Human Breast Milk From Cows?

maury.mccown/flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


By now, the virtues of breastfeeding your baby are well known: Breast milk protects against obesity, allergies, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and bad teeth, among other health problems.

Sometimes, though, for a variety of reasons, women can’t breastfeed. But a couple of scientists in Argentina just may have solved that problem—by genetically engineering a cow to produce human milk.

To achieve this strange feat, a team from the Institute for Biotechnology Research, the National Institute of Agribusiness Technology, and the National University of San Martin harvested human genes carrying two proteins that are present in human milk, but virtually non-existent in cow’s milk. They then used the cells to create a genetically modified calf embryo, which they implanted in an adult cow. The calf was born in April, and was named Rosita. (The Telegraph reports that the calf was nearly named after Cristina Kirchner, President of Argentina. Kirchner politely declined the honor, however, asking “What woman would like to have a cow named after her?” Wise words). 

As an adult, Rosita should produce milk that is similar to humans’, in what will make for “a development of great importance for the nutrition of infants,” the Bueno Aires-based National Institute of Agribusiness Technology said in a statement.

But Nancy Mohrbacher, author of four books on breastfeeding, isn’t so sure. It “would be a big stretch, to say that it can be substituted for mother’s milk,” Mohrbacher says. That’s in part because cow’s milk must be processed to be sold on the market. (We learned recently that, apparently, the same goes for straight-up breast milk. Recall the brouhaha over London’s breastmilk ice cream). The refining process required for all milk could eliminate some of what would make Rosita’s milk human-like in the first place.

“Mother’s milk has live cells in it,” Mohrbacher explains. “If this milk, whatever it is, and however it’s different from regular cow’s milk, if it’s going to be sold to mothers, it will be processed, and so any living aspects of the milk would be killed, because that happens during any processing.”

Live cells are a big part of what makes breastmilk beneficial for infants. Leukocytes, for example, are living cells found in breast milk that help fight infection. By Mohrbacher’s reasoning, such cells—because they are living—would likely be maimed in the milk-refining process, making this cow-milk-turned-human less healthful than the real stuff. That processing, though, wouldn’t necessarily destroy all of the substance’s breastmilk-like benefits—certain baby-friendly proteins and enzymes could probably withstand pasteurization.

Even so, the economics of producing cow-human milk at scale are pretty daunting. And, um, unsettling. One Rosita is weird enough. But a whole herd?

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate