134M poultry and counting: Interactive charts show hardest-hit counties in bird flu crisis
Egg laying chickens (Photo by Preston Keres/USDA)
The latest data from the CDC and USDA show the continued devastating effects of bird flu outbreaks across the United States – with Iowa, the nation's leading egg producer, suffering substantial losses.
Since November 2023, more than 12.1 million poultry birds have been affected in Sioux County, Iowa.
On Jan. 17, health officials in Georgia, the nation's leading state for chicken production, announced it was suspending poultry sales after detecting bird flu, for the first time, in flocks designated for commercial sale. This recent development is not yet reflected in the CDC and USDA databases used for this analysis.
'This is a serious threat to Georgia's #1 industry and the livelihoods of thousands of Georgians who make their living in our state's poultry industry. We are working around the clock to mitigate any further spread of the disease and ensure that normal poultry activities in Georgia can resume as quickly as possible,' Georgia Agriculture Commissioner Tyler Harper said in a news release.
Since federal and state government officials began tracking in February 2022, at least 1,400 outbreaks have been reported in more than 600 counties nationwide, affecting nearly 135 million birds.
Other counties experiencing severe losses include Weld County, Colorado, with 9.95 million since April 2022, and Merced County, California, recording 8.35 million, according to the data.
Midwest states with the highest number of birds affected include Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, and Nebraska.
Meanwhile, 67 human cases have been reported in the U.S. since the flu was first detected in humans in 2024, according to the CDC.
'While the current public health risk is low, CDC is watching the situation carefully and working with states to monitor people with animal exposures,' the agency stated on its website, which is regularly updated with the latest information.
This article first appeared on Investigate Midwest and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Indiana bans sugary drinks, candy from SNAP
Once a week, a single mother and her two young children sit around a table to play a board game. Between turns, the three of them bite into a candy bar and sip a can of soda. The mother, who is on SNAP, has a job, but has a limited income so she can't afford to take her children on vacation or to the movie theater, said her friend Stephanie Boys, an associate professor of social work and an adjunct professor of law at Indiana University. To that mother, Boys said game night with a little treat is how she makes memories with her children. 'They eat healthy the rest of the time, it's just that's their family time,' Boys said. 'She is on such a limited budget that she doesn't know if she'll be able to afford the weekly treat.' Her friend's son is autistic, Boys said, so he relies on structure and always looks forward to family game night, which includes their weekly sweet treat. Boys said her friend has been stressed further because her son only takes his medicine with a sip of ginger ale. 'Having that weekly night to look forward to is very important to him. It's going to be even more difficult than with a neurotypical kid to try to explain, 'we're still going to play our games, we just might not have our soda with it,'' Boys said. U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently signed a waiver filed by Indiana officials to remove sugary soft drinks and candy from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 'More taxpayer-funded SNAP dollars are spent on sugary drinks and candy than on fruits and vegetables. Indiana is proud to lead the way in the Make America Healthy Again agenda by making this common sense move to return the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to its intended purpose: nutrition,' said Indiana Mike Braun in a statement. Braun's statement claimed purchases of sugary drinks, desserts and candy exceed the combined sales of fruits and vegetables on SNAP, but data does not bear that out. A USDA study from 2016 showed soft drinks comprise around 5% of each dollar spent in SNAP and candy amounts to 2%. The vast majority — 80% — is spent on meat, fruits, vegetables, rice, beans, eggs, dairy and prepared foods. Children enrolled in SNAP consume 43% more sugary drinks than non-SNAP recipients with similar incomes, according to Braun's statement. Boys and Leslie Lenkowsky, professor emeritus in public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University, said they haven't seen that statistic in SNAP reports and aren't sure where Braun received that information. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was in Indianapolis in April to roll out Braun's Make Indiana Healthy Again initiative and stated that every governor should follow Braun's lead. Lenkowsky said the U.S. has had various food stamp programs that have gone through many changes in eligibility rules and restrictions over the years. Indiana's ban on sugary drinks and candy will be hard to enforce, he said, because it will rely on merchants at stores telling customers they can't make those purchases using SNAP. What will likely happen, Lenkowsky said, is that people on SNAP will try to re-budget to see if they can afford soda and candy another way. If not, he said what could happen is people negotiate with their friends or neighbors that they will buy them a grocery item or two on their SNAP benefits if the other person buys them soda or candy. While the pendulum may shift on food benefits, Lenkowsky said the bottom line is that people in poverty need support. 'People may be poor and needy, but they deserve respect,' Lenkowsky said. Boys said she wasn't surprised that Indiana was approved to remove sugary soft drinks and candy from SNAP because some U.S. Congressmen and women have proposed similar actions. Arkansas filed a similar waiver to Indiana's by banning soft drinks and candy, Nebraska filed for a waiver to ban sugary drinks and energy drinks from SNAP, and Iowa filed a waiver to ban anything that's eligible for sales tax, which bans sugary snacks and drinks, from SNAP, Boys said. 'I think we're going to see more and more states asking for these waivers,' Boys said. But waivers like this don't address food deserts or access to healthy foods, Boys said. People who use SNAP typically live closer to a convenience store than a grocery store, so there's more access to snacks and processed foods, she said. While convenience stores do sell some healthy items, like apples and bananas, the cost of those foods is greatly marked up compared to a grocery store, Boys said. Government officials should work toward incentivizing healthier eating in another way, she said. Removing sugary drinks and candy from SNAP will put more of a stigma on children who live in poverty, Boys said. For example, Boys said at her children's school students are encouraged to bring candy on standardized test days to share with the class. Under this change, some students won't be able to participate. 'If their friends come to school with candy and they don't have that, it's hard for parents to explain why they can't buy that. Especially when you go to the grocery store and at check out there's all this candy right in front of you,' Boys said.
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
Subtle Differences Emerge Between FDA And CDC On COVID Vaccine Advice
An illustration picture shows vials with Covid-19 vaccine stickers attached and syringes with the ... More logo of the company Novavax. (Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS / AFP) (Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP via Getty Images) In a major policy shift last month, Food and Drug Administration officials proposed requiring new clinical trial research with respect to the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in healthy people under 65, including pregnant women, before issuing an updated approval for a broader population. At the same time, in an update to its immunization schedule posted May 29th, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention include the option of COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women. Based on the language used by CDC, it suggests the agency aims for a shared decision-making approach in which individuals consult with their doctor prior to getting a shot. We witnessed a preview of the new FDA approach when the agency made an unusual decision to limit the approval of the nation's only non-mRNA coronavirus vaccine, Novavax's nuvaxovid, for use only in adults 65 and older or those 12 to 64 who have at least one health problem that puts them at increased risk from COVID-19. To be indicated for a broader population, the FDA plans to require that vaccine makers conduct booster trials to demonstrate effectiveness in people under 65 or without certain risks. These trials could take a year to complete, according to a STAT report. As such, it's not something that can be accomplished prior to the autumn, even if Novavax, Pfizer, or Moderna, wished to pursue this pathway. Similar to annual flu shots, which adapt to new strains, COVID-19 boosters update immunity to target evolving variants. Data from several years of booster campaigns show lower hospitalization and death rates for boosted individuals compared to unvaccinated people or those who haven't gotten boosters. This particularly applies to the vulnerable subpopulations, stratified by age and underlying health conditions. The COVID-19 vaccines, both mRNA and non-mRNA, are recommended for anyone who is over 65 or who has a medical condition that can increase the risk of severe illness or death. Underlying conditions include, among other things, obesity, 'physical inactivity,' diabetes, clinical depression and being immunocompromised. It's estimated that between 100 and 200 million Americans will still be eligible for vaccination due to having such health issues. Nevertheless, this raises questions for people who don't have underlying health conditions and are under 65 but would like to get a COVID-19 shot this fall. The FDA and CDC appear to differ subtly in terms of their current advice for healthy individuals under 65. Is it possible for these folks to obtain a jab at the pharmacy with no questions asked? Or will they have to go to their doctor and be granted de facto permission to get the shot? Perhaps equally important, will their insurer pay for it? As the New York Times explains, insurance companies may serve as the 'gatekeepers by demanding medical documentation of an underlying condition before agreeing to cover the cost.' The out-of-pocket cost to patients could be as much $140 a shot. Top FDA officials Prasad and Makary advocate an 'evidence-based' approach to COVID-19 vaccination. They also write of aligning policy with Europe. Indeed, in most instances, European public health authorities have adopted a targeted approach that aims at ensuring the elderly and those with underlying health conditions get boosted. This means that outreach campaigns in European countries only target subpopulations for which the vaccine is recommended by the respective public health authority. This is unlike the universal recommendations previously issued by the CDC that didn't differentiate by age or risk factors. However, the European agencies in charge of vaccine approval, the EMA and MHRA, haven't suggested marketing authorization changes, such as narrowing the indication based on age, for any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
The Benefits And Drawbacks Of RFK Jr.'s New COVID Vaccine Recommendations
SAVANNAH, GA - DECEMBER 15: A nurse shows off a vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine ... More outside of the Chatham County Health Department on December 15, 2020 in Savannah, Georgia. (Photo by) RFK Jr. and the HHS will no longer recommend annual COVID-19 vaccines for healthy pregnant women and young adults, according to a video announcement posted on X May 27 by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. A few days later, the CDC took a slightly different stance and stated that children between the ages of 6 months and 17 years may get the COVID-19 vaccine through shared decision-making between parents and healthcare providers. The CDC also updated the adult immunization schedule to say there is 'no guidance' on use for pregnancy. These decisions have sparked much debate among public health experts, policymakers and government officials. Here are the pros and cons of such a policy shift. As Kennedy cited in his video announcement, the U.S. seems to be aligning its vaccine policy with other countries such as the U.K. and Australia that have stopped recommending routine COVID-19 vaccines for young healthy adults. In addition, according to the new recommendations, the focus of vaccinations will largely be on high-risk populations, namely those who are 65 years of age and older as well as younger individuals with at least one medical condition that puts them at high risk for COVID-19. This could allow resources and attention to be redirected to the populations that need the vaccine most. The new recommendations also demand evidence in answering important questions the public deserves to know. For younger healthy American adults, getting approval for the vaccine will require placebo-controlled trials to show a benefit for that particular population. As an example, does a healthy 31-year-old male with no medical problems need to get a COVID-19 booster every single year, even after having received several COVID-19 boosters in the past? These are the types of questions that all Americans would like to and deserve to know with respect to COVID vaccinations. On the flip side, the new recommendations have many public health experts concerned. Pregnant healthy females could be barred from getting the COVID-19 vaccine, since the CDC has failed to provide guidance on the issue. Without a strong recommendation from the CDC, many pregnant patients could face real barriers from insurance companies to cover the vaccine, according to The New York Times. Pregnant women are at high risk for COVID infection and complications because pregnancy results in a weakened immune system. As Dr. Steven Fleischman, President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states, 'The science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability.' The new recommendations could harm vulnerable populations. In addition to potential decreased vaccination rates and adverse outcomes for pregnant females, children could also suffer. When pregnant females get vaccinated against COVID-19 in the third trimester, they are able to pass along antibodies and protection to their infants, who have not developed mature immune systems. If pregnant females do not get vaccinated, infants will lack these antibodies and could then go on to develop severe complications from the virus should they get infected. Finally, the new recommendations could limit access to the vaccine to those that want it. Private insurance companies usually require FDA approval and CDC recommendations to cover the vaccine as part of health insurance. The current CDC recommendations simply state young children may get the vaccine with shared-decision making, not outright stating that they should get the vaccine. In addition, the CDC falls short in explicitly recommending the vaccine for pregnant females. This could prevent private insurance companies from fully covering the vaccine. Ultimately, this may mean some pregnant women and those that cannot afford the vaccine may not have access to it. The new recommendations for the COVID-19 vaccine for children and pregnant females was made without the customary use of independent advisors, and could have important implications for public health. While aligning with international practices, the move could significantly limit the amount of vaccines available for millions of Americans.
