We are not testing enough at all, however. The disease was already in 1 in 5 dairy samples before any even basic tests of if the disease could survive pasturization were published. The disease could mutate to survive and we would hardly know it. We're relying way more on assumptions than should be comfortable. And we're way too slow to test those assumptions

The way governing bodies are quickly dismissing concerns of spread via other animal product consumption is a little troubling. For instance, USDA data on virus survivability published in beef didn't include that it was survivable in ~~medium-rare~~ rare cooked beef until journalists started asking why it was conspicuously absent

EDIT: correction, rare not medium-rare EDIT2: On further look, it seems that the USDA's definition of medium-rare is probably actually higher than most people assume medium-rare is, so it's unclear about medium-rare either

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The disease was already in 1 in 5 dairy samples before any even basic tests of if the disease could survive pasturization were published. The disease could mutate to survive...

Sure, in the same way volcanologists could mutate to survive being submerged in lava.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Well considering it may survive the high heat used for flash pasteurization at 72C (181F) for brief periods per the originally linked study, it's not as much of gap as that

This disease spreads fast, and is rather deadly in most (though not all) species. It's not the kind of thing you want to do little monitoring of. At present, there is comparatively little testing overall of cows and humans both. We're not picking up much of what this virus is doing

[–] lemmyman@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Sure, in the same way volcanologists could mutate to survive being submerged in lava.

I've heard the exact same analogy applied to alcohol killing bacteria and it doesn't convince me

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sorry what, it infects muscle? And remains infectious after cooking? Gonna need a source

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The initial study was presuming it was already had H5N1, but we recently did actually find a positive test in beef tissue. Considering how little we are testing in general, it's highly unlikely to be the first actual one. The study was looking at if the virus was alive after cooking. If infectious is still unknown

Beef tissue from a sick dairy cow has tested positive for the bird flu virus, federal officials said on Friday.

[...]

However, there was virus present in rare burgers, cooked to 120 degrees, although at greatly reduced levels

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/24/health/bird-flu-beef.html

During the briefing, the agency said that no virus was present in burgers cooked to 145 degrees (medium rare) or 160 degrees (well done) – but only mentioned that traces of virus were found in burgers cooked to 120 degrees when questioned by journalists.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/h5n1-bird-flu-virus-can-survive-in-rare-cooked-meat-usda/

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 5 points 5 months ago

Mince is a very different beast to steak due to surface area. Mince is not safe unless cooked through, whereas steak is generally safe even rare