librarykiana's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.75
Content Warnings
Minor: Death, Vomit, Child death, and Terminal illness
r_ward's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
5.0
A fascinating and extremely thorough account of a remarkable man’s mission to drag America into a healthier, safer culinary culture, whether it wanted to go or not. Informative, illustrative, brutal at times and hopeful at others. Definitely a dense read, but it never lacks for intrigue and though the cast of characters is somewhat daunting, by the end you feel as if you’ve weathered the journey with them and can’t help but feel proud of their accomplishments.
booksoup's review against another edition
3.0
This was interesting! Took me a while to get through because it’s a nonfiction book lol, but it was a fascinating look at food safety and politics in the early 1900s. I’d known some of the crazy food stuff that went on then, but the deeper look into the poison squad was interesting. I kind of wish the squad members themselves were further described; the focus was almost exclusively on Wiley and his politics.
daniellekat's review
Such an interesting topic and written in easy to understand language, BUT so repetitive 😣 I felt like this lacked a narrative flow or even just a main protagonist for the reader to connect with. As a Canadian, the US political ups and downs were lost on me, and there were so many characters rapidly coming in and out. This had potential but I think some of the choices made by the author just didn't suit my tastes.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal cruelty and Gaslighting
Moderate: Vomit
Detailed descriptions of poisoned/unsafe food.sophie_pesek's review against another edition
4.0
Read at the recommendation of my environmental toxicology professor!
It’s wild to see how little progress has been made in 100 years: the study techniques are still the same (minus the human subjects), and the uncertainty factors nearly as high. The definition of what’s “injurious” to health is still vague and constantly contested. It’s disheartening to read that the burden of proof has always been with the government, rather than the companies that manufacture compounds for human consumption or use.
Although food regulation has a happier ending with the establishment of the FDA, I can see many parallels between this and the fight for human impact studies being carried out by the EPA now. Thankfully, the food industry has adapted to and overcome stringent regulations- something tells me manufacturers can do the same if PFAS, TCE, alkylphenol, etc. standards are passed.
It’s wild to see how little progress has been made in 100 years: the study techniques are still the same (minus the human subjects), and the uncertainty factors nearly as high. The definition of what’s “injurious” to health is still vague and constantly contested. It’s disheartening to read that the burden of proof has always been with the government, rather than the companies that manufacture compounds for human consumption or use.
Although food regulation has a happier ending with the establishment of the FDA, I can see many parallels between this and the fight for human impact studies being carried out by the EPA now. Thankfully, the food industry has adapted to and overcome stringent regulations- something tells me manufacturers can do the same if PFAS, TCE, alkylphenol, etc. standards are passed.