Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Another Raw Milk Recall in CA After Bird Flu Detected Again; Top Health Official Warns Trump Admin To Be Prepared For Bird Flu; Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to Meet with GOP on Capitol Hill. Aired 1:30-2 pm ET

Aired November 28, 2024 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:31:08]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Today, a new raw milk recall out of California. Public health officials detected bird flu in a batch of raw milk from Raw Farm based in Fresno. The company is voluntarily recalling the product just days after it issued a recall for the same reason for a different lot.

Bird flu has become a prime concern for the nation's top health officials, including the president -- the president's chief science officer this week wrote this in a "New York Times" op-ed. Quote, "If the bird flu virus begins to transmit efficiently among humans, it will be very difficult to contain, according to the Johns Hopkins assessment. And the likelihood of a pandemic is very high. The incoming Trump administration needs to be prepared."

There have been 55 cases of bird flu so far reported in people. Nearly all of them are folks working with poultry or on farms. Though it's still not clear how one child in California became infected.

Joining us now is CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner. Dr. Reiner, thank you so much for sharing your Thanksgiving with us. How dangerous is bird flu in raw milk?

DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: So raw milk is basically unpasteurized milk. And, you know, whereas pasteurized milk, the typical milk we buy at the supermarket has been pasteurized. That is safe, really, from any pathogen.

Raw milk, however, is basically untreated. And if the cow, the dairy cow has this H5N1 flu virus, it can be transmitted through raw milk. So do not drink raw milk. But there have been over 600 dairy cow herds in the United States that have been infected by this virus. So it is not safe to drink raw milk.

SANCHEZ: What are the potential benefits of raw milk? In other words, why are so many people becoming attracted to it? It's been endorsed even by RFK Jr.

REINER: Yeah, I think it's mostly a fad. And I don't really think there are any tangible benefits from drinking raw milk. And I certainly would not give it to children. But what I think the concern is going forward is we are not ready for another pandemic.

We're still sort of recovering from -- from COVID-19. Right now, H5N1 has almost entirely infected poultry, wild birds and dairy cattle. It has not yet shown the propensity to jump to humans in any kind of meaningful way.

The 55 people that you mentioned in the United States that have been infected, almost all of them have had direct contact with either poultry, wild birds or dairy cattle. There is one child who's recovering with an unclear exposure to the virus. But if the virus does mutate, and these viruses mutate all the time, and if it develops a beneficial mutation to the virus that allows human to human transmission in an efficient way, it has a great potential to become a pandemic.

And the U.S. needs to be prepared for that. We need to be producing more vaccine towards this specific type of virus. We need to be using mRNA technology to specifically target the strain circulating of this virus.

And we need to put together the other infrastructure, creating large stockpiles of antivirals, like oseltamivir, which is Tamiflu. And there needs to be a sense of urgency. And the new administration is going to have to deal with this when they take office.

SANCHEZ: Doctor, how would you compare a human infection of bird flu to that of COVID-19? If you could sort of put it into context for us, what are the symptoms and how do they compare?

[13:35:09]

REINER: Well, many of the symptoms are similar to any kind of virus. And in almost all of the people who've been infected so far, they've had very mild symptoms, basically such as conjunctivitis or sore throat.

However, you can get deep respiratory involvement with this virus, and that can be deadly. And as the virus mutates, the ability of the virus to attach to and infect respiratory cells can change and can increase. And that is the concern.

In a prior small outbreak in 1998, 18 people were infected and six of those people died. Thankfully, the mortality rate for human infection in this country with this outbreak has been very low. But again, you know, we can't be complacent and we need to prepare for the worst-case scenarios because we know the worst-case scenarios can and have happened.

SANCHEZ: Dr. Jonathan Reiner, appreciate the expertise. Thanks for joining us.

REINER: My pleasure.

SANCHEZ: Coming up, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have big plans to shake up how the government is run. But legally, do they actually have the power to do it? Is DOGE constitutional? We'll discuss in just a few moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:41:00]

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN HOST: A save the date is coming from the House Speaker Mike Johnson. He says that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will be heading to Capitol Hill one week from today to have meetings with House and Senate Republicans. Johnson says they will, quote, "discuss major reform ideas to achieve regulatory recessions, administrative reductions, and cost savings and revive the principle of limited government."

The two are preparing to lead Donald Trump's newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, otherwise known as DOGE. CNN has learned that they plan to use recent Supreme Court rulings as an argument to overturn many federal rules.

Joining me now is Harry Litman, a former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Harry, thank you so much for joining us. There's a lot to ask you about in terms of the plans here. Musk and Ramaswamy are looking to these two Supreme Court rulings to try to make their jobs easier. Walk us through, if you would, the court's decisions in West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, those two cases, and why Ramaswamy and Musk are zeroing in on those two.

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Sure. And Happy Thanksgiving, Alex. Thanks for having me. So in both those cases, they are major cases, but in both of them, the Supreme Court is telling Congress, nothing to do with the executive branch, Congress, in one case, you have to be more precise in your guidance to agencies or we, the court, will take it over. In another, if this is a really major question, we're not sure what that means yet, again, you can't just do this unless you're more specific. So it's all about putting Congress through its paces.

It has, sorry to say, not one iota to do with executive power, doesn't begin, purport, in anybody's thoughts, give them the power that they're looking at. And we're talking very basic stuff. Who makes the laws in the country? And you think that maybe when we were all taking third grade social science, those guys were already doing computer science and they missed that lesson that day. But, you know, they've got this machete to wield to take out $2 trillion. That's the entire discretionary spending of the federal government, and they're not even pointed in the right direction.

It's like, you know, pin the tail on the donkey. So the cases that they are purporting to rely on, it's not a kind of controversial position or a legal question. Give them zero, zero, zero power to do anything.

MARQUARDT: And to your point, it's not that easy, right? You can't just come in and slash regulations. Federal departments are bound by all kinds of rules. There is an administrative process that they would need to go through, right?

LITMAN: Including a process for getting rid of rules. They're at least talking to the right person in the meeting that you talked about, Alex. They've got to go to Congress, which under Article I still makes the laws in this country.

But that's right. They just can't willy-nilly, because they know Donald Trump, just say this regulation is done and that regulation means this. Congress has to decide, and under the administrative rules, unless they completely get rid of them, and even then it would still fall to Congress, they can't do anything. Only Congress could create their agency in the first place and get rid of or try to get rid of these regulations. And to do it, they'd have to go jump through hoops, notice, process, everything's going to be lawsuits. That's, of course, you know, the United States.

But that's exactly right. They can't get out of the box with what they want to do unless Congress passes many laws, starting with even the creation of their newfangled agency.

MARQUARDT: So this newfangled agency, as you call it, has a rather cutesy acronym, DOGE, standing for the Department of Government Efficiency. It will not actually be a government department. So how much will that actually limit their authority? Do you think they could be creative enough or disruptive enough to find a way to circumvent those normal processes that you were talking about?

[13:45:19]

LITMAN: Look, that's certainly the effort, to be both creative and disruptive. They've got a very bad start if they're relying on these cases. But we've seen Trump and the people in his circle think about, how do you get around the law? How do you get around the Constitution? That's been the whole game with the nominees, right? Can we get rid of the normal background process?

So I wouldn't put it past them to be creative. Persuasive is another matter, but you always have to say, a big thing like this, a big development, will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. They have surprised us and pleased Trump before, and they might. But under the current legal landscape, no, they don't have any power. They have to do what Congress says.

MARQUARDT: All right, well, interesting times ahead, certainly.

Harry Litman, wishing you a very Happy Thanksgiving. I hope that cheesecake that you're working on turns out very nicely.

LITMAN: Thank you very much, Alex.

MARQUARDT: All right, take care.

LITMAN: All right, bye-bye.

MARQUARDT: Coming up, pass the turkey, but hold the political talk. The election may be over, but maybe not for some folks around that Thanksgiving table today. How to navigate any of those tense moments, that's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:51:08]

SANCHEZ: Look, spending time with family during the holidays is supposed to be fun and fulfilling --

MARQUARDT: Supposed to be.

SANCHEZ: -- but you put together folks who have clashing political views, and the result could be unappetizing. Take these headlines. Joe Biden must cancel Thanksgiving. MAGA and non-MAGA cannot break bread. Also, my husband and his family voted for Trump, so I'm canceling Thanksgiving and Christmas. And we can't share Thanksgiving. You voted to deport people who look like me.

MARQUARDT: Canceling Thanksgiving and Christmas. So how do you handle these uncomfortable conversations with the people who you love?

Joining us now is Jeff Gardere. He's a Clinical Psychologist and a Professor of Behavioral Medicine at Touro University.

So, Jeff, a lot of people are going to want to hear the answer to this first question. What advice do you have for navigating these inevitable, in many occasions, awkward political conversations around the dining table with family today?

JEFF GARDERE, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Sure. Well, first and foremost, going to the headlines that you shared, people can absolutely set their boundaries. They need to be genuine. If they feel that there is something that, to them, is not politically appetizing, not just the turkey, that it's OK for them to do that, because this should be a time of sharing, a time of joy.

But I really think it's important for people to be able to share their emotions around this election and where we're going from this particular political time, because there are vast implications, of course, for where our country is going. So people want to talk about that.

So I think it's really important at the dinner table that if you are the host, that you're also the cruise director. You have to set ground rules at the table, such as respectful exchanges are welcome, but demonizing people would not be welcome. You can talk about policies, but don't talk so much about people.

No talking over one another, no name-calling, no yelling, no ganging up on someone if they happen to have a political affiliation where they may be the only person at that table with that particular bet.

SANCHEZ: And yet, when someone has a different point of view of what is provocative, what's not provocative, what's offensive, what's not offensive, and they express those views, how do you steer the conversation in a more positive direction? GARDERE: Well, I think it's really important as the cruise director and the host that you be able to help people find the commonalities. It's not so much the differences, because we know there are vast differences, but how do we come together where we are in the country now? Family and friends, these are the people that you want to be able to share these emotions with.

So if things start getting very, very heated, it's important to be able to pivot away, be able to state what the lesson is that is learned, what the commonality happens to be, and then go on to another subject, another political subject, or some other subject, such as past the peace, right?

But also we have to allow people to agree to disagree. And when we do that, we know that people are not personalizing things as much, and so it's really important to be able to steer them in a way to keep the conversations as much as we can, and we can't always do that, Boris and Alex, but try to keep it as positive as possible.

Bottom line is, we probably won't go in too deep, only because this can be such an explosive topic at this particular time.

MARQUARDT: Jeff, we only have a couple moments left, but these are existential questions in many occasions. These tensions are so deep- set, so how do you recommend more broadly healing that and getting people to sort of talk to each other more?

[13:55:03]

GARDERE: Well, I think, first of all, this whole idea of fact-checking that people thought were not a good thing is absolutely excellent and needed at the dinner table so that people can deal with the truth. Yes, we can deal with the truth. But more importantly, I think we should be sensitive to diverse and marginalized people and others who've been affected by this very divisive political election and what's going to happen to some of those groups of people. We should be able to listen to what their pain is and what their fears are about and how we come together to move forward in a more humane fashion. I really believe in making America kind again.

MARQUARDT: Amen.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, and hopefully it starts with passing those peas. Jeff Gardere, appreciate the time and Happy Thanksgiving.

GARDERE: Happy Thanksgiving to both of you.

MARQUARDT: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Just ahead, nasty storms are bringing soggy, sloppy weather to millions this Thanksgiving. What to expect for your holiday plans today, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)