+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Drinking human milk from a cow

  1. #1
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Drinking human milk from a cow

    There seems to just be soemthing wrong about this. A team from China has introduced human genes into cows to produce milk with the same properties as human milk. The idea being that it could produce an alternative to breast milk or formula for babies.

    It's not actually human milk, but it has been altered to contain more of the proteins that exist in humans. As well as this, they have tinkered around and managed to increase to yield from the cows at the same time.

    More on the story here

    So would you be happy drinking it and would you give it to any newborn as an alternative.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  2. #2
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    I would wait a good 10-20 years before being willing to use it, but it seems like a better alternative to formula if it is safe. Of course actual mother's milk should remain the first choice where possible. Sometimes it is not.

    As for milk as a product for coffee, tea or cereal, I would stick to standard moo juice for myself. I can't see an advantage to this change for adults.

  3. #3
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    I think this is awesome. I wouldn't want to drink it myself, but it would be far superior for babies instead of the formulas on the market now. They wouldn't get the same immune system boosts as they would from their own mother's milk, but they would be getting a milk that is actually intended for human infant consumption. Even if everyone wanted to breastfeed it can't always be done (HIV positive mother, the mother has lost her milk, the baby is adopted, the mother died, physical pain prevents it, etc), and this would be a close alternative.

  4. #4
    Elephant artifex's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    Even if everyone wanted to breastfeed it can't always be done (HIV positive mother, the mother has lost her milk, the baby is adopted, the mother died, physical pain prevents it, etc), and this would be a close alternative.
    Most of these are either unlikely or surmountable, and I'd really like to see our culture change more in the direction of giving moms better support and education, and health care professionals better education as well to competently give support. I think that would be money far better spent, than on GM cows. I'd rather work on changing our culture to improve our abysmal breastfeeding rates.

    (Moms don't generally just lose milk. It is almost always mismanagement and/or bad information at work. Pain is also almost always an issue of mismanagement - generally means poor latch, thrush, or vasospasm. HIV is actually extremely fragile outside the host, and a light scald will make the milk perfectly safe, not to mention, HIV transmission rates via exclusive breastfeeding are actually quite low - it's breastfeeding + formula that creates a high risk, because formula tears microfissures in the intestinal wall that create an easy portal for infection. Adoptive moms, if they have some advance notice, can breastfeed. A deceased mom is hard to get around except with donor milk but in our society not too terribly statistically likely.)

    That said, if they actually manage to make this work - and I would be giving it a good long while before I would accept that it worked - I suppose it would be a better base for artificial infant milk than cow's milk in its current form...

  5. #5
    A Dude Peeta Mellark's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Looking at the CDC website I can't find more recent information, but exclusive breastfeeding for the first seven days in hospital born infants in 2003 was at 62.5%. By six months, it had dropped to 14.2%. Clearly a majority of mothers have a desire to breastfeed, and then they ween off the breast in droves long before a baby is ready to be weened. Maybe they didn't get enough support, maybe they didn't "try" hard enough, or maybe they realized "holy shit I'm a milk machine" and wanted their bodies back. And if they're HIV+...well, I don't care how low the risk is supposed to be (the studies I've read put it between a 3.4% - 40% transmission rate, and the study with the 40% rate was on exclusive breastfeeding, not breast + formula), that's not a risk someone who has a viable alternative should take.

    I'd say anything that gives people more choices is a good thing. I'd like to give my kids the better nutrition of breastmilk, but I'm not about to become a lactating man to do that. Why should we remain restricted by biology? While there's a lot of controversy over GMOs, the main (real) concerns are about environmental and economic impact. There's no credible evidence that they're unsafe at this point, as no published studies have found any adverse health effects from eating genetically modified foods. Thanks to the paranoia surrounding them, GMOs are actually less likely to introduce new allergens than standardly bred hybrids because they're so carefully tested.

  6. #6
    Elephant artifex's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Peeta Mellark View post
    Clearly a majority of mothers have a desire to breastfeed, and then they ween off the breast in droves long before a baby is ready to be weened. Maybe they didn't get enough support, maybe they didn't "try" hard enough, or maybe they realized "holy shit I'm a milk machine" and wanted their bodies back.
    I've been a peer mentor for breastfeeding mothers for nine years, and my honors work in nursing school was on breastfeeding - I wrote a paper on reasons for early cessation of breastfeeding. The main reasons are lack of education (especially given that what education is done is largely postpartum, which is a terrible time for it), lack of modeling, and lack of competent support. We are a culture that pays lip service but little more to the benefit of breastfeeding. A few days ago, a study came out noting that breastfeeding mothers are viewed as less capable and intelligent than their artificial-milk-feeding counterparts.

    Quote Originally posted by Peeta Mellark View post
    I'd like to give my kids the better nutrition of breastmilk, but I'm not about to become a lactating man to do that. Why should we remain restricted by biology? While there's a lot of controversy over GMOs, the main (real) concerns are about environmental and economic impact. There's no credible evidence that they're unsafe at this point, as no published studies have found any adverse health effects from eating genetically modified foods. Thanks to the paranoia surrounding them, GMOs are actually less likely to introduce new allergens than standardly bred hybrids because they're so carefully tested.
    Two points -
    1 - It's not "the better nutrition of breastmilk" really. Breastmilk is the gold standard for infant feeding, and the fact that it is almost always phrased as "breast is better" or "breast is best" is actually counterproductive. It is more accurate to refer to "the inferior nutrition of artificial milk," or "formula is worse." But because we're in a culture that values individual choice so highly (including freedom to choose behaviors that are demonstrably risky) and has normalized formula, that sort of statement is highly demonized. I'll be surprised if I don't get comments to this about how I am a big insensitive meanie, in fact.
    2 - Even a GMO cow - and I agree, GMO foods have not been shown to be the devil, I have no problem with them - will never produce human milk that is tailored to the particular baby it is feeding. Human milk is constantly changing to respond to the nursling's increasing age, and to the nursling's immune needs at that time (saliva enters the breast and signals the maternal immune system), and no cow can do that. The cow also robs the mother of her chance to decrease her risk for cancer. And breastfeeding is about more than nutrition; even if you cuddle and gaze at a bottle-fed infant and are certain that there could be no greater bond, the oxytocin is not triggered with bottlefeeding, which is detrimental to the mother's emotional health and postpartum recovery.

    Even if a mom decides that artificial feeding is better for her, it's never going to be better for her child (with the exception of a very rare genetic disorder).
    Last edited by artifex; 06 Apr 2011 at 07:41 PM. Reason: spelling counts

  7. #7
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by artifex View post
    Even if a mom decides that artificial feeding is better for her, it's never going to be better for her child (with the exception of a very rare genetic disorder).
    I think in Peeta's case it's more the fact that there isn't going to be a mom involved if he ever ends up with a baby.

    After thinking about it a bit and reading what artifex has to say, I think the cows with human milk are probably an awful idea. It might actually encourage more people who would have breastfed to use that milk instead, thinking that it's the same. Without the mother's immune system behind it or the human growth factors, even if it matches nutritionally it still wouldn't have the same benefits for the baby. I think it's likely to gross people out too much to become very popular, but if it did become popular it could probably be bad simply by making people think it's just as good as straight from the tap, so to speak.

    But in cases where there is literally no way for the mother to breastfeed (such as with an adoption by a gay couple, which is what I assume Peeta is thinking), there are options out there, aren't there?

    I know that milk banks typically cater to the premature and health compromised, but when possible they will make milk available to babies who don't have access to it at home. If someone contacted mothers who were willing to donate more directly, could home pasteurization be done to kill any microbes?

  8. #8
    Member Elendil's Heir's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The North Coast
    Posts
    24,320

    Default

    If they could make it come out chocolate or strawberry, I'd buy stock in the company.

  9. #9
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by artifex View post
    Quote Originally posted by Peeta Mellark View post
    Clearly a majority of mothers have a desire to breastfeed, and then they ween off the breast in droves long before a baby is ready to be weened. Maybe they didn't get enough support, maybe they didn't "try" hard enough, or maybe they realized "holy shit I'm a milk machine" and wanted their bodies back.
    I've been a peer mentor for breastfeeding mothers for nine years, and my honors work in nursing school was on breastfeeding - I wrote a paper on reasons for early cessation of breastfeeding. The main reasons are lack of education (especially given that what education is done is largely postpartum, which is a terrible time for it), lack of modeling, and lack of competent support. We are a culture that pays lip service but little more to the benefit of breastfeeding. A few days ago, a study came out noting that breastfeeding mothers are viewed as less capable and intelligent than their artificial-milk-feeding counterparts.

    Quote Originally posted by Peeta Mellark View post
    I'd like to give my kids the better nutrition of breastmilk, but I'm not about to become a lactating man to do that. Why should we remain restricted by biology? While there's a lot of controversy over GMOs, the main (real) concerns are about environmental and economic impact. There's no credible evidence that they're unsafe at this point, as no published studies have found any adverse health effects from eating genetically modified foods. Thanks to the paranoia surrounding them, GMOs are actually less likely to introduce new allergens than standardly bred hybrids because they're so carefully tested.
    Two points -
    1 - It's not "the better nutrition of breastmilk" really. Breastmilk is the gold standard for infant feeding, and the fact that it is almost always phrased as "breast is better" or "breast is best" is actually counterproductive. It is more accurate to refer to "the inferior nutrition of artificial milk," or "formula is worse." But because we're in a culture that values individual choice so highly (including freedom to choose behaviors that are demonstrably risky) and has normalized formula, that sort of statement is highly demonized. I'll be surprised if I don't get comments to this about how I am a big insensitive meanie, in fact.
    2 - Even a GMO cow - and I agree, GMO foods have not been shown to be the devil, I have no problem with them - will never produce human milk that is tailored to the particular baby it is feeding. Human milk is constantly changing to respond to the nursling's increasing age, and to the nursling's immune needs at that time (saliva enters the breast and signals the maternal immune system), and no cow can do that. The cow also robs the mother of her chance to decrease her risk for cancer. And breastfeeding is about more than nutrition; even if you cuddle and gaze at a bottle-fed infant and are certain that there could be no greater bond, the oxytocin is not triggered with bottlefeeding, which is detrimental to the mother's emotional health and postpartum recovery.

    Even if a mom decides that artificial feeding is better for her, it's never going to be better for her child (with the exception of a very rare genetic disorder).
    I appreciate the point Peeta is making, and despite being an advocate for breastfeeding and despite having nursed my own children, I am ambivalent about some of what you say here. I agree, of course, that it would be best if everyone could and would breastfeed, but women are autonomous people. Each has her own issues with breastfeeding, each has her own abilities and tolerances. I don't believe that a mother has a moral obligation to surmount every obstacle that might possibly be surmounted, and I think we need to be careful not to judge the quality of our mothering based on this one issue.

  10. #10
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Oh, that being said, I think the cow/human milk idea is not a good one. Definitely, I agree that encouragement and education of new mothers is far more worthwhile and valuable.

  11. #11
    Elephant artifex's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    I know that milk banks typically cater to the premature and health compromised, but when possible they will make milk available to babies who don't have access to it at home. If someone contacted mothers who were willing to donate more directly, could home pasteurization be done to kill any microbes?
    Well, there's Milkshare. Keep in mind that only bloodborne illnesses can be transmitted via milk.

    Sarahfeena, I agree that mothers are autonomous entities, however, they (and fathers) are the autonomous entities that our altricial offspring rely on completely for all care. And no, it's not a judgment of a person's entire parenting experience. But nonetheless, breastmilk is better than artificial milk. Period. (Again, except in the case of galactosemia.) Someone can decide that breastfeeding is not something she is willing to do, and sure, there are cases where I can see the overall risk/benefit weighing in favor of artificial feeding (a mom who has to choose breastfeeding or chemotherapy, frinstance), and we all make the decisions about what options are overall better for us. (I can't, for example, afford all organic. I don't always have time to soak dried beans, and use canned. Sometimes we come home exhausted and stressed, and I usually still have charting to do at home, and we hit the drive-through. And for many years I was a single parent, and that was not an optimal situation.) So if someone chooses artificial feeding, fine - but it's silly and self-deluding to pretend that it is not inferior, in both immediate and lifelong effects.
    Last edited by artifex; 08 Apr 2011 at 03:28 PM.

  12. #12
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    I would never pretend that it's not inferior. I just think it's one decision, that's weighed in the light of many other decisions. It's easy to educate someone to understand that breastfeeding is important and better than formula feeding. It's not easy to educate someone to love doing it when they don't, and to keep up doing something they may hate or find difficult or intrusive. It's a far, far more personal decision than dried vs. canned beans. It requires a lot more from the mother, on a lot of different levels.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts