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

This movement is part of the push that erases women as mothers and seeks to propagate the idea that breastmilk and "Biomilk" are interchangeable

Nah, I think that's bollocks. The majority of UK women don't breastfeed, and formula could be a lot better.

Bill Gates is not trying to "erase women as mothers" and you sound like a conspiracy nut.

I'm not surprised you're suspicious. Bill Gates is part of the crew that gaslights women into thinking what's bad for them is good for them

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

Soy itself is really well researched because there were initial research at how the plant hormones effect male development. The outcomes indicate there aren't any problems with it because plant hormones don't work in the same way as animal hormones on the human body. The NHS still recommends you wait till six months till you try soy, but I imagine this is either because the advice is behind or because it encourages mother's to keep trying breastfeeding for that long.

Also, fun fact, nearly all forumula contains soya and fish oil. Not fun for new mums with babies with suspected allergies or vegan. Some is halal and vegetarian but none is vegan so I would have thought that would be something that should be developed before yet another milk not meeting those requirements.

Thanks for the support guys. The reality is some women do struggle and it would be nice to have the options available for every kind of mum. However I don't think Gates delivers in this instance.

www.amazon.co.uk/Politics-Breastfeeding-When-Breasts-Business/dp/190517716X

V important read when considering all this.

For me it would be the price point that would be a significant issue.

One of them reasons why so many women don't breastfeed is the shocking lack of real sustained support, which increasingly in the U.K. has to be paid for.

I’m with you on this OP. And it’s going to be marketed at women who had double mastectomies before realising they’re actually okay with being women when they want to have babies.

Not least because the breastfeeding charities all seem to have lost the plot.

When some of them switch to talking about offering support to anyone feeding a baby human milk (or chest feeding formula/purchased human milk through a supplementer) instead of breastfeeding mothers it does make me ponder how that may be quite pleasing to the makers of substances like bio milk and companies wishing to turn expressed breastmilk into a commercial product.

The new terminology also completely disregards the relationship between mother and baby, the symbiotic nature of that relationship and how a mother’s own milk changes to suit the needs of her baby according to age, health, time of day etc and the concept of mothering through breastfeeding.

@CredibilityProblem thank you for your sensible response.
I’ve been laughing at some of the daft comments here about BG.

He’s done a huge amount to benefit those in very deprived communities. I once sat next to an Indian man when I was flying to Bangalore, he told me he applauded what Bill had done for poor people in his country where the country’s own wealthy people had done nothing. He worked for a competitor company and I was expecting a hard time, but it was totally the opposite.

The guy doesn’t need any more money, and he doesn’t want to erase women FGS.

Just to clarify: Breastfeeding initiation: 81% (up from 76% in 2005) in the UK. Source: www.unicef.org.uk/babyfriendly/about/breastfeeding-in-the-uk/amp/

I can see where it’s hard to see what’s behind this. Many gender critical women are concerned with the erasure of sex based protections for women. Many philanthropist men are funding the end of sex acknowledged differences—think sports, single sex locker rooms, and men stating they are women being housed in female prisons—which all negatively effect women. There is a wave of anti-female policy and law that seeks to erase the differences between the sexes. It’s part of the move to transhumanism and, yes, Bill Gates is pushing hard on this. You may think it’s all ok, and of course each of us is entitled to our own opinions. I’m just here to share info.

thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/

On a related subject, we haven’t scratched the surface of the ethical questions raised by the commodification of breastmilk. Already women in India are selling breastmilk to for profit companies at the cost of giving their own babies infant formula.This is so that privileged women in first world countries are able to purchase replacement for their own breastmilk and health conscious body builders can drink it, too.

If you are familiar with the logistics of using infant formula in a developing country you will understand how sick babies can easily become from lack of clean water sources and the dilution of infant formula due to the expense of using it.

So if they made a bad choice, their baby should be given an inferior product when a superior one becomes available? And what about the womrm who had double mastectomy to save their lives? Why shouldn't they be entitled to the best formula available?
Not everything in the world is a plot about transgender women. In fact hardly anything is.

Why on earth have you raised transgender women? This thread has absolutely nothing to do with transwomen at all.

That's not a very nice comment, now, is it? Why the insults?

It's also not true that the majority of UK women don't breastfeed. Over 80% instigate breastfeeding and many wish to feed for longer than they do; the reasons why are many and varied.

It would be better, but ultimately it's still just an attempt to integrate women more effectively into paid work, rather than deal with the possibility that there are paths other than paid work that are very socially useful and humanly important.

Transhumanism.
I'm angry now.

I always find this really interesting when they talk about lab grown foods being more environmentally friendly and sustainable. I just can't really see it.

Why would anyone think vegan formula makes sense? Milk is not vegan, babies drink milk.

Agreed. Why are insults necessary in a discussion? Learning how to make a point without disparaging the other side is a mark of civility. We are never going to agree to anything if personal attacks are a way to debate.

Amino acid formula doesn't have any dairy or milk in it for babies who have milk allergies.
So a vegan formula serves a need like that does. Helpful for vegan mums who can't breastfeed. Their choice, not yours.

Yes and ideally I would have liked my baby to drink my milk but our bodies failed us. Having to feed my, turns out, dairy intolerant baby cow's milk formula was quite hard mentally and an alternative would have been welcome.

I think the 'sustainable' claim seems highly dubious. You can't get much more sustainable than breastmilk. It's probably at best greenwash, at worst, whatever the marketing equivalent of DARVO is.

The issue with stats, is it does not give the full figures presented, just e.g. 81% etc, without examples of how many they were.

All the figures are available here.

digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/infant-feeding-survey/infant-feeding-survey-uk-2010

81% of breastfeeding initiation in hospitals.

"A total of 10,768 mothers completed and returned all three questionnaires"

not exactly a large percentage overall.

Thanks for your comment. It is a common misunderstanding to misinterpret research population size as invalidating results. I believe I have this correct, but if there are any professional researchers out there, please feel free to correct me. I think the following info from the study may be helpful:

"A completely unclustered sample of 30,760 births was selected from all births A total of 10,768 mothers returned the Stage 3 questionnaire, representing a response rate of 86%.

All the data were then weighted to correct both for differential sampling and for differential response rates among different groups. Further weights were applied to the Stage 2 and Stage 3 data to correct for further non-response bias introduced through attrition over the course of the survey.

Sounds to me like they did their homework.

Here's the link to the 331 page comprehensive study you referred to:
Infant Feeding Survey 2010