PETA and Ben & Jerry's Ice CreamFollow

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26892950/

I think Ben & Jerry missed the marketing boat here. They could have used human breast milk for a few new delicious flavors like "***** ***** Bang-Bang," "Banana Boobalicious," or "Nipplepolitan."

Seriously, is there another organization more wacky than PETA? These people make NAMBLA (S'up, Bhodi?) seem normal by comparison.

Totem

I'm a happy omnivore, but once I had a little think about it, a few years ago, it's seriously weird that we imprison females of another species, keep them impregnated and then harvest their breast-milk to drink ourselves. It's downright Geigeresque. NSFW and epilepsy flashing light warning.Like this one.

So while the PETA "shock-value" campaign has it's wacky and weird side to me, it's not much of a stretch to see why they thought it up. And from a theoretical nutritional perspective, if adults are going to drink milk at all, it's better that we're drinking the milk that's designed for our bodies and metabolism.

Edited, Sep 27th 2008 3:25pm by Aripyanfar

Oh there's no doubt that breastmilk would be an insanely expensive option. Hell, nursing mother's call it "liquid gold" for a reason. I'm just endlessly fascinated by how horrified people are at drinking milk from people...like we're supposed to, haha, like it's THE grossest thing in the world...but the idea of suckling off cows, goats, etc...A-OK.

I know it's a cultural thing, it's just funny that people can't seem to get past it with a little logic.

Nexa

hahahahahahaha, no.

/Smash channel off

I think what you may be thinking of is that bottle feeding of any kind of milk for long sessions...like putting baby to bed with a bottle, is bad for the teeth. Many cultures breastfeed their children until the age of three or four, and they retain their teeth. You can't really believe that milk that's made for human beings to eat is detrimental to the health of human beings moreso than that which is made for other mammals?

Edited to add: That said, yes, I'm sure it would have to be super regulated. We certainly have the advantage right now of knowing that the cows aren't off smoking crack or getting tanked after hours.

Nexa

Edited, Sep 28th 2008 8:38am by Nexa

*nod* What she said.

The positioning of the nipple in the mouth when a baby/toddler is properly latched on actually means the milk goes into the very back of the mouth, past the teeth. A bottle, on the other hand, is a much shallower latch and tends to wash the teeth in milk and if the child falls asleep, allows milk to pool around the teeth, causing decay.

I wouldn't be disgusted by it. I'd rather drink pasteurized, chilled human milk than warm cow milk straight out of the udder. I imagine that's what makes breast milk seem more disgusting than the fact it's from a human. Also, the fact that people who might try it typically know the woman it's from...adds a creepiness factor to it. If you had degrees of separation it wouldn't be as weird.

Nope.

A study by Dr. Norman Tinanoff showed that breastmilk in itself does not give rise to cavities as much as was previously thought. Dr. Tinanoff believes that the milk proteins in breastmilk protect the enamel on the teeth, and that the antibacterial qualities in breastmilk stop the bacteria from using the lactose in breastmilk in the same way as regular sugar. This dentist also showed that 5 minutes of breastfeeding lowered the pH-level only slightly more than rinsing the mouth with a little water.

The antibodies and antimicrobial propoerties in breastmilk were something I hadn't considered as well, but they make sense. Breastmilk can be kept out at room temperature for around 12 hours. Why? Because there are antimicrobial agents in the milk that keep bacteria from colonizing for quite a long time. So it makes sense that these agents would also prevent bacteria from developing in the mouth.



Again, this is incorrect.

From The Complete Book of Breastfeeding by Dr. Marvin S. Eiger

Suckling at the breast is good for your baby's tooth and jaw development. Babies at the breast use more muscles to get food than do those drinking from a bottle. The nursling has to draw much or all of the areola (the darker area around the nipple) into his mouth, move his jaws up and down, and squeeze with his tongue to extract milk. To accomplish this task, your baby has been endowed with jaw muscles relatively three times stronger than yours. As these muscles are strenuously exercised in suckling, their constant activity encourages well-formed jaws and straight, healthy teeth.
One factor accounting for many dental malformations that eventually send children to the orthodontist or the speech therapist is an abnormal feeding pattern, known as "tongue thrust." This is very common among bottle-fed babies, but almost nonexistent among the breastfed.
To understand why, we have to examine the mechanisms of feeding. As we explain in detail in the Box on page 107 in Chapter 6, the breastfed baby works her gums and lower jaw quite vigorously to get the milk, whereas bottle-fed babies don't have to exercise their jaws so energetically, since light sucking alone produces a rapid flow. In fact, the milk often flows so freely that the baby has to learn how to protect himself from an oversupply so that he won't choke. He pushes his tongue forward against the nipple holes to stem the flow to a level that he can easily handle. Many dentists believe that such a forward tongue thrust can result in mouth breathing, lip biting, gum disease, and a generally unattractive appearance.
Another factor contributes to breastfed children's healthy tooth and jaw development. Since they get more of the sucking that babies need, they're less likely to suck their thumbs. Bottle-fed babies have to stop sucking on the nipple as soon as the bottle is empty to avoid taking in air; your baby at the breast can continue in this blissful pastime until you or she decide she's been at the well long enough.
Of course, not all bottle-fed babies develop dental problems, and some breastfed babies do. Still, this is one more realm in which breastfeeding remains superior to bottle-feeding.

There is a lot of misinformation out there about breastfeeding because for several decades in the 20th century, it ceased to be the norm and became regarded as something unseemly at best and abnormal (and therefore obviously harmful) at worst. Most of it just doesn't hold up to any sort of factual scrutiny.

ETA: I just want to clarify, though I am a big believer in breastfeeding, I'm not a "boob ****." Yes, I believe it has benefits that I want my son to have, but only for so long as I'm willing to do it. I don't believe people who don't want to breastfeed should have to, and I'm not going to look down on someone for making a different choice. But breastfeeding IS, in fact, the biological norm for humans. As someone who has done a lot of research on the subject and who has studied biology, I feel an obligation to correct any misinformation I encounter.

Edited, Sep 28th 2008 8:43am by Ambrya

I sure would.

PS:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

Edited, Sep 28th 2008 3:51pm by bsphil

Another alternative would be:

That was a different episode.

That explains a lot?

But.. the earth does have a gravitation pull?

***** drinking breast milk. It tastes like rice milk. Bleh.