own. But it would further essential efforts to provide oversight of the millions of animals — and their pathogens — regularly crossing state lines.

Gwendolen Reyes-Illg is a veterinary medicine consultant for the Animal Welfare Institute.

To boldly go where no man has gone before.

That’s the mission of the USS Enterprise — and arguably the aim of a $1-million prize being offered through a foundation created to honor the father of the “Star Trek” franchise.

The Roddenberry Foundation — named for Gene Roddenberry — announced Tuesday that this year’s biennial award would focus on artificial intelligence that benefits humanity.

Lior Ipp, chief executive of the foundation, told The Times there’s a growing recognition that AI is becoming more ubiquitous and will affect all aspects of our lives.

“We are trying to … catalyze folks to think about what AI looks like if it’s used for good,” Ipp said, “and what it means to use AI responsibly, ethically and toward solving some of the thorny global challenges that exist in the world.”

The Roddenberry Prize is open to early-stage ventures — including nonprofits and for-profits — across the globe.

Each cycle, the focal point of the award changes. The spotlight on AI and machine learning arrives as recent strides in the technology have sparked excitement as well as fear.

Concerns abound that AI threatens privacy, intellectual property and jobs, including the work performed by this reporter. Although it can automate busywork, it may also replicate the harmful biases of the people who created it.

California legislators are racing to address anxieties through about 50 AI-related bills, many of which aim to install safeguards around the technology, which lawmakers say could cause societal harm. The proposed legislation targets AI-related fears ranging from data security to racial discrimination.

“We’ve seen with other technologies that we don’t do anything until well after there’s a big problem,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who wrote a bill that would require companies developing large AI models to do safety testing.

“Social media had contributed many good things to society … but we know there have been significant downsides to social media, and we did nothing to reduce or to mitigate those harms,” he said. “And now we’re playing catch-up. I prefer not to play catch-up.”

Ipp said the foundation shares the broad concern about AI and sees the award as a means to potentially contribute to creating those guardrails.

The language of the application states that it’s seeking ethical proposals. And much like the multicultural, multi-planetary cast of “Star Trek,” it’s supposed to be inclusive.

“Any use of AI or machine learning must be fair, transparent, respectful of individual rights and privacy, and should explicitly design against bias or discrimination against individuals, communities or groups,” according to the prize website.

Inspiration for the theme was also borne out of the applications the foundation received last time around. Ipp said the prize, which is “issue-agnostic” but focused on early-stage tech, produced compelling uses of AI and machine learning in agriculture, healthcare, biotech and education.

“So,” he said, “we sort of decided to double down this year on specifically AI and machine learning.”

The most recent winner was Sweden-based Elypta, which Ipp said is using liquid biopsies, such as a blood test, to detect cancer early.

Though the foundation isn’t prioritizing a particular issue, the application states that it is looking for ideas that have the potential to push the needle on one or more of the United Nations’ 17 sustainable development goals, which include eliminating poverty and hunger as well as boosting climate action and protecting life on land and underwater.

“Star Trek,” which first aired in 1966, featured tons of enviable tech, including the universal translator, the tricorder — a handheld device that performed environmental scans, data recording and data analysis — and the transporter, useful for when you need to hop to an alien planet in a pinch.

And you could always trust Capt. Kirk, Mr. Spock and Dr. McCoy to employ the gadgets for good.

Those who meet the eligibility criteria for the Roddenberry Prize can apply through July 12. The grant will be awarded to one winner in November.

The foundation was launched by Gene Roddenberry’s family after his death in 1991.

What’s for dinner?

It’s a deceptively simple question, asked millions of times each day. But consider the myriad factors that go into answering it — from cost to convenience to climate change — and it’s no wonder we spend so much time thinking about the food we eat.

And that doesn’t even account for breakfast, lunch or snacks.

Quite a lot rides on Americans’ food choices, including trillions of dollars in spending and our collective risk of developing a slew of chronic diseases. That’s why the International Food Information Council conducts an annual survey on food and health.

“It’s about understanding the mindset of the consumer,” said Kris Sollid, a registered dietitian and senior director of nutrition communications for the industry-funded nonprofit.

Over nearly two decades of IFIC surveys, taste has consistently ranked as the most important factor in food-buying decisions, followed by price, healthfulness, convenience and environmental sustainability.

In the 2024 survey — which was answered by 3,000 Americans in March — about 30% of respondents said an item’s sustainability mattered a lot when making purchasing decisions about what to eat and drink.

That may seem low, considering that scientists are already scrambling for ways to feed the nearly 10 billion people expected to live on the planet by 2050 while simultaneously reducing heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions.

But to Sollid, the fact that 30% of those surveyed gave sustainability a score of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale counts as a strong showing.

“Of course I’d like to see that number higher, there’s no doubt about that,” he said.

Here’s a look at the state of the American diet, based on data from IFIC’s new findings.

What’s on our minds when we decide what to eat?

For starters, we are looking for something to give us energy or help fight fatigue. But health considerations are top of mind as well.

What kinds of foods are we choosing?

Protein is the most popular nutrient du jour — 20% of those surveyed said they were following a “high protein” diet in the past year, up from just 4% five years earlier. But it’s hardly the only thing we want in our food.

At the same time, Americans are trying to cut back on ingredients that are bad for us.

For instance, 50% of those surveyed said they were trying to limit or avoid sodium, or salt. Too much salt can cause your blood pressure to rise, and high blood pressure (also known as hypertension) is a risk factor for serious health problems like heart disease and stroke.

In addition, 44% of those surveyed said they were trying to limit or avoid saturated fat. This is the type of fat that can cause LDL cholesterol — the bad kind — to build up in your blood vessels, which also increases the risk of heart disease and stroke.

But Public Enemy No. 1 is sugar.

What’s so bad about sugar?

Our bodies need some sugar for energy. But when we consume too much of it at once — which is easy to do when downing soft drinks, breakfast cereals and all kinds of ultra-processed foods — it gets stored as fat, which can lead to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, among other problems.

Two-thirds of those who took the IFIC survey said they were trying to limit their sugar intake, and 11% said they were trying to avoid it entirely. Their main targets were added sugars in packaged foods and beverages, though some were also cutting back on the natural sugars present in foods like fruits and plain dairy products.

The reasons motivating this retreat from sugar were a combination of current and future health concerns.

What other concerns factor into our food choices?

We’re not just thinking about ourselves when we decide what to eat. For many people, concerns about the way our food is produced matter when they decide whether to buy a particular food or beverage.

That concern extends to animals, to the people involved in all aspects of getting food onto our plates — from farmers to factory workers to grocery store or restaurant staff — and to the planet itself.

How do we gauge whether a food was made with the environment in mind?

The good news is that this is something more than 70% of survey-takers care about. The bad news is that there’s no easy way to tell.

“There’s no true definition of what makes a food environmentally sustainable,” Sollid said. “There’s not one thing someone can look to on a food package to tell them whether or not this choice is better than that one.”

Instead, eco-conscious consumers use the following clues to guide them:

Will people pay more for an eco-friendly product?

Producing foods and beverages in a sustainable way often means added costs. So IFIC posed this hypothetical scenario:

Imagine you go to the store to buy a specific item and find three options. One costs $3 and has an icon indicating it is “not very eco-friendly.” Another costs $5 and is labeled as “somewhat eco-friendly.” The third costs $7 and is “very eco-friendly.”

Which would you choose?

What’s the relationship between food and stress?

It goes in both directions, the survey found: Stress affects the foods we choose, and the foods we choose can cause stress.

It’s a topic IFIC began asking about following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which created both economic insecurity and food insecurity.

“COVID uncovered a lot of angst or potential sources of stress that a lot of people had to face,” Sollid said.

Four years in, nearly two-thirds of those surveyed are grappling with a significant amount of stress, up from 60% in 2023.

What are we so stressed about?

Money and health issues remain the biggest sources of stress among those who said they were “very” or “somewhat” stressed. Food choices are weighing on the minds of nearly 1 in 4 people in this category.

Are we eating our feelings?

Some of us are. Nearly two-thirds of people said their mental and emotional well-being had a significant or moderate impact on their diet.

Among those who were at least somewhat stressed, about half said their food and beverage choices suffered as a result. However, a small number responded to stress by seeking out healthier options.