Holstein milking cows at an Idaho dairy on July 20, 2012. (Photo by Kirsten Strough/USDA)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Friday it will require dairy farms to share samples of unpasteurized milk when requested, in an effort to gather more information about the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza.

Public health officials have tracked the spread of bird flu or H5N1 in domestic poultry flocks for years before the virus began showing up in the country’s dairy herds this March, raising concerns.

While the risk to the general public remains low and there is no evidence to suggest bird flu can spread from person to person, nearly 60 people, mostly farmworkers, have contracted the virus this year.

The new milk testing requirements from USDA will apply nationally but will begin first in California, Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon and Pennsylvania, the week of Dec. 16. 

“Among many outcomes, this will give farmers and farmworkers better confidence in the safety of their animals and ability to protect themselves, and it will put us on a path to quickly controlling and stopping the virus’ spread nationwide,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a written statement.

Unpasteurized milk

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly tested pasteurized milk on store shelves throughout the country to reaffirm it’s safe to drink. Other dairy products, like cheese and ice cream, have also been found safe.

But the FDA continues to urge people against consuming unpasteurized milk, since it doesn’t go through the heating process that kills off viruses and bacteria.

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a written statement the new milk “testing strategy is a critical part of our ongoing efforts to protect the health and safety of individuals and communities nationwide.”

“Our primary responsibility at HHS is to protect public health and the safety of the food supply, and we continue to work closely with USDA and all stakeholders on continued testing for H5N1 in retail milk and dairy samples from across the country to ensure the safety of the commercial pasteurized milk supply,” Becerra said. “We will continue this work with USDA for as long and as far as necessary.”

The USDA began a voluntary bulk tank testing program for milk this summer in an attempt to make it easier for farmers to move their cattle across state lines without having to test each cow. The department also began a year-long study in August to test for bird flu in dairy cattle moved into meat production, seeking to confirm prior studies that found it safe to eat.

The bird flu outbreak has affected 720 dairy herds throughout 15 states so far this year, though California became the epicenter during the last month, according to data from the USDA.

The Golden State holds nearly all of the 273 herds diagnosed, with just four found in Utah during the last 30 days.

California also holds the bulk of bird flu infections in people, with 32 of the 58 diagnosed cases this year, according to information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Colorado accounts for another 10 human cases and Washington state confirmed 11 people infected with H5N1. Michigan has had two cases this year, while Missouri, Oregon and Texas have each had one positive human case.

USDA order

The USDA federal order announced Friday will require anyone responsible for a dairy farm — such as a bulk milk transporter, bulk milk transfer station, or dairy processing facility — to share unpasteurized or raw milk samples when requested.

Any farm owners whose dairy herds test positive for H5N1 will be required to share epidemiological information that would allow public health officials to perform contact tracing and other types of disease surveillance. 

Additionally, private laboratories and state veterinarians must alert USDA to positive samples that were collected as part of this National Milk Testing Strategy.

President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday said he intends to tap Brooke Rollins, the president and CEO of the America First Policy Institute, as USDA secretary. In this photo, Rollins speaks during an event on education at the institute on Jan. 28, 2022 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump Saturday announced his intent to name Brooke Rollins of Texas, the president and CEO of the pro-Trump America First Policy Institute, to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“As our next Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke will spearhead the effort to protect American Farmers, who are truly the backbone of our Country,” Trump said in a statement.

Trump’s statement said Rollins is a graduate of Texas A&M University, with an undergraduate degree in agriculture development.

“From her upbringing in the small and Agriculture-centered town of Glen Rose, Texas, to her years of leadership involvement with Future Farmers of America and 4H, to her generational Family Farming background, to guiding her four kids in their show cattle careers, Brooke has a practitioner’s experience, along with deep Policy credentials in both Nonprofit and Government leadership at the State and National levels,” the statement said.

Multiple news reports Friday had quoted sources close to Trump saying he would name former U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler, a Georgia Republican, as secretary of agriculture.

Billions in spending

Rollins, if confirmed by the Senate, would run a crucial agency that administers roughly $213 billion in mandatory and discretionary funding. The current secretary is Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa.

USDA manages food safety practices, conducts agriculture and conservation research, handles farm management and administers the government’s largest food benefits program for low-income families, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

The agency also provides federal grants for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC.

During the first Trump administration, Rollins served in several roles, including with the Domestic Policy Council. She was also director of the Office of American Innovation, and assistant to the president for strategic initiatives, the statement said.

“In these roles, she developed and managed the transformational domestic policy agenda of the Trump Administration, leading to historic achievements for the American people,” according to her biography.

A conservative lawyer, Rollins earned her law degree at the University of Texas. Rollins later served as the policy director for former Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who was the secretary of Energy in the first Trump administration.

Rollins also ran the Texas Public Policy Foundation — a conservative think tank — for 15 years.

Farm bill at a standstill

One big effort for the next secretary is to work with Congress to finalize the delayed farm bill that sets agriculture and conservation policy for the next five years. A big portion of the farm bill consists of the nutrition program, or SNAP.

USDA is also implementing portions of the Biden administration’s climate and clean energy program, known as the Inflation Reduction Act. Over the next five years, the IRA will provide USDA with about $20 billion for conservation programs that mitigate climate change.

Republicans have been critical of the climate law, and have vowed to claw back some of the funds.

Rollins is likely to work closely with former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom Trump says he will nominate to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy, if confirmed by the Senate, has publicly voiced his plans to influence the agriculture industry. 

Environmental advocates are concerned about the second Trump administration's effect on Wisconsin water quality. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump frequently talked about slashing environmental regulations on industry, freeing them up to do as they wish because climate change is a “hoax.” 

With about 70 days until the second Trump administration takes office, environmental advocacy groups in Wisconsin are preparing for how they’ll respond to the actions of the Trump-led Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Agriculture and the Interior as they try to protect the state’s air, water and natural resources. 

Howard Learner, president of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, says the first Trump term had negative effects on the environment, but the difference this time around is that Wisconsin and its midwestern neighbors have Democratic governors, attorneys general and liberal majorities on their state Supreme Courts.

“For the next few years in Wisconsin, there’s a Democratic governor, a Democratic-appointed Wisconsin [Department of Natural Resources] (DNR), a Democratic attorney general and a Democratic majority Supreme Court,” Learner says. “Where previously a number of DNR issues got tied up by the Republican majority, the current Supreme Court has given DNR more latitude to be protective of the environment. So there’s an opportunity for the states to be stepping up if the federal government is pulling back, and Wisconsin should seize that opportunity.” 

Many environmental advocates are also still in “wait-and-see” mode, wondering which party will win control of the U.S. House of Representatives and which members of Congress will control the body’s committees. 

Sara Walling, Clean Wisconsin’s water and agriculture program director, points to areas where there’s broad bipartisan consensus and there isn’t need for concern — largely the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a multi-agency collaboration to protect the largest freshwater lakes in the world. 

“Over the years, since its initial authorization, and then its reauthorization several times now, including during the Trump administration, both parties have really supported Great Lakes Restoration funding and those programs, so we fully expect that it will be intact and continue to be authorized moving forward,” Walling says. 

But she adds there are questions about the level of funding for projects such as cleanup efforts in the Milwaukee River estuary. She also says it’s unlikely progress will continue for starting a similar large-scale restoration project with the Mississippi River. 

Walling says she’s concerned about  the Trump-led EPA’s reliance on scientific research conducted by industries the agency regulates. 

“Generally speaking, the Trump administration in the past, and I don’t see any of this changing going forward, does not tend to rely on science when making a lot of its decisions at the EPA level,” she says.

Walling expects the incoming president’s administration to reject Biden administration EPA provisions “that have really been very heavily supported by really expansive scientific studies,” she says. “There’s a lot of initiatives that the EPA has been undertaking that are really a science-driven exploration of any environmental issue, to use that science as the backing for potentially new regulations.” 

Walling says that the pesticide and agricultural industries are areas where Republicans have complained about what the scientific research has found, and the Trump-led EPA and USDA may swing the pendulum back toward using research conducted by the companies themselves that ignores potential harms to the environment. 

Gussie Lord, the managing attorney of the tribal partnerships program at Earthjustice, says that for Wisconsin’s Native American tribes, the environmental concerns of the Trump administration focus largely on the construction of the Enbridge Line 5 oil pipeline in northern Wisconsin and the delisting of the gray wolf, once again allowing the animal to be hunted in the state. 

“We don’t know for sure what’s going to happen or what their priorities are going to be, but we can look at the previous Trump administration and the things that have been said by his advisors and former advisors, and we can surmise that there’s going to be a focus toward more extractive industry practices, including mining, oil and gas,” Lord says. 

Lord says protections under the National Environmental Policy Act, wetland protections under the Clean Water Act and subsidies for green energy are all at risk of being reduced. He also considers it likely that the new administration will approve federal permits for Line 5.

On Friday, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents much of northern Wisconsin, wrote in his weekly email newsletter about “tapping into America’s clean oil and gas resources” and that removing the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list is a priority under the new administration

“I am committed to passing my legislation that will return gray wolf management back to the states, allowing us to protect our communities and rural livelihoods,” he wrote. 

In the previous Congress, Tiffany was a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources and chairman of the subcommittee on federal lands. During his last term, he allied with right-wing anti-conservation group American Stewards of Liberty to oppose conservation projects in northern Wisconsin. 

American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) played a role in developing Project 2025, the policy plan written for the Trump administration. The president-elect said during the campaign the document wasn’t going to reflect his administration, but Trump allies have touted it as a playbook for his term in the days after his victory. 

Charlie Carlin, director of strategic initiatives at Gathering Waters, which focuses on land conservation in Wisconsin, says ASL’s ideology becoming a main aim of the federal government’s environmental policy is worrying. 

“If we take seriously that Project 2025 is essentially a guiding document for what the next Trump administration looks like, then I think we need to be really concerned about the future of permanent land conservation, kind of across the board,” Carlin says. That extends to agricultural land and working forest land as well as natural and wildlife areas, he adds.

ASL and Tiffany have been outspoken in their support for extractive industries, and Carlin says he’s worried about the trade-off  the Trump administration appears likely to make. 

“I think it’s incredibly concerning — what’s the long term sustainability of both the landscape and the economy of northern Wisconsin if the levers of federal government are used to incentivize extraction [which] in northern Wisconsin is likely to be open pit mining,” Carlin says. 

“There’s potentially a major short term economic gain for the wealthiest — for the people who are the owners of those mining companies, or folks who invest in those companies.” he adds. “But then what suffers there is both water quality and forest land cover for the long term. So maybe you get 10 years or maybe a generation worth of revenue … extracted as you’re mining, and then you’re left with many generations of poison water or impaired water quality.” 

He adds that short-term gain could result in a long-term loss in more sustainable industries, diminishing property tax values for communities in the region.

“If you strip the timber off of the land in order to dig a big hole to extract minerals, then what you don’t have is the regular annual income that supports loggers and that supports the truckers and that supports the mills,  and also, that land base supports the outdoor recreation economy and the second-home economy that provides so much of the property tax base up north,” Carlin says. “And so what you’re talking about is this sort of short term blitz that is going to benefit a very few people at the consequence of the long term environmental and economic health of the entire region.”