This is an informative and interesting but hardly inclusive little book, especially strong on how we try to improve the appearance of our skin. One of Lappé's major points is that there isn't all that much we can do. Most of what the pharmaceutical industry sells us doesn't work. He offers insights into how the skin functions, to what extent it is a barrier and a sieve. He includes material on "the silicone story," and skin diseases, but is a little heavy on his role and interest in testifying against some chemical companies--but certainly I think we can approve of that.

Although I enjoyed reading this, I would like to see a book on skin that goes more deeply into the cross-cultural and political aspects of skin, how the color and texture, how the oiliness and the blemishes of the skin affect different people. Also a more detailed history about attitudes toward skin differences would be very interesting, including practices such as scaring, tattooing and how the grooming instinct is played out on the skin.

In short this is readable and interesting, but only touches the surface. (I know that's a stupid pun, sorry.)

No evidence is presented on actual failures except for one set of transgenic cotton plants. Escape of genes could be fought with new seeds not containing the gene. The dread that insects will build resistance to the natural bacterial toxins of the Bt gene is poorly couched, because all prior experience is that insects will do so in time, and the amount of time is all that is in doubt. Corporate control of seeds and herbicides will last only as long as the patents, and then "generics" are likely to appear. We have had corporate control of hybrid seeds and pesticides for 3/4 century as it is. If crop yields become significantly lower, the transgenic strains will be dropped. It is unlikely that all crops will fail at the same time.

Nobel Prize winner Norman E. Borlaug, the father of the green revolution, and not an inventor of transgenic plants, could have spoken against them, but has done the opposite. In the Wall Street Journal, 22 Jan 03, pA.14, he wrote: "Although there have always been those in society who resist change, the intensity of the attacks against GM crops from some quarters is unprecedented and, in certain cases, even surprising, given the potential environmental benefits that such technology can bring by reducing the use of pesticides. Genetic engineering of crops -- plant breeding at the molecular level -- is not some kind of witchcraft, but rather the progressive harnessing of the forces of nature to the benefit of feeding the human race. The idea that a new technology should be barred until proven conclusively that it can do no harm is unrealistic and unwise. Scientific advance always involves some risk of unintended outcomes. Indeed, "zero biological risk" is not even attainable.

"Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa says he's been told by anti-biotechnology groups that donated American corn is "poison" because it contains GM kernels. Based on such misinformation, he is willing to risk thousands of additional starvation deaths rather than distribute the same corn Americans have been eating for years with no ill effects."

Another cautious, reasonable view is that of Bjørn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2001, pp342-348. Examples of faked data on the toxicity of GM potatoes on rats and overblown fears of the effect of Bt corn on the monarch butterfly were given. Lomborg thinks the gains are worth the risks, and advises proceeding very cautiously, thus not to drop all the GM programs.

*****
The main reason for my 1-star rating for this book is not its conclusions, but its style. Despite academic-style referencing, albeit with almost no peer-reviewed papers on the actual subject of GM foods, the authors use practically every ploy practiced by propagandists.

The herbicide bromoxynil is said to have a toxic nitrile function (p.viii). The most common nitrile, acetonitrile, has an LD50 orally in rats of 3800 mg/kg, thus is less toxic than salt!

A "...horrible debacle from overuse of DDT..." (p.16) is not exemplified, but we are to think it had to do with thinning of birds' eggshells, which was disproven before DDT was banned in the USA by the EPA.

"Many countries like India are at the balance between survival and famine" (p.17). Then how is it then that 1/2 of south Asian adults are overweight and 1/3 are obese? (Lancet 2003;361:79).

"But the metabolic fate of DBHA [metabolite of bromoxynil] in the mammalian body has never been studied -- or at least reported" (p.42). A quick search of PubMed turned up: St John LE, Lisk DJ. Fate of the herbicides bromoxynil and casseron in cows. J Dairy Sci 1967;50(4):582-4.

The paucity of chemical knowledge of these authors is shown by the following: "Bromoxynil octanoate, the active ingredient in bromoxynil, is converted into bromoxynil phenol (what we have been calling DBHA) when it is metabolized in mammals. Although this step is designed to detoxify bromoxynil and make the molecule more easily excreted by the body, the by-product remains at least as toxic as its parent compounds" (p.43-4). The octanoate ester is the oil-soluble form of bromoxynil used in formulations; it is not the active form, which is bromoxynil itself, which is a phenol, so should not be called "bromoxynil phenol". Since most bromoxynil is metabolized to its acid derivative, DBHA, this "by-product" cannot be more toxic than its parent.

"Roundup [glyphosate] may also damage many non-target plants" (p.54). Well, of course! How many of us use Roundup to knock off all plants before seasonal planting?

"In 1993, 6 out of 7 plots...showed lower yields for conventional vs. transgenic soybeans" (p.83). This is exactly the opposite of one of the main points these authors tried to make -- that GM plants give lower yields!

Several times the authors trot out the old vegetarian aphorism that cattle convert their food to meat with only 10% efficiency (p.87), with 12% efficiency (p.112,135), and with 40 % efficiency (p.147). The authors do not seem to understand that humans do not like to eat wild grass, hay, alfalfa, or soybean hulls.

Diethylstilbestrol (DES) which had been used in cattle feed with some health problems in humans is trotted out like DDT as a scare mechanism, but it is not a plant product or a result of GM foods.

The "undesirability" of corporate profits is emphasized many times.

An attempt is made to foment alarm in orthodox religionists by hinting that GM foods may not be kosher or Halal.

None of the genetically engineered crops now available have any of these characteristics. In fact new genetically engineered seeds require high-quality soils, huge investment in machinery and an increased use of chemicals.As "Against the Garin" so adeptly illustrates, the genetic engineering revolution has nothing to do with feeding the world's hungry but everything to do with enriching a priviledged few.

This book begins with the thesis that the immune system has elements of good and bad, depending on the situation. This is an excellent starting point and one I use often with my classes. However, Dr. Lappe does not have the depth of knowledge he needs to make me want to read further. Technically incorrect statements (for example, Herpes virus is an RNA virus and IgE has 4 antigen binding sites) degrade the import of his ideas. I cannot recommend this book to my students or the lay public, because of Lappe's basic science errors. In addition, these errors may cause the scientific community to disregard important ideas that are needed to to bring western allopathic medicine closer to the healing traditions found in eastern and native cultures.

as a side note: Why does the cover art look like a shattered Star of David. Is this some sort of subliminal message? If anyone has any answers e-mail me at amilner@ufl.edu