Does "no food or drink" mean "no breastfeeding"?

[eggnut]

Hello everyone, a question for you. My husband and I went to a museum in central London yesterday with our 4 month old baby. In our usual fashion it took us ages to get there, so I wanted to sit and feed DD in the gallery somewhere soon after our arrival. I paid for my entry ticket and then asked a member of staff if there was anywhere to sit down in the exhibit. She said there were benches, but that I was not allowed to feed the baby in the exhibit. I hadn't even thought to ask about whether bf was allowed, but I was clutching the baby in my arms when I spoke with her so I guess that gave it away!

I was quite surprised by this and specified that I was breastfeeding and she was quite firm that the "no food or drink" policy of the gallery applied to breastfeeding as well. Is this typical? I'm a big rule-follower and I definitely sympathize with the plights of museums trying to protect their collections (and not make exceptions for every member of the public who demands it), but it hadn't even occurred to me that quiet and discreet bf on a bench fell into the same category as walking around with a Coke in my hands or scattering biscuit crumbs on the Kandinskys!

I'm still not sure what all the bf etiquette is as it's still quite new for me. The gallery didn't have anything specific posted about bf and I can't find anything about it on their website.

Re anyone being asked to leave if they are giving food to any child: I think the logic of the Equality Act's provisions is that since breastfeeders are exclusively female, requiring them to do something that all people aren't also required to do is sex discrimination. So you can "discriminate" against all people who might want to give a child a biscuit, because those people could be men or women.

I think a secondary logic for the legislation is that small babies can't wait for food, and can be unpredictable in when they want to be fed, and that giving them their food can take a considerable amount of time. Whereas children (a) can be fed before you try to access the facilities provided by an organisation and (b) can wait for food.

I don't think that the fact that they had a cafe where the OP could feed means that it's ok. In the language of the Equality Act, she was trying to access a service provided by the organisation, for which in this case she had paid (although actually I don't think that's relevant) and she was being denied the same access as men to that service.

Re letdown spraying the artwork - obviously all visitors to the exhibition should be careful not to damage the exhibition. This includes people on crutches who might stumble over, people in a wheelchair who might collide into a statue, people with hayfever who are sneezing everywhere and small children with mucky fingers who might smear them on a Ming vase, as much as women with milk-producing breasts. This is a non-issue and a ridiculous possible justification for banning BF-ing in such a place.

Re art work from other countries - surely any foreign museum loaning art to the UK must be aware that UK museums abide by the law in this country, whatever that law is?

eggnut - good on you deciding to write to them - from what I've found I think they are 100% in the wrong, and although of course I'm sure you'll write politely, I think you have a very tight case in your favour. Who knows how many other BF-ing mothers won't have written, so I think you are doing all future BF-ing visitors to the Barbican a big favour. Thank you!

I am actually quite moved to write to them myself (I am still BF-ing a 14 month old, but may well have wanted to visit that exhibition when my baby was younger) - along the lines of "I am thinking of visiting your exhibition but I have heard that your staff prevent women from BF-ing, although it is illegal for them to do so, can you reassure me that I will be allowed to BF in your exhibitions".

[email protected] by the way....

Could they differentiate between non-nutritive suckling that many babies do for comfort, in the ways that many non bf babies do with a dummy or their thumb, and sucking for milk? If it that transfer or milk that is important?

I'm not convinced they are falling foul of the discrimination act if its a blanket ban, they would certainly be in trouble if they allowed bf and not ff.

It's an interesting one op update on the response!

Thanks, CoronationWigeon, you've articulated what I was thinking much more coherently than I have been able to manage so far!

Good question about bf vs ff (or any kind of bottle feed)--if the law is partly to protect the need of the child to be fed as frequently as necessary, I guess bottle feeding should be allowed, too? Not sure if that's covered by law, though.

I will let you know what I hear. I will add that a friend who works at the V&A asked about their policy there, and they confirmed that (at the V&A) they consider it illegal to restrict bf and women are welcome to bf in any gallery, or may feed in the baby changing rooms if they prefer a more private space.

Well I am trying to understand this. But I think bottle fed babies have as much right as breast fed ones to be fed. And also a Dad with a tiny baby bottle feeding he should have rights too. I can't see the problem with going into a corridor or quiet place to feed the baby. So I don't think bottle feeding Dads should be discriminated against either.

softly and vivienne In this incident the baby is not being discriminated against it is the mother.
Breastfeeding is something only woman can do so not allowing a woman to breastfeed in an area where she is allowed to be is sexual discrimination. That is what the law is protecting. It is not protecting the baby's right to feed.

As an interesting aside (that is not at all relevant to this but..) the Western Australian Equal Opportunities Act protects both breast and bottle feeders.

Hazchem
I understand that but I still question that the mother isn't actually restricted from using the facilities just whilst feeding, I think it's a grey area an interesting one. The Aussies have it right clearly!

eggnut do the V&A also allow ff out of interest?

But then actually I suppose the "just restricted whilst feeding" would apply everywhere which clearly isn't true questions self.

Hmmmm I want a lawyer to come on now!

I'm quoting from the link earlier but
"Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms. "

In this case it's pretty clear that the OP is being refused a service (viewing the exhibition) because she is a (breastfeeding) woman.

The restriction just while feeding would be a providing a "service on a different term"

I'm not a lawyer but think it's a great piece of legislation. Knowing it protects me helps me feel secure when I breastfeed in public.

hhhm a difficult one. I've never heard of the rule, and I have breastfed in a lot of galleries. A LOT!
I never leak milk, so I never thought there was a possibility of milk landing on anything. And I don't think it is just spraying of milk on the exhibits themselves actually, even drops of milk on the floor or sofa could potentially attract mites and bugs. By that same reasoning, bottle feeding should also be considered the same as BFing as there is the same potential of spillage.
But I have never been told not to by anyone not to BF in a gallery, and I have seen other mums BFing regularly too, in them.

It probably is discrimination, but on the otherhand I can kind of understand why they might not allow it. I can't see why you would be prevented from seeing the exhibition, you can always go back in after feeding? But I would never have thought it was necessary though, but if I was asked I don't think I'd be miffed, as long as bottle feeding is a no no too.

Yesterday I looked up a few articles. Nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon. One said a bar didn't allow under 18's would have the right to refuse to allow a mother to breastfeed as the baby shouldn't be there. and same with other over 18's only premises. So it can't just be wherever the Mother has a right to be she can breastfeed. And in some museums the air temperature and humidity is controlled. So maybe this would interfere. OK I know it's a longshot!!

No it's not a tricky legal issue - it's clear - baby has right to be breastfed in any public place where mum and baby are allowed to be. The museum is breaking the law (Equalities Act 2010).

There is an exception for cases where another existing law would be violated - for example, the licensing laws which ban under 18s. That doesn't apply here - the museum's no food and drink policy is a policy, not a law of the land.

Please, please, complain. Many businesses and service providers are unaware of their duties under the new law. They all use the same legal obfuscation to get away with it.

viviene The point you raise is interesting. It's true you can't feed a baby where a baby is not allowed but this wouldn't be sexual discrimination because the baby isn't allowed and holding a baby is a function determined by sex. It also wouldn't be discrimination to say no you can't come in a feed the baby in a mens only homeless shelter.

If an art work is so precious that breastfeeding would effect it i think it wouldn't be on display in a normal collection. I've seen a fresco that is only allowed to be viewed by up to 6 people for up to 10 minutes of any 60 minute period. This is because of the light levels and humidity.

opps isn't a function not is.

When will I learn to press preview first:)

That's a good question about ff policy at the v&a--I'll ask.

I don't think breastmilk could significantly affect the relative humidity inside a building, but then again maybe that's what's happening to the weather here lately ... has everyone been leaking milk outdoors and causing it to rain all the time?? ha ha.

It doesn't matter what the policy on FF is - this is discrimination on the grounds of maternity, which the legislation says specifically includes breastfeeding.

thezoob I'm not convinced its clear ur as she wasn't prevented from bf because it was bf she was prevented because it fell under food and drink policy which at a very big stretch could come under H&S loophole?

I would write/phone and ask the question but wouldn't be stomping around complaining as I don't think that it is the same as, for example, the cafe who just didn't like bf women. The gallery have issues with liquid consumption, in a perverse way being classed alongside all other food and drink normalises not ostracises bf iyswim!

If a gallery allows bf they have to allow ff to be fair, morally if not legally and there starts the issues with spillages surely?

Softlysoftly -I think you are wrong. It is very clear. If a woman has a right to be somewhere then she has a right to breastfeed there unless her baby is prevented by another law from being present OR unless there's a H&S risk to her.

From page 4 of this Government leaflet, for example:

"Breastfeeding mothers
The Act has specifically clarified that it is unlawful to discriminate against a woman because she is breastfeeding.

Ensure that women to whom you are providing goods, facilities and services are able to breastfeed should they so wish.

Example
Saul, a bus driver, tells Kate, who is breastfeeding on the bus, that if she does not either stop or get off the bus she could be arrested for indecency. This is not only inaccurate, but is unlawful direct discrimination, and the company will be liable under the Equality Act 2010 unless it can show that it has taken all reasonable steps to stop the driver from acting in this way. Saul will be liable whether or not his employer is."

Banning food and drink on the bus is irrelevant. The mother and baby have a right to be there, so they have a right to breastfeed there. Breastfeeding does not equal food and drink!!

Legally (no matter how we feel about it personally) unless you're in Scotland, bottle feeding is irrelevant in UK law.

Ah but I didn't say legally I said morally, I think by the law of commen sense it is morally wrong to allow bf where you do not allow ff.

See, I would put it the other way around Softly, by the law of common sense it is morally wrong to forbid bottlefeeding where you do no not forbid breastfeeding.

We should be making sure babies can be fed by whatever means they are fed. I agree there shouldn't be unfairness, but its daft and backward to suggest that because bottle feeding isn't permitted somewhere that breast feeding shouldn't be either.

Of course, FF doesn't come into it at all unless you are going to be testing samples from bottles to determine whether they contain ebm or f before you decide whether baby can eat or not.

In this case, it so happens that the law is based around a woman's right to breastfeed rather than the baby's right to eat. This does disadvantage bottle fed babies but the answer is to change things to the Scottish model rather than to ban all babies from eating in galleries.

Rather glad I'm back living in Scotland now.

I don't disagree it seems a silly rule although I met a woman at group that could easily get bm the length of the room! and that a better suction would be Scotlands approach of equalising both. Just questioning the rules as they stand.

Looking forward to hearing their response, I think it likely they will say over zealous staff member but now I want an answer to the bottle/breast angle too!

Suction solution I meant!

It has nothing to do with food and drink or whatever policies the Museum may have.

A Museum's policies cannot override the law which gives women the legal right to breastfeed in public.

They are breaking the law.