California suspends Raw Farm milk products after bird flu detected, health officials say
Patrick T. Fallon / AFP via Getty Images
(LOS ANGELES) — All raw whole milk and cream products produced by Raw Farm LLC that are still on store shelves are being voluntarily recalled following multiple detections of bird flu virus in the company’s milk and dairy supply within the past week, according to California public health officials.
Officials have also placed the farm under quarantine and suspended any new distribution of its raw milk, cream, kefir, butter, and cheese products produced on or after Nov. 27.
“Californians are strongly encouraged not to consume any raw milk or cream products in their possession or still on store shelves,” the California Department of Public Health said in a statement on Tuesday. “Pasteurized milk remains safe to drink.”
No human bird flu cases associated with the product have been confirmed to date, officials said. Though, bird flu virus levels have been found at high levels in raw milk and health officials believe raw milk is infectious to humans.
“We are working towards resolving this political issue while being cooperative with our government regulatory agencies,” Raw Milk, which is based in Fresno, said in statement posted on its website.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has previously warned of the dangers of drinking raw milk, which does not undergo pasteurization — a process that kills viruses and bacteria.
“Raw milk is milk from cows, sheep, or goats that has not been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria,” according to the FDA. “This raw, unpasteurized milk can carry dangerous bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria, which are responsible for causing numerous foodborne illnesses.”
(LAKELAND, Fla.) — A Florida woman was arrested and charged this week for ending a phone call with her health insurance provider with threats that mimicked wording associated with the suspected UnitedHealthcare CEO shooter.
The incident occurred Tuesday when Briana Boston, a 42-year-old woman from Lakeland, was speaking with a representative from Blue Cross Blue Shield after she had been told that her medical claim was denied.
In an arrest affidavit obtained by ABC News, police said that near the end of the recorded conversation with the insurance provider, Boston can be heard saying, “Delay, deny, depose. You people are next.”
Boston’s apparent threats nearly echo the words that were engraved on the bullet shell casings that authorities recovered from the scene where UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was fatally shot earlier this month.
Those engraved words were “deny,” “defend” and “depose.”
However, Boston’s words do match the title of a 2010 book “Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It.”
The book was written by legal scholar and insurance expert Jay Feinman, a professor emeritus at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey. It explores abuses of auto and homeowners insurance to “avoid paying justified claims,” according to its summary.
Luigi Mangione is a suspect in the killing, which has catapulted the nation’s health care industry into the spotlight. Mangione faces second-degree murder and a slew of other charges in both Pennsylvania and New York.
When Lakeland Police confronted Boston about the perceived threats, she apologized and said that she “used those words because it’s what is in the news right now,” according to the arrest affidavit.
Boston told authorities she does not own any guns and is not a threat, but went on to say that health care companies “deserve karma” and that they are “evil,” according to the document.
“Boston further stated the health care companies played games and deserved karma from the world because they are evil,” police said in the affidavit.
ABC News has reached out to Blue Cross Blue Shield for comment.
Following the investigation, Boston was charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or act of terrorism and booked at a jail in Polk County, according to police.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Department of Labor is proposing a rule that will eliminate the certificates that allow employers to pay some workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage, which stands at $7.25 an hour.
The department announced the change on Tuesday, which also marked the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
“One of the guiding principles of the American workplace is that a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, and this proposal ensures that principle includes workers with disabilities,” said Wage and Hour Administrator Jessica Looman in a statement on the proposed rule.
She continued, “Since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, opportunities and training have dramatically expanded to help people with disabilities obtain and maintain employment at or above the full federal minimum wage. Similarly, employers today have more resources and training available to recruit, hire and retain workers with disabilities in employment at or above the full minimum wage, and this proposed rule aligns with that reality.”
The rule, if passed, would no longer allow employers to apply for certificates under Section 14(c) of Fair Labor Standards Act, which allows for the subminimum wage. It would set a three-year phase-out period for employers who currently have existing certificates.
A 2020 report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that some workers were being paid less than a dollar an hour for their work.
The disability community faces higher rates of poverty and lower rates of employment in the workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Council on Disability. Disabled advocates have long criticized Section 14(c) for perpetuating what they call discrimination and stigma.
According to the data, which was reported to the American Bar Association, Harvard Law’s J.D. Class of 2027 includes 19 Black students, as opposed to 43 students the previous year – with enrollment dropping by more than half. Enrollment of Hispanic students also steeply declined, with 32 students admitted into the class of 2027, compared with 63 the previous year.
Meanwhile, enrollment of Asian students increased from 103 to 132 students in the class of 2027.
ABC News reached out to representatives at Harvard University and Harvard Law for comment and to learn the total student enrollment for the class of 2027, but requests were not immediately returned.
Jeff Neal, a spokesperson for Harvard Law, told ABC News in a statement on Tuesday that following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year, it was “understood that the decision would impact, in ways that could not be fully anticipated, the ability of educational institutions across the nation, including law schools, to attract and admit a diverse cohort of students.” But Neal added that conclusions that can be drawn from a single year of data are “necessarily limited.”
“We continue to believe that a student body composed of persons with a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences is a vital component of legal education,” Neal said. “Harvard Law School remains committed both to following the law and to fostering an on-campus community and a legal profession that reflect numerous dimensions of human experience.”
ABC News reached out to representatives of Harvard University for additional comment.
The ruling stemmed from two cases regarding the admissions programs at both Harvard and the University of North Carolina, where the court ruled in an opinion with a conservative majority that both programs violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented in the two cases, but Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in only the UNC case – having served on the Board of overseers at Harvard, her alma mater – she recused herself in the final Harvard case vote.
Prior to the blockbuster ruling, affirmative action had been used by U.S. colleges and universities for decades to diversify campuses and address issues of inequality. Its constitutionality was repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court prior to the June 2023 ruling, as long as a student’s race is only one of the factors that was considered during the admissions process.
According to the Harvard Crimson, the Supreme Court’s decision led to a change in Harvard Law School’s admissions process, where applicants were required to submit a “Statement of Purpose” and “Statement of Perspective” – as opposed to a personal statement – where they were asked to “share how your experiences, background, and/or interests have shaped you.”
Sean Wynn, President of the Harvard Black Law Students Association, shared a statement with ABC News on Tuesday on behalf of the HBLSA that emphasizes the historical contributions of Black J.D.’s in shaping Harvard Law, as well as the community’s notable contributions to the U.S. legal system.
“The African-American experience has always been intimately tied to the development of American law, often playing a role in both its most maligned and most revered moments. Making sense of this jarring corpus with a smaller community is a tall order in and of itself, made even more difficult with the added expectation that these students provide a ‘Black perspective’ in class discussions,” the statement added. “The demographic shift places significant pressure on those few Black students present to represent the Black community, in all its variety and complexity, during conversations about the law.”
The statement also called on Harvard law and law schools around the country to “take immediate action to ensure the democratization of legal education,” stating that the decline in Black student enrollment at the law school “has broken something fundamental about the experience of attending this law school.”
