The author, a Washington-based correspondent for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, began covering the GMO story in the 1980s, his interest having been stimulated by the pioneering experiments of the St. Louis-based chemical giant Monsanto. Lambrecht quickly became aware of the problems, as well as the potential, of genetically engineered food. His first story on biotechnology in 1986 profiled U.S. government experiments with pigs whose DNA had been manipulated to produce leaner meat. Some of the pigs' offspring were born with birth defects, while others failed to develop normally.

The following year, events in the private sector offered greater promise of success. Two firms, Advanced Genetic Sciences and Monsanto, conducted successful agricultural experiments. Monsanto's outdoor test of genetically engineered tomatoes represented a particularly impressive advance.

The company's stake in the GMO field, observes Lambrecht, went beyond humanitarian concern to feed the hungry. Monsanto marketed a hugely successful pesticide called Roundup. By creating seed varieties impervious to Roundup, Monsanto could offer farmers the means to control weeds while reducing the risk to their crops by planting the pesticide-resistant seeds dubbed Roundup Ready. And Monsanto would hold the patent rights on the genetically engineered seeds, giving it a monopoly.

Then things began to go sour. Monsanto found itself reviled as "Mutanto" or "Monsatan." Genetically engineered crops were derided as "Frankenfood" in Europe, the epicenter of resistance to biotechnology, and doubts began to surface in the United States and in developing nations.

What went wrong? Lambrecht astutely recognizes a complex set of factors. Monsanto's advertising campaign, which was directed toward farmers rather than consumers, certainly deserves a share of the blame. Human error in handling genetically engineered crops generated further controversy, particularly the incident in 2000 when StarLink corn, which was supposed to be restricted to animal feed, was mistakenly mixed with corn used in making taco shells.

But two other factors, unrelated to corporate strategy or scientific safeguards, significantly affected the debate on biotechnology. As Lambrecht shows, by the late 1980s popular opinion on the ethics of scientific research was being adversely influenced by decades of technological abuse and dissembling of its consequences. The cumulative effect of the Bhopal and Chernobyl disasters, "mad cow" disease in Britain, and Monsanto's damaged reputation stemming from its production of the controversial Agent Orange defoliant during the Vietnam War set the stage for worldwide resistance to GMOs.

Despite the fact that no harm to humans has yet been traced to genetically engineered food, biotech companies like Monsanto are at a disadvantage in the public relations wars. Interestingly, the greatest weapon they face appears to be the Internet. Lambrecht notes perceptively that before 1998 the U.S. Department of Agriculture had never received more than 8,000 public responses on a given policy issue. But that year the department was inundated by 275,000 responses, an overwhelming number of them opposed to a proposal to confer consumer-friendly organic status on genetically engineered food. The vast majority of these communications were email messages.

The Internet has rewritten the rules of engagement between biotech companies and environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace and GE Food Alert. But the newest communication technology may not benefit both parties equally. The author is skeptical of attempts by biotech companies to utilize the Internet to their advantage. "I can't see how the companies' elaborate sites move people who haven't made up their minds," Lambrecht writes. "Nor, because they sermonize to the choir, do I view them as an effective organizing tool."

Lambrecht's insights into corporate policy are based on many years of reporting the GMO story. He has built a vast store of information and an amazing network of contacts, which help give readers a sense of insider knowledge. The vivid descriptions of protests in England, the anti-World Trade Organization riots in Seattle, and tense negotiations over rules governing GMOs infuse his narrative with a similar "on the scene" realism.

The most valuable feature of Dinner at the New Gene Cafe is Lambrecht's interviews with both proponents and opponents of GMOs and the generous amount of space he gives them to articulate their conflicting views. The worldwide list of his protagonists ranges from biotechnology pioneers such as Ernest Jaworski to "the first international rock star of the environmental movement" and a strident critic of "bio-imperialism" by Western corporations like Monsanto, Vandana Shiva.

Lamrecht's book, however, is not without defects. While it reads like a fast-paced newspaper series, New Gene Cafe lacks the charts, diagrams, timelines, and sidebars that normally accompany such investigative efforts. These supplementary features help keep wide-ranging reportage in focus. Lambrecht's book would have benefited greatly by their inclusion, especially since he does not provide a final summation of the many insights scattered throughout his text.

Dinner at the New Gene Cafe is a very good book that could have been an even better one. To be fair, the final chapter in the impassioned debate over genetically engineered food is a long way from being written, and Bill Lambrecht may well need to serve a second or third course before it's done.