Lords Of The Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, And The Future Of Food

by Daniel Charles

Once confined to the research laboratory, the genetic engineering of plants is now a big business that is changing the face of modern agriculture. Giant corporations are creating designer crops with strange powers-from cholesterol-reducing soybeans to plants that act as miniature drug factories, churning out everything from vaccines to insulin. They promise great benefits: better health for consumers, more productive agriculture-even an end to world hunger. But the vision has a dark side, one of profit-driven tampering with life and the possible destruction of entire ecosystems. In Lords of the Harvest , Daniel Charles takes us deep inside research labs, farm sheds, and corporate boardrooms to reveal the hidden story behind this agricultural revolution. He tells how a handful of scientists at Monsanto drove biotechnology from the lab into the field, and how the company's opponents are fighting back with every tool available to them, including the cynical manipulation of public fears. A dramatic account of boundless ambition, political intrigue, and the quest for knowledge, Lords of the Harvest is ultimately a story of idealism and of conflicting dreams about the shape of a better world.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Food, Biology, Agriculture, Economics, Business

368 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

Reviews

[Sophia · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was recommended this book by a postdoc in my lab who mentioned that it covers the intrigue surrounding the development of Agrobacterium as a tool for agriculture, so I checked it out from the library. It's more of a biography of Monsanto and a sensationalized reenactment of the phases of nascent plant biotech, from the initial fundamental research to the early big-name players and, most importantly to me, the backlash and subsequent regulations surrounding it.

First of all, this book was published in 2001 and looks back as far as the early 80's. Reading it now, a similar amount of time has elapsed, and it was super interesting to see people's speculations, knowing whether or not they came true. The first bioengineered crop was approved in 1996, and at the time in 2001, despite the remarkably rapid adoption of Roundup Ready crops, the backlash against GMOs was strong enough that the author questioned whether or not American farmers would continue to grow GMO seeds. I looked up the USDA's current stats on bioengineered crops. The vast majority (like, >90%) of our corn, soybeans, and cotton are bioengineered. Clearly, we never got rid of them.

Obviously, I'm all for genetic engineering of plants; I do it on the regular. At the same time I recognize that nutrition and food are things we feel very strongly about and have deep cultural and emotional connections to, which allows for the rise of a lot of... not very fact-based thinking, if not outright superstitions. Every time I see someone talking about a juice "cleanse" to get rid of "the toxins" I can't help but compare it to old time-y medicines recommending alarming remedies for imbalanced humors or "miasma."

But as we've learned from Monsanto's sins, you can't just dismiss people's concerns! I think a lot of the fear around it is based in the fear of the unknown.

But for every danger that scientists dismissed, for every fear that they considered unfounded, an anxious public had one more question: What about the dangers that you haven't even imagined yet? What about the unforeseen risks? ... The whole debate, in fact, turned on the possibility of unknown dangers. When scientists said, as they often did, that they saw "no evidence" that genetically engineered food posed special dangers, their critics were fond of quoting an old saying: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But what, then, did the absence of evidence mean? For many it merely showed the limits of human knowledge and the inability to identitfy dangers that might remain hidden in the shadows. (227)

It's very hard to prove an absence. If you want to argue that way, we also have no proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist, just that there is no evidence to suggest that it does. There are also, of course, many dangers associated with the known. Did you know that mustard is a mutagen? I learned this from one of my thesis committee members, a chemist named Michael Marletta, whose father was a pretty high up man in French's. It would fail the FDA's mutagenicity standards for any new foods, but it gets a special pass (I forget what the classification is called) because it's a food we've been eating for ages, long before the FDA existed, so clearly we have historically been willing to take the risk. And there's no way in hell the FDA could tell people to stop eating mustard. All of this is to say, we already live with a certain amount of risk from our actual behaviors, but we grow inured to these risks and, often, stop seeing them. When something new comes along, it feels logical to protest the risks that are associated with it, but really we should ask: how does it compare?

This is what the author gets at in his epilogue, when he finally takes off his "present all sides" journalist hat and more-or-less takes a stance on literally the last page.

For there is one aspect of the double standard affecting agriculture and biotechnology that I do want to abolish as quickly as possible. It's the double standard of knowledge and passion. If genetic engineering is fascinating, or even ominous, then plowing, sowing, reaping, or breeding cannot be mundane." (313-314)

Let's be honest about the dark side of biotechnology, and let's also be honest about agriculture's! Agriculture is a nightmare for the environment. In our imaginations, it escapes the same tarnish that something like mining or lumber suffers because it has a certain rosy association with the idyllic, but it is in fact very, very unnatural. We use enormous amounts of pesticides and herbicides; we destroy ecosystems and biodiversity to expand the area of cropland; we grow non-native plants in massive monocultures. The weather in the Midwest is literally made hotter and more humid from 'corn sweat' because so much of it is grown that corn's transpiration becomes that impactful. Growing organic doesn't necessarily help either; the organic certification just means that it was grown with pesticides and herbicides that are classified as "organic," which does not mean that they are naturally derived chemicals or even that they are universally safer than nonorganic chemicals. You can imagine how there might be plenty of politics associated with designating a given chemical as organic or not.

Above all, while reading this I was really amazed with how hard Monsanto fumbled GMOs. Truly, this has got to be one of the worst PR nightmares in modern history. There is so much science we struggle to (or simply cannot) commercialize or deploy because the waters were so poisoned by Monsanto's evil corporate image. So many of the people interviewed or mentioned in the book seemed insufferable, which was probably played up by the author to tell a more exciting story, but their actions really do smack of an incredible arrogance, or at least a shocking ignorance/disinterest regarding the concerns of regular, non-scientist people.

At the level of individual scientists working for Monsanto, though, I really do believe they sincerely wanted their work to do good in the world--I think it's fair to say that most researchers feel that way--and they had good reason to believe that their work could do that. But after a certain point, the cynicism around Monsanto and its drive for corporate profits at the cost of "the natural order" or the well-being of American farmers and consumers was too overwhelming. Everyone assumes the worst about them, even the author a little bit, in an unacknowledged way that kind of annoyed me:
Monsanto the world-devouring giant had shrunk into the chastened subsidiary of a company dominated by, of all people, Swedes. The proud, presumptuous words "Food--Health--Hope" vanished from its corporate signature. (261)
Like okay?? Is "Food--Health--Hope" really that presumptuous? Those are in fact very simple words. This could be on a poster in an elementary school's cafeteria. But it's Monsanto, it's big biotech, so of course it must be a brash statement. I don't know, it just bothered me after so much all sides-ism. Also, why are the Swedes catching strays like that?

It's also just really funny seeing the infamously slow ag biotech being portrayed with this narrative of "move fast and break things" which today is applied most often to Silicon Valley tech companies. Surely, they were still just a bunch of stuffy academics. "A laboratory picture from 1985 shows a scruffy band of researchers, their average age a mere thirty-one" (31). Emphasis added by me. Like, yeah, we're hot and young and thirty-one, oh yeah. This is in fact the age of someone who has completed a PhD, completed a post doc, and perhaps worked for some years at a company. In comparison to today's tech companies started by people fresh out of college or even by people who did not complete college at all, it's a bit comical.

This book also really made me appreciate my friends who do sci comm who are actually scientists. I think the author undertook a daunting task to explain some pretty complex, unintuitive scientific concepts, but seeing him mix metaphors and misuse terminology did take the wind out of my sails. Big pet peeve of mind: using the word "splice" to mean combine or insert because it sounds vaguely science-y. Walter Isaacson also did this in his biography (if it even qualifies) of Jennifer Doudna. But no!!! Splicing is a very specific process in biology! It refers to a particular phenomenon and to no other. This is how I know real biologists did not proofread your book, or they did and you just ignored it because you thought it didn't matter enough. It does. To me.

[Kathryn Haydon · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a plant scientist working with CRISPR gene editing, the new cutting edge of agricultural biotechnology, this book was an invaluable resource to understand the history of my field and what kind of a landscape I will be entering into post-Ph.D., especially as I am seeking a career in industry. Yes, this book is nearly 18 years old! And much has changed in 18 years (Gilles-Éric Séralini's infamous rat study wasn't published until 2012!) and even since I first became invested in this field ~8 years ago. But it's not fair to judge a book like this for outdated information; it's not Wikipedia after all. The early history remains one of the most critical aspects of this ongoing debate to study. Dan Charles makes it entertaining to grasp the sometimes well-engineered and more often haphazard way in which genetically-engineered crops were developed and commercialized.

Charles articulates the scientific concepts behind ag biotech in accessible ways. And I appreciate the care with which he portrays the science as objectively as possible while laying bare the raw and often outrageous ways that the people involved in every part of this tech's commercialization acted, and how the ramifications of and responses to their actions have little to do with scientific facts of biology. The characters in this story are real people with rich personalities and complex motives. He says best in the Epilogue how you should approach this history: "Storytellers are not onlookers in this battle; we are, if anything, its grand strategists. The dispute over genetic engineering involves facts, to be sure. But its parties disagree far more passionately over the story. They quarrel over the nature of the characters, over the plot, and over the editing. They also feud over the unknowable: the ending." Science communicators have slowly come to terms with the fact that stories are far more compelling than facts. Scientists shy away from stories as lacking empirical validity. This is the tension of those who want to advocate for the acceptance and utilization of scientific knowledge without providing the certainty that lay onlookers want in order to feel secure. It is far easier to tell a story with conviction when you are not burdened by the uncertainty that good science insists must always be accounted for.

This book endorses the ideologies of neither the most vociferous biotech advocates or its most ardent critics. The focus of the book as a history is skewed (in terms of volume) towards the development and commercialization of ag biotech. The span of history itself is so skewed, but in reading through the first half of the book it can give the impression that Charles is more interested in exposing the scientists and corporations than the politicians and activists. However, it is balanced enough to make it easy to pick and choose from the story which parts to highlight to prop up your own position. I as a plant biotechnologist could emphasize the degree to which anti-biotech activists have relied on the specter of risk as their most powerful weapon despite it being their least scientifically defensible. But I must also acknowledge the extent to which the brash arrogance of company executives and excessive optimism of well-meaning scientists plowed the field for activists to sow their patent-free seeds of discontent.

Charles' final thoughts encourage us to ask "Why?" Why do consumers need absolute, impossible proof of the safety of GE foods? Why is the contribution of GE crops to environmental degradation weighted so much more than the much more significant destruction of natural land and waterways wrought by traditional agriculture? Why do we, scientists and activists alike, preoccupy ourselves with what is ultimately a blip in the history of food and agriculture? I try (and often fail) to resist the impulse to heap the weight of my scientific understanding of ag biotech on the heads of skeptics that I encounter. "What most concerns you about GMOs?" is the first thing I ask if I'm thinking clearly. It's in the exploration of the "Why" that I've had my most productive, enlightening, and mutually-respectful conversations about the biotechnology in our food.

[Chip Hunter · Rating 5 out of 5]

While being somewhat outdated now, LORDS OF THE HARVEST remains the most informative book that I've read covering the heated debate over agricultural biotech. While Daniel Charles seriously attempts an unbiased presentation of the information, he comes across (as practically all well-informed and intellectually honest people do) as supportive of biotechnology and agricultural business. That being said, he doesn't hold back from strong condemnation of errors committed by Monsanto and other companies. The end result is a clear and concise overview of the history, drama, and controversy of genetic engineering and its influence on business, agriculture, and politics.

The first half of the book presents the history of the field of genetic manipulation in plants that has made so much possible today. This part of the book tells of the impossible-seeming (30 years ago) accomplishments made by scientists all over the world as barrier after barrier was broken, and theory was demonstrated by practice. DNA from one organism could be transferred to another and unique functional proteins could be made. With the development of the tools allowing researchers to accomplish this, a seemingly limitless number of possibilities were opened. This part of the book is captivating and filled with promise. You can't help but to feel the excitement of both the researchers involved and the businessmen behind the scenes. Watching as some (but not all) of the first GMO products are grown, tested, and succeed is thrilling. Seeing the forces of world corporations promote, fight over, and corner various parts of the business is both alarming and impressive. Very positive and filled with new ideas to better the world (and make money doing it), this part of the book flies by in a rush of excitement for the future and wonder about the amazing secrets it holds.

But then you get to the distressing parts of the book. First, corporate mandates, Wall Street expectations, and political distrust rear their ugly heads. These forces can hamper any burgeoning industry, but when you then include environmental activists, the industry and technology as a whole is threatened with its life. Organizations with massive support across the globe (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, ect) set their stance against genetically modified crops (or anything derived from them), and begin campaigns of fear-mongering and misinformation that lead to the near downfall of Monsanto and all of its ilk. As investigations sponsored by both governmental agencies and companies around the world find that genetic modification of plants in itself presents no novel threat to the environment or human health, protesters and environmentalist organizers gin up campaigns to sway an ignorant public's attitude against the technology. As the Green Party rises and politicians feel the heat from massive efforts to fight the progress of agribusiness, more and more limitations and flat out banishments come to be. The result is an industry severely restricted and of possibilities unreached. This part of the book is extremely frustrating and sometimes down right maddening, as you watch so many great promises of the future come to a screeching halt. Organic farmers and environmental organizations have profited immensely at the expense of an industry that could have revolutionized agriculture for the betterment of the world.

Since the time of this book's publishing, the controversy surrounding GMO-containing foodstuffs has seemingly calmed, largely due to the under-the-radar approach of the plant biotech industry, but also due to more general acceptance of much of the world towards the technology. Europe remains a bastion of backwardness in its unyielding stance against GMOs (to their own economic detriment), but America and its followers continue down the road of progress. Monsanto, DuPont, and their competitors have survived and thrived in recent times, and the promise of the future is as large as ever. The fight isn't over (as 'organic' foods gain popularity with an uninformed populace) but the outlook has grown brighter than it was in 2001.

While enjoyable and certainly recommended to anyone interested in the subject, this book would be particularly valuable for those considering working for (or against) an agribiotech company. The inner workings of these generally large companies is revealed in a way that I haven't come across before. The often 'cut-throat' environment of industry is juxtaposed with the incredibly fast-paced and goal-oriented nature of profit-driven research, painting a very informative picture of how these companies work. Some will be repulsed and some will be attracted to the idea of working for Monsanto or one of its competitors, but reading this book will surely help shape ideas of what to expect if you do. And learning about the often tumultuous history of these companies and the men that shaped them (many of whom are still active players in the field) will help bring perspective to future and current employees.

Overall, I can't recommend this book enough. To my knowledge, there doesn't exist a more thorough and unbiased documentation of the history of agricultural biotech than this book. Extremely well-written, this one will be highly enjoyable and educational to both newcomers and those already familiar with the subject.

[Foldfirst · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked the narrative approach to this book. It made a very complex topic accessible and enjoyable. I like learning about food production and agriculture, and this book provides a good overview on the history and motivations for the biotech vs. organic debate.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book focuses on Monsanto's strategy in the biotech business centered around its investments in its roundup related products. It presents a balanced view of the industry, in that it does not discuss the science behind biotech products but attempts to examine the pros and cons based on the science. It is a fascinating look at how Monsanto tried to craft a significant corporate strategy in the agricultural sector - to become the Microsoft of biotech. The position of the book is that Microsoft ultimately failed, although it may eventually succeed, because of a neglect of the less than rational aspects of this business and the differences in culture and intellectual climate between the midwestern US and Europe, which was expected to be a significant customer of its products. The book could have done a more thorough job of relating the anti-biotech feelings to more traditional orientations to restrict trade, protect against non-EU imports, and the like. . . . but such a book would be much longer and perhaps more tedious. So the author is permitted to make his judgments and the results is quite good. The book also sheds much light on this interesting sector, where the US is arguably the world leader, but which receives much less attention than more traditional production oriented sectors of the world economy -- and it has for a long time been a world economy for firms like Monsanto, just as for small specialty farms.

[dejah_thoris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Charles does an excellent job of presenting the story behind the biotechnology industry without revealing any particular bias until the epilogue where he addresses the questions we are trying to ask throughout the book. After reading First Fruit, I enjoyed Lords of the Harvest because it presents a broader picture of the industry as a whole as opposed to following one specific company (though it does have a strong emphasis on Monsanto). The science is well-written and fairly easy to grasp though the book sometimes drags when describing various techniques to reach the same goal and various legislative approaches to regulation. Overall, a solid work for anyone interested in the history of GM foods though I'd like to see a second edition updated with current information as this was written over a decade ago.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This one was not what I was looking for, but I was fascinated nevertheless. I was looking for something on agricultural policy, dealing particularly with tarrifs and trade. This one is about the politics and businees of bio-technology. What makes it so interesting is that the author is a good story teller. He is a science correspondent for MPR, and he tells the stories of his subject with the finest techinques of the storyteller's art. The subject itself is interesting from a sociological standpoint and he makes it fascinating with the depth of his research. The last chapter in particular is insightful enough to make the book a worthwile read for those with an interest in the broader aspects of the workings of business, politics, and in particular farming.

[Bran · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short history of the beginning of the biotech industry, mostly revolving around Monsanto. It was difficult to keep all of the names straight (for me), but I'm glad the author really did his research and presented as much of the story as he could without ever seeming too judgmental or biased. A lot of the writing on this topic is one-sided, so it was nice to read something that questioned both the biotech industry and its opponents. My favorite part of the book was the epilogue, when the author directly addresses the big questions surrounding biotechnology, genetic engineering, and agriculture. He does not say which side he believes to be "right" or "wrong", only acknowledges that both sides have valid points.

[B G · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had decided on three stars for this book until I read the epilogue at the end. Not because it is a bad read, poor researching, dry, or outdated. I enjoyed the book. Mr. Charles does a fine job researching the topic and brings a degree of personality into the literature. I found myself asking, "just who's side are you on?" Upon reading the epilogue, I realized he is merely a storyteller and he regards himself as such. He presents the facts in a legible fashion and allows the reader to come to their own conclusion. I think this type of reporting is sorely missed in this age of persuasive non-fiction. I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for an intimate journey through this field.

[Vanessa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting look at how the agricultural biotech industry came about and why it hasn't changed the world in the way people thought it might. A lot of the book focuses on Monsanto, as they were one of the primary companies involved in ag-tech, and it's a great inside view into the relationship between science and business. I think this is a great read for anyone interested in understanding how complex the issues around biotech and agriculture really are, and why we should care.

[Kenny · Rating 4 out of 5]

I suspected thirty years ago that there was something wrong with Monsanto's corporate culture. This book explains very well what was bothering me. Surprisingly, it is not an indictment of the company, but rather a history of how it went from being a chemical company to controlling much of the worlds food supply. Fascinating, well written, engaging, many readers will find much to admire about the rise of Monsanto.

[Christopher Intagliata · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this to brush up on the history of GM foods for a segment I was producing. It's a great overview of all the major milestones and controversies you'll hear biotech experts refer to during interviews, and a good starting point to do some deep thinking about biotech and the future of genetically modified foods.

[=====D · Rating 1 out of 5]

Resist the numbskulls... Bio-tech is a good thing, which the forces of "green" warriors inexplicably and ridiculously want to tank, mostly for their own aggrandizement somehow. And so on. Sheer garbage, though somewhat better than most at presenting the backdrop of the issue, and slicker than most at keeping the farce of "objectivity" going until it falls away deep into the book.

[Hubert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Took me so many years to read this book. Took it out of storage and finally finished it. A lot has happened in the science, technology, and politics of biotech, but I think the author's main narrative and his attitudes balancing both sides of the issue, remain relevant today. As written in other blurbs of the book, this text constitutes quality science writing.

[Nicole · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellently written-- a hard-to-putdown non-fiction book about Monsanto and other companies trying to develop and sell genetic engineered plants

[Elizabeth Strauch · Rating 3 out of 5]

Forced to read it in college, but it changed my perspective on how food is produced, so that's worth something.

[Cory · Rating 5 out of 5]

Logical and balanced view (FINALLY!) from a scientific journalist. Starts with the history of biotech in general and has several interesting industry anecdotes and stories. Thank you, Daniel Charles.

[Lee Frederick]

unbiased regardless of the title

[Gina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Totally down my ally!