Was there ever any doubt about this?

Common knowledge that hasn't passed scientific rigor is not actually knowledge. There's value in testing things other people haven't bothered to test, because if you get a weird result that often leads to new science.

Richard Feynman summed that up well with “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong”: https://youtu.be/LIxvQMhttq4

Yes, but there we speak of a general case. In general, it’s well known that bacteria and virus are killed/inactivated by high temperature. SARS-Cov2 is a prime example with hundred papers confirming its inactivation by high temperature or sun light exposure. So for me it’s interesting only if there is a case which is NOT.

Yes, a study a few weeks ago when the H5N1 was found in cattle in Texas showed a third of the virus had potentially survived the pasturisation process.

This studies method is different because in the USA study they tested the milk out of the industrial process where here they are mimicing it in the lab. Really what this UK study tells us is principally pasteurisation works, it does not however say the industrial process as practiced works which is what the USA study was looking at.

To be specific—based on my recollection—the previous study found viral fragments. It was unclear from that whether they were at all active.

This confirms that any remaining virus is not active after pasteurization.

Important. Before reading this, and in the light of ongoing H5N1 events in Twxas, at home we started drinking bottle milk from the normal supermarket shelf (before we were drinking it from the COLD shelf). So the way I understand it, is that now we should trust the milk from the cold shelf? Implicit trust is given to industrial processing, fir which I never heard of any experiment, just mentioning I hope the regulator does a perfect job.