RFK's proposal to let bird flu spread through poultry

2025-07-0522:5678119www.livescience.com

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins have expressed interest in letting H5N1 outbreaks spread unchecked through U.S. poultry farms. Health experts warn it…

High-ranking federal officials have suggested that bird flu virus should be left to "rip" through poultry farms across the U.S. — but experts warn that this hands-off approach could hasten the beginning of a new pandemic

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services, and Brooke Rollins, secretary of Agriculture, have floated the notion that instead of culling birds infected with the highly pathogenic H5N1 virus, farmers should let it spread through flocks. The idea is that by doing this, farmers can "identify the birds, and preserve the birds, that are immune to it," Kennedy told Fox News on March 11.

Now, a perspective piece authored by a group of virologists, veterinarians and health security experts argues that the plan would not only be ineffective, but could also increase the risk of the virus spilling over into humans and sparking a new pandemic. The researchers published their arguments July 3 in the journal Science.

"Essentially, the longer you allow a virus that has shown to be effective in infecting multiple hosts survive in an environment, the greater the chance you give it to spread, to mutate, and to try its luck at adaptation," perspective first-author Erin Sorrell, a virologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Live Science. "Worse case scenario, the virus adapts and expands its host range to become transmissible in humans … Now we have a pandemic."

H5N1 is a subtype of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), a type of bird flu that can cause severe disease and death in poultry and other birds. Since the virus began spreading widely among U.S. birds in January 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported that more than 174 million birds across all 50 states have been infected with the disease. The virus’s transmission among wild aquatic birds, commercial poultry and backyard, hobbyist flocks, has led to massive culls in farms and sent egg prices skyrocketing.

The virus typically transmits among wild birds and poultry, but it's known to have also infected more than 48 mammal species, including foxes, skunks, raccoons, seals and polar bears. It has also spread to dairy cattle, causing outbreaks in more than 1,000 herds across 17 U.S. states, according to current estimates.

Related: How to avoid bird flu

Isolated human cases have been reported amid the ongoing outbreak in animals, primarily among farm workers, according to the CDC, although the agency states that the current health risk to the general public remains low. This is because, while the disease can spread among different animals, it currently can't be passed from human to human.

Federal plans

Rollins recently issued updates about the U.S. government's plan to combat the infection's spread and lower egg prices. The five-pronged strategy denotes $500 million to improve farm biosecurity, $400 million in financial aid to farmers and $100 million for vaccine research. The government is also exploring ways to slash regulations and increase temporary import options for eggs.

Current regulations state that when infections are detected among commercial poultry, farmers must cull the affected flocks to contain the disease's spread, for which they are financially compensated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Yet suggestions made by officials for more radical ways to manage bird flu have left experts concerned. In May, Kennedy and Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, voiced their support for the owners of a Canadian ostrich farm whose 398 birds faced a cull following confirmed cases of H5N1 bird flu in December 2024 and January this year.

"We believe significant scientific knowledge may be garnered from following the ostriches in a controlled environment," Kennedy wrote in a letter posted to the social platform X and addressed to the head of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which had ordered the cull. Kennedy suggested that the ostriches may have already acquired some "downstream immunity" to the virus, and Oz offered to relocate the birds to his Florida ranch for further study.

A close-up of chickens in an industrial farm

A close-up of chickens in an industrial farm. (Image credit: KARRASTOCK via Getty Images)

Sorrel told Live Science that these statements imply "there is still an expectation that those in the Trump administration, at least on the human health side, believe this approach has merit."

But Sorrel and her report collaborators disagree.

Allowing widespread infection of commercial flocks would kill billions of birds, drive poultry and egg prices up, as well as destabilize local economies and global trade through import restrictions imposed on U.S. products, the authors wrote. Simultaneously, it could also foster reservoirs of H5N1, increasing the virus' odds of making the leap to humans — and gaining the ability for human-to-human infection.

"Rapid culling of [H5N1] positive flocks is central to containment of the virus on a farm," Sorrel said. "Poultry infected with H5 shed a tremendous amount of virus. If effective controls designed to mitigate the quantity of viral shedding and known transmission pathways are removed, the exposure risk for other animals and humans on site and on neighboring farms will increase, and the opportunity for H5 to evolve to be a more effective poultry pathogen increases."

Kennedy's proposal is also very unlikely to work the way he's claimed it would — the birds that provide eggs and meat on farms are descendants of separate breeding populations and do not breed themselves. So even if there were a population of resilient birds that survived H5N1 infection, that doesn't mean they're passing on their genetic traits to a subsequent generation.

What's more, the mortality rate of H5N1 is extremely high among common poultry, reaching 100% in domestic chickens.

What experts propose

Instead of letting bird flu tear through farms, the scientists propose that government agencies should enhance surveillance of the virus' spread, along with improving data sharing and outbreak response measures shared between poultry producers, industry members and veterinarians. The USDA should not work alone on these measures, Sorrel said, as "interdisciplinary teams need to have the authority and means by which to activate at the state and federal levels."

Other experts agree with the team's suggestions, although they highlighted areas that need further discussion. Dr. Rocio Crespo, a poultry veterinarian at the North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, told Live Science that further details on potential vaccine strategies and biosecurity at farms should be explored.

But the USDA is now facing billions of dollars in federal funding cuts, and Crespo says that providing economic support to farmers facing outbreaks — alongside making investments to understand bird flu evolution, preventive measures and control methods — could become increasingly difficult.

"The current policies on poultry farms are effective at preventing spread to other farms," Crespo told Live Science. "However, the USDA's approach does not consider spill over and influences from other crop or animal agricultural activities."

"It appears we are continuing with the same strategies without sufficient improvement," she added. "Greater transparency and collaboration is crucial."


Read the original article

Comments

  • By adriand 2025-07-0523:585 reply

    > Kennedy's proposal is also very unlikely to work the way he's claimed it would — the birds that provide eggs and meat on farms are descendants of separate breeding populations and do not breed themselves. So even if there were a population of resilient birds that survived H5N1 infection, that doesn't mean they're passing on their genetic traits to a subsequent generation.

    Seems like a rather devastating flaw.

    • By duskwuff 2025-07-060:471 reply

      That's not even the worst of it, either. Viruses evolve faster than birds; allowing the disease to spread unchecked is likely to result in more virulent strains emerging. This could potentially include strains which can infect other species, including humans.

      • By tombert 2025-07-060:531 reply

        Yeah, that's what I thought as well. Isn't that the reason we need a new flu vaccine every year? Because viruses can mutate and adapt faster than animals can?

        I don't know anything about biology so admittedly I'm speaking out of my ass here, but that's certainly what it seemed like to me.

        • By BrandoElFollito 2025-07-0611:13

          Yes. This is also why in Europe we can predict the efficiency of the vaccine in a given year by looking at how it worked in Australia.

          Unfortunately there is not enough time to adapt the vaccine between these two seasons

    • By tombert 2025-07-060:033 reply

      If we have learned anything from this administration, even RFK Jr. specifically, is how lazy they are in pushing their agenda.

      They published a "report" claiming that vaccines cause autism that was lazily created with ChatGPT that had fake citations, or citations that actively go against what they're saying. Everything in the administration is half-assed.

      "Letting the virus spread to pass on the genes" seems like an idea that would come from a conversation when two drunks who are discussing how they'd solve all the world's problems.

      • By xnx 2025-07-060:211 reply

        There's no reason to put effort into crafting some convincing argument when your audience is predisposed to obey. This obedience to dictatorial authority is the great asymmetry between parties.

        • By AnimalMuppet 2025-07-060:271 reply

          Do you think that makes the Republicans stronger than the Democrats? Or weaker?

          I think it makes them stronger in the short term, but much weaker in the long term. (Of course, we have to survive the short term to get to the long term...)

          • By xnx 2025-07-061:181 reply

            Agree on both counts, not sure they'll be able to hold it together without Trump, often immitated, never duplicated (I hope).

            • By ben_w 2025-07-0616:461 reply

              Unfortunately definitiely duplicated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

              • By tombert 2025-07-0714:551 reply

                Boris Johnson is a big dumb idiot but a different kind of idiot than Trump, at least from an outsider American's perspective.

                I feel like Boris is more of a typical bloviating moron. Trump is that too, but in a far more immature childish sense. Trump is always trying to come up with dumb insulting nicknames for people, every single person who has ever contradicted him is "very mean" and "overrated" and "low-competency" or something like that. Playground insults.

                When other American politicians have tried to emulate the Trump style, it comes off as tryhard. Ron DeSantis tried it, it didn't work. That recent guy calling for the denaturalization of the mayoral candidate of NYC tried it, and it didn't work. For whatever reason, the weird immature insulting nature of Trump appears to only work for Trump, at least as of right now.

                • By ben_w 2025-07-0717:20

                  You may be correct, but I would add that Boris Johnson also does playground insults, it's just that his playground was Eton and therefore they're in Latin.

                  I'm told not even competent Latin — for a normal person that wouldn't even be worthy of comment because who even speaks it, but he keeps trying to sound impressive by using a language he, too, cannot speak.

      • By sorcerer-mar 2025-07-060:204 reply

        They are fundamentally absolute fucking goofballs.

        This administration is the best argument for DEI I’ve ever seen in my life, if it had anything to do with avoiding this.

        Just the other day, RFK’s top vaccine nutjob (new chair of ACIP, Robert Malone) tweeted something to suggest that the Amish’s existence despite waves of infectious disease and ~no~ low vaccination is evidence that vaccines aren’t necessary.

        Apparently ignorant[0] of the fact that the Amish are notoriously cloistered and isolated from the rest of society.

        [0] By “ignorant” I don’t mean “has never heard the idea,” but that the degree of motivated reasoning has rendered his mind actually incapable of integrating this fact — like many others — into his world view. I’m drawing this distinction because I don’t think this is a matter of smart people pretending to believe stupid things. They are actually, at rock bottom, very stupid people, rendered such by their own ideological commitments if nothing else.

        • By const_cast 2025-07-061:182 reply

          > This administration is the best argument for DEI I’ve ever seen in my life

          Right, they've essentially implemented reverse DEI: always hire the agreeable white man, no matter what. Which was essentially the status-quo in the fucking 60s.

          Now we have a bunch of old white men who can drink more than they can read running our government into the ground. They're all very horribly unqualified. But, they are essentially breathing doormats, which I think is vital to an authoritarian regime.

          • By rsynnott 2025-07-0612:201 reply

            Autocracies notoriously value loyalty and compliance over competence.

            • By sorcerer-mar 2025-07-0612:551 reply

              Yeah, too much of the vibe around autocracies is that people don't like 'em because they're big ol' meanie heads. No. They're bad because they're literally bad at governing. They make bad decisions.

              Democracy isn't good because it makes people feel good, but because in the long run democracies make far more adaptive decisions, and just hobbling along imperfectly over long periods is how you actually achieve growth.

              • By rsynnott 2025-07-0613:192 reply

                Well, I mean, it's _both_.

                • By lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2025-07-0614:28

                  One is a precursor for the other. Being mean and inflexible is their means of avoiding personal growth, which leads to the incompetence. Of course, they are exceptionally competent at being mean and inflexible because it’s what they practice in their lives.

                  But I think the point they’re making is that it’s moot that they are mean and inflexible if those traits make a good government. It is at least more relevant that they are incompetent at governing; even if both points are likely to fall on deaf ears and even if one naturally follows the other.

                • By sorcerer-mar 2025-07-0615:36

                  The problem is that when the going gets tough, people think they’re willing to accept big ol’ meanie heads in order to get good outcomes.

                  They are not aware that even if you were okay with that, that’s not the trade off that autocracy gives you.

                  And inversely, being “good” does not imply someone is incompetent. In general, the reverse is true because being good is such a powerful tool to achieve things (i.e. to be competent).

          • By tim333 2025-07-0614:262 reply

            There is a third way - hire the most competent regardless of skin shade, sexuality and so on. It has quite a good track record.

            • By const_cast 2025-07-0623:07

              I don't think we've ever done this. Nor do I think that if you just make everything a free-for-all that this will be the end result.

              Pretty much everyone is racist. I know that sounds harsh, but in America, everyone has been exposed to racial bias at some point in their lives. Usually thousands of times.

              It would be quite arrogant in my opinion to confidently proclaim said bias has had no effect on you, or anyone else. Probably, I would think, it has. It may not be measurable, but certainly I don't think that means it doesn't exist.

              We've done some studies on this. Even just having a non-white sounding name on your resume lowers your chances of getting hired by over 50%.

              It seems, to me, that just leaving things in their "natural" state seems to tend towards benefiting the white man. At least right now, in this particular place. That might not be the case in the future, and certainly it was worse in the past.

            • By sorcerer-mar 2025-07-0615:391 reply

              Empirically the system I have seen criticized as putting incompetent people in power due to their skin/sexuality/etc has yielded far far far better outcomes than the system that has been described as “hiring the most competent regardless of X…”

              Perhaps the criticisms of the former and the descriptions of the latter were not accurate.

              Can you describe specifically where/when you’re referring to that implemented your ideal system and achieved a good track record?

              • By ben_w 2025-07-0616:521 reply

                I generally hear everyone insisting that they themselves are "hiring the most competent regardless of X", it's just that pro-DEI assumes the baseline rate of competence is all groups are about the same really and anti-DEI assumes that rich == competent and oh look at the distribution of money in ${insert country here because it's not actually limited to America where it's white men with most of the money}.

                • By sorcerer-mar 2025-07-0618:18

                  Yeah this comports with my actual experience as well

        • By BLKNSLVR 2025-07-060:36

          > This administration is the best argument for DEI I’ve ever seen in my life

          I'm going to steal and re-use this beautifully succinct observation in as many ways as I appropriately can.

          100 internet points to you.

        • By krapp 2025-07-060:241 reply

          "no vaccination" is incorrect. The Amish do have lower vaccination rates than the general population, but many do vaccinate.

        • By tombert 2025-07-060:37

          > Just the other day, RFK’s top vaccine nutjob (new chair of ACIP, Robert Malone) tweeted something to suggest that the Amish’s existence despite waves of infectious disease and no vaccination is evidence that vaccines aren’t necessary.

          What a strange argument. Did anyone suggest that people would stop existing if there weren’t vaccines? We haven’t had vaccines throughout most of human history.

          People just (correctly) think that not being vaccinated will lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths.

    • By Analemma_ 2025-07-060:00

      Unfortunately it involves too many multisyllabic words for Kennedy— or anyone else in this administration— to understand it, so expect them to plow ahead regardless.

    • By walls 2025-07-061:19

      This idea definitely came from a tweet he read, and involved no extra consideration.

    • By Tika2234 2025-07-062:18

      [dead]

  • By valgor 2025-07-060:195 reply

    As an animal rights activist, this will do wonders for the movement. As chicken farms become unprofitable due to all the birds dying, prices will go up. This gives people like me an edge to talk about alternatives. We already do this with egg alternatives due to the increases in egg prices. Hopefully companies like JUST Egg can capitalize on this.

    • By YeGoblynQueenne 2025-07-067:342 reply

      >> As an animal rights activist, this will do wonders for the movement.

      The article says allowing the virus to rip through flocks could kill "billions of birds" [1]. Is that really OK with the movement?

      ___________

      [1] Allowing widespread infection of commercial flocks would kill billions of birds, drive poultry and egg prices up, as well as destabilize local economies and global trade through import restrictions imposed on U.S. products, the authors wrote. Simultaneously, it could also foster reservoirs of H5N1, increasing the virus' odds of making the leap to humans — and gaining the ability for human-to-human infection.

      • By valgor 2025-07-0611:20

        The birds are dying anyway. So instead of their bodies being used for profit to continue the industry, they will die with hopefully little to no government bailouts, forcing farmers to change what they do for a living.

      • By ineedasername 2025-07-068:04

        I'm guessing the movement figures the birds' 1st choice for their future, a career in the food service industry, isn't going to work out much better for the birds anyway.

    • By tbrownaw 2025-07-060:35

      > become unprofitable due to all the birds dying

      Isn't this just switching from, if you detect any infections you're required to kill your flock, to if you have any infections your flock will die of illness? Your flock is still dead either way.

    • By senectus1 2025-07-062:25

      you're wrong here... eggs will become obscenely profitable, because of the sheer demand for the things. Backyard/black market and over seas eggs will be worth an order of magnitude more than before.

      And guess what, America will have next to no say in the animal welfare of the source of the eggs.

    • By newdee 2025-07-0617:26

      I’d rather eat an actual egg than some hyper processed, plant based “alternative”.

    • By bamboozled 2025-07-060:303 reply

      I'm not sure what's going to happen here, but I'm never going to be eating "JUST Eggs"(tm). Sorry.

      I'd like to see a world where animals are treated better though. I don't really understand why food and food production has to be so shit.

      • By aziaziazi 2025-07-067:481 reply

        JUST Eggs aren’t the only alternative, through: seeds, beans, mushrooms, grains…

        I guess you know that the reason of shitty treatment is price, would you rather buy 20x priced eggs ? There’s many family farms that would be happy to deliver them anywhere at that rate.

        • By bamboozled 2025-07-072:04

          It's a shame that we've just settled for this as the only answer, "you want better food, you have to pay more".

          I think decent treatment of animals and access to decent food is a basic human and animal right. But yeah, it's hard to have this discussion if all it ever comes down too is economics or the decision between communism and capitalism.

      • By tbrownaw 2025-07-060:421 reply

        It's cheaper, and most shoppers aren't willing to pay enough extra to cover better treatment. (It's not the shoppers' fault that most of the labels aren't very meaningful? Well no, that means it's not cost-effective to ensure people are aware of that.)

        • By bamboozled 2025-07-063:30

          It's more of an assumption that people wouldn't want better food, maybe even more a statement about our culture in general.

      • By AtariATMHacker 2025-07-060:43

        [dead]

  • By cjk 2025-07-060:331 reply

    What an absolute clown show this administration is. We’ve had enough pandemics for one lifetime, thanks.

    The midterms can’t come soon enough. That is our only hope of putting some real checks on this administration any time soon.

    • By tombert 2025-07-061:011 reply

      Since I don't think that the shitshow is going to slow down, I suspect that basically all the damage done in 2025 will be forgotten by most voters. Democrats might do a bit better in 2026, and I certainly hope that that's the case, but I doubt we'll get anywhere near the super majority required to override the president.

      • By ben_w 2025-07-0617:001 reply

        If you live in the USA, just as the Democrat Party shouldn't rely on it being bad enough to be remembered, individuals shouldn't rely on it being mild enough to be forgotten

        It might be either, but on a personal level, there's multiple things this administration is actively proud of doing/having done that are so bad I expect a noticable reducion in aggregate US life expectency.

        • By tombert 2025-07-0618:11

          > It might be either, but on a personal level, there's multiple things this administration is actively proud of doing/having done that are so bad I expect a noticable reducion in aggregate US life expectency.

          I don't disagree with that, I think this administration is terrible and I expect the brain-drain of scientists alone might end up being irreparable damage for the entire country. Not to mention that the fake ChatGPT report released by the CDC will likely cause increased vaccine "skepticism" that would be horrible for everyone.

          I just think that this is going to have a "bed of nails" effect. They're doing so much horrible shit so frequently, that it can be hard for people to focus on just one, which has the effect of the entire thing not coming off as awful as it probably should. I'm quite convinced that's how Trump won the first election as well.

HackerNews