Customer Reviews

Food Fray: Inside the Controversy over Genetically Modified Food

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

 

 

I purchased this book knowing very little about genetically modified foods, hoping to get some insight into the controversy. However, having read Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle, I figured that I had a good grip on the topic of sustainable food. This book introduced me to an entirely other side that I didn't know at all. Not always easy to read, I found myself absorbed nonetheless in the thick stock of information packed into relatively few pages. What I expected was a book detailing the health aspects of eating GM foods (there was very little) and a biased account of the evil that is GM. The author was very good at maintaining a middle ground, instead letting the research and facts speak for themselves. I left this book feeling much better informed and having a better understanding about what I am eating and why everyone thinks it is so bad.

Heavily steeped in science, with ample evidence, this book is essential for anyone wanting to have a real understanding of a very misunderstood subject.

FOOD FRAY: INSIDE THE CONTROVERSY OVER GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD offers insights across the board, from researchers to activists, farmers and consumers, on genetically modified food, and is a pick for both general-interest and college-level libraries strong in health and food issues. It offers stories blending science with real-world anecdotes and pinpoints facts about agricultural biotechnology applications and world events. Perfect for classroom debate or personal reflection alike, it blends science with human experience.

Eighty-percent of all corn and 92% of soybeans grown in the U.S. are now GM. I read "Food Fray" to gain understanding of the scientific rationale for opposing GM products - unfortunately, none was provided. Instead, it focused on the emotional and political battles involved, and threw in some nonsensical economics for savoring.

It was interesting to learn that the herbicide Roundup played a key role in early GM (1970s) history. Glyphosate (an ingredient) is a synthetic amino acid that blocks the synthesis of essential amino acids in plants, causing their death. It degrades fairly rapidly in sunlight and heat, is cheap, and has low human and environmental toxicity. In the mid-1980s, Monsanto was faced with the expiration of its patent on Roundup, and while examining mud samplings from production-area waste ponds found resistant bacteria. From that material they learned to make "Roundup Ready" seeds that would resist the effects of the herbicide. Monsanto also learned to create plant seeds that would grow into plants that would kill caterpillars.

Hybrid varieties do not "breed true" - this prevents using seeds generated from one crop to generate another, IF 100% TRUE LINES ARE DESIRED (Weasel did not make this clear). Seed producers, seeking to maximize their profits, prohibit this - antagonizing numerous farmers.

Weasel roughly outlines the early benefits for the "Green Revolution," though never fully explains why it failed in Africa (predominantly small farms made it difficult to distribute the new seeds; required irrigation and fertilizer were also difficult to employ). Another problem, in Asia, was that the Green Revolution was in some ways too successful, reducing the variety of foods consumed through specializing in the new rice. This led to widespread Vitamin A deficiencies.

Thus, "Golden Rice" was developed through extensive philanthropy and public research. While the effort was successful, 32 companies owned 70 different patents on the techniques and procedures. AstraZeneca, one of the major patent holders involved, was willing to offer free access for farmers earning less than $10,000/year. (What about the other patent holders? Weasel ends up with an illogical conclusion on the economic viability of Golden Rice, assuming her short dialogue did not omit any major facts.)

A 2007 U.S. GAO study found that 65% of the cost of food aid was eaten up in transportation costs. Opponents argue that selling food by aid groups in recipient countries depresses prices and makes that nation even more dependent. (Wouldn't giving it away depress prices even more?)

Then, Weasel cites European resistance to GM foods to justify Zambia's refusing GM food aid because Europe wouldn't want to risk subsequent GM-tainted imports. (Why would Zambia be exporting food if it was in a long-term famine status? And just what are some rational reasons to oppose GM crops?)

I read this book seeking good science and some balanced perspective. What I got was tired and recycled activist propaganda. The spectrum of people and industries indicted in Weasel's conspiracy theory ranges from heartland farmers to Nobel Prize winners, multinational corporations, tens of thousands of academics, international aid agencies, poverty and farming experts and the national academies of science from countries around the world. And that's an incomplete list.

Apparently they're not all just wrong; they're also all on the take. The poorly researched claims (How can your source for a company's unethical practice be the activist you're featuring as the "hero" of your chapter?); the fear-mongering about evil-doers and poisoned food (A syringe, Lisa? Really?); and the total absence of interviews with anyone on the other side--although I'm reluctant to lean on polarizing notions like "sides"--makes this book a disappointment.

Now and then, Weasel almost acknowledges that these issues are enormously complex, not black and white. She tries, for instance, to give some historical context and ventures into the thicket of regulatory and patent problems surrounding the GMO conversation. It's useful, for example, for people to be reminded of the near overlap of--and therefore relationship between--the arrival of mad cow disease, the European response to it and the emergence of the GMO debate.

But nuance never stands a chance in FOOD FRAY because the implicit evil that Weasel sees in GMO technology, scientists who use it and any for-profit entity that employs it, is like a steamroller, powered by vitriol, not evidence and pushing through the entire text. The book's only level-headed language is on the jacket copy: "cuts through the complex science," and "even-handed assessment." I commend NSF for granting research money to less-than-typical scholars. But looking at such one-sided, anti-empiricism output, it appears that funders made a bad choice with Weasel.