The author blames the Enlightenment period for fostering an attitude of recklessness and disrespect for animal life, the philosophers Descartes and Bacon being blamed primarily for fostering attitudes that encourage animal cruelty and disrespect for animal life in general. But Descartes and Bacon are not the only representatives of the Enlightenment period, and moreover the period encouraged optimism and respect for all life, contrary to the author's claims. The attitudes of legal reasoning of that period have continued to this day in animal rights movements, something the author, as a vetenarian, no doubt supports. The critical thinking and openness to new ideas were encouraged by the thinkers of the Enlightenment, and such thinking will allow those in the present day to use genetic engineering in a socially responsible manner.
In addition, the author should remember that humans are indeed part of nature; they evolved right along with other life forms. As such, it is a valid argument to say that genetic engineering of life forms is part of the evolutionary process. The time scales involved are much faster than for 'ordinary' evolution without human intervention. This of course does not make genetic engineering a 'legitimate' activity, but it does refute objections to it on the lines that it is 'unnatural' or 'inorganic'. One cannot object to genetic engineering solely on the basis that genetic changes through its use take place much faster than evolution without human intervention.
The author is clearly against the big-business aspects of genetic engineering, referring to it as 'genetic imperialism'. He is reluctant to call those who develop genetically engineered crops 'farmers', but instead calls them 'peons' who are bankrolled by the evil behemoth of agribusiness. But why should not the the organic food market, which is a multi-billion dollar business, be characterized in the same way? Clearly from reading the book, the author is a proponent of organic agriculture, a sector that stands to lose its position in the market if genetically engineered food is accepted by the majority of the public. Both the organic foods industry and the genetically-modified food industry have both been very aggressive in their advertising, each claiming to offer food products that are more 'wholesome' for the consumer. Only rigorous testing and an understanding of human nutritional needs can determine in fact whether genetically modified foods are superior to foods that are not. No amount of advertising, nor unsubstantiated claims by the author that the adoption of organic methods is optimal for food production and human health, will change the actual facts about organic or genetically modified foodstuffs. In addition, it does not matter whether the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture is in fact undermining the proposed National Organic Standards. Government departments have made blunders before, the mere fact that they are doing so again does not by itself imply that genetically modified foods are dangerous, or incompatible with organic agriculture, as the author contends. It merely means that the USDA is engaging in favoritism.
The author is also way out of line in his claims that the practice and philosophy of organic agriculture is commendable because of its satisfaction of some key bioethical principles, one of these being that organic farming seeks to minimize harm to natural ecosystems. He does not provide any evidence that genetic engineering is more malicious or lacks regard for the environment. Secondly, he claims that organic farming enhances biodiversity, a claim that is totally unsubstantiated and in fact counterintuitive. Genetic engineering allows, through transgenic strategies, a wider variety of organisms and at a shorter time scale.
The author also claims that those who advocate the changing of distinct and unique species for purely human ends have no reverence for life. Again, the author should not make this claim without first-hand knowledge of the people involved in genetic engineering. There are no doubt genetic engineers along with organic farmers who fit this description, along with many in both camps who do not.
Also, the author claims that there is no scientific evidence the genetically engineered crops are the answer to world hunger and then asserts that there is 'clear evidence' that organic agriculture does. This evidence though is not expounded upon in this book.
In addition, genetically modified foods are not 'infected', and biotechnology is not 'genetic pollution', as the author charges. Such vituperation has no place in scientific debate, and serves only to raise the level of truculence on both sides of the issue.
The most interesting part of the book is that the author inadvertently introduces the reader to some of the more fascinating research that is currently conducted in genetic engineering, such as genetically modified insects.
One of course should admire the high degree of compassion the author shows towards animal life. It should be taken as an axiom that all forms of life deserve respect and should be treated with kindness...and this goes for genetically engineered lifeforms, whenever and wherever they are produced.