Prolacta's profits aside, a question remains: Should we really be sending frozen breast milk to Africa? Given the shipping, the refrigeration, the sheer expense of transporting precious little of the precious liquid around the globe, is it more important as a symbol than as an effective solution? As Laycock observes: "Fifteen thousand ounces will feed three babies for six months. If those dollars spent processing and transporting milk could be spent setting up milk banking in a country, one can only imagine how much more they could accomplish."

Or even--*gasp*--formula, anyone? Isn't the main objective getting the kids fed, and keeping them fed? Do we have to export our breast milk fetishism, too? Sure, breast milk offers some advantages, but this is one of those cases where quantity (saving more kids) trumps quality.

I really think Prolacta sucks.

I am so disappointed that moms are donating milk to a company that will rip off the public, when they think they are helping babies who need it. (25% going to the charitable cause? That's not charity. That's profiteering, even if they hire a jet to write the figures across the sky).

I am also highly skeptical of companies who use human breast milk. I've read about companies trying to patent ingreedients of breast milk, which I find disgusting, and worrisome: will I have to pay Prolacta every time I breast feed my next child because they patented proteins and antibodies in my milk? (Sounds far-fetched, but Monsanto successfully sued a farmer after Monsanto-patented wheat landed in his fields from natural pollinators). And I'm sorry, but $35 an ounce? I have high self-esteem, but my milk isn't worth that much!

While I applaud the women who wanted to o something wonderful, and selfless, the so-called "charity" is a great disservice to their generosity, and to the babies in need who can't benefit from this altruism, not to mention a threat to the breast-feeding community.

when someone else is maing tons of money off it.

I tried to donate breast milk. My current supply is way more than my baby needs. My freezer is full. Soemone suggested I donate the extra to a milk bank that gives it to preemies.

Besides the absolute pain of having bloodwork done, getting letters not just from my own doctors but from my duaghter's pediatrician, and THEN following ridiculous other guidelines, I said forget it.

Especially considering that I would not be compensated AT ALL, but the milk bank would sell my milk (my DONATED, free milk) at an insane profit.

it's the babies i want to save!

Not only is this one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, it's also one of the least efficient, if the goal actually is to feed children who need to be fed.

To me, it just sounds like one more (and in this case, icky, way) for Americans to impose what they think is best upon people who might be better helped another way.

Am I the only one whose stomach turns at the idea of this? Perhaps breast feeding is the most natural thing in the world. (I don't happen to believe it's the only nutritious way to feed a baby.) But giving breast milk FROM OTHER WOMEN is not natural. I'm sure the women who donate believe they are doing something good. But it's not the most well-thought out or far-reaching way to help.

I hear the echo of Oprah building one very expensive school, when several less expensive but quite suitable schools might have served more girls.

I'm not a mom and I've never breast fed. However, I AM a scientist, and the data is clear that breast milk and formula are *not* equivalent. Breast milk contains antibodies and other proteins (such as lactoferrin and lysozyme) that protect infants without fully developed immune systems from disease in the environment. Diarrhea and pneumonia may be childhood pests in the US and Europe, but these diseases kill 4-5 million children every year in developing countries.

I'm not saying that all women must breast feed or that women who choose not to are damaging their babies for life. The difference between formula and breast milk is probably negligable for healthy infants in a calorie-rich and disease-free environment. However, in many poor African countries breast feeding really does mean the difference between life and death. Four million children in developing countries die every year in their first month of life. Breast feeding could save an estimated one million of these children-- for these children, breast milk is indeed liquid gold. If this charity is helping to make a dent in that shameful figure, then more power to them and their work.

But giving breast milk FROM OTHER WOMEN is not natural.

I respectfully disagree with you on this. Human beings have used wet nurses for centuries. (And I know that can speak to issues of class and/or race, but it was the norm until very recently). Women took care of each other's babies.

I also diagree (I forget who posted this opinion) that donating breast milk to African babies is cultural piracy. Most women in Africa do breast feed their babies. It's free, convenient, and beneficial to moms and babies (funny enough, those pros apply in america as well!) Most women breast feed for far longer than American moms do. The milk being donated is going to orphaned babies. So, obviously, their mom's can't breastfeed.

I do agree that air mailing milk to Africa is perhaps not a very efficient way to help. But we send foodstuffs of all kinds around the world. I'd far rather see us donate breast milk than formula (though if babies are hungry and all we have is formula, send that too!) My one concern (after my earlier stated issues with Prolacta's less than philanthropic agenda) is that donated milk be properly screened, to the same standards as donated milk for American babies.

Could we find another entity to help with this project? The UN, the WHO, UNICEF, Save the Children, etc? Someone familiar with the people andcountries already, who doesn't have a profiteering bent?