The commercial milk supply does not appear to be compromised by a live bird flu virus, according to new testing data published by the Food and Drug Administration.
The FDA released a comprehensive report on Monday outlining details about the samples collected from nearly 300 samples of milk that were tested earlier this month for the highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza.
BIRD FLU OUTBREAK: WHAT TO KNOW FOLLOWING SECOND-EVER HUMAN CASE IN US
Scientists and public health experts have been calling for increasing surveillance of the commercial milk supply since dairy cattle began to be infected with bird flu in late March. The first human case of the virus was detected in a dairy worker in Texas who had close contact with infected cattle.
Although approximately 20% of the samples collected tested positive for trace amounts of virus RNA using highly sensitive PCR rapid testing, none of the collected samples tested positive for live virus particles that could infect humans.
“These findings further support our assessment that the milk safety system including pasteurization is effective against this virus and that the commercial milk supply remains safe,” the FDA said in its statement on the release.
The FDA collected retail samples in mid-April from locations in 17 states, representing products produced at 132 processing locations across 38 states. The agency said that it selected the samples in a way “to be representative of processors in states that have been reported to have impacted dairy cattle and those that have not.”
The highest percentages of positive PCR tests were in milk processed in both Oklahoma and Texas, with 83% and 50% positive rates, respectively.
The FDA noted, however, that the processing location does not necessarily correspond to the production location or location of the herd “because milk could be produced from cows on a farm or farms a few states away, processed (pasteurized) in a different state, and then be available for purchase in yet another state.”
PCR testing, which is the same technology used for rapid testing of COVID-19, can produce a positive result with small amounts of genetic material in the sample, but it is incapable of identifying the size of genetic material in the sample.
Even if live virus particles were found in milk, however, they may not pose a threat. Experts disagree as to whether it is possible for an influenza virus to infect humans via food.
Swedish veterinarian and epidemiologist Anna Catharina Berge previously told the Washington Examiner that influenza viruses “have never ever been involved in oral infections. They’re always just respiratory or contact infections.”
As of the FDA’s May 10 update, the agency is continuing to test raw or unpasteurized milk that has not gone through heat treatments to kill harmful viruses and bacteria.
The agency is strongly against the consumption of unpasteurized milk due to the risk of serious bacterial infections, including E. coli, salmonella, and camplyobacter. In 1938, milk was responsible for 25% of all foodborne disease outbreaks, according to the FDA.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Earlier this month, the Biden administration announced $101 million in new spending from the departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to combat the spread of bird flu among dairy cow herds and mitigate against the potential for human spillover.
The USDA said that it would pay affected milk producers up to $2,000 monthly to each affected premise to provide treatments to dispose of contaminated milk, a premium separate from the direct compensation that milk producers could expect for the act of destroying the milk.
