Lady Gaga threatens legal action over 'Baby Gaga' breast milk ice cream
I thought at first the action was just based on the name - but reports have since stated the ice cream is served by a waitress dressed as Lady Gaga. So, to be fair I can kinda see her issue!
Don't get me wrong, I find it ironic that someone who wears an outfit made of raw meat could call breastmilk ice cream "icky" (did anyone tell her it's screened and pasteurised and so very likely contains far less "ick" than a typical bovine based ice cream?) but hey maybe she's just not a fan of frozen desserts!
But I have bigger and (to me) more interesting problems with "The Icecreamists", the company responsible for "baby gaga" ice cream".
I'm not really sure what it says about our society that the three obvious items were two pharma meds and a bottle; and I'm sure I wasn't the only one who raised an eyebrow at the fact the brand of bottle shown is from a company reported as not adhering to code of breastmilk substitutes!
If a milk bottle is a must, at least something like this resembling a breast is in keeping ;)
The biggest problem is (to me) that of paying for breastmilk. "Good on the mum", some have said or " would be happy to donate at that price!" It's claimed "The Icecreamists" pay £15 per 10oz and therein I think is the potential problem.
Some mums can express say 8oz per session, several times per day - nice little earner; however there is also the risk that at this price some mothers will express and donate for money, whilst buying much cheaper breastmilk substitutes for their own infant. Some exclusively pumping mums boast 40oz per day - that's £60 in cold hard cash, or £300 per week. I wonder if donating mums are required to declare and pay tax on the sale of their bodily fluids ? ;) Will donors have to watch their backs for "breastmilk pimps" with those rates of pay?
There is of course the risk that breastmilk banks could suffer in this whole human ice cream revolution. "Mums can donate where they want" and "not everyone can donate to a breastmilk bank" are two replies I have heard a lot. Both of which are of course true, to the first I would say they absolutely can, however is it a level playing field when one is a faceless donation and the other offers financial gain?
Furthermore, not many mums have (luckily) been in the position of being sat in an NICU, watching doctors work 24/7 on a 27 weeker and a beyond distraught mother who will soon be under immense pressure to express adequate amounts. Or seen the tiny 31 weekers receiving breastmilk substitutes via iv tube because the banks are dry - especially when you know how vulnerable some of these infants are. Or been in a position of having to sat hour after hour on the breastpump, day and night for their 34 weeker, desperately trying to get a feed ahead because there is an overwhelming panic that at the next feed he may want more than you have - which of course only serves to hinder the milk ejection reflex. As the banks have little funding to get their message out there, they rely on those passionate to help.
The second point is right, not all women can donate to milk banks - but "The Icecreamists" aren't likely to only accept these donors. Even if they were would this even be fair? So it seems to me a financial donation per sale would be a sensible consideration - to hep protect the Nation's most vulnerable.
We are sure our donor mum Victoria Hiley will have a view on your post also!
Well oddly enough Mr Smarty Pants a whole lot of corporate pages allow their "fans" to start a new topic - so the sarcasm really misses the spot. And of course donor mum is welcome to comment, I don't think I've said anything untoward?
I then found my link deleted and myself removed from their Facebook group! (for the record I have NEVER been removed from a group before, even when I've protested at Annabel Karmel or Nestle!!) I rejoined to reply to the above comment, but found I have been censored and am not allowed to comment on the group...