By Tim Marema for The Daily Yonder.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Wisconsin News Connection for the Public News Service/Daily Yonder Collaboration

Rural residents are less likely to be worried about the health risks of drinking unpasteurized milk, but they are just as likely as other Americans to understand the effectiveness of pasteurization to kill germs without changing milk’s taste or nutritional value.

A public opinion survey conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center found that only a third of rural respondents thought raw milk was less safe to drink than pasteurized milk. Of urban respondents, about half said raw milk is less safe. The difference between urban and rural respondents was significant when researchers controlled for other factors such as age and education.

But the study found there was no statistical difference between rural and urban respondents’ knowledge that pasteurization eliminates milk-borne bacteria and viruses without affecting taste or nutrition.

“We did find that people living in rural areas thought that raw milk was safer overall than people living in the suburbs or in urban environments,” said Shawn Patterson Jr., a research analyst with the public policy center in a Daily Yonder interview.

Patterson said the center will conduct more research to see if they can pin down the cause of the different attitudes toward pasteurization. 

One possibility is that rural people understand the process of pasteurization but think raw milk is safer because they are more aware of managing livestock and milk production, he said. Or they might feel more confident about raw milk because they are closer to the milk source or raise the milk-producing animals themselves.

Patterson said he was not aware of studies that confirmed that consumers could mitigate the risks associated with drinking raw milk if they were more aware of where it came from. “But what we do know is that [raw milk] is still significantly less safe than pasteurized milk.”

A 2017 study found that unpasteurized milk was responsible for nearly all reported illnesses and hospitalizations linked to milk-borne infections. While under 4% of the U.S. drinks raw milk and under 2% eats cheese made with raw milk, those consumers experienced 96% of the illnesses caused by contaminated milk, the study showed.

Bird Flu and Raw Milk

While reported milk-related illnesses are low compared to other diseases (an average of 760 reported illnesses a year and 22 hospitalizations, the 2017 study said), milk safety has been in the news since an outbreak of bird flu H5N1 was reported in U.S. dairy cattle earlier this year. 

Infected cows can shed H5N1 into their milk, the CDC reported, and mice that consumed infected milk showed signs of developing the flu. This has led to fear that raw milk from infected cows could transmit H5N1 flu to humans. 

Currently, this influenza is not transmittable between humans. Out of 14 reported cases of H5N1 flu in humans this year, four were among dairy workers and nine were among poultry workers.

The Food and Drug Administration prohibits the inter-state sale of unpasteurized milk. States make their own rules for milk that doesn’t cross state lines. 

Pasteurization has been the norm for a century. But Patterson said there has been an uptick in demand for unpasteurized milk in recent years. He said that social media could be one reason and that future research would test that hypothesis.

Beth Ann Mayer in Healthline reported in June that profit motives from social media producers are part of the push for raw milk. 

Unpasteurized milk can transmit pathogens such as listeria, campylobacter, salmonella, and E. coli. People who are pregnant or have weakened immune systems are especially vulnerable to such infections, according to the FDA.

Mainstream scientists have found no evidence that pasteurization alters the nutritional value of milk, but myths persist that it does, Patterson said. 

“Pasteurization doesn’t change the nutritional value of milk; it doesn’t significantly change the taste of milk,” he said. “And so the risks really don’t outweigh any of the benefits.”

Other key findings in the public opinion poll on the safety of raw milk were the following:

• People over 65 were more likely than other age groups to think raw milk was less safe than pasteurized milk.


• Awareness of the health risks associated with unpasteurized milk increased as education levels increased. 


• Men were more likely than women to think raw milk was less safe than pasteurized milk. 


• Democrats were more likely than Republicans or independents to think raw milk was less safe.


• White, non-Hispanics were more likely than Hispanics or Blacks to think raw was less safe. 

The poll was conducted in June 2024 using the SRSS Opinion Panel. Rural was defined as respondents who lived in a nonmetropolitan county, based on the Office of Management and Budget Metropolitan Statistical Area system.




Tim Marema wrote this article for The Daily Yonder.


get more stories like this via email

New legislation would bring the insurance industry under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

Supporters said the change would protect consumers from deceptive practices.

Tyler Staggs, an attorney in Portland, represented insurers for nearly 20 years. He said his law firm now advocates for consumers because of the insurance industry's growing unfairness. He cited such cases as a client left homeless when an insurer denied living expenses after a house fire. In another case, he added, a client was denied a claim after a brain injury from a car accident.

"Rather than paying the benefits that the insured paid for, the insurance company lowballs them and delays, to see if they can force them to take a settlement," Staggs explained.

Oregon's insurance industry is the only major industry in the state not subject to the state's Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The bill is scheduled for a work session in the Senate Tuesday.

Staggs pointed out insurance companies argued the change will lead to more lawsuits and higher rates for consumers. He countered if companies are treating people fairly, rates will not have to increase.

"To say, well, 'We shouldn't have this enforcement mechanism because it's going to raise your rates,' really seems like disingenuous and it seems like blackmail," Staggs contended.

Staggs explained under the law, if the court finds a lawsuit to be unjustified, the insured would be responsible for covering the insurance company's legal fees, which protects insurers against baseless claims.

Mike Leib, vice president of Precision Body and Paint, an auto-body repair shop based in Beaverton, said insurers exploit consumers' lack of time and money to fight claims. He noted negotiating with insurers has become combative, as they routinely delay and deny legally required repair reimbursements.

"They are declining required repair procedures by manufacturers," Leib observed. "That can result in an unsafe repair, which can result in a death."

Both Leib and Staggs said insurance companies' quality of service has been worse since the pandemic, when they closed local offices and started depending more on artificial intelligence. They added the legislation would make insurance companies accountable to fairly evaluate claims.


get more stories like this via email

As Los Angeles starts to recover from the firestorm, people are looking for ways to harden their homes against future mega-blazes.

Experts said the massive destruction from the Palisades and Eaton fires has some people discouraged, thinking there is nothing they can do to defend their homes.

Michele Steinberg, wildfire division director for the nonprofit National Fire Protection Association, said in fact, homeowners can significantly reduce their risk.

"Home survival is down to making sure that the exterior of the home cannot carry ignition," Steinberg explained. "By that we mean non-combustible roofing, siding, good windows that aren't going to crack under heat."

The home ignition zone is the five-foot area around your structure, so anything within the perimeter, including decks, porches, and fences, needs to be made of non-combustible material. Screens on vents work to prevent embers from being sucked up into the home.

California's statewide building code is considered one of the strongest in the country. It specifies how buildings should be designed and maintained and how they should be sited with appropriate defensible space. Steinberg added the state helps people find fire-safe materials.

"They actually list products that meet those standards," Steinberg pointed out. "You can actually find manufacturers and people that have provided those products on the California State Fire Marshal's website."

Experts also cautioned against putting dry wood mulch or climbing vegetation up against the house.


get more stories like this via email

Coloradans with low bank balances would be on the hook for an extra $225 a year if Congress votes to roll back a new rule capping overdraft fees at $5. Fees had been as high as $35.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency behind the new rule, recently lost its offices and all of its 1,700 workers as the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, informally run by SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, went to work remaking the federal government.

Christine Chen Zinner, senior policy counsel at Americans for Financial Reform, said the bureau is critical for protecting American consumers.

"This is a law enforcement agency that protects everyday people when financial institutions cheat and defraud them," Chen Zinner explained. "In the short 14 years that it's been around, it has already recovered $21 billion for everyday people."

The bureau was set to regulate X, Musk's social media site, as it rolls out financial transactions similar to PayPal and Venmo. After workers were sent home, Musk posted "CFPB RIP." The financial industry also disagrees with the agency over what it called aggressive policing of wrongful home foreclosures and credit reports, fraudulent credit card charges and predatory junk fees.

The agency's fate could be decided in federal court. Nearly 77 million people voted for Trump.

Nearly 77 million people voted for Trump, and Andrea Kuwik, policy and research director for the Bell Policy Center, said many did so in part because they were struggling to make ends meet and believed a new administration would help bring down costs. She noted the bureau was set up precisely to protect people's pocketbooks and savings.

"There are a lot of folks that are struggling," Kuwik emphasized. "This entity has a proven track record of saving people money. Getting rid of that I think is counterproductive."

The 2008 subprime mortgage crash which led to the Great Recession showed what is at stake when financial institutions operate without real oversight. Zinner believes a strong and independent consumer protection agency which does not have to bend to the whims of politicians is essential.

"We simply can't have a fair market unless there is a strong enforcement agency there to enforce those laws and protect people," Zinner contended. "The Trump administration is now giving all sorts of financial companies a green light to defraud and gouge their customers."

Colorado's members of Congress could split over the issue. Senators Michael Bennett and John Hickenlooper have previously expressed support for the CFPB's work. But the House delegation is more mixed. Representative Lauren Boebert, and other Trump allies, are expected to support the rollback of the overdraft safeguard, while Representatives Jason Crow and Joe Neguse are likely to oppose it. A big unknown is Representative Gabe Evans, a Republican who won in a tough district.

get more stories like this via email