|
|  | Author: Michael Pollan
Publisher: Penguin (Non-Classics)
Category: Book
List Price: $15.00
Buy New: $8.10
as of 9/9/2010 12:38 CDT details
You Save: $6.90 (46%)
Seller: ramdistributors
Rating:  400 reviews
Sales Rank: 232
Language: English (Published)
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1
Pages: 256
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 7.9 x 5.3 x 0.7
ISBN: 0143114964
Dewey Decimal Number: 613.2
EAN: 9780143114963
ASIN: 0143114964
Publication Date: April 28, 2009
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: NEW BOOK, COVER SHELF MINOR WEAR, FAST SHIPPING 100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEE- M 112
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 21-25 of 400
 Wrong on so many levels, except there aren't that many levels June 15, 2010
Compleat Reader
4 out of 32 found this review helpful
This book is so wrong-headed, well, where to begin?
Let's begin with what the author gets right: his first sentence reads: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Unfortunately, from there on he dives head-first into the worst anti-science blather I've come across since Creationist/Intelligent Design idiocy. Pollan has absolutely no grasp of how science works. Scientists naturally revise their work as more and different studies are done, bringing in new evidence and results. In nutrition science that obviously takes time, as long-term studies are done on the effects of diet on human life over decades. But this natural revision leads Pollan to declare that scientists don't know what they're talking about, so we should ignore them. Yeesh!
Then the man cannot even make a rational, logical argument. He quotes from a set of governmental dietary guidelines from 1977: "choose meats, poultry, and fish that will reduce saturated fat intake." From there he makes the absurd claim that, "... with these subtle changes in wording a whole way of thinking about food and health underwent a momentous shift ... Notice how in the revised guidelines, distinctions between entities as different as beef and chicken and fish have collapsed. These three venerable foods, each representing not just a different species but an entirely different taxonomic class, are now lumped together as mere delivery systems for a single nutrient. Notice too how the new language exonerates the foods themselves. Now the culprit is an obscure, invisible, tasteless--and politically unconnected--substance that may or may not lurk in them called saturated fat."
That's a lot of weight for one poor little phrase to carry. Not to mention the con-man style of throwing multisyllabic, scientific sounding words around to enhance one's false scientific credentials. Pollan is a journalist, not a scientist. (He has a quite annoying habit of inserting "(ahem)" before every iteration of the word "journalist," presumably because he's a journalist.)
Then his basic facts are almost always wrong. To take an easy example: he claims that "nutrition" began to be marketed, and screw up our food industry, after this 1977 the "nutrionists" and government got involved in the 1970s. Good grief, man! Did you do no simple research? Listen to food commercials from radio and television going back to the 1930s. All of them make claims like, "Eat Rice Chex, Wheat Chex, and Corn Chex for all your nutritional needs." Kellogg's entire empire was based on the idea that his cereals offered incredible natural nutrition. But research is something Pollan seems incapable of, at least when it conflicts with his ideological predispositions.
Pollan also seems to have a severe political bias, leading to his trashing of anyone who isn't a rabid Republican.
Pollan himself states that he couldn't have written these books 40 years ago because there were no alternatives to industrial food back then (ignoring the fact that he would have been 15 years old 40 years ago). While our massive food industry certainly has a lot to answer for, Pollan should be made aware that for most people organic foods are still priced out of their range. We are not all middle-class folks with tons o' money to spend on McMansions and Whole Earth Natural Grains. The reason the poor in our country often eat badly is because bad food, greasy food, fatty food is CHEAP and easy.
Finally, Pollan makes an error unfortunately rife in our writing community: treating the particular habits of citizens of the United States as universals. The American diet becomes "The Western Diet." Well, let me tell you, folks in France and Sweden and Norway--ostensibly the West--don't eat like Americans, although our mass-market fast-food industry is invading them in a big way. Please don't extrapolate from the provincial to the universal! It's just sloppy thinking.
In short, this is a poorly written, poorly reasoned, poorly researched diatribe that offers nothing past the very first sentence, quoted above. While our messed-up culture certainly needs some guidance in the basic act of eating, this is not the book to give it.
 Not a Recipe Book June 11, 2010
Z. Wimmer
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food" is a witty and compelling book.
Pollan concludes that food is a living, breathing, complex entity. But foods today are being oversimplified. They are being broken down into the simplest components. By doing so, the systematic process that occurs in foods is being negated. In the end, the nutritional value of many foods are diminished. Pollan finds that the industrialization of foods has caused science to conclude that nutrients lost during the manufacturing process can be added synthetically. Again, this process of reductionist science underestimates food as a whole and rarely works. (ex: Margarine)
The book can be read in a couple of short sittings, but the wisdom of it will last much longer. If you are already health-conscience I believe you will learn little new information that Pollan discusses, but "Defense" is an unconventional and quirky book that analyzes food in a way few of us are familiar with.
 Good info, but repetitious June 10, 2010
R. J. McCabe (Seattle)
3 out of 4 found this review helpful
Easy to read, but could have been much shorter. Pollan essentially says the same types of things multiple times:
* If food has been "processed", you probably shouldn't eat it
* People who eat "non-western" diets are healthier
* The food industry isn't about making "healthy" food, it's about making money
* Reductionist nutrition (focusing on the individual vitamins, minerals, etc) is a "false
god" for good eating.
His 7 word summary is at least succinct: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants."
All in all, the book is worth reading.
 Guiltless guide on how to eat... June 6, 2010
Joshua P. OConner (LocalPlan.org)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
Often when we look at our lives and ways we can become more sustainable, the information is difficult to understand, confusing, or contradictory. Michael Pollan has been at the leading edge of trying to help sort the difficult choices that must be made in making our food systems more sustainable. In the book The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan explored our current food systems and how those choices impact the environment. In his latest examination of food choices, the book In Defense of Food takes a step back to critically examine what we should eat for our own health. (More after the jump)
While The Omnivore's Dilemma provides a solid foundation for individuals looking to lower their ecological footprint as it relates to the foods they eat, In Defense of Food creates a linkage between our food choices and what is best for our individual health. In essence Pollan picks up with In Defense of Food where he left off with The Omnivore's Dilemma. Pollan conveys critical information about the history of the food "industry" and how we have lost control of our own nutrition and sustenance. I was surprised by how much of the information presented in In Defense of Food that I had already encountered through news reports, internet articles, and general conversation; but the fact that Pollan condensed all of that information into an easy to read narrative format makes the book that much more powerful.
After finishing In Defense of Food, I felt like I had a more solid understanding of how I should orient my food choices in order to take control of my own health. Pollan avoids many of the issues relating to food system sustainability in In Defense of Food, but those connections remain as an underlying theme. Pollan avoids playing the role of a preachy nutritionist and instead focuses on providing information that allows individuals to take control of their own diets. My favorite aspect of the book is that Pollan provides the reader a fresh perspective on food choices without denying them the flexibility that makes eating a sensory experience.
I highly recommend this book (or any of Pollan's books) for anyone interested in better understanding food. I feel enlightened in my product selection when I wander the aisles of the grocery store and in many ways I feel empowered to make decisions that I might have written off before simply because Pollan provided a much needed sense of clarity. Pollan presents his case in a concise and entertaining format while avoiding pushing any particular ideology. I would highly recommend that anyone interested in reading this title dive into The Omnivore's Dilemma first (it's a bit more bulky then In Defense of Food) simply because the two titles combined provide a comprehensive education on food from both a sustainability stance and from a personal health stance. Unlike so many of the food titles on the market today, Pollan allows readers to walk away feeling more knowledgeable while avoiding a sense of guilt from their past food transgressions.
New way to look at food May 20, 2010
snow bird (FL, NJ)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Truly a new way to look at food. We have to get back to basics as best we can. Good book to read just to remind what food is really for and that you can enjoy good food that does not contain added sugar or salt or both. I may even try organic!!
Showing reviews 21-25 of 400
|
|
|
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME. | |
