logo
Are Runny Egg Yolks Safe to Eat?

Are Runny Egg Yolks Safe to Eat?

New York Times19-02-2025
Sunny side-up, over easy, lightly scrambled, soft-boiled, poached: Americans love eating eggs when they're still runny, despite the general understanding that raw or undercooked eggs aren't good for you.
When you cook an egg, the heat that solidifies its whites and yolks kills pathogens like salmonella and bird flu. That's why food safety officials recommend cooking eggs until both parts are firm.
But how unsafe are runny yolks really?
That depends on how much risk you're willing to accept, said Felicia Wu, a professor of food safety, toxicology and risk assessment at Michigan State University.
'If you look at the eggs typically purchased in the United States, most of them are perfectly safe to eat in a runny state,' she said. 'It's just that we don't know when there's an individual egg that contains some risk.'
Salmonella is a real concern.
Eggs can carry harmful bacteria, including E. coli and campylobacter. But salmonella — the leading cause of food poisoning-related deaths nationwide — is by far the biggest hazard, said Dr. John Leong, a professor of molecular biology and microbiology at Tufts University.
Recent data on salmonella-infected eggs is hard to find. One widely cited study from 2000 suggested that one in every 20,000 eggs carries the bacteria. This might not sound like a lot, but given how many eggs Americans eat — about 250 per person on average in 2023 — that risk can add up.
Salmonella can cause fevers, stomach cramping, diarrhea, vomiting and in rare cases, lingering joint pain.
And while most recover on their own or with antibiotics, around 26,500 people with salmonella are hospitalized and about 420 die of their infections each year. Salmonella is especially dangerous for older people, young children and those who are pregnant or immunocompromised. Public health officials are growing more concerned about antibiotic-resistant salmonella strains, Dr. Leong said.
It's hard to determine the exact likelihood that a given egg would carry salmonella, because not every egg that ends up on your plate gets tested for the bacteria, said Julie Garden-Robinson, a professor and food and nutrition expert at North Dakota State University.
Hens lay eggs and pass feces through a single opening, which can leave bacteria on eggshells. The federal government requires most sellers with 3,000 or more laying hens to sanitize the outside of eggs before they're sold. This lowers — but doesn't completely eliminate — the risk of salmonella ending up on an eggshell. Smaller farms and those that sell their eggs directly to consumers don't have to follow the federal washing rules, although they might follow state and local requirements.
But even sanitized eggs may carry salmonella since the bacteria can also get into the egg yolk and white, Dr. Garden-Robinson said. There isn't data to show whether most egg-related salmonella infections come from bacteria inside the egg or on its surface, Dr. Wu said.
Bird flu is less of a concern.
Although the recent bird flu outbreak is killing millions of hens and sending egg prices surging, experts say the evidence currently suggests that the virus is unlikely to end up in an egg you're eating.
That's mainly because infected hens die of bird flu before they can lay eggs, said Dr. John Swartzberg, an emeritus professor of infectious diseases and vaccinology at the University of California, Berkeley.
If the virus did make its way to your egg carton, though, cooking the egg until the whites and yolks are both firm would kill it.
There are ways to lower your risk.
If you love runny yolks too much to give them up for good, it might be OK to enjoy them occasionally, depending on your health and your own risk tolerance.
'You obviously will not get sick every time you eat an undercooked egg,' Dr. Garden-Robinson said.
And you don't have to cook yolks until they're so hard they crumble to reduce your salmonella risk. Jammy or slightly set yolks with a custard-like texture are less risky than runny yolks, said Dr. Indu Upadhyaya, a food safety expert at the University of Connecticut.
To further protect yourself, experts shared several other recommendations:
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice
US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice

Chicago Tribune

time5 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice

NEW YORK — For the first time in 30 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics is substantially diverging from U.S. government vaccine recommendations. The group's new COVID-19 recommendations — released Tuesday — come amid a tumultuous year for public health, as vaccine skeptics have come into power in the new Trump administration and government guidance has become increasingly confusing. This isn't going to help, acknowledged Dr. James Campbell, vice chair of the AAP infectious diseases committee. 'It is going to be somewhat confusing. But our opinion is we need to make the right choices for children to protect them,' he added. The AAP is strongly recommending COVID-19 shots for children ages 6 months to 2 years. Shots also are advised for older children if parents want their kids vaccinated, the AAP said. That differs from guidance established under U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which doesn't recommend the shots for healthy children of any age but says kids may get the shots in consultation with physicians. Children ages 6 months to 2 years are at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19, and it was important that recommendations continue to emphasize the need for them to get vaccinated, said Campbell, a University of Maryland infectious diseases expert. Vaccinations also are recommended for older children who have chronic lung diseases or other conditions that put them at higher risk for severe disease, the AAP said. In a statement, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said 'the AAP is undermining national immunization policymaking with baseless political attacks.' He accused the group of putting commercial interests ahead of public health, noting that vaccine manufacturers have been donors to the AAP's Friends of Children Fund. The fund is currently paying for projects on a range of topics, including health equity and prevention of injuries and deaths from firearms. The 95-year-old Itasca, Illinois-based organization has issued vaccination recommendations for children since the 1930s. In 1995, it synced its advice with recommendations made by the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There have been a few small differences between AAP and CDC recommendations since then. For example, the AAP has advised that children get HPV vaccinations starting at age 9; the CDC says that's OK but has emphasized vaccinations at ages 11 and 12. But in 30 years, this is the first time the recommendations have differed 'in a significant or substantial way,' Campbell said. Until recently, the CDC — following recommendations by infectious disease experts — has been urging annual COVID-19 boosters for all Americans ages 6 months and older. But in May, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that COVID-19 vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. A few days later, the CDC issued language that healthy children may get the shots, but that there was no longer a 'should' recommendation. The idea that healthy older kids may be able to skip COVID-19 boosters has been brewing for some time among public health experts. As the COVID-19 pandemic has waned, experts have increasingly discussed the possibility of focusing vaccination efforts on people 65 and older — who are among those most as risk for death and hospitalization. A CDC expert panel in June was set to make recommendations about the fall shots. Among the options the panel was considering was whether suggest shots for high-risk groups but still giving lower-risk people the choice to get vaccinated. But Kennedy bypassed the group, and also decided to dismiss the 17-member panel and appoint his own, smaller panel, that included vaccine skeptics. Kennedy also later excluded the AAP, the American Medical Association and other top medical organizations from working with the advisers to establish vaccination recommendations. Kennedy's new vaccine panel has yet to vote on COVID-19 shot recommendations. The panel did endorse continuing to recommend fall flu vaccinations, but also made a decision that led to another notable difference with the AAP. The new advisory panel voted that people should only get flu vaccines that are packaged as single doses and do not contain the preservative thimerosal. The AAP said there is no evidence of harm from the preservative, and recommended doctors use any licensed flu vaccine product that's appropriate for the patient.

NIH plans heat up animal testing debate
NIH plans heat up animal testing debate

Politico

time6 minutes ago

  • Politico

NIH plans heat up animal testing debate

WASHINGTON WATCH NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya elaborated on his strategic priorities for the National Institutes of Health on Friday — and drew criticism from some animal rights advocates. His strategy focuses on plans Bhattacharya and his boss, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have previously touted, like prioritizing nutrition research, advancing artificial intelligence, focusing on research reproducibility and shifting to solutions-based health disparities research. 'Taxpayer dollars are a finite resource, entrusted to NIH officials to invest in the nation's future,' Bhattacharya wrote in a statement published on NIH's website. 'By transparently establishing priorities and aligning our goals, we aim to demonstrate to the American public that we take this commitment seriously — and that we are doing all we can to honor their trust.' Falling short: But one priority area — moving away from animal testing in favor of alternative models and establishing an office to develop, validate and deploy those methods — was a sore point for animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. From PETA's vantage point, Bhattacharya's plan didn't go far enough. 'Dramatic change is essential, as we've seen how 'enhancing oversight' is a laugh-into-your-sleeve exercise, and 'considering non-animal methods' is a check box,' Kathy Guillermo, PETA's senior vice president of laboratory investigations, said in a statement. 'PETA urges him to remember that at the highest levels of the Trump administration, there are well-placed people rooting for NIH to break with career animal experimenters.' Animal testing state of play: In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been a persistent critic of animal testing at the health agencies and co-sponsored 2022 legislation with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to permit drugmakers to use alternative methods to test their products. The health agencies have not shied away from the issue or from animal rights groups. Among the first policies that the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration announced this spring was a move away from animal testing for research and drug development. According to public calendar disclosures, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary met with PETA in July. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. The Pete & Bobby Challenge. HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth are challenging Americans to complete 50 pull-ups and 100 push-ups in under 10 minutes. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. EXAM ROOM Health insurance companies pay vastly different prices for health services from one another— even when they're performed at the same hospital. Aetna and UnitedHealthcare, two of the largest health insurers in the U.S., negotiated rates for six inpatient procedures that varied by an average ratio of 9.1 nationwide, according to a report by health data analytics firm Trilliant Health. Sticker shock: The median rate for a coronary bypass — with no catheterization or major complications — is $68,194. However, negotiated rates ranged from $27,683 to $247,902. Rates even varied within the same health system. For example, Aetna pays $166,288 for a patient with diabetes to have major heart bypass surgery using a minimally invasive technique at Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia, while UnitedHealthcare pays about half that rate. The report also found no correlation between aggregate measures of cost and quality within a sample of 10 top-tier hospitals. Health systems that have similar quality in care might have wildly different negotiated rates for the same health services, according to the report. High-quality care? The data raises questions about whether insurers deliver the best value for patient care. 'It actually creates a fiduciary duty for the employers to be using this sort of information to make sure they're providing high-value health benefits to their employees,' said Allison Oakes, chief research officer at Trilliant Health, who worked on the report. She believes that this data could help reduce some price disparity. 'The hope is we start to see some of this variation in prices shrink, which, without changing quality or access, could actually reduce spending by quite a bit,' she said. Unintended effect: Ben Handel, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, agrees that this kind of price transparency could lead to negotiated rates homogenizing. However, it might not necessarily bring down prices, he said. 'The other potential scenario is it raises prices,' he said. He notes that insurers' incentives vary by context. For example, when administrating a self-insured plan — where employers directly pay health costs and insurers provide only the network — they earn a percentage of each claim. 'Raising costs makes you more money,' said Handel.

Mom Launches Raw Milk Lawsuit After Losing Unborn Son
Mom Launches Raw Milk Lawsuit After Losing Unborn Son

Newsweek

time36 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Mom Launches Raw Milk Lawsuit After Losing Unborn Son

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A Florida mother has filed a lawsuit against a dairy farm, alleging that raw milk sold at a market caused severe illness in her toddler and led to the loss of her 20-week pregnancy. The complaint, filed August 13 in Seminole County Circuit Court, names Keely Farms Dairy, LLC, and Nature's Natural Foods, LLC, which operates Wild Hare Natural Market, as defendants. Plaintiff Rachel Maddox is suing both individually and on behalf of her minor child, who has required repeated hospitalization since consuming the milk. An attorney representing Maddox told Newsweek that the labeling did not warn consumers about the "extreme dangers" of the products. Keely Farms Dairy, based in New Smyrna Beach, declined to comment beyond a published statement. Wild Hare Natural Market, in Longwood, has not issued a response. Why It Matters Raw milk is a national flashpoint. The CDC and FDA warn it can carry pathogens and stress pasteurization as a key safeguard. Supporters cite taste and possible health benefits. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo in an August 12 post on X wrote that Floridians "have the freedom to make informed health choices" but should "know the risks." U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has voiced support for expanding dairy's role in dietary guidelines and has expressed openness to raw milk's benefits, though interstate sales remain prohibited. Florida law prohibits the sale of raw milk for human consumption, but the product remains available in retail outlets under "animal feed" labeling. With the state health department linking more than 20 illnesses to the dairy's products, the lawsuit raises questions about whether current laws and labeling practices adequately protect families from the risks of unpasteurized milk. Keely Farms Dairy Raw Milk showing labeling that states: 'Feed for Calves - Not for Human Consumption' Keely Farms Dairy Raw Milk showing labeling that states: 'Feed for Calves - Not for Human Consumption' Ron Simon & Associates | Food Poisoning Lawyers What To Know Plaintiff's Allegations According to the complaint, Maddox purchased raw milk in June from Wild Hare Natural Market. The milk was labeled "for consumption by animals," which Maddox said she was told was a technical requirement for selling "farm milk." On June 8, 2025, her toddler developed diarrhea, vomiting, fever, abdominal pain, and dehydration. He was hospitalized from June 9 to June 12, underwent surgery for intussusception—a condition in which part of the intestine slides into another—and tested positive for E. coli and Campylobacter. His treatment is ongoing. Maddox herself tested positive for Campylobacter after caring for her child, telling WKMG News 6: "I became very ill, and I mean the sickest I've ever been in my life. I came really close to dying and our (unborn) son did die. The doctors told me that I was lucky to be alive." By June 18, she miscarried and was diagnosed with sepsis. She was hospitalized repeatedly in subsequent weeks. Her attorneys argue that labeling on Keely Farms products did not adequately warn consumers. "The labeling on Keely Farms' raw milk products is wholly insufficient to warn a buyer of the extreme dangers of consuming these products," Ron Simon, a food safety attorney representing the plaintiffs, told Newsweek in an August 19 email. Simon added that the labels fail to disclose the products are unpasteurized, do not explain why they are marketed as "Feed for calves – not for human consumption," and were displayed alongside groceries intended for people. "Any reasonable consumer would naturally assume that the Keely Farms products—like the others in the freezer— were safe to consume," he said. Health Department Findings The Florida Department of Health (FDOH) has linked at least 21 illnesses since January 2025 to raw milk from Keely Farms Dairy. Six cases involved children under 10, seven required hospitalization, and two developed severe complications. In an advisory, FDOH said sanitation practices at the dairy were "of concern" and urged Floridians to be aware of the risks of consuming raw dairy. The commissioner of agriculture also encouraged residents to choose pasteurized products. Products marketed by Keely Farms Dairy, including Raw Milk, Greek Yogurt and Raw Kefir, all labeled 'Feed for Calves - Not for Human Consumption" Products marketed by Keely Farms Dairy, including Raw Milk, Greek Yogurt and Raw Kefir, all labeled 'Feed for Calves - Not for Human Consumption" Ron Simon & Associates | Food Poisoning Lawyers Legal Framework Florida law bans the retail sale of raw milk for human consumption. Section 502.091 of the Florida Statutes permits only pasteurized milk and certain aged cheeses to be sold for drinking. Raw milk products may be sold if labeled for animal feed. Keely Farms acknowledges this requirement on its website: "As required by the Federal Pasteurized Milk Ordinance and Florida Statute 502.091, which forbid the sale of unpasteurized milk products for human consumption, our products are labeled: 'Not for Human Consumption' and sold as 'Feed for Calves.'" The complaint argues that such labeling was inadequate, saying: "Any reasonable consumer would naturally assume that the Keely Farms products—like the others in the freezer—were safe to consume." What People Are Saying Ron Simon, attorney for Rachel Maddox said in an email to Newsweek, August 18, 2025: "My client is seeking compensation for her medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering for her illness, her son's illness, and the loss of her unborn child. But most importantly, she filed this lawsuit so that we could determine exactly HOW the products became so contaminated, in order to fix the problems so that this never happens to anyone else again." Alexia Kulwiec, executive director of Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, in a statement on August 15: "The Florida Department of Health's actions are unusual, confusing, and frankly troubling. "Here at FTCLDF, we have experience with many local departments of health. If the Department had evidence that Keely Farms Dairy sold contaminated raw milk for livestock feed, it would be taking serious action against the farm." What Happens Next The lawsuit seeks damages for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, including claims related to the loss of Maddox's pregnancy. Attorneys emphasize that the case also aims to clarify how the contamination occurred. No trial date has been set, and further proceedings will depend on the court's scheduling. The Florida Department of Health has stated it will continue working with Keely Farms Dairy to improve sanitation practices while maintaining its advisory that Floridians should be aware of the risks of consuming raw dairy products.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store