Woman Says Breast Milk Kept Her Off Plane
 

(CBS) CHICAGO A Chicago area woman says she was kept off a plane for carrying three ounces of breast milk.

Cheryl Cirillo-Tarica, said she planned to board an American Airlines flight from Chicago's O'Hare Airport to Pittsburgh for a business trip this past Monday. That flight was canceled, forcing her to wait several hours for another flight.

Cirillo-Tarica said she came to the TSA security checkpoint with a bag containing three ounces of breast milk she had just pumped, and was told she could not board the plane unless she threw it away.

She said TSA workers told her she could not pass through a security checkpoint. TSA agents said that the six-ounce bag she was carrying was too big, even though the bag only had three ounces of milk.
http://cbs2.com/national/topstories_...172235839.html

freaking ridiculous... this morning at MCO I actually felt bad for some unaccompanied minors whose mother had packed food for. One of them was crying that the mean TSA man was taking her milk away.

Thanks Kip! You're a .................

But just think! That milk, when mixed with other substances brought on board (after-shave, deodorant, toothpaste, etc.) by co-conspirators, could have blown the plane to smithereens! I for one thank the stars that the Kipster is protecting us from explosive breast milk.

Think of the children!

(Why do we even bother?)

Miscreants who steal breast milk ought to spend a week locked in a closet with just water and maybe bread.

It might not be a bad idea to also treat the filth who came up with these liquid policies in a similar manner. Denial of health care should be how Comrade Hawley spends the rest of his wretched life.

Just one more reason why the liquid ban makes zero sense.

No child, no milk in a container over 3.4 ounces.

They went by the book.

Once again, DC makes the locals look like idiots. (not that some need any help) :(

Let's be clear - she wasn't kept off the plane for having the breastmilk. They would have let her through if she dumped the bag of milk. She chose to leave the airport (taking her milk with her) rather than dump the milk.

This is a personal issue with me - I made a few trips, 2 international ones, as a lactating mom and I've transported breastmilk dealing with the current stupid restrictions. Basically, you can't pump outside the secure area and bring the milk thru the checkpoint. She shouldn't have pumped in the AA office; she should have gone inside the secure area and then pumped. If she had, she could have carried the milk on her flight and to her destination. She also can pump on the plane (disgusting but you can pump in the lav - I've done it quite a few times) to maintain your milk supply.

According to the article, the woman "said she explained that she was carrying several days of food for her infant daughter". But also said she was only carrying 3 oz of milk? Doesn't add up - 3oz is about a third of a single meal for a 10 month old (the same age as my son, he drinks 3 9oz bottles a day of milk). Doesn't add up.

She just got really lucky that she got away with it on prior trips. I frankly wouldn't risk having to dump all that milk - I packed a cooler and checked it to transport my milk home after my trips (and prayed it wouldn't get lost).

According to the article, the TSA also said she'd have to check her pump. That's hard to believe, I never found any issue carrying my pump as long as it was within carryon limits. I couldn't carry on gel ice packs per regulations. But I always was able to bring my pump through checkpoints, as well as empty (6oz) containers.

Of course, the issue here is why the TSA has a restriction on breastmilk when you're NOT with your baby, though you can carry breastmilk if you have your baby with you....

We all know that milk is perfectly safe while in the breast, but as soon as it comes out it takes on a magical explosive property that makes it totally unsafe.

This is all just part of the liquid idiocy and does nothing for security. It doesn't mean a damn thing that it's "by the book." The whole reason she was denied was because it was in a larger than 3 oz container, not the fact that she was carrying breast milk.

Of course, there are several issues in this story as well.

Which is why they let people bring empty bottles thru all the time. :rolleyes:

There is no intelligence whatsover used in their testing. If there were, it would be pretty easy to see how stupid this was. If TSA really knew what the threats were, they wouldn't have this liquid lunacy while ignoring other threats, like unscreened cargo.

:mad: Damn right that's demeaning. The article isn't clearn, but it appears she was already on the secure side at one point. Would she REALLY need to bring a bomb thru again if she had already been there? :confused:

Where's the video for this? There should be audio with it as well. :td:

Super

[
There is no intelligence whatsover used in their testing. If there were, it would be pretty easy to see how stupid this was. If TSA really knew what the threats were, they wouldn't have this liquid lunacy while ignoring other threats, like unscreened cargo.



Which "unscreend cargo" are you referring to?

So if the breastmilk was in the "original container", since I assume they contained more than 3.4 ounces, she would have to leave them behind too - if "they went by the book"? :confused:

Unless they didn't, and she can fit the "containers" in a quart bag "for inspection"! (But it would be tough to put them separately on the belt!)

It doesn't make sense! :rolleyes:

yes, they went by the book but not he "no baby/no fly"book.....it was that the baggie was larger than 3.0 oz and in this case size does matter. personally, i think they (the tsa at ord ) should have let her pass but rulez iz rulez and in this case it's a stoopid rule and i've seen it mis-applied, abused and "exceptioned" and many different airports.

now given all the inconsistencies that the tsa has provided, i'd love to see a news exposé to show just how the sysyem of screener discretion does not work.

i.e.:

at this airport they allowed me to bring xxx thru the checkpoint but at this other airport, they would not allow me to bring xxx thru the checkpoint

at this airport, i was told that yyy is a prohibited item where it clearly states on the tsa's own list that the item is allowed.

at this airport, i was told to remove my orthopedic shoes (tsa website say not allowed by screeners)

etc., etc., etc.

you get my drift and i don't mean this as a ding to those like Bart who, although i haven't met him, from his posts, he runs a solid operation and his input is great ^. it's meant to show that the system doesn't work on a consistent basis and thee needs to be a focus on that. he||, if fam's can wear rear-looking non perscription eyeglasses, why can't the media go thru the checkpoint wearing an "eye-glass cam".

It did not go unnoticed that, once again, the TSA trotted out a female spokeshole to deal with another "female" issue.

Funny -- I just checked TSA Mythbusters and didn't see any mention of this incident, let alone the video and the TSA incident report? Guess there was no myth to bust, until she starts making the talkshow circuit.

Some of you are really into the "shoot the messenger" thing, huh?

You missed my point. Go back in the archives and check out reports of confrontations involving female passengers. In nearly 100% of the confrontations, the TSA sends out a female to be the talking head. They're smart enough social engineers to understand that sending out a male talking head to justify actions or blow off complaints regarding breast milk or groping would only enrage women even more. The TSA is also smart enough to understand that the only group in the US powerful enough to threaten their jobs or the existence of the TSA itself is a bunch of angry women.

:cool:I'll be happy to "assist" with these "inspections" (insert Beavis-&-Butthead-like laugh here):D:):D;)