The connections between food security and political stability are now part of the global political discourse. It is widely acknowledged, for example, that the 2007–08 food price spikes played a key role in triggering political unrest in the Arab world. Though important, such broad assertions do not offer a deep understanding of the ways in which long-term political controversies surrounding food emerge, unfold, and get resolved.

Fighting for the Future of Food provides a vivid account of the controversy surrounding agricultural biotechnology. Using carefully assembled information, the authors show how a relatively small group of activists managed to shift public perception against the biotechnology industry. According to the book, they did so by taking advantage of political opportunities created by the culture of the industry itself.

This work differs from many others in the field in several respects. First, it offers a conceptual framework for understanding the dynamics of the controversy. Second, it uses case studies of activities across the world (Europe, the United States, and Africa) to demonstrate both the validity of the conceptual framework and the global nature of the debate.

In essence, the debate is framed in the context of the different cultural predispositions of different social groups throughout the world. The book illustrates the clash of worldviews, or how “shared mental worlds involve sets of beliefs, assumptions, images, and value judgments about how the world works (and should work), as well as ways of thinking and categorizing things” (p. xvi). The authors stress that it is not enough simply to share worldviews. The activists were able to articulate their lifeworld, which involved transforming their cultural dispositions into political action, including the leveraging of wider social circles and epistemic communities to support their cause.

This analytical approach is not in itself an original contribution to scholarship. It builds on a long tradition of sociology, which the authors themselves acknowledge. What is important, however, is the way they use the framework to help bring out the strategies, tactics, and other measures that biotechnology critics and corporations used to articulate their position. This is an important contribution, and the book does an excellent job of documenting the dynamics of the debate.

Equally important is the care with which the book documents the historical evolution of the debate. This historical information is important because it helps to explain the roots of some of the tactics used by both sides to promote their interests. But it also provides a basis upon which to judge sources of some of the cultural predispositions that influenced the contents of the debate.

In this respect, the book makes two important contributions to scholarship. First, it demonstrates that the biotechnology debate is not an ephemeral event but an important element in our understanding of divergent views regarding the future of food. But, more importantly, it shows that there is sufficient historical material to allow scholars to explore the deeper theoretical implications of the debate. So far, much of the work on the debate has been limited to narrower issues, such as technical feasibility, labeling, coexistence with nonbiotechnology crops, and safety. In this respect, the book is an important departure point for exploring other aspects of the biotechnology debate, as well as new fields in the food debate.

The biotechnology debate has been associated with extensive reforms in public policy. As the authors illustrate, biotechnology activists have had significant influence on biotechnology policy design in Europe, Africa, and other parts of the world. Their analytical framework helps to examine the extent to which the successes gained by biotechnology critics can be sustained. It is interesting to note that the book raises important doubts regarding their ability to sustain opposition in light of steady, though uncertain, biotechnology adoption. By taking an inflexible position, the activists may have imposed limits on their own ability to envisage alternative agricultural futures.

Despite its strengths, there are three important limitations for the book. First, reliance on lifeworlds as a theoretical framework helps to explain how the debates were structured and articulated. But the book does not help the reader to understand the forces that shaped the dominant worldviews on both sides of the argument. More specifically, vested interests and incumbent or emerging industries played a critical role in shaping the worldviews of the adversaries. By understanding the underlying socioeconomic forces, one is able to gain a deeper appreciation of the role played by other, less visible actors.

For example, the first generation of biotechnology product promised specifically to reduce the use of pesticides. There is a large community of economic and political interests that shaped the debates in a variety of ways. European governments, for example, were not simply being pressured into action by activists but were active in championing certain policies at the national and international levels. Although such dynamics are acknowledged in the book, their role is diminished by the lack of a detailed analysis of the extent to which vested socioeconomic interests shape lifeworlds.

The nascent organic farming industry played an equally active role, and its position was influenced by economic interests. It can be argued that the labeling rules promoted by the industry were a tool for defining its economic space. Debates about labeling are presented as an issue of transparency and the “right-to-know,” but deeper economic interests are equally at play, though masked by more populist demands.

The second limitation of the book lies in the presentation of the debate as a fight between two adversaries with clearly defined lifeworlds. In actuality, the antibiotechnology movement comprised a diversity of actors addressing agricultural, consumer, and environmental affairs. Similarly, corporate interests were also divided and hardly spoke with one voice. Although both sides identified specific champions as their targets, the existence of such flag bearers should not be confused with uniformity in positions. An understanding of the variations within each lifeworld might provide future opportunities for resolving some of the debates—a point to which the book itself alludes.

Finally, although the authors explore possible future directions for biotechnology, they limit their sources of ideas by not examining why, despite intense debates, other regions of the world have continued to adopt biotechnology at rapid rates. While the debate raged in Europe, Latin America and Asia registered high uptakes. This was not done without controversy.

Some of the debates in countries such as India and Brazil showed the same dynamics as in other parts of the world. Opposition in those countries, however, did not have the same impact as it did in Europe. This is partly because of the emergence of strong constituencies that stood to gain economically from adopting the new technology. Moreover, the requisite infrastructure needed to support the adoption of biotechnology existed in Asia and Latin America, whereas it was lacking in Africa.

On the whole, Fighting for the Future of Food is a serious piece of scholarship that provides new insights into the global biotechnology debate. It brings much-needed scholarly rigor to a subject that will continue to shape future debates about global agriculture. The book is an important contribution to scholarship on social movements, protest, contention, and technological controversies. It has the potential to shape the design of future studies, as well as the design of public policies on agricultural innovation.