How would you like a cup of breastmilk with your meal?

WATERBURY, Vt. -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow's milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman.
"PETA's request comes in the wake of news reports that a Swiss restaurant owner will begin purchasing breast milk from nursing mothers and substituting breast milk for 75 percent of the cow's milk in the food he serves," the statement says.
PETA officials say a move to human breast milk would lessen the suffering of dairy cows and their babies on factory farms and benefit human health.
"The fact that human adults consume huge quantities of dairy products made from milk that was meant for a baby cow just doesn't make sense," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "Everyone knows that 'the breast is best,' so Ben & Jerry's could do consumers and cows a big favor by making the switch to breast milk."
"We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child," said a spokesperson for Ben and Jerry's.
Read PETA's letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield
September 23, 2008
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, Cofounders
Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.
Dear Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield,
On behalf of PETA and our more than 2 million members and supporters, I'd like to bring your attention to an innovative new idea from Switzerland that would bring a unique twist to Ben and Jerry's.
Storchen restaurant is set to unveil a menu that includes soups, stews, and sauces made with at least 75 percent breast milk procured from human donors who are paid in exchange for their milk. If Ben and Jerry's replaced the cow's milk in its ice cream with breast milk, your customers-and cows-would reap the benefits.
Using cow's milk for your ice cream is a hazard to your customer's health. Dairy products have been linked to juvenile diabetes, allergies, constipation, obesity, and prostate and ovarian cancer. The late Dr. Benjamin Spock, America's leading authority on child care, spoke out against feeding cow's milk to children, saying it may play a role in anemia, allergies, and juvenile diabetes and in the long term, will set kids up for obesity and heart disease-America's number one cause of death.
Animals will also benefit from the switch to breast milk. Like all mammals, cows only produce milk during and after pregnancy, so to be able to constantly milk them, cows are forcefully impregnated every nine months. After several years of living in filthy conditions and being forced to produce 10 times more milk than they would naturally, their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup.
And of course, the veal industry could not survive without the dairy industry. Because male calves can't produce milk, dairy farmers take them from their mothers immediately after birth and sell them to veal farms, where they endure 14 to17 weeks of torment chained inside a crate so small that they can't even turn around.
The breast is best! Won't you give cows and their babies a break and our health a boost by switching from cow's milk to breast milk in Ben and Jerry's ice cream? Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tracy Reiman
Executive Vice President

Why the gross out factor from human milk when we all drink it as children?

Moms work like hell just to throw out 4-6 oz. in one sitting for one baby, so to produce the amount needed for it to be a job, her breasts would have so much wear ...she's bound to have issues.

It's funny in some ways because we drink animal milk all the time. Why the gross out factor from human milk when we all drink it as children? Must be our culture or something. Not that I want to drink it either though....

I didn't.

I didn't.

OK, I'll bite.

Because mom didn't trust you up close?

Me either. I don't even drink animal milk. Not Cow, Not Goat, nothing. YUCK.

For the same reasons why we generally stop in the U.S. after 6-24 months. People freak out here when we hear about moms bf'ing their 8 yo child which btw, I have a video of from some educational, pbs special in europe, and it is downright disgusting as this girl who is the length of their couch sucks on her mom's boob because mommy feels her "child" should be the deciding factor to when she is through bonding with mom.

I think (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that PeTA believes that no life at all is better than a life of what they believe is suffering.

Of course I think they also believe that any kind of human ownership of animals is a form of abuse.

I think PETA forgets that the only reason those cows exist is because of the demand for their milk. If we didn't want cow's milk ice cream, we wouldn't have but a small fraction of the cow population we do.

They had an article on that in OZ, I'll stick to Moo Moo Milk and the doggies LOVE goats milk

These greenies are out of controll!!!! According to them, Get rid of the cows they are causing the Ozone layer to diminish with there methane wind (farts)
Geez what will they think of next !!

Off to grill a big slab of beef for dinner

Actually methane is a greenhouse gas which is a major contributor to global warming. Cows have different digestive systems which cause them to emit methane from their mouths (and yes farts too) when they eat. The big problem though is that agricultural entities in the US aren't regulated as much as they should be so they don't have to treat the piles of manure that are coming from these cows which has very high methane emissions (not to mention odor and other environmental issues).

It's really not something to take lightly, these cows eat a ton and leave behind a lot of waste which has pretty dire consequences for our environement (not to mention the deforestation which has to take place to make room for all these animals!)

Anyone who thinks that global warming caused by human activities is "settled science" either isn't a scientist, or hasn't studied the issue or is ignoring the facts.

Right now the earth is cooling; the earth hasn't warmed at all since 1998 (although that was an exceptionally warm year) and NOT ONE of the dire predictions predicted this might happen.

I am not convinced either way; I'm very willing to attribute global warming to human activity... if it is a factor.

I remember dire predictions of the new Ice Age from 30 years ago. Temps were much warmer than present a few hundred years ago.

I also think we should move to alternative "green" fuels, but for other environmental and economic reasons.

That's pretty much where we stand. Mr. J is big into apologetics, and he goes on and on about why he doesn't buy it. He tries not to bring up dog topics unless he wants an earful, and I try not to bring up "global warming" or anything in the regards to evolution.

Actually methane is a greenhouse gas which is a major contributor to global warming. Cows have different digestive systems which cause them to emit methane from their mouths (and yes farts too) when they eat. The big problem though is that agricultural entities in the US aren't regulated as much as they should be so they don't have to treat the piles of manure that are coming from these cows which has very high methane emissions (not to mention odor and other environmental issues).

It's really not something to take lightly, these cows eat a ton and leave behind a lot of waste which has pretty dire consequences for our environement (not to mention the deforestation which has to take place to make room for all these animals!)

My husband is an economist (Ph.D.) and teaches environmental economics. With every due respect to green economics and environmental economics, this is not at all the same thing as a scientific study of climate changes.

My husband is an economist (Ph.D.) and teaches environmental economics. With every due respect to green economics and environmental economics, this is not at all the same thing as a scientific study of climate changes..

So what does an environmental economist assume?

driving a car is a privledge so regulating how they operate MAY be easier for people to take. all of government in the US is built on an incremental systme of change - it takes time.

The slaughterhouses I have visited have not seemingly treated animals in an inhumane manner. I assume your visits have found something else?

I get my facts from the United States Department of Agriculture who's studies have shown that ghg emissions from agricultural entities is higher than ghg's being emitted by transportation vehicles.

Inhumane is subjective, so I really don't know what you have observed.

Things that I have observed in video and read in government reports; keeping animals in confined spaces so they cannot stand up or turn around, debeaking chickens so they do not fight with other chickens when they are placed in pens with them, keeping chickens in constant darkness, killing chickens without knocking them out, hanging animals upside down while they are still alive, scalding chickens to de-feather them while they are alive and not desensitized in any way, constant tethering.

And those are just the legal things.

No matter what the laws, some will always break them. stricter laws won't stop people who already break existing laws.

I have to say chickens are some of the nastiest creatures put on the earth so I am not surprised they are mistreated more often Not that it makes it right - just an observation.

Please do not form your opinions through propaganda videos - from either side. do independent research and form your own opinions.

I have seen cows and pigs treated like cows and pigs - not like human beings but not mistreated either. saying an animal was held in a pen where it can't turn around makes me wonder - horses and cows are often teathered head on in stalls for a variety of reasons - when does it cross the line. and what has constant tethering have to do with a slaughter house? presumably animals do not spend much time in such a facility.

I wasn't using environmental economic theory to prove or disprove the existence of climate change or the causes thereof. It's just that when you spend an inordinant amount of time working on exploring the feasibility of developing financial instruments/markets for instance for things like trading emissions permits (for my MBA) and then looking at the broader geopolitical implications for my int'l relations degree, one does feel compelled to review the existing science as it relates to climate change to see if there is even justification for what one is working on

The science was (and remains) sometimes compelling, but ultimately inconclusive, leading one to cover one's behind with statements like "even though one cannot conclusively state that greenhouse gas emissions is about to bring about apocolypse now (or even in the forseeable future), it behooves us to consider and limit our environmental impact to the best of our ability and to use the most cost-effective tools possible to do so"

Or something along those lines

Kristine

One probably assumes that people with PhDs in philosophy, was it, should not be throwing rocks - real or assumed - at economists, environmental or otherwise.

I am walking away from this thread - as interesting as it is-because someone has decided to edit/eliminate some of my valid comments. Obviouslly itwasn't anyone involved in the discussion.

"Write each post as if you are sitting at the kitchen table of a neighbor who you don't know very well, sharing a cup of tea."
A neighbor is someone with whom you probably should (and would like to) get along. Please treat your fellow members and guests in a polite manner. It's an old but true cliche: We do not need to be disagreeable when we disagree.
If you want anyone to change a guest's actions, your goal will not be accomplished by scaring them away from the site with nastiness. Your ONLY hope of changing their actions is to embrace them, fully understand their feelings about it, and then gently educating. Name calling might make you feel good, better or superior but will only cause people to run away and perhaps deepen their disdain for people who share your beliefs.