By lifescript [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
In an essay describing why she decided to clone Samantha, Barbra said: “It was easier to let Sammie go if I knew I could keep some part of her alive, something that came from her DNA.”
It seems like a long time since Dolly the sheep, the first animal ever cloned, was born. But the technology needed to clone animals is hardly ordinary and routine. I’m not even sure such procedures are regulated. Yet, Barbra Streisand happily used modern scientific procedures to copy the exact DNA of her favorite dog to create puppies. So, it only makes sense that Barbra is a champion of science, a defender of modern practices, and a voice promoting the possibilities of DNA; right?
Wrong.
At least, not when it comes to agriculture. Barbra is no fan of modern production methods, including the use of genetically modified crops (GMOs). She was a supporter of California’s Prop 37, which would have demonized biotechnology by requiring labels on all foods containing GMOs. The blog on her website routinely publishes stories celebrating anti-GMO activists and championing organic agriculture. She has even published lies that GMOs are hurting bees, butterflies, and birds.
The hypocrisy is evident. Unlike pet cloning, GMOs are heavily regulated, thoroughly researched, and have been safely used for over 20 years. There is scientific consensus that the use of genetically modified foods is safe.
Perhaps the real tragedy here is how Barbra’s misguided opinions hurt low-income families. She can afford to blow $50,000 to clone a pet, but most people cannot. For those struggling to make ends meet, her support of organic-only, anti-GMO propaganda scares consumers out of purchasing safe, affordable food. This is the problem we see so often: affluent celebrities demonize technology that produces low-priced, quality goods and food for the average consumer, while they personally accept pricey science when it suits them.
Listen, I totally understand Barbra’s decision. If I had more money than I knew what to do with, I may have considered cloning my favorite pets, too. But I also don’t parade around telling everyone how awful scientific advancement is, especially in agriculture, unless it suits me.
It is time for Barbra to change her position on GMOs and the same scientific advancements that allowed her to keep a piece of her precious pet.
How true good article. That is what my thoughts were when I first heard about it.
Barbra won’t be INGESTING her cloned dogs, so comparison to GMO crops is illogical. Yet my comments NEVER see the light of day, as they question the science (with 3rd party studies) and economics (with 3rd party studies). This site exists to keep the cult of GMO benefits alive.
If labeling a food as to its true ingredients would “demonize biotechnology” then you HAVEN’T done your job of presenting TRUE verified benefits with non-industry references. We don’t eat talking points and marketing speak, but pesticides inherent in the plant or doused prior to harvest, knowing that our microbiome is in peril.
Go ahead and publish this comment, then respond with a listing of benefits to the consumer that are supported by non-industry research. Just once.
That’s cute.
I have literally *never* seen another comment come in from you before, so I see what you’re trying to do there but it doesn’t work. Anyone can take a look at the popular articles I have and see that I approve comments from people that both like my stuff and people that do not like my stuff. I also spend a good deal of time responding to those comments.
As for Barbra, she is being a hypocrite. Scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe. Scientific consensus (perhaps to a less extent) is that cloning is safe. The fact that she picks and chooses which science to believe is the hypocrisy. She only wants to support what feels good to her (cloning her dog), and ignores the rest when she doesn’t like it (Monsanto).
As for research on GMOs, I see that you post about all these studies that you supposedly have to justify your position, but you provide no information about any of them. You know why? Because to the extent they exist they have been thoroughly debunked as junk science. I’ve also posted about a lot of them and invite you to peruse my articles to learn about that.
Otherwise, your suggestion is a really great idea! I will actually write an article about how GMOs benefit consumers. Thank you for that!
Barbara is a hypocrite!!
Great read, very informative easy read – thanks for promoting scientific advancement and bash hipocrits Amanda!
Thank you so much!! You and your family are heroes in my book. All famers and workers in agriculture are…. I am a veterinarian. I’ve worked for decades in animal agriculture, and am well versed in the issues that face us all. So, your family, who keep us and our food source animals fed with quality crops are my heroes.
When I heard of this hypocrisy I rolled my eyes and shrugged my shoukders. I know Ms Streisand’s stance on things like GMO crops, and this was a curious choice. Lol.
I also hope people would also understand that cloned animals are not an exact duplicate of the original. They are basically an identical twin. Anyone who has know any identical twins know that while they look very much alike, they can be very different people. Same goes with cloned pets. I hope the veterinarians involved with Ms. Streisand’s new puppies have done a good job explaining that to her. I would hate to hear that six months or a year in, she decides to rehome the puppies as none are really like her original dog. It did sound like she was aware they will be genetically her dog’s ‘puppies’, rather than identical copies of her dog. So much more goes into a dog’s final demeanor and personality than just the genetic code presented.
I look forward to your GMO undemonizing blog…. that would be great! I am not a follower of blogs, but I believe I will sign up for yours. Again, prayers for you and your family, best to you all in your endeavors and looking forward to a sane and scientifically accurate GMO safety discussion.