iftttwall

With Biden’s $60 billion in funding for Ukraine now fully authorized and implemented, the question is now what? The US President on Wednesday announced just after signing the bill that the Pentagon will start sending equipment to Ukraine “in the next few hours” straight from the US stockpile.

The Kremlin in response is vowing to push back the front lines deeper into Ukraine, and says that newly infused American weapons will burn. Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov has said in fresh remarks that “The American aid won’t save Zelensky. New weapons will be destroyed, and the special military operation goals will be achieved.”

The diplomat continued, “the military shipments of the US and its satellites have been burned, are being burned and will be burned by the Russian Armed Forces.”

Wednesday afternoon comments by Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan hailed that the long sought defense aid for Kiev has finally become a reality, but also cautioned that Russia could still break through Ukrainian defensive positions soon.

“It was a long road to secure this funding, and I have to say standing here today, it was too long, and the consequences of the delay have been felt in Ukraine,” Sullivan told reporters, and explained that troops have had to resort to rationing ammunition, resulting in lost ground in the east.

“And while today’s announcement is very good news for Ukraine, they are still under severe pressure on the battlefield. And it is certainly possible that Russia could make additional tactical gains in the coming weeks,” he warned.

The reality is that Ukraine is fundamentally suffering a severe crisis of manpower. This essentially means that even as US weapons and equipment arrive, there are fewer and fewer troops experienced enough to actually man and operate them.

This is a grim trend which has especially been on display this week, for example in a Tuesday announcement by  Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, who said the government would be cutting off consular services for military-age men living abroad. The move is to encourage them to return home and fight for their country.

“How it looks like now: a man of conscription age went abroad, showed his state that he does not care about its survival, and then comes and wants to receive services from this state,” the top diplomat wrote on X. “It does not work this way. Our country is at war.”

“The obligation to update one’s documents with the conscription centers existed even before the new law on mobilization was passed,” Kuleba also explained. The new policy requires that all men 18 to 60 must update their information with a state office – and if they don’t comply then they get cut off from all consular services abroad.

According to The New York Times, US weapons could start arriving in Ukraine within days. But on parts of the front line, Ukraine’s situation is desperate. And it still has a major problem that aid can’t fix: a lack of troops.

“The most important source of Ukrainian weakness is the lack of manpower,” Konrad Muzyka, director of the Rochan military consultancy in Poland, told Reuters. –Business Insider

Meanwhile, inside Ukraine military officials are trying to get creative amid the ongoing manpower shortage. Reuters reports, “As Ukraine’s efforts to conscript enough men to fight Russia are stymied by public skepticism, defense officials and military units are embarking on a multi-pronged charm offensive to recruit a citizens’ army to resist the invasion.”

The “Experts” are finally admitting that Russia is winning the war in Ukraine, but they are still lying about why. The reason is not congressional inaction over further funding. The reason is that Russia has more manpower than Ukraine; it produces more artillery than the West;… pic.twitter.com/TnE7EuLEII

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) April 16, 2024

“This softer call-up is being conducted on job-search sites and outreach centers, as well as billboards and social media, and offers a wartime novelty: an element of choice,” the report continues. “Candidates can select their precise unit and roles suiting their skills, for instance, as well as how long they will serve.”

And yet we are likely to still witness more examples of recruitment officers brutally seizing young men off the streets, as was seen at various times over the course of the first two years of the war.

Authored by Christopher Roach via American Greatness,

On Friday, the 31st anniversary of the massacre of Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, the ATF issued new regulations that make it more difficult to comply with federal laws regulating gun dealing and background checks.

Since the 1930s, federal law has required gun dealers to be registered as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL). The requirements hinged on the meaning of “engaged in the business of” gun dealing. This language has always been ambiguous, and there has never been (even after the announcement of the new rules) a true “bright line” that distinguishes when one graduates from selling a few guns from one’s personal collection into full-fledged gun dealing.

The law previously required the primary purpose of sales to be “livelihood and profit.” The new rules reduce the requirements to seeking profit alone, tracking the a congressional amendment to existing law in 2022. The changes are more extensive than the legislative guidance, though, by stating that selling guns in the original packaging or shortly after purchase create a rebuttable presumption of being “engaged in the business.”

The potential risk is substantial, as violations are felonies. Flipping a gun for a price higher than one paid, even if one originally intended to keep it, now may turn one into a dealer, making any such sale unlawful if it does not involve all the licensing and paperwork that govern FFLs.

The War on Gun Collecting

The new rule is the latest salvo in the ATF’s longstanding war on gun shows and private transfers. In the 1980s, the ATF wanted to make it easier to become a dealer because that meant fewer private transfers as well as more records and tax revenue. In those days, it only took $10 and filling out some forms to become an FFL. These were sometimes referred to as the “kitchen table” dealers, and the numbers of FFLs increased substantially.

Then, during the Clinton years, the ATF wanted to limit FFLs, so it began requiring a larger fee as well as a storefront. They realized a lot of guns were being sold by these guys, and these measures cut down FFLs considerably. Clinton thought gun control was a great wedge issue to peel off suburban moderates from the Republican coalition.

Now, with a Democrat again at the helm, the ATF wants to further limit private sales with the threat of criminal punishment by expanding the definition of gun dealing while leaving it vague enough to dissuade private sales.

Everything under the sun that is collected has a community and events associated with it, and this typically includes shows. Shows are places where people can buy, sell, trade-up, and learn about their hobby. Fishing, boating, cars, coins, beanie babies and every other hobby and collectable has shows.

Gun shows are particularly popular because guns tend to hold their value well, and lots of people collect guns. Since many gun owners are of modest means, many of these guns eventually need to be sold, taken to a pawn shop, or otherwise converted into money after they are purchased. Gun shows allow ordinary people to sell guns to other collectors and enthusiasts, whether they are dealers or not.

Background Checks Sound Good, But Accomplish Little

While the 1993 Brady Bill mandated FFLs conduct background checks on all transfers, private sales are unregulated. This is sometimes described incorrectly as the “gun show” loophole. Contrary to the propaganda, most sales at gun shows are conducted by FFLs, and all FFL sales include a background check. But, whether conducted at a gun show or a barbeque, private sellers transferring their personal firearms do not have to conduct a background check. As I was told by a cop when I was new to the game, selling a personal gun is like selling a toaster.

While this lack of regulation conjures images of shady back-alley transactions, these sales often involve family and friends, fellow collectors at a gun show, and sales to FFLs, who have already been thoroughly vetted when they were licensed. The only legal requirement is that a gun cannot be knowingly sold or transferred to a felon.

We have heard a lot in recent years about universal background checks as a cure for most criminal misuse of guns. This doesn’t sound crazy on its face. Most people support background checks because they don’t want guns in the hands of criminals and lunatics. Also, background checks are not particularly scary because most gun owners have been through many background checks when buying guns from FFLs or obtaining concealed weapons permits.

Even so, mandatory background checks would prevent the private sales that facilitate gun collecting as a hobby. Moreover, while background checks sound like they would stop illegal guns, they don’t seem to have much of an impact. There is an extensive black market for guns, and many criminals using guns are already prohibited possessors because of felony records.

One more law is unlikely to stop criminals from getting guns, and the inevitable failure of such a law will be used to provide support for a national gun registry, which is a necessary precursor to mass confiscation.

Letting Criminals Go Free While Turning the Law-Abiding Into Criminals

Like most gun control laws, reducing crime appears to be a secondary goal of the latest ATF move. But this change will have the effect of harassing and dissuading gun enthusiasts. The new and ambiguous regulations will have a chilling effect, making gun owners think twice before liquidating a personal collection or conducting a private sale. This will make gun ownership more expensive and less inviting to newcomers.

The law will also, through selective prosecution and strong pressure to turn people into confidential informants, destroy organic gun clubs and friend groups. Facing decades in prison, the pressure put on those caught in the net to become snitches will be tremendous. Government-sponsored sales, entrapment, and the creation of unintentional new criminals may become widespread in the same way it always is when federal law enforcement is involved.

The Democratic Left’s continuing pursuit of gun control is a bit of a surprise. In the 1990s, they hypothesized that it would get suburban moms to vote their way, but it has barely moved the dial as a wedge issue. Many thought it backfired, motivating gun owners in certain swing states to vote Republican.

That said, as with much of the left’s actions in education, popular culture, and sexual mores, any short-term political cost is outweighed by a longer-term and more sinister aspect. In this case, the accretion of rules and uncertainty surrounding gun collecting and trading undermines the networking, organic friendships, and cooperation that allow gun owners to organize and present a real threat to the leviathan state.

Smaller is better…at least in the world of building EVs for the Asian market.

And while less scrupulous publications might take this opportunity to make stereotypical jokes about height, we’ll do no such thing and instead will simply report that according to the IEA’s Global Electric Vehicle Outlook 2024, released Tuesday, China dominated the EV market in 2023.

In fact, it made up 60% of global sales, according to a new report from Reuters. The report forecasts that by 2030, electric vehicles will represent one-third of all cars in China.

The latest IEA report highlights China’s increasing dominance in the global electric vehicle market, particularly across Asia’s burgeoning economies. China is capitalizing on its extensive industrial capabilities to expand its EV influence, promoting more affordable electric vehicles in nations like Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia, the report says.

The key to China’s success has been managing cost, the IEA report notes: “In China, we estimate that more than 60% of electric cars sold in 2023 were already cheaper than their average combustion engine equivalent.”

It continued: “However, electric cars remain 10% to 50% more expensive than combustion engine equivalents in Europe and the United States, depending on the country and car segment.”

“In 2023, 55% to 95% of the electric car sales across major emerging and developing economies were large models that are unaffordable for the average consumer, hindering mass-market uptake,” the IEA report continued, according to Reuters.

“However, smaller and much more affordable models launched in 2022 and 2023 have quickly become bestsellers, especially those by Chinese car makers expanding overseas.”

The report emphasizes China’s growing edge due to making affordable EVs, which is proving successful across Asia.

European and U.S. automakers, by contrast, target wealthier customers with costlier, luxury EV models.

In Asia, countries like Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia are rapidly adopting EVs, supported by favorable policies and incentives, enhancing the market share of Chinese manufacturers.

In 2023, EV sales soared in these regions despite broader market contractions. Additionally, China faces its challenges, including potential EU tariffs and an oversupply in its EV market. The IEA report suggests that for widespread EV adoption, European and U.S. manufacturers need to focus on lowering costs and improving infrastructure.

You can read the IEA’s full report here. 

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The US Navy will convert surplus oil rigs in the western Pacific into mobile military bases as part of the US military buildup aimed at China, The Defense Post reported on Tuesday.

The naval engineering firm Gibbs & Cox developed the concept, known as the Mobile Defense/Depot Platform (MODEP), and presented it earlier this month at the Sea Air Space Expo. The idea is to convert oil rigs into mobile missile defense and resupply bases.

“Our target here is to find a solution to help the challenging problem of having capacity issues in the Western Pacific. For not enough cells, not enough missiles, not enough of being able to keep those ships in the forward station,” Dave Zook, an architect at Gibbs & Cox, told Naval News.

Gibbs & Cox claims that the floating bases would be able to hold 512 vertical launch system cells or 100 large missile launchers, which is five times the capacity of a US Navy destroyer.

The idea is to counter China’s ballistic missiles that could take out US warships and bases in the region in the event of an open war.

US military officials have been explicit about the fact that they’re preparing for a direct war with China in the region despite the obvious risk of the conflict quickly turning nuclear. The US has been expanding its military footprint in the Philippines and in Pacific island nations to give China more targets that it will have to hit.

Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, the former head of US Pacific Air Forces who is now the commander of Air Combat Command, made this clear in comments to Nikkei Asia last year.

“Obviously, we would like to disperse in as many places as we can to make the targeting problem for the Chinese as difficult as possible,” Wilsbach said. “A lot of those runways where we would operate from are in the Pacific Island nations.”

One side effect of GLP-1 medications for weight loss is “Ozempic Face.” This happens when the rapid loss of body fat produces a hollowed-looking face, wrinkles, sunken eyes, and changes in the size of the lips, cheeks, and chin. To counter this, skincare companies are ramping up the marketing of products to ‘fix’ this side effect as these blockbuster drugs sweep the nation. 

Swiss skincare company Galderma Group’s Chief Executive Officer Flemming Ornskov told Bloomberg in an interview after this week’s first-quarter earnings that its skin treatments and dermal fillers “should be able to restore this [Ozempic Face].” 

“I think that will be another growth wave in that space, which I will make sure to capture,” Ornskov said. 

Has Wall Street woken up to Galderma’s ability to indirectly capitalize on the weight loss craze?

Goldman’s GLP-1 winners basket still shows a strong upward trend. 

Novo Nordisk A/S’s blockbuster treatments, Ozempic for diabetes, and Wegovy for weight loss, are both two names for the same drug: semaglutide. The FDA approved Ozempic for diabetes in 2017 and Wegovy for obese people in 2021. 

The issue with Wegovy is its effectiveness. Within four weeks of treatment, the average weight loss is around 5% of body weight, increasing to 8% after two months. Semaglutide, the active ingredient, significantly decreases appetite and hunger.

“If weight is lost in a more gradual way, these changes may not be as noticeable. It’s the faster pace of weight loss that occurs with GLP-1 drugs that can make facial changes more obvious,” Harvard Health Publishing wrote in a note. 

Here are real-world examples of Ozempic Face: 

Google searches for “Ozempic Face” are soaring to record highs. 

For those who can afford Ozempic Face, try also walking around in $1,000 ‘dirty’ Gucci sneakers to complete your look as a starved homeless person – or unvetted, starved illegal alien. 

Instead of being the guinea pig for the pharma-industrial complex, why not just put down the processed foods from the food-industrial complex and just go outside for a jog? 

At this rate, with a new study from Kaiser Family Foundation showing upwards of 3.6 million people will be subsidized for the miracle weight loss drugs, this could ultimately accelerate the bankrupting of Medicare.  

Via The College Fix,

A new study out of UCLA says same-sex couples are at greater “risk of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change” than straight couples.

These effects include “wildfires, floods, smoke-filled skies, and drought,” according to a report from KQED.

Same-sex couples disproportionately live in coastal regions and cities, which are more vulnerable to such disasters. They’re also more likely “to live in areas with poor infrastructure, worse-built environments.”

Washington DC, which rates high for “climate risks” such as heat waves, floods, and “dangerously strong winds,” has the greatest proportion of gay couples in the U.S.

San Francisco ranks second, and also faces a high climate change risk. According to KQED report, the city’s Leather & LGBTQ Cultural District flooded 22 years ago, “swamping” the entire area.

The closest supermarket, Rainbow Grocery, also got flooded.

Ari Shaw, director of International Programs at UCLA’s School of Law’s Williams Institute who specializes in “international human rights, LGBTI politics, and U.S. foreign policy,” noted the study “cuts against the narrative” that LGBT individuals “have access to all the resources that they need.”

From the story:

Shaw said his team considered same-sex couples because the U.S. Census gathers information on cohabitating same-sex households but does not broadly collect sexual orientation or gender data.

“This study helps to shine a light on what is likely a much larger and more complicated picture,” he said. “Our findings probably understate the true impact that climate change is having on LGBTQ people.”

The new research moves the needle in helping the nation understand who is at risk of climate disasters, UC Irvine sociology professor Michael Méndez said. He previously studied how queer communities are often left out of disaster planning.

“The needle is moving slowly,” Méndez said. “These disasters are not happening in isolation. If an individual is feeling discrimination, or a lack of safety in their home and a disaster happens, they can feel even more vulnerable.”

But what Méndez said the study doesn’t reveal is who the same-sex couples are in terms of [race], income and their positions in society.

Among several recommendations, Shaw and study co-author Lindsay Mahowald say climate disaster relief should be “administered without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression,” and that future surveys like the U.S. Census ought to include “measures of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

An anti-work anthem has gone viral on the Chinese social media platform TikTok in recent days. This comes after youngsters have complained on social media about President Biden’s disastrous ‘Bidenomics’ policies that have sparked elevated inflation and crushed their financial mobility. 

The viral video, posted by TikTok user “tedymakesmusic,” has been viewed 1.4 million times and liked nearly a quarter million times.  

Here are the lyrics: 

I don’t want to contribute nothing to society.

I don’t struggle I don’t hustle.

If you want it, you can have it.

Sorry, I wasn’t born to Work. No, I wasn’t born to work. 

I’m too pretty to get dirty. Yeah, I said it. You can sue me. 

Don’t want to lift the finger. For the money. 

This song is currently going viral on TikTok. pic.twitter.com/hcU0ojUbVg

— Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) April 24, 2024

“Can every corporate worker please turn this on super loud at their desk????” one TikTok user said in the video’s comment section.

Another person said, “This Gen Z’s anthem.” 

“Me thinking about quitting my job & living out a van,” someone else said. 

Youngsters are starting to realize just how much the federal government, college, and the Federal Reserve are scams. These institutions are failing the youngsters and have provided them with worthless degrees and an economic environment that is some of the worst living conditions in a generation due to failed policies. Fed Chair Powell, you had one job – and one job only… 

Plus, woke leftist universities are indoctrinating multiple generations with collectivism, i.e., socialism, which has left some of these folks believing the government will be handing them stimmy checks (universal basic income) and student debt relief checks. Thanks to Powell and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, these kids got a taste of Covid helicopter money via stimmy checks and want more – instead of working. 

For those who don’t want to contribute to society and the economy, remember Goldman’s note from last year specifying that generative AI could displace hundreds of millions of jobs by the end of the decade. 

Authored by Tom Croner via RealClear Wire,

I’m an 81-year-old, seventh-generation farmer working with my son T. Richard on a multigenerational grain and hay farm in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. We grow corn, soybeans, wheat, rye, and hay.

I’m proud to see him out there by himself at night, and regret that I can’t always join him. As the Bible says in John 3:16: “That God so loved the world, he gave his only son.” I don’t know if I’d be able to do that, but I know I am fortunate to have a son who wants to continue the family farming tradition. He is raising his two teenage sons in the same tradition. God only knows what their choices will be.

The latest USDA agriculture census numbers show that the number of farmers over the age of 65 is greater than that of younger farmers. Almost 1.3 million farmers are now at or beyond retirement age, while just 300,000 farmers are under the age of 35.

Passing a new farm bill that addresses these challenges is the best way to help create an environment that attracts new farmers and enables families to pass their farms on to the next generation. In recent years, some federal programs have been put in place to help do that. 

We have participated in USDA cost-sharing programs that encourage cover crops (plants grown to benefit the future growth of other crops) and no-tillage practices that improve soil health, with less erosion and fewer cost inputs. We have seen significant increases in yield, with the same dollars invested.

In 2022, Congress made a generational $20 billion investment to help farmers adopt tried-and-tested conservation practices. Pennsylvania has already gotten $255 million to help farms in our commonwealth.

But unfortunately, like everything else it seems, the funding has been politicized, and it’s at risk in the upcoming farm bill. There’s nothing partisan about taking care of our soil, planting cover crops, and keeping our land viable year after year. That’s what conservation funding encourages, and it’s just good commonsense.

We need our lawmakers in Washington to maintain conservation funding and make sure that it’s included in the upcoming farm bill.

I’m proud that my son is still out managing the farm where I have worked. I’m proud that he’s using good practices that we’ve learned and refined, which have kept our farm healthy for years.

We need Washington to protect conservation funding so that the next generation of Pennsylvania farmers, and the generation after that, can continue to be stewards of the land.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 23 directed the U.S. Department of Justice to reply to a man convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

Justices said the department’s response to Russell Alford is due May 23.

Mr. Alford was convicted by a jury of four misdemeanor counts but is challenging two of the charges, arguing that they don’t apply to his conduct.

The charges should not have been brought because the laws on which they’re based bar disorderly and disruptive conduct in a Capitol building and in a restricted building, but Mr. Alford merely entered the Capitol and stood silently against a wall before exiting, the Supreme Court was told in a filing from Mr. Alford’s lawyers.

U.S. District Judge Tonya Chutkan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, originally rejected Mr. Alford’s request to dismiss the counts, finding that his “mere presence inside the Capitol disturbed the public peace or undermined public safety.”

A federal appeals court, after reviewing the rejection, upheld it in January. While Mr. Alford was “neither violent nor destructive … a jury could rationally find that his unauthorized presence in the Capitol as part of an unruly mob contributed to the disruption of the Congress’s electoral certification and jeopardized public safety,” the ruling stated.

“The court should grant review because this case presents an important question of federal statutory interpretation,” Mr. Alford’s lawyers wrote to the Supreme Court, describing the appeals court ruling as “establish[ing] a slippery and counter-textual standard for criminalizing conduct in settings for political activity.”

One of the laws, 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2), bars people from “knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of government business or official functions.”

The other, 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D), makes it a crime to “utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either house of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either house of Congress.”

The lower court rulings were wrong in part because they focused on the effects of Mr. Alford’s conduct, not the nature of the conduct, according to the writ to justices.

That focus “collapses the conduct element into the harm element by giving the adjectives no apparent force,” they said. They argued later that merely being present “is not disorderly conduct unless the presence is in defiance of an order to disperse.”

If the court grants the petition, it would review the case and decide if the rulings were appropriate.

The Department of Justice’s Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, told the court on April 12 that the government was waiving its right to file a response to the filing, “unless requested to do so by the court.” The petition was distributed to justices on April 18 for their scheduled May 9 conference. Then, on Tuesday, justices directed the Department of Justice to file a response to Mr. Alford.

Lawyers for Mr. Alford and the government did not respond to requests for comment.

If justices take up the petition and rule in favor of Mr. Alford, a number of other Jan. 6 defendants and convicts could see charges thrown out.

Obstruction Charge

The court already agreed to review another charge brought against many Jan. 6 defendants.

Justices sat for oral arguments on April 16 concerning obstruction of an official proceeding, a charge brought against former police officer Joseph Fischer after he entered the Capitol on Jan. 6.

One of Mr. Fischer’s attorneys said the charge should not have been brought because the law was only intended to be used in cases of evidence tampering.

Ms. Prelogar told justices that the charge was proper because it was “not limited to evidence impairment.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed by former President Donald Trump, wondered whether the government would bring the charge against people who heckled the court.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?” he asked.

Another justice later questioned if protesters blocking access to a trial would face the charge, noting that protests have taken place in the past at the Supreme Court but the government did not charge the protesters under the law.

Ms. Prelogar said the law might apply in such cases, if there was proof of “corrupt intent.”

Justices are due to hand down a decision in the case at some point in the future.

Dairy cattle moving between states must be tested for the bird flu virus, U.S. agriculture officials said Wednesday as they try to track and control the growing outbreak.

AP reports that the federal order was announced a day after health officials said they had detected inactivated remnants of the virus, known as Type A H5N1, in samples taken from milk during processing and after retail sale. They stressed that such remnants pose no known risk to people or the milk supply.

“The risk to humans remains low,” said Dawn O’Connell of the federal Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response.

The new order requires every lactating cow to be tested and post a negative result before moving to a new state. It will help the agency understand how the virus is spreading, said Michael Watson, an administrator with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

“We believe we can do tens of thousands of tests a day,” he told reporters.

Until now, testing had been done voluntarily and only in cows with symptoms.

As The Epoch Times’ Zachary Steiber reported earlier, commercially available milk from grocery stores has tested positive for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on April 23.

The FDA said in a statement it has been testing milk from cattle that have been sickened with the influenza, commonly known as the bird flu or H5N1, as well as milk “in the processing system, and on the shelves.”

“Based on available information, pasteurization is likely to inactivate the virus, however, the process is not expected to remove the presence of viral particles. Therefore, some of the samples collected have indicated the presence of HPAI using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing,” the agency said.

While samples tested positive, that does not mean they contain an intact pathogen, according to the FDA.

“Additional testing is required to determine whether intact pathogen is still present and if it remains infectious, which determines whether there is any risk of illness associated with consuming the product,” the FDA said.

The agency is injecting samples into fertilized chicken eggs to see whether any active virus replicates, among other experiments. It is also completing testing on samples taken from pasteurized milk from across the nation.

“To date, we have seen nothing that would change our assessment that the commercial milk supply is safe. Results from multiple studies will be made available in the next few days to weeks,” the FDA said.

The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment for more details, including how many samples tested positive and which stores the milk that tested positive came from.

Bird flu has been confirmed in 33 herds of cattle in eight states after spreading to ruminants for the first time in the United States earlier this year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. One person, a farm worker in Texas, has also tested positive for the influenza.

U.S. authorities previously said that milk from diaries with sickened animals was “being diverted or destroyed so that it does not enter the food supply” and that “pasteurization has continually proven to inactivate bacteria and viruses, like influenza, in milk,” but critics noted the authorities produced no evidence of testing to back up their position.

“There could be viruses in the milk on grocery shelves right now,” Gail Hansen, a veterinary expert who was formerly the state public health veterinarian for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and Andrew deCoriolis, executive director of the group Farm Forward, wrote in a recent op-ed.

Ms. Hansen said on the social media platform X that the FDA finding virus particles was “a little bit better than finding whole virus” but was “still not good.”

Rick Bright, the former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, noted the shifting language from the government. The FDA now says that pasteurization “is very likely to effectively inactivate heat-sensitive viruses like H5N1 in milk from cows and other species.”

It also acknowledged that “no studies on the effects of pasteurization on HPAI viruses (such as H5N1) in bovine milk have previously been completed,” although it pointed to previous studies on effective pasteurization.

Yaneer Bar-Yam, president of the New England Complex Systems Institute, said the findings mean “milk from sick cows is being used” in the commercial supply. While pasteurization likely makes the milk safe, that safety is “not guaranteed,” he added.

Some experts emphasized that, at present, there were no indications that the positive tests meant the virus detected was infectious.

“There is no evidence to date that this is [an] infectious virus and the FDA is following up on that,” Lee-Ann Jaykus, an emeritus food microbiologist and virologist at North Carolina State University, told the Associated Press.

But Angela Rasmussen, a virologist, said on X that the positive samples “suggests there are undetected herds shedding virus into the milk supply” because they show intact virus “was once present.”

“It’s hard to say more as no raw data was shared, so we just have to take their word for it,” she added.