As a Dietitian and Certified Diabetes Educator I am delighted that Pollan has put together one pouch with most all the jewels. The system while well meaning is not yet optimizing our access to the path of health.

I thought it was beyond funny that the first people Michael Pollan cited in his acknowledgments sections were his editors. I thought this book could have used some more editing actually. It was repetitive and overly sensational. I cook my own food and have a garden, and it still made me feel incredibly inadequate at providing for myself, which is ridiculous.

I am not entirely convinced that we should completely denounce nutritionism and science because God does it better. Sounds like the same malarkey that challenges evolutionary science. And I thought it a serious weakness that Pollan uses food studies when it's convenient for his argument to do so.

Kudos to Pollan for making a lot of this research and information approachable to the average American, but I feel like he's preaching the the choir. The people who really need to read this book probably can't afford it.

Bottom Line: I celebrated finishing this book by serving myself up a HUGE bowl of Lucky Charms. Ah...high fructose corn syrup...it's been a while, my friend...

If this fabulous book becomes a best-seller, as it should, if enough people read and follow its advice, if we can manage to get the kids on board with healthy eatting (PLEASE write a kid's version, asap), we can put the food processors, food "scientists" on notice that their imitation food is at least one contributing factor behind so many "new" epidemics: bi-polarity in children, autism, ADD, allergies, asthma, diabetes I & II, obesity, etc etc etc.
Thank you Michael Pollan for stating the case for real food so very well. This Saturday, I'm off to the farmer's market.

You really have to read Pollan's masterpiece, "The Omnivore's Dilemma," to appreciate this one, which functions as a kind of coda to Omnivore's exploration of industrial farming and its effects on the food supply. In "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto," Pollan's attack on nutritionism--the separating of a food into its components--certainly puts the lie to "alternative" medicine health gurus like Andrew Weil, who sometimes seem to push pills (vitamins, anti-oxidants, etc.) as heartily as his counterparts in traditional medicine. According to Pollan, there is no magic substance, whether it be oat bran or omega-3 oils, that can bestow health. He points out that human beings have thrived on all kinds of different diets, the so-called Western diet excepted. He convincingly argues, citing infant formula as just one example, that efforts to reduce a valuable food to its components are primitive at best and that attempts to define what comprises a healthy diet, like the emphasis on low fat consumption, have been just plain wrong. Shop the outer walls of the supermarket, he advises, looking for the real food: vegetables, fruit, fish, and meat. Stay out of the middle, where the "whole grain" junk food and "heart healthy" cookies dwell. This is an interesting and sensible book full of good advice that is ridiculously easy to follow. Despite some of the more enthusiastic reviews, I do have to say that for middle-aged readers the notion that if you follow Pollan's precepts you will live longer and avoid devastating diseases is a bit silly. (Pollan does not make this claim.) Who can predict such things? However, for those who choose to teach their children or grandchildren to eat well---what better gift for the next generation? Reader: if you can't cook you are going to have to learn.

I almost put this book back on the shelf after seeing its sub-subtitle: "Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants." I thought, well, duh, who doesn't know that? I expected yet another rant that we're eating too much of the wrong food, which isn't new and isn't helpful.

But this book posits some interesting reasons why we're eating too much and even more importantly why we're not eating *food*. Until I read Chapter One I had not even considered how long it's been since I looked at an item of food as something in and of itself instead of just as a collection of nutrients. Our grandparents looked at an orange and saw an orange; we look at an orange and see part of our daily allotment of Vitamin C. Yet we really know very little about what's in an orange that's protective to our health. We should eat it because it's delicious and has been part of the human diet for centuries, not because some expert tells us to.

Mr. Pollan also advances the idea that we don't spend enough on food, that if we can afford to we should spend more. This seems counter-intuitive, but in fact he's right. When you spend $6 for a half-gallon of organic, non-homogenized milk, or $4.89 a dozen for eggs from pastured chickens, you really become conscious of the food you're eating.

At the end he provides some practical advice on how to avoid the pressures that cause us to eat too much of the wrong things.

With the rise of the farmer's market in most areas we now have more opportunity than we've had in decades to eat real food. Try it, you'll like it -- that applies to both this book and the real food it advocates.

One of the most brilliant diet and health writers of our day has got to be Michael Pollan. As a worthy follow-up to his instant classic The Omnivore's Dilemma, this book comes strongly to the defense of REAL food as opposed to the heavy reliance on packaged creations that dominates the typical American family dinner table. What if most of the diseases we are dealing with have more to do with the diet we are consuming in the fast-paced lifestyle of the 21st century and less to do with whatever the latest nutritional flavor of the day advice is out there? It's a rather thought-provoking exercise that is worth reading every glorious one of these 230-something pages of text. Pollan is on to something HUGE her and I can't wait to see what else he comes up with if he keeps writing about diet in the future.

As this book is a well written, enjoyable, enlighening read, to see so many positive reviews is wonderful. The author's message really needs to be read and embraced by every American, especially those with the strongest Puritan ethics, who really believe that food isn't meant to be savoured or celebrated. Our Creator gives us all things richly to enjoy. Mouth watering real food is meant to be eaten with gratefulness, leisurely enjoyed with family and friends as the good gift that it is to us from an all loving God. Also, our bodies are more than a machine, and food is more than the fuel. Our bodies are a fearfully and wonderfully made creation and food is a gift meant to enjoyed as it nourishes us. After reading the review, I'm sure you'll understand why my main disagreement with the author concerns his evolutionist viewpoint.

For years my philosophy concerning food has been to "Let your food be your medicine bottle." To finally have an author echo these beliefs and give additional insight as to how to walk them out is truly refreshing. According to Pollen, we should shop for fresh, locally grown foods as much as possible. When going to the supermaket, we are to shop the outside isles of the store, where the whole foods such s meats, eggs, dairy,fuits and vegies are found. It's also important to buy 100% free range meat, dairy and eggs, which don't have growth hormones or antibiotics, aren't crowded into farm factory facilites or fed species inappropriate food and are slaughtered most humanly. Also, it's important to purchase Salmon and other fish from Alaska that aren't tainted with mercury and other industrial waste poisons. I buy organic grains and produce whenever I can, because they are grown on healthier soils. But if the organic produce at the supermarket is wilted, I buy the freshest produce I can find. As Chief Seattle said, "How we treat the land, we treat ourselves." This is also true of how we treat our animals.

The author speaks out against "nutritionalism," which invloves getting so engrossed in the nutritional components of food that we fail to enjoy real food for the sensory delight that it is. Real food isn't a fast food meal eaten on the run, nor is a T.V. dinner eaten alone in front of the television or while working at your desk. Real food is the kind our Grandmother's would have recognized as food and is meant to be enjoyed as a communal dining experience. While not obsessing over the individual nutrients, real food is nutrient dense. Different whole foods provide different nutrients, which when in eaten in combinatiion nourish our bodies most abundantly. Real food definately isn't the refined, nutritionally depleted "edible food like substances" so many people eat today.

If you are wondering why food would ever need to be defended and from whom look around you at the processed junk we call food that most Americans consume. We have been deceived by both the food industry and nutritional science with the approval of the federal government. Also, the drug companies aren't crying all the way to the bank over the billions of dollars sickly Amercians spend on toxic medical treatments and drugs. Our sckyrocketing rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and a long list of other degenerative diseases is the price we are paying for this travesty.

This book is a must read. I am very fond of food. Food that is whole, simple, and delicious. This book is valuable in terms of awareness/opening people's eyes to what has happened to our food, and its transformation to "food-like substances". It's informative while not being preachy and to the point. Thank you Michael Pollan for writing this book and verbalizing something that when you break it down is very simple- we have stripped most of our food of all its foodie (nutrient packed) goodness- and accept that what we are being given is ok even though most people have no idea exactly what they are eating.

The author makes a good case for the idea that America's collective food industry with pssive cooperation of the federal goverenment has changed people's perceptions of food and what is proper to eat.

His essential message is that most food in supermarkets is not really food. Supermarket products are really mass produced food like substances with some nutritional value but are not real food. These products are collections of synthetic chemicals and added vitamins and mineral, high fructose corn syrup and the dyes.

His recomendation is to eat real food. That is eat cheese that was made from milk and has no preservatives or other additives. Eat bread that is made from whole grains, yeast, and other ingredients that occur in nature. No preservatives or chemicals.

Foods like this are had to find in supermarkets.

I personally have found 2 kinds of bread that have only natural ingredients and no preservatives or chemicals. I have found one kind of yogurt without red dye 40, splenda or other chemical sweetener. Yogurt incredients should include milk, bacteria and prescious little else. Natural peanut butter, without hydrogenated saturated fat is fairly easy to find.

The authors advice is to eat real food, mostly fruits and vegatables and not too much.

This is simple common sense advice. There is no need to worry about calories, low carb, high protein, low fat philosophies.

Just eat real food, not manufactured crap.

This book reminds me a lot of The Evolution Diet- encouraging us to get back to the way we were designed to eat. It's not an easy task in a culture that is so heavily saturated wtht junk food, but it's definitely worth it.

I know as a doctor that we're heading in the wrong direction as eaters and our genes arent correcting the situation in time.

Pollan's ultimate instruction after a lengthy read is: eat plants- mainly green leafy ones to avoid the wrong type of food.

I bought this book after seeing the author's lecture at Google (via YouTube). He was brilliant there and his book reflected that. There were a few sections that seemed to be a little long-winded as the author opined about the nutrition conspiracy. It was worth it to plow through those and get to the real gold nuggets -- practical advice on how to shop and eat. This book's logical, down-to-earth approach was the first truly actionable nutrition advice I've read in my adult years. Having implemented many of the book's lessons, my family is eating healthier and our food bill hasn't risen dramatically. I consider this book a "life changer". Can't recommend it highly enough.

I really enjoyed this book and learned a lot from it. It has definitely increased my appreciation for those that work the land to bring food to my table and has inspired me to contemplate this more as I eat. It has also encouraged me in changing my diet to include more "food" and get rid of the processed junk.

All of Pollan's books are so easy to read, and so full of information! This newest book offers so many wonderful suggestions on how to eat like the human species was meant to, and not how corporate America wants us to. It is interesting to ponder how many of life's current ills would be solved if we just thought a little more about what we eat and how we eat it.

In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, Michael Pollan

Could you stand to lose a few pounds? Perhaps just concerned with eating right for health reasons? Have you ever noticed that it seems just about everyday there is a new 'breakthrough scientific study' that claims to have found the holy grail of nutrition? Perhaps it is a low-fat diet...or low-carb...more antioxidants...maybe we just need more omega-3s? Does it seem like a lot of this information tends to contradict previous findings, which in turn, is contradicted again? I found this book to be an eye-opening look into why this has been occurring for over the last century. The author examines the origins of 'Nutritionism'...the phenomenon of applying science and technology to essentially replace our ancestor's food chain with The Western Diet.

Beginning in the early 19th century, scientists discovered the basic building blocks of food: Carbohydrates, Protein and Fat. A little while longer they discovered a few basic nutrients (vitamins) and proclaimed they had solved animal and human nutrition. Soon after, the first baby formula was created (consisting of cow's milk, flour and potassium bicarbonate). Nutritionism was on its way. Unfortunately, doctors began to notice that babies fed exclusively on this diet did not fare especially well...undeterred, the food scientists forged ahead, looking for the magic formula for human nutrition. The author continues to explore the Age of Nutritionism, from the advent of processed grains to the low-fat phenomenon of the late 50s-present to the low-carb craze of the turn of this century. He highlights that current scientists, in some respects, are just like the early ones. There are just far too many things that we just do not know about how the human body utilizes food.

Out of The Age of Nutritionism was born The Western Diet. Highly processed foods, shelf stable and able to be transported around the globe. A plethora of foods sources were distilled into about 4 monoculture grains (corn, soy, wheat, rice) and 3 protein sources (beef, pork and chicken). These staples were then bred for maximum production at low cost (a worthy goal when there are poor, starving people), however this came at a cost of nutritive value and flavor. The author then describes the after affects of the adoption of The Western Diet. After industrialization, native peoples quickly began to contract 'western' diseases (hypertension, diabetes, cancer, etc.) when previously they had very low rates. Pollan describes a study of modern aboriginals who had a wide range of maladies simply disappear after returning to a bush diet for several weeks; foraging for plants, grubs and wild game.

As you may know, the U.S. has very high rates of obesity, hypertension, cancer, and heart disease. Much of the increases in life expectancy have come from preventing infant mortality, not actually extending life spans. In the near future, we may actually see a decrease in life expectancy. Much of this, Pollan argues, is due to our diet. Food scientists can break food down into parts, but it has a harder time putting it back together. And even if they could, do we really know the optimal configuration? Perhaps someday we will...but until then?

What can we do? Must we return to a hunter/gatherer existence to save ourselves? Fortunately, no. The author suggests only simple, basic guidelines: Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants. Out of these basic guidelines, there are some sub-bullets I would like to highlight.

Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food
Avoid food products that make health claims
Shop the peripheries of the supermarket, avoid the center aisles
Eat well-grown food from healthy soils
Don't look for the magic bullet in traditional diets
Eat meals, at a table
Cook...and plant a garden

I highly recommend this book. It has really affected the way I think about food. I have always subconsciously been in the nutritionist frame of mind...the body is a machine and food is its fuel. This book sheds light on a counter-claim; that food is actually a relationship between many things, both living and not. I invite you to investigate this yourself.

I would caution that while our diets constitute one portion of our health, it is not the only determinant. Our ancestors also had much different activity levels than we in modern societies do today. I am a strong believer in the power of exercise, which is not in the scope of this book; but in my view, cannot be left out of any discussion of health. I also am an optimist in regards to science. While our scientists may not currently hold the keys to the universe...does that mean we should not implore them to keep looking?

http://tragedy-of-the-commons.blogspot.com/

In The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan does a tour of sorts through what passes as our diet through four meals and the ways he goes after them. In Defense of Food, its follow-up, he collects the information gleaned from both Omnivore's Dilemma and other sources, and breaks them down into useable forms of knowledge. As it turns out, his ideal diet comes closest to Polyface Farm than anything else.

We get no real dissection of what "organic" really means (for that, read TOD) but what is today defined as food is mercilessly taken apart and exposed for what it is: pieces and parts made to hide the fact that the corn you're eating (directly or indirectly) is lacking in any real nutritive value. As a response, Pollan defines three simple rules (Eat Food, Not Too Much, and Mostly Plants) and twelve followup rules to make the three basic rules followable.

Having done a lot of reading on the subjects Michael Pollan writes about, it's amazing how much his thesis is reflected in what's becoming the knowledge of the "dietary" sciences. Vitamins, once the key to health, are now handmaidens to bioflavenoids, phytonutrients, and other items which we may not know about. In addition, where we eat, how we eat and with whom is also seen to have an effect. Meanwhile "nutritionism" keeps being shown as sadly limited in its powers due to limits set by its attempt to become a science.

Little here is unavailable to the reader who knows where to look, but the synthesis is very much worth the price. Buy it.

This is the definitive book on how to reclaim eating from the morass of nutritionism and food industry machinations that it has fallen into in America. Michael Pollan's research and writing are truly top-grade.

Pollan describes how in the last few decades, nutritionism has taken root and replaced eating food with eating nutrients. He describes how food is much, much more than the sum of its (known) nutrients, and how the focus on adding some nutrients and reducing others has actually made us less healthy and fatter than before as a society. Along the way, he delves briefly into food politics and the madness of the new 'foods' sold in America today - vitamin-enriched colas, vitamin water, foods and drinks laden with high fructose corn syrup while still being 'low-fat', et al.

This book will wake you up and make you truly angry about what you are being fed by the food industry and the government. Fortunately, Pollan goes beyond exposing the dangers of what he calls the Western diet (meat, potatoes, and soda) and the lies of the food industry and the FDA, and lays out some very sensible algorithms that we can follow when shopping for food, cooking it and eating it. He stops short of prescribing what to eat and focuses instead on giving us rules of thumb that we can follow in reclaiming our food, our health, and our lives.

Highly recommended, very practical, extremely readable book.

Michael Pollan does an excellent job of presenting much of what you need to know in order to eat in ways that will help you live a much better life. Everyone should read this book.

I am not a book reviewer but I feel so strongly about the importance of this slim volume that I want to encourage everyone to read what Michael Pollan has to say. I first heard the author interviewed about the book on NPR and put my name on a (long) waiting list for a copy from my local library. After I read it, I Insisted that my partner read it and then I decided to purchase my own copy to share with as many friends as possible. I think he clearly states just what has gone wrong with our food system in the Western world and what we can do to reverse that process, one eater at a time. We already belong to a CSA here in South Florida but have used the book's prescription to widen our healthy eating habits to include grass fed meat and other protein and have eliminated high fructose corn syrup and other abominations from our diet. I think it's a must read for everyone.

If you live in the U.S., and eat the "American Way" you owe it to yourself as a human being to read this book. This is a well written explanation as to why we are facing huge crises in healthcare due to the unbelievable obesity and health issues created by our current Western-American diets. I personally have been enlightened 3 months ago and have lost over 15 lbs and feel healthier than ever. This book was one of the recommended reads for my self re-education and the author is absolutely correct. I also work in health care and am very frightened by what the future will be for the misinformed who happen to be a huge percentage of the population. Most chronic dieseases are easily avoidable by the simple re-education of our minds and our diets. Eat how our bodies were designed by Nature. Eat Food, not much, mostly plants - mostly raw.

This is a very good book (quick, easy to ready, footnoted if you want the sources, etc.) that does a few things very well. First, it explains the harms of nutrition science ("nutritionism"), which historically has broken down our food into nutrients, declared which nutrients were best, processed foods to give us those nutrients, and then consistently re-tooled the supposedly expert formulas when the science was shown to be wrong. Instead of eating food now, many of us most of the time are eating "food-like substances." Second, it explains what we *do* know about the industrialization of food, and what we do know is not good. Third, it provides us tips to get us back to eating food rather than food-like substances. Pollan concludes that food is much more than nutrition; that food, properly understood, is natural, not a product of industry; and that food is about more than fuel, it is about relationships. I give this book a 4 instead of a 5 only because of Pollan's occassional evolutionary references; for some reason, he views the benefits of natural food over industrialized food, including its relational benefits, as a product of evolution rather than the product of a God who knows what is best for us and provided that for us. All in all, though, this book really is an excellent "defense of food." And I love the tagline: "Eat Food. Not Too Much. Mostly Plants."

After reading the Omnivore's Dilemma last year, I was left thoroughly horrified with everything that American culture eats. I stopped eating and drinking MANY things, out of disgust with its production. Over time, I had to give in, eat horrible, processed, corn syruppy food again, simply because it is so difficult to find alternatives. But In Defense of Food renewed my enthusiasm to eat more naturally, more healthfully. It was an excellent follow-up to Omnivore's Dilemma, but even by itself, In Defense of Food is enlightening and encouraging--there is a TON of crazy, scientifically formulated and processed "food" out there, but it is also possible to avoid that stuff, and in doing so, perhaps avoid some of the western illnesses that have become all too common.

I HIGHLY reccommend it.

In The Omnivore's Dilemma Pollan discussed where food comes from, and in this companion book he continues with what we should eat: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Pollan points out that we humans used to know how to eat properly, but don't anymore. He also says that in order to improve our health we must go back to traditional foods and ways of eating. This would involve avoiding processed foods and not eating anything your grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. Pollan also suggests quality over quantity of food and eating real foods rather than artificial nutrients. He says, which I agree with, that it is better to spend more money on lesser amounts of quality real food. He explains that if we would spend more for better, well-grown food, but buy less of it, we would benefit ourselves, our communities, and the environment. He suggests planting a garden. He also brings up the well-known suggestions that when you shop it is best to avoid the center aisles that are filled with processed foods, and avoid foods with high-fructose corn syrup. In fact, he says to avoid any food product that makes health claims, which he interprets as signaling it is probably not really food.

The book scrutinizes what he sees that science purports to know about diet and health, and comes up with his own view of what we should eat. Pollan criticizes the typical steak dinner, the entire Western diet, and what he describes as the nutrient-by-nutrient approach to creating food. He says that during the last half-century real food has started to disappear and has been replaced by processed foods designed to include certain popular nutrients. Pollan calls this the age of nutritionism. The book criticizes manufacturers of processed foods and nutritional scientists who he blames for an unhealthy preoccupation with nutrition and diet. He also joins others in questioning the idea that dietary fat leads to diseases. The book gives the history of "nutritionism" in this country and illuminates the relationship between government and the food industry. This book is a fascinating read! Also recommend THE 3:00 PM SECRET: Live Slim and Strong, Live Your Dreams

I am not a health nut and I tend to avoid books written by those who are. However, we all want to live longer and eat well. This book made a lot of sense to me. It seemed well balanced and not "over the top". Here are a couple of things that I got from it:

* People can live well eating a wide variety of foods as long as they are "real" foods, not over-processed commercial products with the shelf-life of gravel
* Fats are not bad. We need some fats in order to live, some are just better that others
* Our modern diet is comprised of too much seeds and grains and not enough leaves
* There is not a "magic" ingredient or nutrient that will make us healthy
* Don't buy food in the grocery store that your grandmother would not recognize
* When it come to foods the Whole is truly greater than the sum on it's Parts

I have started to think differently about the way that I eat. I even sent a copy to my ex-wife since she has been trying to convince me of many of these truths for year, darn it!

THIS BOOK IS ONE OF THE BEST I HAVE READ IN A LONG TIME. IT CHALLENES THE WAY YOU LOOK AT EATING, NUTRITION, AND DIET. IF THE AUTHOR, OR SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HIM READS THIS, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE HIM WRITE ABOUT WATER: SHORTAGES, BOTTLED WATER, MUNICIPAL SUPPLIES, AND HAVE HIME SEND SOME CHEAP TAP WATER AND EXPENSIVE BOTTLED WATERS TO THE LAB.

Being someone who has struggled with food and eating throughout most of my life, I know how hard it is to find a proper diet and routine that will help shed excess baggage and help me live a healthier life while being able to still enjoy food, one of this world's great pleasures. Well, I am not the only one who struggles with this in the nation of Big Macs, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Taco Bell, because over 60% of Americans are either overweight or obese. Why America and why is the collective weight of America growing so much in the past few decades? Michael Pollan in his book In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto attempts to answer these questions and more.

I was a bit skeptical buying the book at first, because I thought that it was going to be nothing more than yet another diet book telling its readers that they need to cut bread from their diets, or red meat from their diets, or a combination of both from their diets while they should engorge themselves on various products from various companies. Pollan's book is not like that. His book does not center so much on what one should eat, but how one should eat and he sums up his entire book with one simple statement "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." And it is with this statement that Pollan takes the ready on a journey throughout the twentieth century history of food in America and how a good portion of Americans have become obese albeit malnourished at the same time.

Pollan believes that the main problem concerning food and eating in America is that the food that most Americans consume is not food, but instead some mass pressed into a shape resembling food, and some cases not, so chock full of chemicals and added nutrients that this food does not resemble natural food. And what is natural food? Food that someone's great grandmother, not mother or grandmother so much anymore because they were often raised or shifted to processed food as well, would recognize as food, so therefore real food. It is for this reason that Pollan states to "eat food," but this is easier said than done because of the food industry and big business. Only so much can be done with a tomato or an eggplant, but breakfast cereals and fad foods can make money and it is these products that gain much of the support of big business and customers, like cattle, follow where they are told to go.

To counter this, Pollan states that Americans should look to the diets of other countries, and in his book Pollan concentrates on countries such as France, Italy, Greece, and Spain whose diets are quite high in fat, but whose people tend to be thinner and healthier. Why is this, because they are people who appreciate the value of traditional foods, natural foods, and unlike America, the citizens of these countries take the time to eat and to enjoy their food without gulping down as much as possible in as short of time as possible. Pollan believes that Americans should move away from their diet "The Western Diet" and come to enjoy food again for its quality not its quantity.

Food and eating is a touchy subject because many toes can be stepped on. Overweight people can be quite sensitive about their weight, and a book informing them that most of what they eat is wrong can be taken the wrong way. However, Pollan possesses an easy, humorous style of writing that while it harshly criticizes how America and its money conscious diet is killing its own citizens does not offend individual readers by picking on individual eating habits. Instead, it gives a larger picture of how big money and government policy has led to a great amount of the obesity in this country because food has moved away in America from being something of pleasure and communion into a business.

It should be noted that Michael Pollan is a journalist and not a scientist. For this reason, I think that some of his writing must be taken with a grain of salt, but with the prevalence of processed foods, cheap fast foods that do not rot, and America's turning away from healthier foods to ones that provide cheaper more abundant calories, his view might benefit the reader more than many of the scientific studies performed in the last thirty years.

The author pretty much says it all in the preface of the book -- that the message of the book is -- "don't eat anything that your Grandmother wouldn't recognize as food".

There are several interesting points, but I feel he could have covered it in a chapter or two -- not a whole book. If you haven't read this particular book yet, then I would suggest that you read "The Omnivore's Dilemma", followed by "Fast Food Nation" (but don't watch the movie). These two books will give you a whole new perspective on what you eat. Then, if you eat fast food more than once or twice a month, watch the movie "Supersize Me" and take it to heart. Finally, if you want the last few points to be learned, buy this book.

Sorry not to be more positive about this book, there are just other ones out there that should be read first -- before you lose interest in the topic.

I did come away from this book with a new found paranoia about margarine, processed food, and the food industry in general. I also agreed with his argument that un-processed foods contain more of the vitamins, minerals, nutriments, and fiber that are healthy for you -- verses trying to get it via artificial mixtures in processed foods.

By the way, he does say that food grown with naturally occurring organic fertilizer has better nutritional content and taste than harsh chemical fertilizers. Makes sense to me.

Pollan expands on some of the ideas he first put forward in The Omnivore's Dilemma. It was an interesting book but unfortunately not as interesting as his last several works. I think the phrase "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." stood well on it's own without need a small volume written to discuss it.

I enjoyed listening to an unabridged audio CD of In Defense of Food (a Talking Books "hot" release). I've never read a Michael Pollan book before, although Amazon's automated recommendations suggested The Omnivore's Dilemna, which has been patiently residing on my wishlist for many months. Pollan sharp, sardonic wit pervades his "manifesto," while the narrator, Scott Brick, intones the humor of the book (with a speaking voice reminiscent of Edward Hermann, who besides his Richard Gilmore renown, is also known for his audiobook and documentary narrations). I still chuckle over Pollan's caveat, "Don't eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognize," which he then revised to, "Don't eat anything your Neolithic grandmother wouldn't recognize." Or when he deplores the lack of marketing/advertisement alloted to fresh produce with "the silence of the yams."

In many ways, this author was preaching to the choir. His book both reinforced and elaborated upon what I already believe. However, I did have some "but...," "well...," "not exactly..." moments while listening to this book. I disagreed with his blanket assertion that supplements were useless (though he conceded that fish oil capsules and multivitamins in the post-50 crowd may be a good idea). The tests he references to disqualify vitamin supplementation were flawed in design in many ways. If you give an already sick population synthetic vitamin E supplements, then go figure that it doesn't seem to do much good, nevermind completely reverse as-of-yet incurable, terminal illnesses. There is an ocean of difference between synthetic, poor-absorption Centrum and food-based, high-absorption mutlivitamins. I completely agree with his point that whole food should be the primary source for our nutritional needs, not vitamins or fortified, food-like substances. Oops, I just sort of said a cognate of the word "nutritionism," which brings me to my next "but, well, what if" moment.

Michael Pollan's concept of nutrition, nutritionist, and the newly coined, nutritionism, aren't exactly mainstream associations with this word family. I don't know any nutritionist worth his or her salt who would actively promote Sara Lee's fortified white whole-wheat bread with its 42 or so ingredients. Most know the value of "eat mostly fruits and vegetables" and "eat food, not too much, and mostly plants." When you are in charge of meal planning for a certain population, you may have to think of food groups and a proper ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Yes, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, especially when we are unaware of all the addends of a particular fruit, vegetable, or food group. But I think that analyzing how food works and is utilized by the body is interesting. We don't yet "know what we don't know" in this field of nutrition. I can see his point against reductioinism and agree with him when incomplete information is misapplied, as was the case with the "war against fats" that turned out to have disastrous public health consequences.

At times, Pollan was repetitive, especially when he went on and on about dietary fats and nutritionism's costly mistake of replacing butter with trans-fat loaded margarine. Yet Pollan's discussion on Omega-3 and Omega-6 fats was enlightening. I learned more about the nature of Omega-3's role and its delicate interplay with Omega-6 fats. He now projects that the current low-carbs diets may have public health consequences. It's already known that too much protein is hard on the kidneys and liver. Also, we know that we need the fiber (not to mention the host of beneficial antioxidants and vitamins) in fruits and vegetables, the "good," low-glycemic index carbs. Oops, I did it again. I was thinking about things in terms of nutritional value.

Another "well, that's not what I heard" moment was his discussion of diet and dental health. I am interning as a dental assistant, and one of our instructors told my cohort that the natural diet of rice and berries can be hard upon teeth because of the texture of those types of foods. Cultures that eat a lot of rice can show a great deal of wear/attrition of the teeth's biting and chewing surfaces. Likewise, cultures with a high citrus fruit intake make be prone to cavities because of the acidicity of citrus fruit. Dental caries (cavities) is the oldest and most common disease known to man; it's not a 21st-century novelty brought about by the "Western" diet (though I will in no way deny that the "Western" diet hasn't aggravated/compromised dental health--fluoridinated water, at the right level, can help offset this). Historically, many people may have died of diseases that originated in the mouth and then went systemic. The death may not have been attributed to dental disease, but that may have been the origin of the disease. Granted, I haven't done independent field work or read several medical and anthropological tomes on the matter, but that is what I learned during my dental assisting training. Maybe I will stand corrected.

Though Pollan's ostinato use of the word "Western" to describe the American diet grated on my nerves, I appreciated his discussion on cultural comparison of food and dining habits. For one thing, I think this "Western" adjective is a misnomer. Europe is included in the concept of all things occidental, and Pollan idealizes several European countries' relationship to food and eating patterns. The Spanish, French, and Italians are going about things the right way; it is only us Americans and those cultures we have managed to taint that really apply to Pollan's use of the "Western" diet. Pollan made an astute observation that the diet of a particular group of people can't be extracted from the culture. The Mediterranean diet is more complicated than reducing it to the Mediterranean Food Pyramid. Savoring food and the culinary art of food are European/international concepts we Americans could do well to adopt. The fast-paced, eat in the car lifestyle that so many people fall into can have deleterious effects on health, while not allowing us to enjoy one of life's greatest pleaures: eating/fine dining.

I think that you can have the best of both worlds. You can consider the whole and the parts (goodness, this seems similar to the Whole Language versus Phonics litearcy debate) of food, and God forbid, food-like substances. You can consider that this organic grapefruit will help you with fiber and Vitam C daily recommendations, and then you can set that concern aside and enjoy the tart fruit, realizing we may never know what constitutes all that goes into a grapefruit. If overanalyzing food detracts from enjoying it, then don't worry its component nutrients. If you eat mostly fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, then don't feel badly if you go against the grain of Pollan's advice and want to consider how these whole foods nourish your body.

Overall, a very enjoyable fare. Food for thought. I will think twice before putting edible, food-like substances that my Neolithic grandmother wouldn't recognize into my shopping cart.

Michael Pollan wrote In Defense of Food to encourage people to eat more natural foods, home cooked, out of ingredients they know. On one hand I agree completely with this message. On the other hand, I disagree with some of the commentary he provides along the way.

I took literally 8 pages of notes while reading this book. Especially during the beginning chapters I was shaking my head and writing down things I disagreed with. Michael makes gross exaggerations to get across a point or simply says questionable things. However, I toughed it out as Michael has obviously done a LOT of research to compile this information. As I got through the first part, he becomes much more evenly balanced and provides quite a lot of helpful information.

For example, I agree with him that people should eat more natural foods, including vegetables, and stay away from over-processed foods. I agree that scientists learn information in stages - they might think "all fats are bad" until they realize that there are different types of fat. Our standard white flour has been so processed to make it long lasting that they've removed the nutrition from it. Our breeding has made foods "prettier" while simultaneously removing nutrition. An apple today has only 1/3rd the iron of an apple from 1940.

So these things are great to know. However, mixed in with this information are some things I disagree with. For example, Michael takes delight in talking about the French Paradox (that French people drinking wine and eating cream are healthy) and says it proves that western diets are bad. However, a key part of living the French lifestyle is that you walk around a lot - physical activity is a normal part of the day. To say it is "all about eating what you want to eat" is extremely short sighted.

Which brings me to another key complaint. He says - repeatedly - that people should just "eat what they want" without thinking about labels. He says that people who worry about fiber or omega-3s are the ones who eat badly. He says people who just "eat what they want to" end up eating well. What?? This is COMPLETELY opposite to my experience. I hear from hundreds of visitors a month who DO eat what they want and ended up extremely obese as a result. This is simply not true.

A corollary to Michael's "eat anything" theory is that "native menus" are always perfect. Only the Western diet is bad. However, I can easily name several cultures in which heavy people are quite prevalent. Also, a culture's menu is innately tied to its activity level! The pasta-rich Italian diet is created for hard working Italian farmers. If you are a desk worker and eat tons of heavy Italian pasta every day, you're going to get heavy. It's not that an "Italian Diet" is innately good or bad. However, if you eat the food, you need to also live the lifestyle's activity level to burn off the calorie levels.

There are MANY native diets which load in the calories with the assumption that you're a farmer toiling in the fields all day and you need those calories to live. If you take in those calories without being active, you are going to have serious issues.

Michael also insists that any food with a nutrition promo on its box is evil. If a food item says "contains lots of fiber!" you should avoid it. He in general is against any nutritional information being shown, apparently. Again this makes no sense at all to me. As much as he loves the "old days", people did get scurvy and other diseases back then. People were malnourished. If something has fiber in it, it's good to know!

I definitely agree with some of his summaries. He says we now eat 300 more calories/day than in 1985 and while we are generally overfed we are still undernourished. Our bodies crave more nutrients, so we eat more food, but since we're eating nutrient-poor food it doesn't satisfy the craving.

I just wish he could have made those good points without being so single-sighted in blasting "all Western food", praising "all Eastern food". In the same manner he blasts people who "focus on just vitamins" (rather than whole food categories) and then obsesses about omega-3s.

I do think it's a good idea to read this book. There is a lot of helpful information in it. Borrow it from a library perhaps. But take the information with a grain of salt. Separate the wheat from the chaff - just like he says to do with all food writers.

I enjoyed listening to an unabridged audio CD of In Defense of Food (a Talking Books "hot" release). I've never read a Michael Pollan book before, although Amazon's automated recommendations suggested The Omnivore's Dilemna, which has been patiently residing on my wishlist for many months. Pollan intersperses some sharp, sardonic wit throughout his "manifesto," while the narrator, Scott Brick, intones the humor of the book (with a speaking voice reminiscent of Edward Hermann, who besides his Richard Gilmore renown, is also known for his audiobook and documentary narrations). I still chuckle over Pollan's caveat, "Don't eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognize," which he then revised to, "Don't eat anything your Neolithic grandmother wouldn't recognize." Or when he deplores the lack of marketing/advertisement alloted to fresh produce with "the silence of the yams."

In many ways, this author was preaching to the choir. His book both reinforced and elaborated upon what I already believe. However, I did have some "but...," "well...," "not exactly..." moments while listening to this book. I disagreed with his blanket assertion that supplements were useless (though he conceded that fish oil capsules and multivitamins in the post-50 crowd may be a good idea). The tests he references to disqualify vitamin supplementation were flawed in design in many ways. If you give an already sick population synthetic vitamin E supplements, then go figure that it doesn't seem to do much good, nevermind completely reverse as-of-yet incurable, terminal illnesses. There is an ocean of difference between synthetic, poor-absorption Centrum and food-based, high-absortion mutlivitamins. I completely agree with his point that whole food should be the primary source for our nutritional needs, not vitamins or fortified, food-like substances. Oops, I just sort of said a cognate of the word "nutritionism," which brings me to my next "but, well, what if" moment.

Michael Pollan's concept of nutrition, nutritionist, and the newly coined, nutritionism, aren't exactly mainstream associations of this word family. I don't know any nutritionist worth his or her salt who would actively promote Sara Lee's fortified white whole-wheat bread with its 42 or so ingredients. Most know the value of "eat mostly fruits and vegetables" and "eat food, not too much, and mostly plants." When you are in charge of meal planning for a certain population, you may have to think of food groups and a proper ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Yes, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, especially when we are unaware of all the addends of a particular fruit, vegetable, or food group. But I think that analyzing how food works and is utilized by the body is interesting. We don't yet "know what we don't know" in this field of nutrition. I can see his point against reductioinism and agree with him when incomplete information is misapplied, as was the case with the "war against fats" that turned out to have disastrous public health consequences.

Another "well, that's not what I heard" moment was his discussion of diet and dental health. I am interning as a dental assistant, and one of our instructors told my cohort that the natural diet of rice and berries can be hard upon teeth because of the texture of those types of foods. Cultures that eat a lot of rice can show a great deal of wear/attrition of the teeth's biting and chewing surfaces. Likewise, cultures with a high citrus fruit intake make be prone to cavities because of the acidicity of citrus fruit. Dental caries (cavities) is the oldest and most common disease known to man; it's not a 21st-century novelty brought about by the "Western" diet (though I will in no way deny that the "Western" diet hasn't aggravated/compromised dental health--fluoridinated water, at the right level, can help offset this). Historically, many people may have died of diseases that originated in the mouth and then went systemic. The death may not have been attributed to dental disease, but that may have been the origin of the disease. Granted, I haven't done independent field work or read several medical and anthropological tomes on the matter, but that is what I learned during my dental assisting training. Maybe I will stand corrected.

At times, Pollan was repetitive, especially when he went on and on about dietary fats and nutritionism's costly mistake of replacing butter with trans-fat loaded margarine. Yet Pollan's discussion on Omega-3 and Omega-6 fats was enlightening. I learned more about the nature of Omega-3's role and its delicate interplay with Omega-6 fats. He now projects that the current low-carbs diets may have public health consequences. It's already known that too much protein is hard on the kidneys and liver. Also, we know that we need the fiber (not to mention the host of beneficial antioxidants and vitamins) in fruits and vegetables, the "good," low-glycemic index carbs. Oops, I did it again. I was thinking about things in terms of nutritional value.

Though Pollan's ostinato use of the word "Western" to describe the American diet grated on my nerves, I appreciated his discussion on cultural comparison of food and dining habits. For one thing, I think this "Western" adjective is a misnomer. Europe is included in the concept of all things occidental, and Pollan idealizes several European countries' relationship to food and eating patterns. The Spainards, French, and Italians are going about things the right way; it is only us Americans and those cultures we have managed to taint that really apply to Pollan's use of the "Western" diet. Pollan made an astute observation that the diet of a particular group of people can't be extracted from the culture. The Mediterranean diet is more complicated than reducing it to the Mediterranean Food Pyramid. Savoring food and the culinary art of food are European/international concepts we Americans could do well to adopt. The fast-paced, eat in the car lifestyle that so many people fall into can have deleterious effects on health and not allow us to enjoy one of life's greatest pleaures: eating/fine dining.

I think that you can have the best of both worlds. You can consider the whole and the parts (goodness, this seems similar to the Whole Language versus Phonics litearcy debate) of food, and God forbid, food-like substances. You can consider that this organic grapefruit will help you with fiber and Vitam C daily recommendations, and then you can set that concern aside and enjoy the tart fruit, realizing we may never know what constitutes all that goes into a grapefruit. If overanalyzing food detracts from enjoying it, then don't worry its component nutrients. If you eat mostly fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, then don't feel badly if you go against the grain of Pollan's advice and want to consider how these whole foods nourish your body.

Overall, a very enjoyable fare. Food for thought. I will think twice before putting edible, food-like substances that my Neolithic grandmother wouldn't recognize into my shopping cart.

The best part of this book is the beginning, where the author explains the history of the western diet. Then he discredits modern nutrition scientists, or nutritionists as he calls them, putting them in the ranks of alchemists. Also he seems to accuse them of being colluded with the capitalist pigs running the modern food industry.

Then, he tries to speak with authority about isoflavones, omega-3, and other hard core nutrition knowledge, as if trying to be a nutritionist himself!

The end was the worst, almost unbearable, seriously suggesting that cultivating your lawn or whatever available land you have is a good way to solve the food problem. He becomes very critical, putting down people who "ONLY" take a couple weeks of vacation per year, unlike the French who know more about life than Americans. This was insensitive because, as self-employed that I am, I have not taken vacation in years...aboriginal people, whom he praises, did not take vacations either. In fact, vacations are a modern invention just like the western diet.

I started reading this book with enthusiasm. I liked how he took a step back to look a the whole picture from a broader perspective and shedding some light on how we have ended up where we are. I like his suggestions of avoiding processed food. But the book became gradually disappointing.

That a journalist is now rising as a nutritional authority with best sellers clearly underscores the sad state of confusion and misinformation about food. I was going to recommend it to my wife and some friends, but this book will probably best end up in the recycle bin.

What to eat? Food as opposed to nutrients. What is food? What your great great grandmother would recognize as food. But the grandmother would have to be taught the importance of buying organic. She would have to learn how to read some ingredient labels because many unhealthy breads, for example, look great to eat. Also some of these ladies would have to be instructed, even back then (about 100 years), to cut back on diary products and meat. Some might need to eat less of everything. The author in general is all about eatibg good food not ingredients but omega 3 is an exception. Great great grandmother would have to be trained buy more fish and other foods containing plenty of omega 3.
If everybody stared shopping like this slightly modernized lady it would be a real puzzle if the incidence of obesity and all the associated maladies did not decline significantly.

One of the best food books I have ever read. I love the way it challenges every belief we have about what we should and shouldn't eat.
I also think the fact the the way it is presented, not as a definitive solution but rather a suggestion to begin questioning is true genius.

This book along with Mr. Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma lay out the case for changing what and how we eat. While his previous book focused on the environmental, ethical, and cultural coonsequences of industrial agriculture, In Defense of Food focuses on the health consequences. The writing style is very engaging and despite what could be dry subject matter, I finished this in a matter of days. This is one of those rare books that has the potential not only to be informative and interesting, but to change the way you live your life.

Mr. Pollan's approach to this thoroughly topic is refreshing. Instead of fixating on the different ideologies out there ( vegetarianism, omnivorism, etc), he takes a stand on how humans (well, specifically Americans) have become so far removed from what they eat, the socio and cultural aspects of eating that now food is a highly capitalized product.
He harps on the amazing fact that its easily to convince someone to eat a "man made food product" which may not even be food than it is to feed someone with actual food.

The government does give out so much conflicting information and we are all aware that when you have a multi-billion dollar industry, the biggest players in this space will not idly sit back and watch someone or people attempt to decimate their profit line.

So you know smoking is bad no deadly to you and our basic freedom rights ensure that Tobacco companies will never go out of business.

He gives you food for thought and speaks in detail about how industrialization has become a bane to our existence and how we can realistically rein it back in.

Here's to real food,

In Defense of Food guides you to the type of eating which will enhance your figure, your feeling system, and your family. It applies to all areas of your "food life" and helps you regain the joy of eating. When I heard the author speak, he left us with a marvelous line I take with me to the grocery store: "Never eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognize as food." This easily read, nicely sized, book is a treasure. Enjoy!

I have some mixed feelings about this book. The first section, "The Age of Nutritionism", is very strong and contains a fairly detailed history and critique of nutritional advice, in particular how it has developed since World War II. Even in my short lifetime, I have noticed the demonization of fat give way to the current demonization of carbs, not to mention near-daily nutritional analysis updates on omega-3s, antioxidants, trans fats, etc. -- all of which I found a bit suspect. So I found this section of the book quite interesting, learning some of the history behind these nutritional fads I'd already observed.

The second and third sections of the book were also fairly good, though I have reservations about some of his advice. After lambasting nutritional scientists for "reductionist science", i.e. concentrating on the positive and deleterious effects of individual nutrients on health rather than the effects of whole foods, he goes off on a tangent lamenting the lack of omega-3 fatty acids in the Western diet. He is acutely aware of this gaffe, as he briefly addresses it and others in the intro to the last third of the book, but gives little explanation as to why he concentrates on a single class of nutrients like this, after complaining about the same kind of thinking! Granted, the prevalence of fish in all (or nearly all) primitive diets lends credence to the assumption that various nutrients in fish are beneficial to the human diet, but it seems a bit absurd to concentrate just on omega-3s rather than the whole fish.

That would be my only major complaint about the book, though I do have a few minor nit-picks here and there as well. Overall, though, I think the dietary advice herein is both sound and simple. Eat fresh fruits, vegetables, and meat. Get involved with a shorter food chain (e.g. farmer's markets or CSA) when you can, and be cautious about your consumption of overly processed foods, though I would add that the occasional indulgence is probably not all that detrimental to your health.

This book ought to be on the shelf of any self-respecting foodie. For anyone who is concerned about getting the most out of the universal human act of eating, I recommend this book without qualification. It is well-researched and the subject matter is engrossing.

This is truly an amazing book. Pollan writes in a style that makes information really accessible. It will definitely make you rethink how and what you eat. It is far better than most 'diet' books some people devour. I'd also recommend his previous book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" if you're interested about the ecological and ethical ramifications of the food chain.

Fabulous book about the real value of real food. I recommend it to anyone who is willing to read the truth.

Very frustrated with our current food situation, I picked this book up hoping for some help on figuring out what to eat and what not to eat. What a revelation! I had no idea what was going on behind the scenes for the last 40 years. We go to the supermarket and wonder why it's so hard to figure out what to buy- but Pollan shows us the truth in his book. "In Defense of Food" does what it says it will- defends food. The shocker is in the title- but you've got to read the book to find out what food really is!

I really enjoyed the Omnivore's Dilemma and, although I suspected that much of that book would be repeated in this one, it was still an enjoyable and worthwhile read. Pollan makes an interesting argument for buying, preparing and eating home cooked meals with leafy, colorful, nutritious ingredients bought as unprocessed and as directly from the farmer as possible.

In other words, this is Mom's argument against frozen dinners, take out and the fad diet of the month. This should make Mom roll her eyes as she wonders why it took the kids so long to listen to her about home cooking.

This isn't as interesting an argument as saying to drink red wine daily, eat fatty fish 3 times a week or cut your calories by 30% but it may just be correct. Enjoy food, eat in moderation, eat the leaves of plants, eat fresh and avoid processed foods whenever possible. If only the local supermarket would stock meats from pastured animals and local produce in season.

I'm a huge fan of the Omnivores Dilemma and recommended it to more people than any other book I've read so `In Defense of Food' had a lot to live up to but somewhere something what badly haywire.

American's are getting fatter and fatter with average life spans that are considerably out of sync with the wealth of our nation. `In Defense of Food' takes an outsiders view of nutrition in the U.S., throwing stones at the establishment including nutritionists, food manufacturers and the FDA. Michael Pollan's argument is that it is our very obsession with food that throws the system off and we need to take just relax and enjoy food. It sounds like the same advice being expounded in the book about how French women are supposedly never fat. Unfortunately we can't relax because we are constantly bombarded with calorie dense foods specifically designed for massive consumption. The author's suggestion is to step back, avoid the processed foods and start spending more on `whole foods' and items purchased from local farmers markets.

The main emphasis in the book is on eating a `traditional' diet. Something great-grandmother might have created. The author blames `western diseases' on a `western diet' but it's hard to know what constitutes a western diet after all three of the countries he suggests emulating are France, Italy and Greece. Are they not western? American's are definitely growing fatter but if it's due to synthetic substances like Margarine, Crisco and Nutrasweet why have American waistlines continue to grow as these substances have grown decreasingly popular? And if eating natural food is the magic elixir why do I find overweight farmers at my local farmers market? Shouldn't they all be aglow with vitality living to 120?

My wife is from Malaysia and her fathers' parents consumed a very `traditional' Chinese diet all their lives and yet died in there early 60's. Her grandmother passed away from a stroke brought on by high blood pressure and her grandfather by a heart attack. The way Michael Pollan talks this doesn't sound possible. I would also say that for an author who insists on taking a holistic view of eating as opposed to a reductionist one he completely omits taking into account cultural lifestyles in people heaths. Perhaps it's the high quality health care system in France that makes the difference or perhaps not but the author never even considers anything but consumption.

The advice that Michael Pollan gives is sound but most of it is so simple that it could probably fit into a pamphlet rather than a 200 page book which may explain why the book seems to veer off into unnecessary directions. Eating more vegetables is always good advice and the author even admits that every hated nutritionist he's talked has offered exactly that advice so how exactly is Mr. Pollan different from nutritionists? He lambastes nutritionists for taking a reductionist view of nutrition but then goes on at length about maintaining a proper balance of Omega-3 and Omega-6 in your diet. Did great-grandmother worry about the ratio of Omega-3 to Omega-6 in the food she served?

Morgan Spurlock of `Supersize Me' probably hit the nail right on the head. It's the amount of calories that American's eat that's doing us in. Avoiding synthetic foods is probably good advice but it's advice like avoiding swimming after eating a meal and not likely to make much of a change in your life. I lost 50 pounds last year and it had nothing to do with eating traditional meals or avoiding margarine. I reduced my intake of calorie dense food including soda and fast food. This is the kind of advice any nutritionist will give out.

What bothered me most about this book was how Michael Pollan went on the attack when none of his advice is that far off from what other nutritionists and dieticians are recommending. It's a decent book but lacks focus and has difficulty defining what he's talking about when he uses terms like `Western' and `Traditional' diets. Quite frankly, this book is more of just a subset of Omnivores Dilemma and if you've read that one you could probably skip this one.

A rather slow read, but worthwhile none the less. Covers all points in amazing detail with tons of sources sited to really drive the point home. The book will more than likely change the way you eat - for the better