Dog attacks on postal workers have been on the rise. Here's what the data shows.
Dog attacks on postal workers reached a 7-year high last year, U.S. Postal Service data shows, with more than 6,000 dog attacks recorded.
Attacks are up 5% from 2023 and 15% from 2022, with the highest rate of attacks in the Midwest, according to an NBC News analysis of Postal Service data.
With more than 1 in 3 American households owning dogs, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, danger abounds for mail carriers.
'[It's] a real problem,' David Coleman, a spokesperson for the Postal Service, said in an email. 'Dogs are animals, they act instinctively and can bite for any number of reasons. All it takes is just one wrong interaction/movement for our carriers to be injured.'
The Postal Services releases its dog attack figures every year as part of its Dog Bite Awareness campaign. The incidents, mostly self-reported by employees, include chases, bites, assaults and deaths, like that of a 61-year-old mail carrier in Florida who died in 2022 after she was mauled by five dogs.
Midwest states have a higher rate of dog attacks when the data is adjusted for the number of households. The six states with the highest rates of dog attacks — Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Ohio — are all Midwestern.
In 2024, there were an average of 5.24 dog attacks per 100,000 households in the Midwest, a rate 75% higher than in the South.
Among cities with 10 or more dog attacks, eight are in California and seven are in Ohio, making up a quarter of the list.
For the 300,000-plus mail carriers in the United States, many of whom deliver to hundreds of addresses every day, the risk adds up. If a dog attack does occur, the financial and emotional impacts can be significant: In 2024, the average cost per insurance claim for a dog bite was nearly $70,000, according to the Insurance Information Institute.
To help minimize the risk of attacks, the Postal Service has instituted guidelines for interacting with dogs on routes and ways to protect against harm, including carrying dog repellant and using mail satchels to create distance from dogs.
Coleman had advice for dog owners: 'The best way to keep safe from dog bites and attacks is to recognize and promote responsible pet ownership,' he said. 'Teach your dog appropriate behavior and commands and don't allow a dog to roam freely.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s new vaccine panel is packed with vaccine skeptics
During his Senate confirmation hearings for health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went to great lengths to downplay his previous anti-vaccine positions to try to assure the public that he wasn't as extreme as his record indicated. But now that he has unveiled new members of an important vaccine advisory committee, his long-held extremism is not only coming back into full view, it's also being operationalized. On Monday, Kennedy removed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, which is made up of medical and public health experts and advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As NBC News reports, this committee makes 'recommendations to the CDC about who should get certain vaccines, including the schedule for childhood vaccinations.' These recommendations are then adopted by medical professionals and insurers. Kennedy justified the move by alleging that the experts on the panel were all compromised by financial conflicts of interest. But the claim looked like a dubious pretext for clearing the way for a new panel. As NBC News reports, 'Members of ACIP, who undergo an extensive vetting process before they are appointed, are required to disclose conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from voting on vaccines for which conflicts exist.' Sean O'Leary, chair of the infectious disease committee for the American Academy of Pediatrics, who serves as a liaison to the committee from the pediatric academy, told The New York Times that the idea that the old committee's decisions were influenced by financial conflicts of interest was 'factually incorrect, and you can look at the record to see that.' He called Kennedy's firings 'manufactured chaos.' Kennedy's vision came into clearer view on Wednesday when he announced eight new people to serve on ACIP's board, including several experts with questionable or outright dangerous track records on vaccinations or public health recommendations. They include: Robert Malone, a physician-scientist and biochemist whom The New York Times has described as a 'misinformation star,' in part because of his record of misleadingly questioning the dangers of Covid and the safety of Covid vaccines. Vicky Pebsworth, the director of research and patient safety at the National Vaccine Information Center, which NBC News reports is 'considered a leading source of misinformation about vaccines.' Cody Meissner, a Dartmouth pediatrics professor who was a signer of the Great Barrington Declaration, the statement that opposed lockdowns during the Covid pandemic. Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at the MIT Sloan School of Management. NBC News reports that he 'has called for an end to Covid vaccinations, claiming mRNA vaccines cause serious harm and death, especially among young people.' Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist and biostatistician who was one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. Kennedy didn't pick random people off the internet; they have credentials, often at highly esteemed institutions, although some of these academic backgrounds apparently deviate from the kind one typically expects for this panel. But many public health experts and those who keep a close eye on vaccine skeptics and anti-vaxxers note that Kennedy appears to be putting together a slate of experts who skew ideologically against consensus and near-consensus views on vaccine safety and efficacy. 'Kennedy did not pick people with strong, current expertise in vaccines,' Dorit Reiss, a professor at UC Law San Francisco who studies vaccine policy, told NPR. 'It tells me that Kennedy is setting up a committee that would be skeptical of vaccines, and possibly willing to implement an anti-vaccine agenda.' David Mansdoerfer, who served as deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services in the first Trump administration, called Kennedy's announcement 'a huge win for the medical freedom movement.' It's not yet clear how the advisory board will rule on vaccine recommendations in the future. But the real-world effects of this could be significant. As The New York Times notes, the panel's recommendations, which don't have to be adopted by the CDC but typically are, can affect how strongly doctors recommend vaccinations. If the panel's recommendations skew away from recommending vaccines, then it could mean that physicians might be more hesitant to counsel patients to take vaccines that have long been proved to be safe. Furthermore, the panel's recommendations could affect how health insurance companies cover vaccines. 'Right now, insurance companies cover the four-dose polio series. But without an A.C.I.P. recommendation, the shots might cost you more than $300,' the Times reports. We still don't know how this newly formed panel will play out. But contrary to Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' mantra, all indications so far are that Kennedy is laser-focused on advancing activist goals that will make our society less healthy. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jolly Ranchers Hit With 'Do Not Eat' Warning in U.K.
Consumers have been advised against eating a popular American candy after a health agency determined that the beloved sweet treat is "of toxicological concern." According to a report from The Independent, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the United Kingdom has issued a warning to consumers about an ingredient in Jolly Rancher candies – a beloved hard candy owned by the Hershey Company. The FSA warns that Jolly Rancher candies contain mineral oils, which include mineral oil aromatic hydrocarbons (Moah) and mineral oil saturated hydrocarbons (Mosh). These chemical compounds are added to confectionery items to prevent stickiness and to create a glossy appearance, like that of the Jolly Rancher candies. However, the FSA warns that when consumed regularly over time, these mineral oils may pose health risks, especially in younger consumers. The agency warned of cancer risk and the possibility of damaged DNA. 'Consumption of the affected sweets is of toxicological concern, especially in younger age groups and where consumers eat a lot of the products or eat them regularly," the FSA warned in an alert published Wednesday, according to The Independent. 'Moah can cause damage to DNA and has the potential to increase the risk of cancer, particularly if consumed in high quantities over a prolonged period of time. Moah is a genotoxic carcinogen, therefore no exposure is without risk to human health.' The Independent reports that Hershey has been working with the FSA to remove all Jolly Rancher products from the UK market since 2024, though they continue to be imported despite these efforts. The FSA has a simple warning for anybody who has purchased Jolly Rancher Hard Candy, "Misfits" Gummies, Hard Candy Fruity 2 in 1, and Berry Gummies: "do not eat them." 'If you have bought any of the above products, do not eat them," the FSA warned. 'Instead, dispose of them at home. If you are concerned, notify your Trading Standards department or environmental health department in the local authority you purchased it. 'For consumers, don't buy them, and if you've eaten these products, there should be no immediate cause for concern, as food safety risk is low, but don't eat any more.' It's worth noting that the Food and Drug Administration in the United States has not issued a warning about any health risks associated with the candies, and they are still permitted to be sold in the United States. Still, given this information from another health agency in another country, American consumers might still be a bit wary of consuming the popular candy going forward. Jolly Ranchers Hit With 'Do Not Eat' Warning in U.K. first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 13, 2025
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
7 Tattoo Health Risks To Consider Before Getting Inked
Increasing research shows that getting tattoos carry both short and long-term health risks Historically, tattoos existed at the fringe of society. But today, tattoos are mainstream — gracing the skin of athletes, celebrities, professionals and everyday people. According to the Pew Research Center, a third of American adults have a tattoo and 22% have more than one. Yet a growing body of research shows that health risks from tattoos are real. Here's are seven tattoo health risks to consider before sitting down to get a tattoo (or another one). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates cosmetic pigments used in makeup and skincare products. Yet tattoo inks operate in a regulatory gray zone. They are not subject to the same premarket safety testing. Many commercially available tattoo inks contain hazardous substances — including heavy metals like lead, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and primary aromatic amines (PAAs) formed from azo dyes. One review found that benzo(a)pyrene, a potent carcinogen found in PAHs, is present in black tattoo ink. Red and yellow inks are especially concerning because they often contain cadmium. Roughly 10% of people with tattoos experience chronic skin conditions, such as itching, redness, swelling or pain can last long after the original tattoo heals. These reactions are even more common in tattoos more than 10 years old or those with red or colored inks. Delayed hypersensitivity reactions can also occur – called granulomatous or lichenoid responses, presenting as raised bumps or nodules on or near the tattoo. Red pigments are commonly the culprit. These skin reactions sometimes require biopsies, topical or systemic steroids or at times, surgical removal. Tattoo-related reactions can also mimic or mask serious skin diseases. For example, tattoo pigment may obscure early skin cancers like melanomas or interfere with lymph node evaluations during cancer staging. Even in professional studios with sterile technique, infections are a real risk. Bacterial infections are most common, which can often be successfully treated with antibiotics. However, ink contamination during manufacturing has also been implicated in outbreaks of infections. Most tattoo infections are mild and localized. Yet others can become severe, especially in people with compromised immunity. There have been rare reports of systemic infections, including sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis (i.e. flesh-eating bacteria). When tattoo pigments are deposited into the dermis of the skin, the ink can migrate to lymph nodes. Emerging research suggests tattoos may be associated with increased cancer risk — particularly skin cancers and lymphomas. A 2025 Danish twin cohort study found that individuals with large tattoos had a nearly 3-fold risk of these cancers. While this study do not yet prove a direct causal link, the large effect size is concerning. Nevertheless, case reports have described malignant tumors developing within tattoos, including melanomas. Whether tattoo pigments play a direct role in cancer development or simply create local environments conducive to cancer remains unclear. Additionally, some tattoo pigments degrade under laser removal or sun exposure. This can potentially generate cancer-causing byproducts like PAAs. This means not only the initial exposure but also later decisions —like removal – can increase cancer risks. Tattooing may also play a role in triggering or worsening autoimmune diseases. Case reports and clinical studies have linked tattoos to conditions such as sarcoidosis, psoriasis, lupus and pyoderma gangrenosum. Tattooed areas can become what doctors call 'immunocompromised districts': sites of localized immune dysregulation. This can predispose to viral infections like warts and conditions like molluscum contagiosum – small, firm, dome-like bumps. These can emerge months or even years after tattooing. This highlights the importance of screening individuals with autoimmune conditions before tattooing. Removing tattoos is far more difficult than getting them. Laser-based removal requires multiple sessions and may not fully eliminate all the pigment. Removal of larger tattoos can run $5,000 to $10,000. Removal can also lead to scarring, skin discoloration (either lightening or darkening) and allergic reactions. Laser treatment may even cause allergic or systemic symptoms not present before removal, especially when pigment particles are broken down and enter the bloodstream. Tattoo regret rate is high — especially among younger people who may not consider the long-term consequences. This may occur when the artwork no longer aligns with identity, religious beliefs or professional goals. Tattoo regret also can increase depression and anxiety. In certain sectors (e.g. military, law enforcement, or corporate environments), visible tattoos may limit employment opportunities. People may also face stigma or stereotyping, particularly in conservative or culturally traditional settings. Tattoos can be an art form, a rite of passage or a personal statement. But increasingly, research reveals that some of the risks of tattoos are potentially serious. Yet this doesn't mean people need to avoid tattoos if they really want one. Millions enjoy their tattoos without complications. For people who have decided to get a tattoo, here are six ways to reduce (some of) the tattoo health risks: As with any decision, knowledge is power. When it comes to tattoo health risks, the evidence is clear: the risks are more than skin deep.
