I Eat Babies' (Afterbirth)

Cynicism abounds over the announcement that Tom Cruise will eat Katie Holmes' placenta immediately after she gives birth. No details yet as to how it will be cooked and whether or not the occasion will be televised. Most believe this is more about publicity than getting in touch with some primal or ancesteral self. Presumably details will emerge bit by bit in order to savour the moment. I sense a certain territorial angst here from the press who would not themselves hesitate to grab and elaborate on such a story if they had 'discovered' it for themselves. Many of the British Sunday Papers write stories like this all the time. Perhaps part of the problem is that the announcement 'missed' the Sundays.

Digging a little deeper into the idea reveals that far from being a bizarre notion it is a practise well rooted in history and given that placentas are designed to be nutritional obviously had a functional justification. Death of the mother in childbirth was quite common. Nowadays it is extremely rare. A mother who has lost a lot of blood would be happy for the nourishment. There are also beliefs that it prevents post natal depression and restores hormonal balance. Less probabal is the post I found of a woman whose hippie mother had a home birth without drugs in order to be 'natural' and promptly buried the placenta under a Linden tree. I was about to dismiss this as nothing more than superstition when I noticed that the poster's username is 'treehugger'. Perhaps more care should be taken about the disposal of such a sensitive organ.

It has taken us a very long time to shed our animal past and there remain many examples of how we hanker after it still. Once we were caught by the civilisation kick there really was no turning back. Smell is probably the most obvious one which could never make a comeback. In my lifetime the requirement to shower daily and disguise the natural body odour has become firmly established. In the 19th century and previously the smell which came from human bodies was very pronounced to say the least. Our attitude to pain has changed also. Once just something you had to put up with, now totally unacceptable. I saw a television programme recently in which modern children experienced schooling in the 1950s style and in one scene a girl was near hysterical because she was being made to run 100 yards. Her belief was that her human rights were being infringed by this barbaric act.

To return to the cooking of placentas. I have found a website of recipies reproduced from Mothering Magazine, September 1983, Vol. 28, pg 76. Here you can choose from: Placenta Cocktail, Placenta Lasangne, Placenta Spaghetti, Placenta Stew, Placenta Pizza and Placenta Roast. Find them all on: http://www.twilightheadquarters.com/placenta.html

The idea that eating a placenta is just practical and not an act of cannibalism is something I have some difficulty with. I suppose the notion is that it is of no further use to the mother or child after the birth so it may as well be put to good use. Well, supposing that a group of people lost in a remote part of the world suffer an attack from a crocodile who bites off someone's leg but is repelled before being able to devour it. The leg is of no further use to the unfortunate wretch who has lost it so why not eat it? What then if the victim takes a turn for the worst and dies from his injuries. His body is of no further use. Why not eat it? At least the man died of his injuries and was not killed for food. Which is worse killing an animal for food or eating meat from an animal (or human) who has died from some other cause.

If my argument were sound the next step would be the justification of eating all dead people. Instead of a wake the family would gather for a feast - 'Dearly beloved we are gathered here today to eat the body of our dearly departed'. The idea is clearly repulsive. There is something about human attachment behaviour which prevents us from closing the final chapter on our loved ones in anything but a grieving way. There really is a distinction between humans and animals. At the end of life the sanctity of the body is clear. At the beginning of life it is fiercely argued, the biggest problem being that of deciding at what point an embryo becomes human. Placentas and other bodily secretions are not human. They are the waste products of the human organism, never capable of sustaining independent life and never part of the human body. It is morally, therefore, acceptable to eat them, just like drinking urine, without this being an act of cannibalism. Personally, I am far too civilised, and have no wish to emulate my ancestors but if Tom gets a kick out of it well good luck to him. I am curious to note that the literature I have reviewed so far refers to the benefit to the mother or child (usually later in childhood) but I can find no reference to fathers eating the placenta. Perhaps animal fathers do this in order to clean up the evidence when the young are at their most vulnerable but what of human fathers? If anyone knows of any evidence please post a comment. Meanwhile, I will keep an eye on the press to see what develops.

Pierre