Ricker: PETA's Ben and Jerry's Suggestion Only In Theory

By Whitney Ricker

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) recently sent the founders of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream a letter suggesting they substitute human breast milk for the cow’s milk in their dairy products. The letter suggests breast milk has more health benefits for people than cow’s milk. And, in true PETA style, it explained how using human breast milk would reduce the unethical treatment of cows in the process of harvesting their milk.

PETA learned of this idea from a Swiss restaurant owner who decided to use human breast milk, instead of cow’s milk, in 75 percent of the dairy foods on the menu. The breast milk was provided by donors who were paid for their services.

In a somewhat effective attempt to win over the general public instead of just animal-lovers, PETA provided information which explains how consuming human breast milk is better for people than cow’s milk. “Dairy products have been linked to juvenile diabetes, allergies, constipation, obesity, and prostate and ovarian cancer,” stated the letter. In addition, the letter referenced the well-known children’s doctor, Dr. Benjamin Spock, who suggested that children who consume cow’s milk stand a higher risk of acquiring “anemia, allergies, and juvenile diabetes and in the long term…obesity and heart disease – America’s number one cause of death.”

Of course, PETA was not stingy in providing reasons that this idea is advantageous to animals. The process of harvesting cow’s milk is not an ethical one. Cows are “forcefully impregnated” constantly to ensure maximum milk production. Once they have served their purpose and are no longer useful, they are butchered. Also, the veal industry relies on the dairy industry. When male calves are born, they are sold to veal farms because they cannot produce milk. At the veal farms, they “endure 14 to 17 weeks of torment” until they are butchered.

While the cows’ case is effectively made and should pull at the heartstrings of many, this suggested substitution is still questionable. The whole process seems a bit bizarre. Just imagine mothers, who either choose not to breastfeed or do, and are just depriving their children of their breast milk to make some money, sitting down to a breast pump in a factory surrounded by other mothers giving ‘donations.’ Maybe the process would become as common as donating blood or getting your hair done, and the mothers would sit around making idle conversation. Maybe not.

If this idea were to take hold, first, a rate would have to be determined for the reimbursement of the women. This rate might be based on how much milk they donate. Or perhaps on how nutritious their milk is, depending on the quality of their diet and physical activity. Maybe mothers of a certain age produce better quality milk than others; this would all have to be considered.

Next, the facility where the ‘donations’ would take place would need to be prepared. This could either entail large public rooms where the mothers are hooked up to the pumps, which wouldn’t be much different than the set-up of dairy farms, or individual rooms where the mothers who aren’t comfortable with ‘donating’ in public may go.

Unfortunately, mothers in need of money might deprive their children of milk, and in turn, nutrition, so malnutrition, instead of obesity, becomes a problem. Or, mothers who don’t really think the plan through might start having children just to make money off their breast milk, and we end up with more children without caring parents. This idea seems to produce more problems than solutions.

And yes, everyone cares about their children’s health, but will this plan make that much of a difference? The kids will still be shoveling down Snickers bars and Doritos; is there a substitute for the fat and carbohydrates in junk food, as well?

While most people are concerned about the well-being of animals and their own health, it doesn’t seem that this plan provides enough advantages to actually be employed. The cows, however, might disagree.