Customer Reviews

Eating in the Dark: America's Experiment with Genetically Engineered Food

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is an excellent introduction to anyone looking to learn more about genetically modifyed food. I asked my husband what he thought of genetically modifyed food, he answered that "It's good isn't it? Aren't they developing food with more vitamins that will grow with fewer pesticiedes?" This would have been my answer had I not read this book. According to the author, and this reviewer, the American public doesn't realize that they're eating genetically modyfied food NOW. It's in your "Betty Croker" mix and in a bag of potatoes, it's in your polenta corn meal mix and milk. This author carefully chronicles how the EPA, FDA and USDA have failed to inform the public of this change in our food chain and worse -- the have utterly and completely failed to ensure that it's safe to both eat and grow despite public opinion to the contrary. While other industirlized nations (European Union, Japan, etc.) have instituted lableing the US has not. The documented disregard for the public's safety will have you wondering who's money is in who's pocket and exposes the biggest loophole in federal regulation.

This book is frightening. Bioengineered food is mixed into everything we eat, and, while it may be harmless to humans and the environment (though tests and "gene pollution" of the environment indicate otherwise), the huge chemical companies who created the genetically engineered crops persuaded the FDA, USDA, and the EPA to let them put the products on the market without fully testing the foods. The European Union, Japan, and, well, essentially every other country in the world refuses to import bioengineered food from the USA - and after reading this book, you'll understand why.

Kathleen Hart's "Eating in the Dark" documents how genetically engineered (GE) foods have been widely introduced without the American public's knowledge or consent. As such, the book is a sobering story of deeply-entrenched corporate interests and the trampling of consumer rights.

Ms. Hart is an experienced journalist who has done an excellent job documenting the activities of the biotech industry and its opponents. The author shows that much of the so-called debate that has played out in the media has been mostly pro-industry propaganda and public relations, with most Americans remaining blissfully unaware of the risks they may be taking by eating GE food products. This contrasts sharply with Europe, Japan and elsewhere, where the public has prevailed upon their representatives to enact labeling laws and keep most biotech food out of their countries.

Ms. Hart discusses scientific studies that are critical of GE products to make the case that more study is needed before approval is granted. The protestations from the biotech industry that these studies represent "junk science" are beside the point. It is not unreasonable to demand that radical food products -- such as potatoes and corn that produce their own pesticides -- are thoroughly tested before being released into the environment; this would seem especially true when one considers that there is absolutely no nutritional benefit for the consumers who ingest these products. But of course a strict regime of testing does not serve the interests of capital, which must recoup its investment and earn profits as quickly as possible. Hence the pressure on U.S. government agencies filled with powerful ex-industry executives to hastily approve these dubious products for sale.

Ms. Hart provides abundant evidence that consumers and environmentalists should be very, very afraid of the captains of biotech and their products; their penchant for mischief could hardly be imagined by the most talented writers of fiction. For example, Monsanto's aborted "terminator" seed project threatened to introduce crops that would produce sterile seeds in a corporate scheme that would have made the world almost totally dependent on its products for the maintenance of the food supply. Another example is "bio-pharming", which is the insane idea of using food crops to grow pharmaceutical products in an open-air environment. Unfortunately, bio-pharming could result in cross-pollination with native plants and might ultimately ruin staples that humanity has depended on for thousands of years. Ms. Hart makes it clear that such risks are totally unnecessary and deserves much greater attention from the public if we are to avert disaster in the future.

On the positive side, the book helps us understand that the new science of genomics might render GE techniques obsolete, providing researchers with tools that merely enhance age-old plant breeding practices and deliver on the promise of more healthy and nutritious foods. Let's hope that this is the case. But in the meantime, the evidence presented in this book suggests that GE products should be labeled and the industry regulated much more closely than it is today, if not banned outright.

I strongly encourage everyone to read this book.

I read Seeds of Deception prior to reading this book and subsequently found Ms. Hart's work to mostly review of what I already knew. Some of her interviews brought new faces and personalities to the stories of protestors and farmers embroiled in the conflict.

It amazes me that with all the evidence and scientific uncertainty surrounding GMO's, America still does not have labeling laws! Pass this title and others like it along to your friends and family. Know what you're eating!

Eating In The Dark, written by Kathleen Hart was an interesting book and gave me lots of information but it flowed really slowly. I'm scared to eat a lot of foods after reading this book. Most Americans eat genetically modified food on a daily basis, but few of us are aware we're eating something that has been altered. Meanwhile, many consumers refuse to buy our engineered crops and their groceries are labeled so that everyone knows if the contents have been modified. Eating in the Dark tells the story of how these new foods quietly entered America's food supply. Kathleen Hart explores biotechnology's real potential to enhance nutrition and cut farmers' expenses. She also reveals the process by which American government agencies decided not to label genetically modified food, and not to require biotech companies to perform even basic safety tests on their products. Eating in the Dark is a captivating and important story of the science and politics propelling the genetic alteration of our food. Kathleen Hart has talked to farmers and scientist to gain the information in which she wrote about. Her style in this book is very professional and tells the truth and doesn't leave your mind wondering about our food supply. Kathleen Hart obviously had a major interest in the genetically engineered food industry to write this book and you ca tell this by the voice that was presented in this book. I recommend anyone who has some questions about genetically engineered foods to read this.

The current conflict between the advocates of non-GM and GM foods shows no sign of abatement. The arguments on both sides of the debate can reach levels of vituperation that are reminiscent of those that took place between the advocates of AC and those of DC power early in the twentieth century. The author of this book, by attending hundreds of meetings and conducting many interviews spanning a four-year period from 1997 to 2001, has given the reader a fairly good historical account of the GM debate. She is clearly not an advocate of the marketing of GM foods (at least without labeling them as such), and this gets in the way of presenting a book that is "fair and balanced" from a scientific point of view. Readers should not expect any kind of detailed scientific argumentation in this book, but they will gain some insight into the contentious political issues that have arisen in biotechnology. Those readers, like myself, who advocate the practice of genetic engineering will perhaps, after the reading the book, become somewhat concerned about the lack of zeal among the executives of the major biotechnology companies in backing up their products. This lack of enthusiasm should be replaced by unashamed pride in their accomplishments, and they should stand behind their products, instead of cowering to groups who lack scientific credentials in biology and chemistry. It is readily apparent, when reading the book, that it is the organic food industry that stands the most to lose if GM foods are accepted by consumers. It is thus not surprising to learn that their objections are detailed throughout the book.

The reference to consumers as being "force-fed", as chapter one is titled, already serves to bias the discussion against GM foods. The omission of information or labels does not by itself force people to purchase any food products, organic or otherwise. If consumers suspect that any of the foods they purchase are contaminated in any way, they are free not to purchase them. In addition, the dialog in this book, as in many others (both for and against GM foods), is targeted toward an abstraction called the "public". The members of the "public" never seem to be characterized explicity, but instead the "public" is used to justify social and political policy that must be put into place to protect the "public".

The author quotes individuals in the book who consider the genetic engineering of foodstuffs as "unstable" or "unpredictable". These terms are not defined explicitly, but instead examples are given, such as petunia coloration and growth hormones in farm animals. None of these examples though serve to illustrate what unstable or unpredictable means in the context of genetic engineering, which makes heavy use of statistical analysis and probability theory. Clarity of formulation is essential in any debate, but even more so in the context of genetic engineering, due to its enormous societal impact.

The author seems to express surprise that government agencies, such as the FDA and the USDA, are supportive of biotechnology, and not being aggressive enough in insuring that GM foodstuffs are safe. But inactivity on the part of government agencies is not a sign that they are "in bed" with the biotech industry. It might merely mean that their competence lags behind the science. Bureaucracies, with their characteristic inertia, are fine examples of Newton's first law.

The chapter on "lethal" corn pollen was not convincing, and I was hoping that the author would have given more insight on the controversy that arose regarding monarch butterflies and their reaction to Bt corn. Although the author gives good details on what was said in the monarch problem, she still leaves open the question as to whether or not monarchs indeed react adversely to Bt pollen. The study the author quoted, by the entomologist John Losey, is still incomplete in this regard. A rigorous risk assessment study is in order here, supported by painstaking experimental research. Modeling efforts could also assist in clearing up issues that cannot be studied in the field or laboratory.

There are many other books that have appeared in the last few years that take the anti-biotech stance that the author of this book does, and no doubt many more will appear in the future. There have not been many books however that serve as apologies for genetic engineering. This asymmetry in representation of the issues in GM foods needs to be rectified, but it must be done with calm, rational discussion, and supported by careful scientific experimentation. It does not serve the biotech industry at all to dismiss books like this and other studies as being "junk science". The optimal approach is for biotech CEOs, scientists, and spokespeople to be completely honest in their assessements of their products, supporting vigorously the good ones, and withdrawing completely those that are not. A passive attitude among the supporters of genetic engineering might encourage the dismissal of products that could be of enormous importance to the world's populations.