The Covent Garden ice cream parlour which recently got busted by Westminster council health operatives over its creamy blend of human mam milk, vanilla pods and lemon zest, now faces a far more serious threat to its jub juice concoction: Lady Gaga. The singer has taken serious exception to the "Baby Gaga" name which …
Did some work at EMI years ago. Remember some middle-manager guy walking through the office talking to someone saying of higher management 'They're shitting themselves. Queen management are all over this.'
So yes, maybe a good shoeing from proper big boys would make her shut her pointless piehole.
Vapid Twat [homage to earlier posting]
..Dear Mr Lawyer.
you may wish to understand trademanrk law before firing off these letters. By saying that our breastmilk ice cream infringes on her name can only apply that she is an utter tit, as that is the only thing I can see in common.
Now F**K off.
Lots of Love
The makers of GAGA Ice cream
Breast milk can transmit disease to babies, but so can breathing on it. In other words, there are few diseases that a baby can get from breast milk that it does not already have from being in the womb for 9 months and in its mother’s arms since then.
Apparently HIV positive mothers can receive drugs to reduce the risk of transmitting the infection to the baby during pregnancy. If the baby is born without HIV then it is not recommended that the mother breastfeeds. The risk of catching HIV outweighs the benefits of the milk.
If the baby already has HIV from the mother, then there is probably no additional risk from breastfeeding. This does not mean that the milk is safe for anyone else!
Pasteurisation should sort this out, if it is properly done.
Hepatitis, mastitis, and god knows how many STD's could be caught from this material. And don't get me started on those muppets selling unpasteurised cheese and milk.
Point is, if patient zero can be traced back to said ice-cream establishment, it could be the start of a series of civil suits against him, and then there's food safety...a criminal matter.
Clearly Lady Gaga has the good sense to distance herself AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE from this idiot.
>> Hepatitis, mastitis, and god knows how many STD's could be caught from this material. And don't get me started on those muppets selling unpasteurised cheese and milk.
STDs ? From Breast Milk ?
As already suggested, if it's so darn bad for people, why do we feed babies on it ?
And I might point out that humans have been around on this earth for far longer than pasteurisation, so if unpasteurised milk and cheese is so bad for us, just how on earth did our species survive for all those thousands of years ?
>Hepatitis, mastitis, and god knows how many STD's could be caught from this material.
If you followed the story, the milk is pasteurised. Besides, as the guy below said, why do we give it to babies if it's so dangerous? To ensure that babies inherit their parents diseases?
>Point is, if patient zero can be traced back to said ice-cream establishment, it could be the start of a series of civil suits against him
The seller is happy to sell his ice cream, and I'd be happy to sue him to get some easy money. So since people are happy on both sides, I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
>Clearly Lady Gaga has the good sense to distance herself AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE from this idiot.
By jumping on the breast milk ice cream story and have her name publicised alongside the product in the media, just like in this very article? I somehow fail to follow your logic.
.... Yes i know it said that , i'm sure it probably even mentioned which official government organisations (VLA) certified it for distribution into the general population zoonoses -free, and maybe mastitis isn't totally an std, but a zoonoses as well. And yes, cheese IS made from bacteria/fungi from culture libraries,or seed starter culture, but even those need rigorous screening , and require a minimum bulk to start with. (See murray moo-young "comprehensive Biotechnology")... as for me being a muppet, i consider myself in the same grouping as edwina currie then, and we ALL know how wrong SHE was? yes? And the potato famine could have been avoided with a more advanced breed of potato? yes?
"And don't get me started on those muppets selling unpasteurised cheese and milk."
You, sir, are a muppet and a troll. Every time you eat Cheddar cheese you're eating unpasteurised cheese. Cheddar cannot be called cheddar unless it's unpasteurised - it's part of the cheddaring method. So tell me, how unsafe is the single most widely-eaten kind of cheese in Britain?
Add HIV to the list of diseases that can be transmitted via breast milk. Of course, since human breast milk is quite expensive and hard to come by, I suspect this ice cream shop is simply lying about one of the main ingredients used...
Would you consume anything that came out of Paris's nipples?
"Clearly Lady Gaga has the good sense to distance herself AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE from this idiot."
There's a few more things I wish it would distance itself from AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, like maybe a microphone and any kind of recording studio, or maybe even Oxygen.
From the Intellectual Property Office website (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-other/t-infringe.htm):
"Where the registered mark has a significant reputation, infringement may also arise from the use of the same or a similar mark which, although not causing confusion, damages or takes unfair advantage of the reputation of the registered mark. This can occasionally arise from the use of the same or similar mark for goods or services which are dissimilar to those covered by the registration of the registered mark."
Hope this helps. Note that I am not expressing any kind of opinion about the law, merely answering your question.
farted up little arse of an artisit with notions of self importance WAY above her weight.
Ga-ga, gaga or however you wish to pronounce it is a word, not a fucking trade mark.
Now, please, stay in America where you may be appreciated. We across the pond have no use for you or your ilk. We have enough prats whose heads whistle in crosswinds without you adding to the mix.
......"...and that's why they said all the milk was screened you muppet.
It's not like it's straight from the breast into the bowl...
No more a safety issue than *properly screened* cows' milk or human blood transfusions."
Screened by who for what? and whose word are you taking for it? Who did the auditing? Is it GMP compliant? Hell! since it dosen't come from a Veterinary source, but a Human source, is it classed under Biopharmaceutical rather than Veterinary legislation.
Did this guy ask for any advice before launching this product or not? Is it injurious to public health? ok...you might not die , but you might transmit something to someone else...maybe someone older..or pregnant. The point is, you don't know.
probably is no more serious than cows milk. BUT! .....if (and it's a BIG if)
what's the worst case scenario, and
who's responsible if things go ...er...tits-up!..certainly not o'Connor.
People have become FAR too complacent about food safety these days, in my opinion.
BTW...from the breast into the bowl does satisfy proper aseptic technique, and the milk dosen't come from a pooled source, so on those scores it is safer than o'connors product, and also, you get to do your own visual QC evaluation directly. And if you get to this stage with anyone, you've probably got a lot of microflora in common anyway.
...Most of the continental Unpasteurised milk producers have heavily controlled dairies, and the cattle practically live in laboratory conditions and are carefully audited.
I do remember quite a few of the smaller cheese start-ups claim unpasteurised milk in their cheese. Most of them don't last...salmonella takes a big toll.
Yes, there are sellers of these products who are not muppets, but who have taken the expensive option of management testing, audit and control to minimise health risks. (the smart ones have their own gmp compliant in-house laboratory)
The "muppets" are the ones who start cheesemaking or hobby farming as a part time interest, and start flogging product willy nilly without measuring the consequences.
They are the ones I have the least sympathy for because they're the most lethal.
I was very fond of referring people to this case but an acquaintance told me that one risks exposing oneself as a legal ingénue by using the word 'versus' in the context of an English civil case, Apparently if you want to do it properly you should write it 'v.' and pronounce it 'and'.
IANAL and would be glad to hear if this is useful advice or if I was being fed a line ...
All legal cases are X v. Y in English courts
But most people dont get that and the term "versus" has moved into more common usage outside the courtroom, probably due to its use in many merkin TV drama's
I probably should have written
" I would refer you to response in the matter of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)"
I shall now await the rise of the pedants as IANAL either.
But surely the whole point of the court case is party (or parties) A versus party (or parties) B
I'm not sure why it would make a difference that it's v. said "and"
probably some bizarre legalese rules
It's the legalese and the strict adherence to the word of the law whilst remaining completely ignorant of the spirit of the law which makes those fluent in legalese a lot of money, IMO (allegedly etc.).
He tells me that 'v.' stands for 'versus' but should not be written 'vs' or 'versus'.
It is pronounced 'and' in civil cases (Smith v. Jones) and 'against' in criminal ones (R. v. Jones) where R. is Regina or the Crown.
I asked him why and he said he didn't know, but thought it was useful for working out if people knew what they sounding off about. When I said that was typical of lawyers to be deliberately arcane he pointed out that I had sniggered when he had referred to his desktop computer as 'the hard drive', and he suggested that 'geeks' probably use a similar strategy to assess the competence of the folks they are dealing with.
It's amazing how many mugs there are here, talking total rubbish. For a start, as it's been pointed out numerous times, the milk is pasteurised. Even if it isn't, it's hardly going to kill, seeing as babies drink it straight from the source. In fact, there's a campaign to get more people to feed their kids breast milk!
Secondly, it's blatantly obvious that the owner of the ice cream shop has been "inspired" by Lady Gaga in naming it. To deny it is to make yourself look like a fool. Even Lady Gaga has blatantly stated where she got her inspiration for the name from, so lets not lie here and excuse someone from a lack of imagination.
Lastly, the owner claiming that it's a sound a baby makes - don't excuse it for the clear copying infringement it is. If you were right, you would change it to Baby Googoo or numerous other things babies are said to say. No, you clearly don't want to because you're desperate to trade on Lady Gaga's name. Simple as.
I have to wonder where one gets enough human milk to make ice cream with.
Do you just put an ad on CraigsList?
> And breast-milk ice-cream? Seriously, yuk.
Actually it's not so bad. Breast milk that is, I haven't had the ice cream. Just leave the kid with the 'rents and go away for the weekend -- your wife won't give you a choice in the matter.
@SImon Hobson - the problem with arguments that go "we've done this for thousands of years without destroying the race" is that the average life span of a human for the last thousand years or so is a lot lower than it is now.
@AC 10th March 2011 13:16 GMT - A single baby drinking it's mothers breast milk is not a good argument here either. A more appropriate comparison is having hundreds of babies drinking the milk from hundreds of mothers. I'm not sure we would think that is as safe.
The questions about the safety should be "how effective is pasteurisation?" for example, does it kill protein based illnesses, (CJD?) and does it matter if it doesn't? Also, is there testing made of cows milk that isn't done here that should be.
I'm ignoring the Lady Gaga stuff because I don't really care about Lady Gaga.
Yes, in this case it appears that the milk is screened and pasteurised.
But, the argument that "babies are fed it so it must be fine" is downright stupid. For example: if a mother has HIV and does not pass it on to her baby in the womb it may still pass in breast milk -- I wonder if it would pass to another human? Human milk could carry pathogens, and is probably more likely to carry human pathogens than cow milk.
strong scientific evidence that not feeding breast milk to (at least) babies can reduce the efficiency of the immune system as even harmless pathogens / bacteria etc make the immune system respond. Kids being brought up in these ultra disinfected days seem to be made of somewhat less stout constitution than those of my era.. Being 20-25 and off work for "stress" is considered normal these days...Still, nature will always weed out the runts....
I'm ignoring the the Help & Save-me claptrap. The guy who makes the stuff knows about food hygiene; he wouldn't last long in a dairy-based business if he didn't. He's gone through screening and had it pasteurised etc.
The "passing off" case isn't quite as simple as the Reg article makes out. If you look here ( http://bit.ly/iap92p ), you see that he has unfortunately decided to dress his servers in Lady GaGa "inspired" kit.
Possibly he might have got away with the GaGa thing if he hadn't decided to milk it quite so much?
If you buy a few liters of pasteurised milk to make ice-cream, and it turns out to be infected, then it is someone else's problem. Someone else down the supply chain hasn't kept up with their legal requirements for hygiene. Normal dairy farmers get checked, but there is no similar mechanism in place for human milk. Additionally, few disease in cows milk can be transfered to humans, so a bit of lax control of the pasteurisation process might not be a problem. Every single disease in human milk can be transfered to humans, so the quality bar needs to be set higher.
So, the health squad pop down to the shop and ask "has this milk be pasteurised properly" and the guy naturally answers, "sure gov". Are you going to believe him and run the risk of problems, or are you going to check the stuff independently first?
In the meantime he has been given a green light to sell the stuff.
It only remains for Tesco™ to sell their rights to Coca-Cola® who will sue Icecreamists℠ for infringement of their protected property and use the proceeds to fight a global lawsuit against Pepsi® for the right to be the planet's biggest tit.
Buy a glass of milk now, while you can still afford one.
twats like this should be put in their place for trying to put fear of living and creating in all of us.
This guy should sue the crap out of her for unlawfully suppressing his right to do business.
I'm tired of stupid wankers thinking just because they have a trademark on their mark in their business that they somehow own WORDS THAT EXISTED AGES BEFORE THEM.
Her music was OK, she's on my SHIT LIST now.
All we want is Baby-o-gaga, baby-o-gaga!
[not really, of course the power of suggestion, for all you old-school Harry Hill fans]
The bigger irony is that we don't just steal milk from calves, the bull calves tend to be shot because they obviously won't produce milk, you only need a _tiny_ number for propagation of the species and bull calves born to today's milk-producers-on-legs aren't economical for beef, and no-one wants veal.