Bill Gates Pushes Lab Grown "Human Milk"

[notidentifying22]

Gates' company BIOMILQ is using biotechnology to create artificial breast milk for babies. This is done by using mammary cells placed in a flask. Biomilk claims that the formula “recreates conditions similar to the breast.”

This movement is part of the push that erases women as mothers and seeks to propagate the idea that breastmilk and "Biomilk" are interchangeable. This school of thought disregards a crucial part of infant feeding for mothers: the benefits accrued from actually nursing at the breast. Besides the fact that once again we have a "new and improved" way to feed babies which feeds the bottom line of multinational corporations, we denigrate all that breastfeeding means to women and babies. Again, just like in the 1950's men are telling women they have something better for babies.

As we have seen in infant formula shortages, it makes our very survival as a species dependent on the good will of a large multi national corporation with profit, not help, as its motive. And it opens the door a little more to transhumanism.

Bill Gates Pushes Lab-Grown Human Milk Amid Infant Formula Shortages

Well, as I said before my main concern with this would be that it's just a sneaky way for Gates to bypass the strict advertising laws around formula.
I'm happy that alternatives exist for mother's. Happy for breast milk to be encouraged first. My main issue is they don't seem to be able to get the balance right.

To be fair I had to use formula or my baby would have died so I absolutely see the need for it.
I felt a lot of guilt using it because I do not agree with the dairy industry. That's a personal thing and not a judgement. But it would be nice to have a non dairy choice on the market.
I would hesitate to use it for myself until it had been in use and proven safe and beneficial for a good while, but I'm rather jumpy risk wise with my babies due to past experience. Others might just appreciate the choice.

some of the comments here are a bit bonkers.

some people breastfeed and some use formula. within those who use formula, some versions of formula may be better for the baby (in terms of nutrition) than others. If science can make a better type of formula for those who cannot breastfeed, that is great.

this is not going to replace breastfeeding for those who want to breastfeed, but if it can help those who are unable to and help their babies be healthier, that is great.

[i'm also pretty skeptical of the claims that a baby fed direct from the breast gets more antibodies than one fed with milk that was pumped from the same breast a day earlier. how the hell would your body know the difference? and how would anyone even be able to tell?]

i'm also pretty skeptical of the claims that a baby fed direct from the breast gets more antibodies than one fed with milk that was pumped from the same breast a day earlier. how the hell would your body know the difference? and how would anyone even be able to tell?

I don't know that's just what I was told.
To be fair, once they get to two you can't tell who was breastfed and who formula anyway.

You can't tell according to any measures they can/do make. Which doesn't tell us much either way really.

As far as people seeming over the top, it's because it's Bill Gates, and people see him as having an agenda based on other things he's said and supported. He and his fellow techno-gods seem to think that we will all be better off when we are eating lab grown food based on genetically modified crops and patented processes. Guess who will own the patents for the genomes and the processes, the labs, and the land the basic substrates are grown on?

"I'm also pretty skeptical of the claims that a baby fed direct from the breast gets more antibodies than one fed with milk that was pumped from the same breast a day earlier. how the hell would your body know the difference? and how would anyone even be able to tell?"

If you get sick, your baby will be getting antibodies before you even know you are sick so it's important that you keep on breastfeeding. This is because there is a lot of "communication" that goes on between a mother and her baby's body while she is breastfeeding. Obviously pumped milk is better than formula. But NOTHING can replace exclusive breastfeeding.

Here is some information on a study that looked at the difference in exclusively breastfed babies and those who received pumped breastmilk. This study is one of the largest studies of the human milk microbiota performed to date:

Pumped Breast Milk Vs Direct Feeding - Important Microbiota Differences

"Dr. Azad’s team also found that indirect breastfeeding (defined as providing at least one serving of pumped milk in the two weeks preceding the collection of a breastmilk sample for the study) was associated with a lower abundance of beneficial Bifidobacteria. “We found this especially interesting because we had previously found that feeding pumped breast milk – while advantageous compared to formula – was less beneficial than nursing at the breast when it comes to protecting infants from asthma and obesity.”

Formula is often necessary, and breastfeeding while it’s better all else being equal is not free unless you have the privilege of time. I’m not terribly surprised at
this, as the us is still in a huge formula shortage, and there have been many desperate parents whom I would hope everyone on this site feels for. This has been hugely in the news and bright / wealthy minds who want to help have realised formula can be improved. Who wouldn’t? I understand the whole reducing womens role to body parts argument but in this case I can see why. We have for some time been working on growing organs in labs for people (maybe even do already even skin) and that’s a boost for medical science and health outcomes too.
Don’t penalise the babies.

This movement is part of the push that erases women as mothers and seeks to propagate the idea that breastmilk and "Biomilk" are interchangeable. This school of thought disregards a crucial part of infant feeding for mothers: the benefits accrued from actually nursing at the breast

This is complete hyperbole. As for "schools of thought disregarding" things, there are elements in the breastfeeding lobbyists who seem very happy to ignore everything which doesn't suit their own agenda.

I don't have the studies to backup my theories, but scientifically created is usually more healthier, more nutritional than natural methods. Plus what happens if x person cannot get on with natural methods ect ?

Yeah, like a vitamin c pill is healthier than a tomato.

You dont have the studies because they aren’t there. A healthy natural approach is best absent other problems, or we’d all be popping pills instead of brekkkie. However many people can’t manage/afford the lifestyle changes or in the case of breastfeeding simply can’t do it, through physical lack of production or other reasons such as having to work.

Paid maternity leave for a minimum of a year would be the best and easiest solution for mothers in the USA. Mothers being able to be with their babies benefits society in improved physical and mental health of both mother and baby. Then breastfeeding would have no financial cost for them. Most other countries in the world recognise this. After that practices in birth and postnatally which support breastfeeding and sound information would give US mothers a genuine choice.

If this milk is better than the formula milk, then surely that's a good thing?

On of the issues with the formula industry is how they use parents' fears and play on them with their products.

This is why formula advertising is banned in the U.K. (they get round it with 'toddler milks'.)

Pricing could be a significant issue. In an ideal world all baby formula and this stuff would all be the same price. If this costs more it will be made less accessible to lower income families.

The formula advertising game can also contribute to women not physically breastfeeding; I could see that this lab milk would encourage this more quickly.

At the same time I can see that some could benefit from it.

As said, The mother infant breastfeeding dyad is more than food- which this lab milk detracts from. Apart from antibody responses and even different milks for male or female infants, Longer term breastfeeding can actually flatten the palate and space teeth which can positively impact adult dental health.

However debates around this can be very sensitive.

@WhenWillMyLIfeBegin sorry you had such an awful experience.

First para is a quote from up thread, bold fail.

Anything to replace us.

I can’t see the problem with this. Formula milk whilst necessary isn’t a great substitute really, in that it doesn’t replicate breastmilk at all, and the production is terrible for the environment. In such a turbulent time with food shortages (which I presume could become worse and worse with climate change) it’s actually quite a good idea to have lab grown baby milk that wouldn’t rely on the global food market? Presumably each county could lab grow their own, cutting out transport. It would also stop dodgy things getting into the baby milk chain (see Chinese baby milk scandal). I don’t believe something like that wouldn’t happen again. Formula ingredients are bought on the global market for the lowest price.

Also lots of formula is contaminated when it comes from the factory. People don’t make it up properly because it’s a faff and they dismiss the risks. I’m sure that’s one of the main reasons ff babies have way more gastro illness. If this could stop that happening it could be amazing, not just on and individual level. Imagine the cost saving to health services.

I think OP has misunderstood or misrepresented the objective of the project. It is absolutely not intended to be a substitute for breast milk. It’s intended as a healthier substitute for formula where breast milk is not available for one reason or another.

Anything lab grown still requires resources. Tissue cultures are actually fairly difficult to maintain. Every tissue culture I have ever worked with required complex media usually containing lots of animal products such as serum or blood, growth factors,...
Even relatively simple large scale fermentations like yeasts, or fungi (like for Quorn) use up tons and tons of sugary carbon sources (molasses is the most popular). There is massive pressure on these at the moment. I know large scale yeast producers (via work) and they are struggling to source enough material.

So biomilq is not likely to be suitable for vegetarians or vegans then, or perhaps those people of faiths who avoid certain animal products?

There is a lot of research into media for tissue cultures and maybe they can replace some of the animal derived media components but the standard research cell lines almost all require animal products. I know people are working on this, but the limit will ultimately be what the cell line accepts.
For fermentation in drug production there is already a requirement to have halal and kosher media ingredients and where possible vegan but these organisms are usually yeasts/fungi and they are a lot less fussy than tissue cultures.

The "Bill Gates is pure evil" people always baffle me because we're coming from such different places. To me it seems completely plausible that a nerd who through an unusual set of circumstances ends up with an unfathomably large amount of money would decide to spend the rest of his life giving it away to good causes. And that having made that choice he might decide that instead of the traditional libraries and US colleges he'd look for where fifty billion dollars could actually do the most objective good: which is reducing the burden of infectious disease in the developing world.

Maybe I'm naive, but I find that a completely reasonable motivation.

There are legitimate criticisms of philanthrocapitalism, the Gates Foundation in particular, and perhaps Gates' personal sexual morality.

But the idea that a man who's already insanely wealthy would set up a fake foundation and spend tens of billions of pounds on vaccine development in some Bond villain plan to take over the world seems a lot less plausible than the idea that a guy with untold billions has simply decided to have a pop at eradicating polio and malaria because he wants "the guy who eradicated polio and malaria" on his tombstone.

Is this soy based?

if so, we have to look at the research around the impact soy has on hormones, specifically oestrogen increases. Wouldn’t think that’s great for any babies, especially boys

Honest to God, what are you lot on about.
This isn't about replacing mothers or breast milk, it's about better formula.

Would you prefer formula milk didn't exist? Would the world be better without it?

This is a genuine question and I'm willing to listen to the answers, If the numbers support child health and womens lives would be better without formula milk.

Will it be cheaper?