I’m going to play scientist here and not knee-jeek call these people names. Is there actually any evidence of viable viral transmission in raw cow’s milk? The expression and transmission of viruses in human breast milk is an extremely complex subject. Antibodies are often expressed in breast milk, and active viruses are only sometimes expressed, with highly variable infection rates among infants based on the type of virus. So my genuine question: What evidence is there supporting this warning not to drink raw milk for fear of H5N1 transmission?
Well, they detected destroyed versions of the virus in pasteurized milk, so unless something else destroyed them before the pastuerization would have done so, there is a chance raw milk would have live virus in it. But it is certainly possible something else was responsible for destroying it before it got into the milk. I sure wouldn’t take the chance myself, it’s already a pretty bad idea to drink raw milk without this added.
**Are there concerns about HPAI and raw, unpasteurized milk? **
Based on the limited research and information available, we do not know at this time if HPAI A (H5N1) viruses can be transmitted through consumption of unpasteurized (raw) milk and products (such as cheese) made from raw milk from infected cows. However, we have long known that raw milk can harbor dangerous microorganisms (germs) that can pose serious health risks to consumers. According to the CDC, from 1998 through 2018, there were 202 outbreaks linked to drinking raw milk, resulting in 2,645 illnesses and 228 hospitalizations. These outbreaks have typically been caused by the presence of bacteria such as Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Salmonella, or Listeria monocytogenes in the raw milk. For more information about how consumers can protect themselves from these risks see our website: Raw Milk.
Yes, and they think that it was from drinking the milk – they were drinking infected milk – but they don’t know absolutely whether the cats could have gotten it from another source, like eating a dead bird or something. I read some article saying that they didn’t think that that was the case, but couldn’t rule it out.
The possibility of bacterial growth in unpasteurized milk is without question, but this clearly states there is no known evidence that flu virus can be passed through raw milk. So why are there official warnings being issued about this? I want to be clear I don’t think drinking raw milk is a good idea, but I also want the public to trust our institutions, and putting out a warning based on zero evidence doesn’t foster trust
It’s not zero evidence, it’s just not 100% certain. There have had known H5N1 infections in other mammals consuming raw milk that spilled. Many of them have died from it. Additionally, the testing that has happened shows that 1 in 5 US dairy samples are positive for H5N1 so it’s prevelence is rather high making there be a very real risk
I’m going to play scientist here and not knee-jeek call these people names. Is there actually any evidence of viable viral transmission in raw cow’s milk? The expression and transmission of viruses in human breast milk is an extremely complex subject. Antibodies are often expressed in breast milk, and active viruses are only sometimes expressed, with highly variable infection rates among infants based on the type of virus. So my genuine question: What evidence is there supporting this warning not to drink raw milk for fear of H5N1 transmission?
Well, they detected destroyed versions of the virus in pasteurized milk, so unless something else destroyed them before the pastuerization would have done so, there is a chance raw milk would have live virus in it. But it is certainly possible something else was responsible for destroying it before it got into the milk. I sure wouldn’t take the chance myself, it’s already a pretty bad idea to drink raw milk without this added.
This is what the FDA says
Weren’t there cats showing signs of infection from drinking the milk like blindness and what not?
Yes, and they think that it was from drinking the milk – they were drinking infected milk – but they don’t know absolutely whether the cats could have gotten it from another source, like eating a dead bird or something. I read some article saying that they didn’t think that that was the case, but couldn’t rule it out.
Here’s one of the articles, also from ars
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/concerning-spread-of-bird-flu-from-cows-to-cats-suspected-in-texas/
Over half the cats died
The possibility of bacterial growth in unpasteurized milk is without question, but this clearly states there is no known evidence that flu virus can be passed through raw milk. So why are there official warnings being issued about this? I want to be clear I don’t think drinking raw milk is a good idea, but I also want the public to trust our institutions, and putting out a warning based on zero evidence doesn’t foster trust
It’s not zero evidence, it’s just not 100% certain. There have had known H5N1 infections in other mammals consuming raw milk that spilled. Many of them have died from it. Additionally, the testing that has happened shows that 1 in 5 US dairy samples are positive for H5N1 so it’s prevelence is rather high making there be a very real risk
Zero evidence doesn’t mean it’s safe - zero evidence means we don’t know.
I’m sure it’s being looked into, but why would “go ahead, take a chance!” be the trustworthy take?