Mom forced to give up gallons of breast milk at Heathrow
 

Woman is on an extended business trip and pumps on a regular basis, storing the milk for her return home. Upon arrival at Heathrow, she's carrying 500 ounces, 300 of which are frozen solid (500oz is nearly 15 litres, for those of you outside the US), and is trying to carry them on. UK law says that "reasonable" amounts of liquid milk can be carried when traveling with a baby - but she was not, so despite offering to pack the milk in checked bags, she is forced to dump it all. Yes, including the frozen milk, which "might melt and BECOME a liquid" she was told.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel...hrow/83492248/

I don't know how to feel about this case. On the one hand, I'm SO over the whole liquids thing - binary liquid explosives are a myth originating in a movie, and genuine liquid explosives are generally so volatile that they can't be carried in large enough quantities to do significant damage to a plane without severe risk of boom-boom during the taxi ride to the airport. I also fully support a mother's right to pump and store milk for her baby's future use, without a bunch of hassles.

Yet, trying to carry on 15 litres of any liquid, even milk or a medically necessary liquid, seems pretty extreme. I mean, the woman was away for 15 days, so she had essentially pumped a 15-day supply, and even frozen, it's got a limited shelf life, so was she planning on another 15-day absence from her baby in the near future and needed that much of a stockpile? The process is perfectly ordinary, but the quantities (of milk and time) seem oddly excessive to me.

I tend to agree with you that this amount was excessive and that it was not unreasonable for her to be told to dump at least some of it. Would it still be frozen by the time she got home? If it was slightly thawed, could it be refrozen?

I kind of agree, but....if someone shows up at the checkpoint with a 20-pound bag of alfalfa pellets or potting soil or twelve identical left shoes, that might seem strange to me, but if it isn't a threat, then there's no reason to deny it just because it seems strange. This is the same kind of wandering thinking that leads us to TSOs who clearly have no idea what IRROPS are and who try to analyze how much breast milk/baby food/meds someone should need for a trip.

I suppose it's part of TSA's mission to look more closely at things they don't understand - but ONLY for the purpose of ruling it out as a threat.

"I don't understand why anyone would want to travel with..." is not a valid reason for confiscating something that otherwise complies with the rules (completely frozen liquids, for example).

(Yes, I know this happened in the UK, but it could easily happen in the US and my response would be the same).

I just wonder about how healthy the constantly thawing and unthawing would be when "mom" has to move it around. I cannot imagine the milk would be safe after 14 days of being dragged around.

But from a security standpoint, no big deal if she checks it.

100 ml, 1 litre, or 15 liters why should anyone care? Screen the item and move on. ETD would give good enough results to determine if the item is WEI or not. Isn't that really the only concern?

(shakes head)

+1000

Who cares if she wants to bring on 15 litres of frozen rotten banana? If it meets all other criteria, then what is the problem (to anyone but a tin-foil forgot-the-mission TSO?)

That's nearly 35lbs of milk.

While the rules are dumb, I don't really see the rationale for making an exception to them in this case. Bottom line, I don't see how she really has any more right to be angry than someone forced to dump a bottle of Diet Coke.

So? If it isn't a threat to aviation security and it conforms to other rules (size limits, etc), it should be allowed.

It doesn't meet all the other criteria, that's the whole point. She had 200oz of liquid milk (vs. the 3.4oz per container limit, and ~32oz cumulative limit (one quart baggie), so that's definitely over the limit.

As for the 300oz of frozen milk, I don't see any specific references in the UK rules site, but TSA (in the US) regards anything that's liquid at room temperature as a liquid.

Please note that I said:

If completely frozen liquids are allowed, then 3.4 doesn't apply. If the solid substance does not violate any other rules (frozen in the shape of a gun, dangerous prohibited material, fails the swab test), then it will be confiscated.

If it meets those criteria, then it should not be denied just because someone thinks it's weird.

"Weird" does not equal "threat to aviation security".

It may look weird if I approach the checkpoint with a leadfoil hat on my head - and a suitcase full of lead foil hats. But if it all passes the swab test and manual exam and isn't seen as a potential weapon, I should be allowed to pass without further harassment.

It's not that it's "weird," it's that neither the frozen nor liquid milk are permitted in those quantities.

What rule prohibits bringing solid items (books, frozen items, shoes, Ipads, etc)?

You may want to review TSA rules (for what they're worth). Frozen liquids are permitted as long as they stay frozen. TSA also allows chapsticks, although anyone who ever left one in a hot car knows how quickly they can turn to liquid. As long as it's solid when you transit the checkpoint, it doesn't matter if it melts later.

If she had 35 lbs. of frozen solid milk, it shouldn't be handled any differently than if she had 35 lbs. of books, 35 lbs. of left shoes, or 35 lbs. of green crayons.

Scan it, swab it, if it passes, let it go.

I agree, screen it and move on. TSA policies don't matter in this case it was the UK.

British rules are much more strict than TSA rules. You can have only enough extra in your carry-on for the trip you are taking both for baby food and medicine. If baby is not traveling with you, breast milk must be in checked luggage.