[.ca] Lords Of The Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, And The Future ... (ISBN 073820773X)

From Amazon.com:
Just as science learned to decode DNA through reverse genetics, a little bit of reverse reading might help explain why NPR correspondent Daniel Charles set out to write the agrobiotech equivalent of fly-on-the-wall industry epics like World War 3.0, Liar's Poker, and Hit Men. Read the epilogue first--here's where he most eloquently explains the dueling American myths (of both scientific progress and the sanctity of the land as God-given gifts) that have fueled the recent battle of biotechnology against environmentalism and consumer advocacy over genetically modified crops. It's a necessarily stirring justification for a story that, however well told, may lack for a general audience some of the pathos or glamour of similar tussles within such fields as medicine or entertainment. This is really the story of one company--American chemical giant Monsanto, which, some 20 years ago, pushed forward the technology of injecting different plants such as corn and soybeans with genes that would make them able to act as their own insecticides (insects would simply die upon eating them). From there, Monsanto went on to orchestrate a stunning takeover of much of the seed business, but its plans for what seemed like world agricultural domination were trounced when first European, then U.S. activists sparked a massive backlash against GMOs ("genetically modified organisms") pumped up with the company's patented genes--even absent substantive scientific evidence that genetically modified crops were any more harmful (or, for that matter, more modified) to people or the environment than those without designer genes. Given the recent explosion of genetic research, it's fascinating to see the relatively primitive origins of this field in the early 1980s, and to discover the inner workings of world agribusiness, especially (as the farm-bred Charles rightly points out) in a society where most people have no idea where their food comes from, or what happens to it along the way. It's just that Charles's valiant attempt to make a bunch of nerdy, competitive scientists and soulless, profit-grubbing Monsanto execs interesting is mostly in vain. Still, you have to love the early '90s comedy of errors that was the grandiose launch and swift demise of the superengineered tomato--especially when an old-school tomato breeder tries to tell her boss, a biotech exec and agricultural illiterate, that nature's breeding process can't be accelerated to meet production goals. His curt response? "Think out of the box." (Or crate, as it were.) --Timothy Murphy

Right facts, wrong story:
As one of Daniel Charles's sources and a very minor character in this book, I was disappointed at how a writer with so much inside information about what happened could tell a story that got what happened so wrong in an effort to make it dramatic and appealing. Arthur Hailey's novels Airport, Hotel, Wheels, etc. comprise some of the better books that expose and glamorize the inside workings of an otherwise mundane industry. Of course, if it were really that enjoyable and interesting, they wouldn't call it work, they'd call it fishing and we'd do it for free. But Arthur Hailey wrote fiction, and he was smart enough to stay off the farm. Not so with Daniel Charles. The enterprise of agriculture is more mundane than most, if only because it takes months of gradual growth and development to produce a crop, and years of almost imperceptible change to develop a new product. Much of the time is spent just waiting. Turning science into technology can produce beautiful and interesting results without the process itself being either glamorous or interesting. It's people going to work and doing their jobs. Most of us working in the field believed we knew what could be done and thought we could figure out how to do it. What made the process so difficult were the different visions of that same reality, visions sufficiently disparate that two people coming out of the same meeting had diametrically opposite understandings about what had been said and what had been agreed to. If that sounds like standard operating procedure in corporate America, welcome to the real world. It's three steps forward, two steps back, day after day. You might as well try to glamorize a trip to the barber shop. Fact-based? It is. Balanced? It may be. But to at least some of us who were (and are) there, it still reads like fiction.

Lord of Bias:
If you are interested in a critical review of the Biotech issues, this is NOT the book for you. If you are searching for arguments against GMO', big business, and pro big government; you have found a source. Daniel Charles has hidden neither his bias nor his ignorance of the subject. He draws on old studies (Monarch Butterfly larvae) and does not discuss the latest findings, because the latest findings do not support his position. He hangs adjutives on employees of the business world to ensure the reader knows they are "evil". The ineptness of big government is never addressed. Having served as a military officer, I can tell you that if the military had been as one-sided in dealings with Mr Charles' employer (NPR), the military would have been brought to task... It is a shame we have not discovered the gene to improve critical thinking, Mr. Charles soarly needs the modification.

Great storytelling:
Daniel Charles' "Lords of the Harvest" succeeds in bringing perspective to the biotech industry and the contentious issue of genetically modified food. The author does this by personalizing the protaganists at the heart of the story: the scientists who were driven mainly by the quest for knowledge and discovery; the businesspeople who sought dollar returns from their laboratory investments; and the environmentalists who felt that genetic engineering was simply the latest ugly manifestation of an out-of-control agribusiness industry. The result is a highly entertaining and readable book that should interest a wide audience. The scientists who invented and nurtured the industry tend to get much better treatment from Charles than either the businesspeople or the environmentalists. As a former science reporter for NPR, Charles seems most comfortable painting psychological portraits of the researchers at Monsanto and elsewhere. Charles lovingly details the innovative and pioneering work that these scientists undertook and the intriguing problems they solved. Charles shows how these early projects gave shape to the modern biotech industry, and his writing in these sections is vivid and interesting. And in the chapter "Infinite Horizons", Charles enthuses about the potential of biotechnology to help solve the world's problems. Throughout, Charles' enthusiasm for science and biotechnology is unmistakable. On the other hand, the businesspeople of biotech get beat up pretty badly in the book. You get the feeling that Charles seems slightly upset that big business can't figure out how to bring the benefits of painstaking scientific discovery to the people. Specifically, Charles relates the numerous and sometimes humorous mistakes made by executives at Monsanto and Calgene (the inventor of the ill-fated "Flavr Savr" tomato) in their quests to dominate their respective markets. Charles successfully uses these case studies to add color and context to the larger story that he is telling (for example, the author's profile of Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro and his messianic-like appeal to the company's scientists to help save the world with biotechnology). Charles does an excellent job describing the corporate cultures and the motivations of key individuals, rendering his descriptions of the business wheeling-and-dealing that went on behind the scenes that much more interesting. However, I think that Charles is correct in concluding that it was the arrogance of Monsanto's top executives, more than any other single factor, that ultimately led to the company's demise and the public backlash against biotechnology. Unfortunately, the environmentalists don't get treated much better. Although Charles appears to have abundantly interviewed scientists and businesspeople to gather original material for the book, it doesn't seem that he had much success contacting environmentalists; the profiles of well-known biotech opponents such as Jeremy Rifkin and Benny Sharlin appear to have been drawn from secondary sources. Consequently we don't enjoy the same level of insight regarding their motivations compared with the scientists. So although Charles does a respectable job of reporting why the environmentalists opposed biotech products and the actions that they took, the author's sympathies do not appear to lie with the environmentalists. Instead, Charles deftly swats aside several of the well-known studies that purport to show risks associated with genetically modified crops (such as Dr. Pusztai's rat and John Losey's Monarch butterfly studies). In fact, a certain level of hostility arises when the author makes the charge that environmentalists nevertheless publicized such "murky and ill-defined" (p. 208) studies purporting risk merely as a way to further their own agendas. But it does not seem to occur to Charles that many environmentalists might have organized the challenge to genetically modified food out of genuine concern for the welfare of consumers. I also take slight issue with Charles on two other issues. First is his silence concerning regulation of the biotech industry. His techno-utopian bias leads him to claim that biotech is not substantially different compared with traditional plant and animal breeding practices, with the implication that the public should not be overly concerned about regulation of the industry. But the scientists' tools to recombine DNA in novel ways are so powerful and the effects are so little understood that it is not unreasonable to suggest that a greater level of corporate accountability should be required to ensure that the public interest is protected. Second, Charles should have addressed the recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) controversy more adequately, given that this was a major Monsanto initiative (the heart of the book was about Monsanto and its scientists). His relative silence on this issue is defeaning: could it be that the environmentalists' charges about the risks of rBGH have at least some merit? Still, I believe that Charles has done a good job of navigating some very tricky ideological terrain. "Lords of the Harvest" is probably as balanced a book on the subject of biotechnology as any other you'll likely find, and I highly recommend it.

Bravo!:
I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a fair and reality-based account of the world of plant genetic engineering--that also happens to be an entertaining and well written page-turner. I have been studying, working, and ever wondering at the world of plant molecular biology and genetic discovery since the 1980's. Though I've remained a fairly secure civil servant, I could see from the people that passed through our labs and the general panic and depression in the field that somewhere... something other than the interest of healthy crops and feeding people was driving research and key decisions at high levels. Mr Charles gives a truly excellent educational and entertaining account of what was going on at the lab bench as well as the accounting department--from the consumers in Europe to activists in America. I appluade Mr. Charles for his accurate and unbiased account of exactly how Monsanto impacted the field--changing the research environment and general morale so negatively and irrevocably. His accounts of the complexities of the resistance movement and the swings of opinion and policy worldwide are clear and based in reality. I'm glad someone was willing to get the real story out there in a fair, honest and very well-informed manner. Thanks Mr. Charles!

A wonderful storyteller, a thoughtful book:
In the epilogue of Lords of the Harvest, Daniel Charles talks about the power of stories to illuminate, and also to obscure. He talks about the mythologies that drive agribusiness and other competing mythologies that drive it's opponents. He can stand at a distance from both kinds of stories, and reflect on how well they are illuminating and obscuring. On the other hand, Daniel Charles is himself a great storyteller. I appreciated the way Daniel Charles helped me to think about both these kinds of stories, and what they have to do with food and science, religious faith and moral values in the 21st century. Mostly, Charles stays very close to the "everyday stories of ordinary people," end of the spectrum. How he managed to get so close to the lives of these people is something I wonder about! People on both sides of this issue obviously trust him a great deal, or he would never have been able to write this book. The "grand myths" he talks about in the epilogue, this was a very nice way to wrap it all up. Part of the difficulty of these issues is that there is no overarching spiritual/ ethical framework that can encompass this conversation. Just competing ideologies, and very little common ground. (Where common ground does exist, Charles is good at finding it.) It irritates me when scientists who write about agribusiness and genetic engineering castigate others who don't have their scientific credentials for being "sentimental" or ignorant. They do this in a way that intimidates ordinary people who do not have Ph.Ds, as if you have to have a particular diploma to discuss these issues. We need to fight this kind of arrogance and parochialism. Science may be an elite field, but food belongs to everyone. Daniel Charles makes the discussion accessible to everyday people who want to know what is happening to our food, and who are trying to understand why it is happening.