California
Another batch of raw milk from a trendy California brand just tested positive for bird flu
- Two batches of raw milk from a trendy California brand have tested positive for bird flu this week.
- Bird flu has been spreading rapidly among cattle in the US.
- Experts say drinking raw milk is dangerous, and can cause food poisoning.
Another batch of raw milk just tested positive for bird flu in California.
Last Sunday, Fresno-based Raw Farm voluntarily recalled a first batch of cream top whole raw milk with a “best by” date of November 27. By Wednesday, the California Department of Public Health announced that a second batch of Raw Farm cream top, with a “best by” date of December 7 had also tested positive for bird flu, based on retail sampling.
“We’re not making a big deal about it, because it’s not a big deal,” Kaleigh Stanziani, Raw Farm’s vice president of marketing, said in a short video posted on YouTube after the farm’s first voluntary recall was announced earlier this week.
She said there had only been an indication that there might be a “trace element of something possible,” emphasizing that there had been no reported illnesses of Raw Farms cows or positive tests from the cattle.
Raw Farm owner Mark McAfee later told the LA Times that the California Department of Food and Agriculture had requested that his company “hold delivery of further products” until Friday, after conducting thorough testing of two Raw Farms and one creamery on Wednesday. (McAfee could not immediately be reached for comment by Business Insider during the Thanksgiving holiday.)
Raw milk may be helping bird flu spread — but not in the way you might think
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Scientists suspect that cross-contamination of raw milk between animals may be one reason the H5N1 virus is spreading rapidly among cows in the US — and could even contribute to the human spread of the virus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautions that dairy workers might be able to contract bird flu by infected raw milk splashed into their eyes.
There is no definitive evidence yet that humans can get bird flu from drinking contaminated raw milk. Instead, health authorities generally recommend avoiding raw milk because of other serious health risks, including food poisoning with bacteria like Salmonella, E.coli, or Listeria.
There are no known health benefits of drinking raw milk. Instead, all evidence suggests that pasteurized milk is just as nutritious, and is safer to consume.
Still, raw milk has become a trendy product among some influencers. Gwenyth Paltrow says she has it in her coffee in the morning.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Trump’s pick for Health and Human Services secretary, says he wants the US Food and Drug Administration to stop its “war” against raw milk.
Over the summer, “Carnivore MD” Paul Saladino released a raw milk smoothie in partnership with the elite Los Angeles health foods store Erewhon featuring unpasteurized (raw) kefir from Raw Farms, and powdered beef organs.
California has some of the loosest rules around raw milk in the country; it’s generally fine for California retailers like health foods stores and grocers to sell it, raw milk products just can’t be transported across state lines, per FDA rules.
Dania Maxwell/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
Michael Payne, a researcher at the Western Institute of Food Safety and Security, told The Guardian that people consuming Dr. Paul’s $19 smoothie were “playing Russian roulette with their health,” and ignoring pasteurization, “the single most important food safety firewall in history.”
California dairy farms have been seeing an uptick in bird flu cases since August. The state has reported 29 confirmed human cases of bird flu, and all but one of those was sourced back to cows.
Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the first confirmed case of bird flu in a California child from Alameda County. The child had no known contact with infected farm animals, but may have been exposed to wild birds, the California health department said in a statement.
The child had mild symptoms and is recovering well after receiving antiviral drugs.
California
California just handed oil companies billions in free pollution permits
By Alejandro Lazo, CalMatters
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
California air regulators on Friday approved a contentious overhaul of the state’s carbon market, creating a program that could steer billions of dollars in free pollution permits to oil refineries and other major polluters over the objections of environmental groups, key lawmakers and three of the board’s own members.
Ten members of the California Air Resources Board voted to adopt the changes to its cap-and-invest program after two days of lengthy hearings, including a full day dedicated to hundreds of public comments.
The overhaul followed intensive lobbying by the oil industry as well as pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration to help keep refineries operating in the state amid rising gas prices.
The approval sets up a potential budget fight in Sacramento. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects that quarterly auction revenue for state climate programs will drop from roughly $4 billion a year to about $2 billion under the new overhaul.
Such a shortfall would effectively zero out programs lawmakers spent last year fighting to fund: affordable housing, public transit, drinking water in low-income communities and pollution monitoring in California’s most polluted neighborhoods.
The governor’s office praised the measure as a compromise that balanced economic uncertainty with the state’s climate goals. Refinery closures and the Iran-Israel war have driven average California gas prices above $6 a gallon.
Newsom, in a statement, used the moment to draw a contrast with President Donald Trump.
“While Trump sows ongoing chaos and uncertainty, California is staying focused by protecting our economy, safeguarding public health, and doubling down on the clean energy future all Californians deserve,” he said.
Environmentalists warned the changes to the program amount to a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry that weakens California’s only program setting a firm cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California senior director for the Environmental Defense Fund, called the decision “deeply misguided” for prioritizing polluters over communities.
“Newsom’s air regulators are handing billions to oil executives at the expense of our climate, health, and affordability for working families in a rushed process that has shortchanged meaningful public participation,” said Bahram Fazeli, policy director at Communities for a Better Environment.
How the program works — and what changes
California’s 13-year-old carbon market forces major polluters to buy permits while the state lowers the overall cap each year. Friday’s vote will reduce those permits – and creates a new subsidy program carved out of the market.
The program, which may still see changes, could make available a new pool of free pollution permits available to industry valued at as much as $4 billion. Companies that pledge to invest in clean energy and efficiency may qualify for the permits in exchange for investments in clean energy.
The pool will be capped at 118.3 million permits — the same number the air board has said must come off the market for California to hit its 2030 climate target. Environmentalists say the proposal risks wiping out those reductions.
Half are reserved for the fossil fuel sector. A recent Berkeley analysis, by the chair of an independent committee that oversees the carbon market, found refineries could end up with more free permits than they need to cover their emissions.
The air board has defended the design. Officials say the credits will go only to companies undertaking decarbonization projects, will be limited and temporary and can be clawed back if companies misuse them. The plan, they say, is meant to keep California refineries operating at a time of mounting closures and global market pressure. According to air regulators, the amended program will spur clean-energy investment as Trump cuts federal support.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
California
Man charged with murder, kidnapping their 5-year-old child before fleeing to Mexico
A 40-year-old Los Angeles man was charged with murder after allegedly killing his girlfriend and kidnapping their young child before fleeing to Mexico, according to authorities.
Ruben Fregosojuarez has been charged one count of murder and one misdemeanor count of child abuse under circumstance or conditions other than great bodily injury or death, according to a Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office news release. Authorities first identified him as Ruben Fregoso but Los Angeles County prosecutors listed him as Ruben Fregosojuarez.
On Monday around 12:39 p.m., the Los Angeles Police Department conducted a welfare check in the 2600 block of South Alsace Avenue in West Adams, police said in a news release.
Officers found a woman dead inside the home “as a result of violence” and the woman’s daughter missing, police said. On Monday night, the California Highway Patrol issued an Amber Alert for the child, Daleza.
Photos obtained by NBC4 appear to show Fregosojuarez in a parking garage in San Ysidro with the girl on Sunday. The California Highway Patrol has listed her age as 4 years old but Los Angeles police say the girl is 5. She is also described as the suspect’s daughter.
The alert said that the girl was last seen with Fregosojuarez, who allegedly abducted her in a 2019 Land Rover Discovery, on Sunday at about 4 a.m.
The CHP posted in an update that the vehicle was found but that the child and man were still missing. The girl is described as 3 feet tall, 45 pounds, and having black hair and brown eyes.
California
23andMe Sued by California Over Massive 2023 Data Breach
California’s attorney general is suing the consumer genetics testing company formerly known as 23andMe, alleging the company failed to protect customers’ sensitive personal information in a massive 2023 data breach that exposed the ancestry and genetic data of nearly 7 million people.
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the lawsuit on Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court against Chrome Holding Co., formerly known as 23andMe, accusing the company of failing to properly investigate or respond to numerous warnings that its systems had been compromised. The company’s mail-in self-testing kits became synonymous with DNA testing before it filed for bankruptcy in 2025.
In 2023, cybercriminals breached 23andMe’s systems by using a “credential-stuffing attack,” which involves bombarding online accounts with huge sets of user names and passwords stolen in previous unrelated attacks. Over a period of months, the intruders were able to make off with the personal data of more than 6.9 million people.
“23andMe’s security measures were so lax that the threat actor was able to operate undetected within 23andMe’s systems for over five months, and remarkably, 23andMe only began investigating after the threat actor offered the stolen user data for sale on the dark web and reached out to 23andMe to demand a ransom,” Bonta’s office said in the complaint.
The San Francisco-based company, which allowed people to submit genetic materials and get a snapshot of their ancestry, revealed in October 2023 that hackers had accessed customer information in the prolonged data breach that targeted customers with Chinese or Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. The stolen data of more than 1 million Asian-Pacific Islander and Ashkenazi Jewish users was later posted for sale on the dark web.
“The sale of this data on the dark web took place amidst a period of mounting anti-Asian American and Pacific Islander and antisemitic hate and violence,” Bonta said in a press release. “This is disturbing and incredibly dangerous.”
A January 2024 lawsuit accused the company of not doing enough to protect its customers and not notifying certain customers that their data had been targeted specifically. It later settled the lawsuit for $30 million.
23andMe representatives didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
At its peak, 23andMe became the best-known name in the emerging area of DNA self-testing, with users paying upwards of $99 for kits that gave them insights into their genetic makeup, potential relatives and ancestry. But the company’s momentum slowed down in recent years after its $3.5 billion public offering in 2021.
Last July, TTAM Research Institute, a nonprofit led by Anne Wojcicki, 23andMe’s cofounder and former CEO, acquired 23andMe’s assets for $305 million.
-
Denver, CO3 minutes agoDenver weather: Warm weather to end May
-
Seattle, WA10 minutes agoSeattle City Council proposal would use street closures to curb gun violence
-
San Diego, CA13 minutes agoSan Diego teen organizes Eid goodie bags for children after Mosque tragedy
-
Milwaukee, WI18 minutes agoWhat is treatment court? Milwaukee County celebrates graduates
-
Atlanta, GA26 minutes agoAtlanta airport unveils new South Parking Deck, adding more than 7,000 spaces
-
Minneapolis, MN28 minutes agoUnited flight from Chicago to Minneapolis diverted to Wisconsin due to unruly passenger: officials
-
Indianapolis, IN34 minutes agoTop seeded West Chester cruises to 12-3 win over University of Indianapolis in the Division II championship
-
Pittsburg, PA40 minutes agoPittsburg man accused of hotel kidnapping, assault enters plea deal