JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The battle over net neutrality is heating up again – as supporters in Congress have just introduced a bill to reinstate Obama-era consumer protections that were lost after the Federal Communications Commission repealed them in 2017.

The "Save the Internet Act" would bring back rules that prevent Internet Service Providers from slowing down or blocking content they don't like, or offering an internet "fast lane" to certain sites or users at a higher price.

Laila Abdelaziz, a campaigner with the nonprofit "Fight for the Future," says the feds need to make sure the internet remains an even playing field.

"Handing over that power to this handful of corporations is what the FCC's repeal of net neutrality does,” says Abdelaziz. “This is very antithetical to the openness of the internet that is driving business and free speech, and connectivity and community in the 21st century."

The bill is expected to pass the U.S. House, but its future is unclear in the Senate. FCC Chairman Agit Pai has argued that net neutrality stifles innovation and investment and would drive up consumer prices.

A bill last year to bring net neutrality rules to Missouri never made it out of committee in the state legislature.

Last year, a poll from the University of Maryland found that 86 percent of Americans opposed repealing net neutrality, including 82 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats.

Internet Service Providers have promised not to favor or block any websites, although the current law permits it. Abdelaziz thinks the internet giants will hold off until the dust settles.

"They've been on their best behavior because they recognize that this is long from over,” says Abdelaziz. “They have not won yet. And I think it'll continue to be the case especially while they are in court."

A big group of tech companies, joined by more than 20 states, is suing the FCC to bring back net neutrality. Lawyers made their opening arguments in those cases in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals last month.


get more stories like this via email

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

In Georgia, the demand for Social Security cards is soaring, with nearly 34,000 residents in Gwinnett County alone requesting appointments for new cards in 2023.

While a Social Security number is crucial for many life milestones such as opening a bank account or applying for a driver's license, the Social Security Administration wants Georgians to know the physical card itself is often unnecessary.

Abigail Zapote, senior adviser for the Social Security Administration, said in many cases, simply knowing your Social Security number is sufficient and can help protect against the rising threat of identity theft.

"We do ask that folks first and foremost not carry their Social Security card around with them, whether it's in their purse or their wallet," Zapote advised. "Usually that's an easy way to be able to lose their Social Security card."

With identity theft on the rise, especially in high-demand areas such as Georgia, the agency urged residents to keep their Social Security card in a safe place and to use online resources for verification whenever possible.

Zapote noted the Social Security Administration is making it easier for people to request cards online. She pointed out the process can now be initiated online, an option particularly beneficial for Georgians given the high demand for in-person services.

"They can report a stolen Social Security number to the Federal Trade Commission at identitytheft.gov," Zapote explained. "Then go through our replacement process at ssa.gov/number-card to ensure that they can get that replacement card if they need it."

Zapote warned Georgia residents to stay vigilant against scams and only provide their Social Security number when absolutely necessary.


get more stories like this via email

Groups fighting for safer roads are urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign a bill requiring new vehicles to have a speed-monitoring system to warn drivers when they go more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit.

Senate Bill 961 has already passed both houses of the state Legislature.

Marc Vukcevich, director of state policy for the advocacy organization Streets for All, said pedestrian deaths are epidemic.

"Pedestrian deaths have increased 68% since 2011," Vukcevich pointed out. "With traffic violence as a whole being the number one cause of death for all people from the age of five to 44 in the state of California."

Several big car manufacturers have come out in opposition to the bill, arguing the warnings could annoy and distract drivers. The change would only apply to new cars sold after 2030 and would add an estimated $60 to $100 to the cost of a car.

Vukcevich noted if drivers slow down even a few miles per hour, it would greatly reduce both the number of accidents and the suffering and death that result.

"The actual physical effect of getting hit by a car at that speed is substantially different from, let's say, 23 to 30 miles per hour," Vukcevich pointed out. "It's really a substantial difference on how likely someone actually lives or dies."

The European Union has already passed a similar measure. California would be the first state in the U.S. to require speed-warning systems.


get more stories like this via email