Airport security discarded ALL my frozen expressed milk before our flight

[Nadsthakur]

During security screening, approximately 25 ounces of my frozen expressed breast milk was confiscated and discarded. I was told that because it was frozen, it could not be tested and therefore could not be taken through security.

I explained several times that this milk was for my 8-month-old daughter, who is unable to latch and is exclusively fed expressed breast milk. This was not simply a drink or an inconvenience, it was my daughter's only prepared source of nutrition for our journey. Despite explaining this, I was told there was nothing that could be done, and I had to stand there and watch as the milk was thrown away.

I cannot put into words how upsetting this was. Expressing 25 ounces of breast milk takes an enormous amount of time, dedication and physical effort. It means pumping throughout the day and night, carefully storing every bottle and planning ahead. Every ounce represents hours of work. To have it thrown away in front of me, after explaining exactly how important it was, was absolutely heartbreaking.

What made the situation even worse was the attitude of the officers involved. Throughout the interaction, I felt they showed very little empathy or understanding of how serious this was. I was clearly distressed and repeatedly explained that they were taking away my baby's only food for our journey. Rather than trying to help, showing compassion or explaining whether there were any alternative screening options, my concerns were simply dismissed.

After my daughter's food had been thrown away, I was handed a customer feedback card and sent on my way. It genuinely felt as though nobody cared that an 8-month-old baby had just lost the only food I had prepared for her. The complete lack of compassion shown towards me as a mother was deeply upsetting and made an already distressing situation even worse.

Instead of looking forward to our holiday, I boarded an international flight feeling anxious and devastated, worrying about how I was going to feed my daughter while we were away. No parent should ever be put in that position.

Before travelling, I checked the guidance available to passengers. Ryanair's website clearly states that parents travelling with an infant can bring as much baby milk as needed for the flight, provided it is presented for inspection. I relied on this information when preparing for our journey. At no point was I made aware that frozen expressed breast milk could be refused because it could not be tested, and I was given no alternative option when I reached security.

I do not know the names of the officers involved, but im sure they can be identified through CCTV footage and staff rosters for the security checkpoint.
I want Manchester Airport to provide a full explanation of why my daughter's expressed breast milk was confiscated.
The specific policy or security procedure that required it to be discarded.
An explanation of why no alternative screening method. The time and physical effort it took to express and store it, and the significant distress, anxiety and disruption this caused to both me and my family.im supposed to enjoy my holiday and now im stressed in morroco about how I will feed her. She doesnt latch and only has expressed milk. Besides complaining to the Airport what else can I do so no other family goes through this.

This is all absolute nonsense.

It doesn't stop breast feeding from flying! Mothers can breast feed on the plane.

Nor does it stop express fed babies from flying. Because ultimately they can use formula if they have to. And you can still express whilst travelling. And there are other ways to store / transport the milk. It's just that frozen isn't allowed.

It is not disproportionate as everyone is subject to the same rules. They are applied to everyone. And there are plenty of reasons why someone might want to take certain things in frozen form.

It's potentially an inconvenience, but it's not discrimination as it does stop anyone from doing anything. They just have to make adjustments.

And you have to remember that one of the exceptions allowed under equality laws is for public safety and security.

So even if you could prove it disproportionately affected babies and women, you would have to prove that the actions take for security purposes was an action that went too far and wasn't proportionate to the potential security risk.

Now the potential for any kind of criminal exploitation which goes from drugs to terrorism, is so bloody high as a risk to life it would be a hard no, - this is fair as a measure.

Also you would have to prove this in not just one country. But multiple ones.

Exactly this, the current threat level from terrorism in the UK remains at Severe, which means attacks are highly likely, thats any form of attack

That means staff are on high alert.

Im not sure that any baby (or adult) has a human right to fly on holiday anyway.

Equality Act 2010
Section 606.
This section ensures that the Act does not make it unlawful to do anything which is proportionate in order to safeguard national security.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/192/notes

Indeed.

I exclusively express feed for sometimes. My midwives and health visitor hadn't come across someone doing it that long.

Its entirely feasible to come up with an alternative feeding plan. You are not stopped from expressing in an airport.

If you have been expressing for eight months, your milk production rate should be high enough to do in relatively short periods. Certainly enough to at least get by. If it's not, then tbh you possibly should be considering other feeding options by that point anyway.

I am well aware of how stressful express feeding is. If it's that stressful, then I'd hold off going abroad for a few months tbh.

@ThatCyanCat I'm posting endlessly ?
4 or 5 posts v how many by you ?

You talk of posters wanting airport staff to ensure the OP " suffers no distress"
of them suggesting "well I didn't like the way they did it", with no real idea of what a better way would be."

Of an expectation that airport staff should be counsellors .

You say that I've used emotional blackmail to put staff in the wrong and that I'm continuing to attempt this by telling you to calm down .( what logic is that ? ,or indeed what truth ?)

You've either lost touch with reality or you just like to exaggerate and invent to enable you to continue to bluster and harangue .I suspect it's the latter .

Have a nice day .Watch your blood pressure 🙂

There are plenty of people who go through airport security who get personally offended at being treated exactly the same as everyone else.

They think they are some sort of super special case because they are so nice and no one from their nice world could possibly be bad.

Unfortunately there is a tiny number of bad actors out there who look for the slightest hint of weakness and willingness to be treated as super special.

And they don't take no for an answer. They don't need counselling. They just need to understand the words no. And that they should check the regulations before going to the airport - like everyone else who manages or find a way to plan around security.

Hurty feelings are not comparable with actual criminal threats to life and public safety. Some people seem totally oblivious to this and live in a nice bubble of lala.

I wish I lived in that world. We all do. But we don't and it sucks. But we just get on with it.

There is literally no substance to this completely irrelevant post. It's just you complaining and projecting your irrational emotive nonsense on to other people. We've actually got some knowledgeable people in now so please stop clogging stuff up.

You are projecting a lot of negative imagination onto someone you don’t even know. It sounds like you are the one looking for something to complain about.

This
Of course staff have to stick to the rules but there are ways to deliver upsetting news that don’t make the situation worse. It doesn’t need to be anything above and beyond, just a kind tone of voice and an apology for needing to take the milk

was posted early on and gives practical suggestions as to what the staff could have done .
I'm reposting as it seems difficult for some to get past the idea in their head that posters are lobbying for counselling facilities at security ,that no one is providing a script and full stage directions of how staff might have dealt with the situation .Al;though who knows ,perhaps they did .
But I'm hoping the above simple words might move away from talk of bleeding hearts ,doe eyed staff ,pink and fluffiness .

And yes ,I do realise the OP made an error and that there was no need for staff to apologise .

Maybe ,as per Walmart in USA ,they should have required the OP to wear a placard saying " I didn't read the rules ,I got upset and argued " and parade around the airport ?

On holiday and no complaints.

in fact, I actually can’t remember the last time I have complained about anything or anyone!

but this op…. Oh she’ll be kicking up a stink left right and centre because she hasn’t bothered to read the rules or small print

Well real life calls so I may need to stop calling you to account .
You deny that you exaggerate ?
You didn't say that I was posting endlessly ? On the basis of 4 posts from me v how many from you ?
That no one had suggested what staff could do /
And that if they did it would be unworkable ?
You didn't say that posters wanted staff to ensure that the OP suffered no distress ?
You didn't accuse posters of expecting staff to be counsellors ?
You didn't accuse me of emotional blackmail towards the staff ?
Or trying to continue this by telling you to calm down ?
Just my imagination obviously .

@RedToothBrush no disagreement with anything in your last post .
Of course people who don't read the rules or object don't need counselling .
I've never suggested that they do .
I know Cayancat has frequently referred to posters expecting security staff to be counsellors but that is their fantasy .
Don't take from their repeated references that I'm proposing it .

The scanning equipment and techniques for checked in luggage is not the same as the scanners for hand luggage. Given how few people transport frozen stuff as hand luggage I don’t see airports investing hundreds of millions of pounds and dedicating more space to more sophisticated scanners for hand luggage when that space is better used for duty free ;)

Also it doesn’t take a lot of thought to realise that a checked in bomb would have to be fully assembled and ready to either go off by itself or be set off remotely. That also makes them easier to detect. The point of scanning hand luggage is to pick up things that could be a danger to an aircraft. - and that includes things that could be assembled into a bomb. A frozen liquid and a block of semtex would look fairly similar when x-rayed, a detonator could look like any old bit of electronics - a phone, a watch, a hairdryer, and cables re easy to conceal if they look like charging cables. You can’t reasonably eliminate electronics or cables, but eliminating things that could be explosives is easier to do. So they do :)

It’s fascinating that you’re doubling down on this. Unless you are actually there on holiday with her, you have absolutely no idea what she’s doing. Why are you so desperate for her to have a bad time?

Observing what is likely
is not being desperate for that likelihood to be the case
it is what I think is likely based on this Op!

I find it fascinating that so many posters on this thread have suggested that I believe the courts would definitely rule in favour of babies in this instance. I haven't. I've simply pointed out that there is a (potential) case to answer under the equality act, and that "use formula" is not actually a proportionate response (nor would I want to sit on a 12-17 hour flight with a baby who was being made to "use formula" if they were accustomed to breastmilk). Similarly, breastmilk in the hold is not a solution either for a baby who is on the plane, or for arrival without an ironclad guarantee it will arrive (and what airline will give that?).

I also find it fascinating that some of those same posters think it's up to me to find a solution, were the courts to rule in favour of breastfed babies in this hypothetical case. It's not, at all--it's up whatever you call the CAA in the UK. But as a potential measure, I could see sampling, defrosting, and testing milk, or offering an in-cabin freezer and expressing facilities on planes, so newly expressed milk can be frozen.

I think a lot of these responses are about people's feelings about breastfeeding, rather than anything to do with security. And if the terrorism risk is so high, it is fascinating that there isn't more security to get into airports at all (at least in other parts of Europe you can't get very far without showing a boarding card), to get into tube stations, etc. It's fascinating that on planes is the only risk we focus on. Why is that, I wonder?

Because you only need a relatively small device to do a LOT of damage with a plane.

Planes are contained, pressurised environments at thousands of feet. One small device can bring the entire thing down and kill hundreds of people who have no escape, even if they survive the initial blast.

The 7 July London bombings, however, "only" (I don't use that word flippantly, just to illustrate the difference) killed 52 people across four different attacks. This is because after the attack passengers were able to escape and the emergency services were able to assist: two things that are impossible on a plane in flight.

If they'd bombed four different planes the fatalities could have reached four figures depending on the planes.

That's the difference.

What on earth is all this irrelevant nonsense? Stop me-railing, wadting everyone's time and clogging up the thread.

Testing frozen milk would take time.

How do you carve a chunk out to test without contaminating the rest of the bottle?

How do you ensure there is nothing else concealed within the frozen opaque block (knifes, drugs) ?

The demand for freezing expressed milk must be incredibly low. For most breastmilk is going straight into baby from the boob.
Even those who are exclusively feeding expressed milk, most of it is probably given fresh. Expressed and fed to baby within 24hrs.

Op has admitted they let her on with her fresh milk, they only removed the frozen stuff. It's clear she had much more than necessary for the journey. I think she'd stocked up for the holiday for whatever reason. I can understand not wanting to pump on a cattle class plane but most airports will have a Mother and Baby room that could be used for breastfeeding / pumping.

I have breastfed five babies, all for over two years each. They never had a drop of formula or a bottle in their lives. I can't get more pro-breastfeeding and I have no issue with breastfeeding at all. I fully support it being done in public, on a plane, in a restaurant, anywhere baby needs to feed.

I also fully support the airlines in following the rules and not allowing the frozen breast milk.

You aren't 'observing' anything. You are making up a negative fictional story about a stranger's life based on a few online posts. It really does sound like you need a holiday yourself to unplug from all this cynicism.

It is possible that the safety issues outweigh the right of those breastfed babies to fly,

we know that is the case @CallItLoneliness .

Exactly.
Very few people have survived a plane crash.
Think how many people were killed by the 9/11 attacks.

The other thing thats often forgotten about the London bombings. The G8 Summit was at Gleneagles at the same time. Police had been called from all over the country including the Met to back up the Police around at the Summit.