In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto

published	2007 by Penguin Press HC, The
first published	2008
binding	Hardcover
isbn	1594201455 (isbn13: 9781594201455)
pages	176
description	What to eat, what not to eat, and how to think about health: a manifesto for our times "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." T...more [close] What to eat, what not to eat, and how to think about health: a manifesto for our times "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." These simple words go to the heart of Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food, the well-considered answers he provides to the questions posed in the bestselling The Omnivore's Dilemma. Humans used to know how to eat well, Pollan argues. But the balanced dietary lessons that were once passed down through generations have been confused, complicated, and distorted by food industry marketers, nutritional scientists, and journalists-all of whom have much to gain from our dietary confusion. As a result, we face today a complex culinary landscape dense with bad advice and foods that are not "real." These "edible foodlike substances" are often packaged with labels bearing health claims that are typically false or misleading. Indeed, real food is fast disappearing from the marketplace, to be replaced by "nutrients," and plain old eating by an obsession with nutrition that is, paradoxically, ruining our health, not to mention our meals. Michael Pollan's sensible and decidedly counterintuitive advice is: "Don't eat anything that your great-great grandmother would not recognize as food." Writing In Defense of Food, and affirming the joy of eating, Pollan suggests that if we would pay more for better, well-grown food, but buy less of it, we'll benefit ourselves, our communities, and the environment at large. Taking a clear-eyed look at what science does and does not know about the links between diet and health, he proposes a new way to think about the question of what to eat that is informed by ecology and tradition rather than by the prevailing nutrient-by-nutrient approach. In Defense of Food reminds us that, despite the daunting dietary landscape Americans confront in the modern supermarket, the solutions to the current omnivore's dilemma can be found all around us. In looking toward traditional diets the world over, as well as the foods our families-and regions-historically enjoyed, we can recover a more balanced, reasonable, and pleasurable approach to food. Michael Pollan's bracing and eloquent manifesto shows us how we might start making thoughtful food choices that will enrich our lives and enlarge our sense of what it means to be healthy.
date added	03-12-07 edit book

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | Abebooks | more...

discuss this book

topics	replies	last activity
In Defense of Food vs The Omnivore's Dilemma?	8	03/31/2008 05:34AM
In Defense of Food - GoodReviews writing contest in March	1	02/28/2008 08:04PM

new topic

groups with this book

friend reviews (0)

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 5063)

Amy rated it:

03/04/08

Read in February, 2008

In the Buddhist tradition there is a level of hell whereby the dead, known as hungry ghosts, are trapped with enormous stomachs and tiny throats unable to swallow anything but the smallest bites of food. Their particular brand of torture is that they are always eating and yet their hunger is never satisfied. These hungry ghosts sound an awful lot like the modern American eater trapped in the unhealthy western diet demonized in Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto.

Y...more In the Buddhist tradition there is a level of hell whereby the dead, known as hungry ghosts, are trapped with enormous stomachs and tiny throats unable to swallow anything but the smallest bites of food. Their particular brand of torture is that they are always eating and yet their hunger is never satisfied. These hungry ghosts sound an awful lot like the modern American eater trapped in the unhealthy western diet demonized in Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto.

You may be surprised that anyone felt they needed to defend food, since we all rely on it to survive. But Pollan makes a clear distinction between the processed food-like substances that fill our grocery aisles in glistening packages and real foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains and unprocessed, natural foods. Pollan argues that we eat way too much of the fake stuff, ignoring the foods that our bodies actually need. Like the hungry ghosts, we just never feel satisfied. At a clipping pace, Pollan examines both the field of nutritional science and the industrialization of food to show the reader just how we got to our particular brand of hell. Then, thankfully, he offers us a way out.

Instead of being hungry ghosts, Pollan tells us we can practice thoughtful consumption. He argues that the onslaught of nutritional science has taken the expertise out of the kitchen and into the laboratory, and too often isolates nutritional elements from the whole food that bore it. Any of us who keep up on nutritional trends will be shaking our heads when he discusses the familiar irritation of being told this week to eat one thing and avoid another, only to be told later that we had it right the first time. Instead of offering us a new trend in dieting, his solutions are both revolutionary and literally as old as time. “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Pollan argues we should eat like our ancestors, before diabetes and heart disease reigned supreme and before high fructose corn syrup became more popular to the American consumer than television. Despite the dire evidence he presents in the book, his voice remains jocular and never dips into pessimism, though I did as a reader once or twice.

Even if you are not a health nut, Pollan makes a good argument for adopting his method of eating. The benefit of this thoughtful consumption is more than nutritional. The eater will be practicing a lifestyle of environmental stewardship, optimal health, and respect for the time required to grow and prepare the food necessary for life.

The book, addictive as those processed foods Pollan does such a powerful job of damning, is difficult to put down, in part because you don’t want to stop to eat anything until you know what you are supposed to eat after all. The only caveat is that In Defense of Food offers so little compromise between the western lifestyle and the lifestyle Pollan requires the eater to adopt, which just may be the reality of the current food paradigm. Maybe eating well is a revolutionary act in these times of microwavable meals and fast food paragons. When you buy food it is no longer a given that it is real food, and you may have to be willing to make some major changes in your lifestyle to get the real food back onto your table and into your stomach.
...less

Like this review? yes (38 people liked it)

add a comment

Ginny rated it:

04/01/08

Read in March, 2008

Actually, there is enough good stuff in this book that it probably warrants another star or two. But I was so alarmed at the amount of misinformation here that I can’t bring myself to say that the book is “okay.”

Michael Pollan is right about some of the big stuff. Nutrition research is badly flawed. It has sometimes led us down the wrong road (although it has also provided life-saving findings). The government is far too slow to change its recommendations and has strong ties (to p...more

Like this review? yes (17 people liked it)

12 comments

Meghan rated it:

03/08/08

Read in March, 2008

In a time when reading is a somewhat escapist activity, when people prefer reading for pleasure than reading for knowledge and when mindless entertainment is the oft-chosen occupation of our leisure; I find myself in the minority in that I enjoy learning something new from what I read. In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto by Michael Pollen is no exception to that idea; I enjoyed what I learned from reading it.

That is not to say that I didn’t have my qualms about the book at first: wo...more In a time when reading is a somewhat escapist activity, when people prefer reading for pleasure than reading for knowledge and when mindless entertainment is the oft-chosen occupation of our leisure; I find myself in the minority in that I enjoy learning something new from what I read. In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto by Michael Pollen is no exception to that idea; I enjoyed what I learned from reading it.

That is not to say that I didn’t have my qualms about the book at first: would it be too scientific, too hard to understand; would it be belittling or scolding about my eating habits; would it focus all on the negative, have a lot of bitter discussion but no positive solutions? I found that I was pleasantly incorrect about my qualms and “An Eater’s Manifesto” is none of these.

Pollen’s approach is a little deceptive, but in a subtle and pleasing manner, more sly or coy than deceptive. The introduction reads as a conversation between friends, casual tones peppered with highbrow humor. Mild paranoia ensues in section one, bordering on a conspiracy theory involving the government, food companies, marketers, journalists and scientists. The second section compounds on these ideas while adding a negative undertone reaction to the blatant decline of our country’s health. Then section three comes in like a breath of fresh air, full of promise, hope and steps for improvement.

Had Pollen ended his manifesto after section two, the book would have just been another critical (in all senses of the word) look at our food’s history and current state of affairs. Thankfully, his prose came full circle and the tenor of the last section resembled that of his introduction. Offering advice as though he were speaking to a close friend, Pollen makes the idea of implementing his proffered solutions seem easy, even enjoyable. And the light-heartedness of the tone in this section serves as a welcome juxtaposition to the somewhat stale and arduous reading of the previous two sections (I blame the footnotes; anything with footnotes brings to mind the textbooks of college and will forever be associated with difficult reading).

What I enjoyed most about In Defense of Food – aside from the turns of phrase which actually made me laugh out loud (one in particular referring to the neurons in our digestive tract, “we’re not really sure what they’re up to”) – is that it not only made me think about the content of the book, it made me think about the content of my life. Minus my current dabbling in reading self-improvement books, I have been an avid consumer of fiction and fiction rarely requires me to reflect on my life (though I will glean some new piece of knowledge on most occasions). I was actually quite uncomfortable in this conclusion originally – after all, who wants to realize that they’re mindlessly agreeing with what the media tells them and is simultaneously living (eating) a lifestyle that will more likely than not kill me in a very unpleasant way – but I believe that this is the first step in truly making a change in your lifestyle, for who would bother making a change if you were comfortable?

It was nice to read that someone else agrees with my idea that food should be enjoyed and that it’s worth paying more for better food even if there is less of it. I cannot tell you how many arguments I have had with my fiancé about what he regards as a waste of money and how food is strictly meant to fuel your body in response to my preference for actually enjoying my meal and getting more satisfaction than when I eat simply to “fuel” myself. Maybe I should move to France.

Although Pollan presents his statistics in the one of the most understandable manners I have read, I would have preferred an easier narrative throughout sections one and two of this book. These contain the most vital information, but if other readers are anything like me, they sort of skimmed in some passages because there was no real break in the scientific mumbo-jumbo to give a layperson’s understanding of what was being presented. Don’t get me wrong; Pollan interprets the jargon quite well in his summaries, but they were too far apart from the original context and therefore I had forgotten what he was talking about. Section three was his redemption; although his original message was never lost: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

James rated it:

03/10/08

Read in March, 2008

I am deeply ashamed, depressed, and embarrassed by the fact that such a book as Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food need be written, much less published, critically acclaimed, and enjoyed by someone such as myself. Pollan himself acknowledges the perverse state of affairs saying, “That one should feel the need to mount a defense of ‘the meal’ is sad, but then I never would have thought ‘food’ needed defending, either.”

We should be collectively mortified as a culture because tho...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comments

Andy rated it:

02/25/08

Has a copy to sell/swap — Read in February, 2008

**My full review is posted on my blog at: http://citingthetext.blogspot....

Michael Pollan summarizes his latest book, published January 2008, on the cover and in just seven words: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." He admits on the very first page that he has pretty much "given the game away" with that summary, but that he plans to complicate matt...more **My full review is posted on my blog at: http://citingthetext.blogspot....

Michael Pollan summarizes his latest book, published January 2008, on the cover and in just seven words: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." He admits on the very first page that he has pretty much "given the game away" with that summary, but that he plans to complicate matters a bit in the interest of "keeping things going for a couple hundred more pages." Since I began the book at the start of a four hour bus ride, I chose to oblige him and see what could possibly so complicated about such simple commands.

I came to realize two things by the time I got about halfway through the book - which, ironically, was about the same time that the bus stopped at a Burger King. The first was that there was much more to the book than simple recommendations; the second was that those seven words were not so simple after all.

Take, for example, the first two words of Pollan's credo: Eat food. Not so hard, you say. False. By Pollan's definition, much of the offerings in an average grocery story are not in fact "food" but rather "edible food-like substances."

To understand this difference, Pollan sprinkles much of the first half of the book with discussions of the past hundred years of nutrition "science" and why it's really not so scientific. Anyone who pays attention to the constant and conflicting admonitions about the latest nutrients that are both good for you and could possibly kill you will already be convinced of many of Pollan's arguments here. He goes on to elaborate, however, citing the focus on individual nutrients as one major reason why these studies are so flawed. This is one area where reductionist science just seems to fail entirely. In many cases it is nearly impossible to separate the effects of a single nutrient on a person's well being from the rest of their diet and overall lifestyle.

Studies nevertheless attempt to drill down to this level, for two reasons: the prevalence of reductionist thinking in other academic fields and the fact that, politically, it's a lot easier to tell people to eat less or more of an individual nutrient or compound (trans fat, e.g) than it is to recommend that they eat less of a food, since the food has lobbyists on K Street in Washington. Nutrients, with the exception of sucrose, tend not to be so well represented.

Pollan then moves into his recommendations for what an average person can do to eat well without buying land and learning to farm for all of their needs. Many of these recommendations are easy to follow (I managed to resist the deep-fried mozzarella sticks at Burger King, but that wasn't just because Pollan would classify them as "food-like substances"), but some are a bit trickier. It takes some real discipline to devote more of your day to preparing and cleaning up after meals - I can almost guarantee that I won't be enacting this one, or doing much preparing of meals at all, as long as I am on this same project and without someone to cook with for three-four nights a week.

I will, however, be changing some choices when it comes to the meals that I do eat out - even eating out has a whole new feel to it after reading this book. My perspective now is that it's an opportunity to seize: here are people who are willing to prepare lots of delicious options for you, many of which contain loads and loads of fresh fruits and vegetables, all in a portion that is more or less perfectly suited to your needs without having to worry about buying too many veggies and watching them go bad.

The one negative that I identified in Pollan's recommendations was the fact that they seemed to be geared toward people who lived more or less inactive lifestyles. Many of the potential problems from diet go away if you just exercise a few times a week - if you're really concerned about your health but are not willing to take that simple next step - it seems as though you could pour endless hours into researching, purchasing, and preparing foods and are very healthful (Pollan mentions a word to describe this situation - "orthorexia," or an obsession with eating right, a disease still awaiting official confirmation) and only be fighting less than half of the battle.

...less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

Paulette rated it:

03/19/08

Read in March, 2008

Pollan's In Defense of Food makes the call for a return to healthy, pleasurable eating. Pollan notes that American eaters are less likely (than their European counterparts, for example) to take their time in eating food; rather they're apt to eating alone and on the go, and consume processed, "food-like" products as opposed to actual food. Pollan argues that we should go back to eating only what our great grandmothers would recognize as food, taking the time and investing the money i...more Pollan's In Defense of Food makes the call for a return to healthy, pleasurable eating. Pollan notes that American eaters are less likely (than their European counterparts, for example) to take their time in eating food; rather they're apt to eating alone and on the go, and consume processed, "food-like" products as opposed to actual food. Pollan argues that we should go back to eating only what our great grandmothers would recognize as food, taking the time and investing the money in purchasing, cooking, and enjoying said real food (mostly plants, he advises). Pollan provides a sketch of the genesis and growth of the nutrition movement, noting that this "science" (a term that he finds highly debatable) often went hand-in-hand with the political and economic agendas of various interest groups. I found his writing to be engaging and enjoyable, and certainly, his arguments, while nothing revolutionary for the most part, were generally persuasive enough for me to be still thinking about the book days later. I appreciate his pointing out that we've seemed to have lost the culture in eating, the rituals of communing over food, for example. That said, one can point to several shortcomings in his book:

1) Analytic Slippage: Pollan spends much of the book seeking to prove that the science of nutrition is inherently flawed and simplistic, failing to capture the holistic, interactive nature of diet and health outcomes. However, in attempt to support his claims about the inherent weakness of nutritional science (that we should all but ignore, according to him) and the evils of the Western Diet, he relies pretty heavily on evidence from... nutritional science! Even though he argues that we should be focusing on the food item itself (e.g., blueberries) and not the one or two nutrients that we THINK are good for us(e.g., antioxidants), he falls into the similar habit of "reducing" (in his words) the food to its purportedly effective nutrient. Pollan acknowledges the slippage (and logical fallacy, using my own words) in the final part of the book and, I think, is forced to point out the positive aspects of nutritional science, that this is the best methodology we got, blah blah blah; otherwise his arguments would have collapsed by his own initial critiques of "nutritionism."

2) Glaring Omission: Pollan barely (if at all) acknowledges the role of race/ethnicity and socio-economic status and the ability to eat healthy foods. In his final section, in which he offers suggestions to the reader for healthier eating, he states that the socio-economically disadvantaged cannot follow his suggestions, which is a shame, really, but "the rest of us" have no excuse. This book was clearly written by the privileged for the privileged, about which he is unabashedly unapologetic.

3) Another Big Omission: Understandably given the title, Pollan would keep his focus on healthy eating, but the other important x variable in physical health is, of course, physical activity, which barely gets an honorable mention in his work.

4) Pollan argues for a return to culture (which he equates to "Mom") in our eating, and instructs us, among other things, to eat at a table (and no, a desk doesn't count, he responds preemptively), and eat in the company of others. While I couldn't agree more with that sentiment, Pollan does nothing to address what I believe are the far bigger systemic issues that prevent us from being happy foodies in the first place: the instability of the labor market, the declining pay in many sectors of our economy, the culture of work that makes it virtually impossible for people to get more than 2-3 weeks vacation per year, and so on. Americans, in general, are a pretty stressed out, overworked bunch, and so eating, among other pursuits, will consequently suffer.

Despite these and other critiques I have about the book, I still recommend it for its helpful synthesis of the main arguments we've heard about healthier eating and for its claim to not ignore the social and cultural aspects of eating, which are just as important as the health benefits we're trying to learn (and reap). ...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

M rated it:

03/18/08

bookshelves: food

Read in March, 2008

recommends it for: foodies

This was a harder read for me than The Omnivore's Dilemma. It is full of useful and interesting info, but it wasn't written in the same style of writing. It isn't about his journey meeting or visiting people to learn about this stuff, it's just a ton of facts, studies, and more packed in efficiently. I had a much harder time reading it as a result.

At the same time, I do recommend it as interesting food for thought on the way we think about food, what we are told about food, what food really...more This was a harder read for me than The Omnivore's Dilemma. It is full of useful and interesting info, but it wasn't written in the same style of writing. It isn't about his journey meeting or visiting people to learn about this stuff, it's just a ton of facts, studies, and more packed in efficiently. I had a much harder time reading it as a result.

At the same time, I do recommend it as interesting food for thought on the way we think about food, what we are told about food, what food really is, and who decides what is best for us to eat.

The first part of the book explains the history of the science of nutritionism and where the food pyramid originated. This is an interesting history discussion, reminding me somewhat of The Gospel of Food by Barry Glassner in style (Which he cites as a source.) Part two of the book was the hardest for me, as it was the most technical, but it is interesting as he discusses the problems with nutritionism reductionist science and uses several examples including omega 3's, the lipid hypothesis, the idea of orthorexia, and more. Part three is where the most interesting stuff is though and I found myself really wanting to skip ahead to it and thought it way to short when I did get there. It discusses in detail his 7 word, 3 phrase basic guideline: Eat Food, Not too much, Mostly Plants.

He does fall into the reductionist nutritionism trap that he refutes quite often. He recognizes this at one point, but not all the time. For example, he decides to accept the study saying a glass of wine a day is good for you, and it must be the alcohol in the wine that has the effect. Could it be the fermentation? Or something else? Maybe that's just a matter of personal indulgence, but it is one of the things that bugged me.

He also praises the farmer's market (which are great), without pointing out that many of them are full of people selling stuff right from the supermarket and you have to be careful to know if they are really a farm, or a seller for farmers, or just someone selling food at the market. Or that most CSA's have a very long waiting list. And what about the pick your own farms? Those aren't mentioned. Perhaps he's trying to get more people to go to the farmer's market but I suspect that most people interested in reading such a book have been to a farmer's market and may not know if they've been taken.

His guidelines are good ideas overall. Of course, for the don't buy anything your great grandma wouldn't recognize as food, I have to go farther back than my great grandparents b/c they were big into vitamins and supplements and only died 10 years ago.

I am left wondering if I should increase our food budget, (as American's spend only 10% on average on food, as compared to French & Italian at 15% and Spanish at 17%. I am also feeling inspired to be more diligent about going to farmers markets and pick your own farms. I have been thinking about many of his guidelines for the past couple days, wondering how he would apply them to this or that situation and then deciding it's up to me, not the author to decide how to implement things in my life.

I did learn more about the slow food movement. He is a bit of a stickler on some of the food manners. Eat only at the table, and snacking is not kosher. Ummm...do you remember what it's like to have small kids with very small stomachs? Nevertheless, I have decided to make a concerted effort to plan and serve breakfast, lunch & dinner at regular times in our house as much as possible, at the table and not allow myself to do other things while eating, but to focus on eating and enjoying my family. After a day and a half, it's been very positive. How will it go in the future? I don't know. But I'm trying to listen more to my internal food cues and let my kids listen to theirs.

Why do you eat? Merely to provide yourself with nutrition for other activities? I hope not. Food is more than that. ...less

Like this review? yes

1 comments

Happyreader rated it:

03/06/08

bookshelves: food-and-cooking, health-and-diet

Read in March, 2008

I hated reading this book. And that's sad because I agree with his basic premise. Just eat real food. Not too much. Mostly plants. And I would add, try and get off your ass once in awhile. But this book was excrutiating to read. I read the first 50 pages, gave up, and went to the last section on his very basic food rules, gave up again. His language was all black and white with blanket condemnations and blanket recommendations, ironic since that's what he condemns in scientific thinking and...more I hated reading this book. And that's sad because I agree with his basic premise. Just eat real food. Not too much. Mostly plants. And I would add, try and get off your ass once in awhile. But this book was excrutiating to read. I read the first 50 pages, gave up, and went to the last section on his very basic food rules, gave up again. His language was all black and white with blanket condemnations and blanket recommendations, ironic since that's what he condemns in scientific thinking and food marketing. Oddly, he comes off as so much more even-handed in his interviews.

That said, his message is important but what's really going on is more nuanced than presented. As a dietitian, I agree that people should be able to figure out what to eat on their own. I really should only have to meet with people with special medical conditions and dietary needs. Instead, many of my patients haven't a clue and they rely on supplements, protein powders, and various bars to meet their needs. It's crazy. A balanced and varied diet of mostly veggies, fruits, whole grains, and lean proteins will meet your nutritional needs.

I also agree with him about the nature of nutrition research. The food frequency questionnaire is a crazy tool. And don't even get me started on diet recalls. Patients lie. I used to think they lied to me but soon realized they're actually lying to themselves. They really don't register and/or are unwilling to own up to what they're eating. But that's another topic. Any research involving human beings is tough. Test tubes are easier to control.

I think that's what really bothered me about this book. It came across as a good-people-vs-bad-people polemic. Like all systems, however, there is usually some good and bad on all sides. Food marketers sell what people buy. If we wouldn't buy it, they wouldn't sell it. On the positive side, that's why there is more organic food available these days. There's a market for it and where there's a market, there's a marketer. That's not to say there aren't some sleazy marketing practices that pervert what the market wants. Just look at what's happening with organic food guidelines.

As consumers, we bear some responsibility. Food and diet have definately become fetishized. We project so much onto our eating habits, including comfort, status, shame, and ego gratification. Plus many people are looking for the quick, easy, and mindless route to healthy living so "special diets," "power foods," and "quickie solutions" sell. I sometimes joke with my dietitian friends that we could make some real money with a crazy diet book that only allows red foods to be eaten on Monday and orange foods on Tuesday.

Crazy gimmicks sell. They relieve us of the burden of decision making. When I first saw the Special K diet commercials, I thought there was no way that anyone who eat mostly Special K all day. I was shocked when I met patients actually on that diet. They liked it because they didn't have to think about what foods to eat. Gimmicks also create the illusion that you're buying some secret that will keep you thin and healthy forever. Eat less, exercise more just doesn't seem cutting edge enough for some people.

If what you're looking is more info on how crazy our food system is, try Marion Nestle's "Food Politics." If what you're looking for is more practical advice on a normal, balanced diet, try "Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy" or "Eat, Drink, and Weigh Less." And if you want to follow Michael Pollan's sage advice to cook more, start somewhere easy like "How to Cook Everything Vegetarian." Like Mollie Katzen very wisely said, regardless of your eating philosophy, we need to eat more veggies. Eat more plants....less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

6 comments

Elizabeth rated it:

01/20/08

Read in January, 2008

I just finished a great book: In Defense of Food; An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Pollan. You might have heard about his other big book, The Omnivore's Dilemma. If you are the kind of person who wants to live with intentionality and conscience, but aren't ready to move into the woods and grow and hunt all your own food, this book is for you. And Pollan is willing to give away the whole thing on the cover: eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

"Eat food" sounds simple and it should ...more I just finished a great book: In Defense of Food; An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Pollan. You might have heard about his other big book, The Omnivore's Dilemma. If you are the kind of person who wants to live with intentionality and conscience, but aren't ready to move into the woods and grow and hunt all your own food, this book is for you. And Pollan is willing to give away the whole thing on the cover: eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

"Eat food" sounds simple and it should be. But, simple isn't always easy. There's a line in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis that goes like this, "All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you good. But the modern theory of nourishment--all about vitamins and proteins--is a different thing. People ate their dinners and felt better long before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of..." These theories about vitamins and proteins are all part of what others and Pollan call "nutritionism"--breaking food down into elements which go into it and leaving out the big picture. That big picture is what we actually enjoy eating and what eludes scientific enquiry in many cases. As Pollan points out, worrying about what you're eating all the time is an eating problem, too (one called "orthorexia"). He wants us to eat real food-- something your great-grandmother would recognize, without health claims, as unprocessed as possible. And he wants us to eat it properly. We should have meals, sitting down and not running around. And when we decide what foods to eat, we shouldn't ask the government or research studies funded by agricultural industry, but our own selves and history. Food is part of culture. Food-like substances are unnecessary and not helping anything. Taking vitamins and nutrients and labels out of context has gotten America only further away from health.

Basically, we need a broader view of food. This book takes a broader view, too. Pollan covers where nutritional info has come from, the role of the government in health claims, nutritional inflation, and why the French eat food considered "worse" but are healthier and happier. This is more thoughtful and thought-provoking than "Supersize Me," looking beyond hating on certain foods (that's one of the flaws of nutritionism) and looking critically at the overall diet in question. Overall, choose food culture over food science. The book is well-written, interesting, and even has something in there for your Romantic and Jeffersonian instincts. As soon as you pick it up, you'll realize you needed to read this. Pollan writes: "You would not have bought this book and read this far into it if your food culture was intact and healthy. And while it is true that most of us unthinkingly place the authority of science above culture in all matters having to do with our health, that prejudice should at least be examined. The question we need to ask is, Are we better off with these new authorities telling us how to eat than we were with the traditional authorities they supplanted? The issue by now should be clear."...less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

Spencer rated it:

02/07/08

Read in January, 2008

recommends it for: everyone

Thanks for the reminder to update, Ethan!

This book was really eye opening. I think (or thought) of myself as having a pretty healthy diet-- I have the whole wheat blend flaxseed enhanced pasta, the total cereal with nonfat soy milk, the bran muffins and the fish oil capsules.

I AM A DUPE! I've been sucked into the cult of "nutritionism" as Pollans calls it, the belief that what's healthy about the food are the identified micronutrients it contains, and that foods are either heal...more Thanks for the reminder to update, Ethan!

This book was really eye opening. I think (or thought) of myself as having a pretty healthy diet-- I have the whole wheat blend flaxseed enhanced pasta, the total cereal with nonfat soy milk, the bran muffins and the fish oil capsules.

I AM A DUPE! I've been sucked into the cult of "nutritionism" as Pollans calls it, the belief that what's healthy about the food are the identified micronutrients it contains, and that foods are either healthful elixers or near poisons, depending on whether or not they contain the nutritional demon of the moment (once this was saturated fat, now it's trans fats). I was a believer in progress-- I regularly two-fist diet coke and tasti-d-lite, drink the vitamin water and snack on the bars-- the luna, the balance, the zone. Yes, I notice that the more we Americans seem to discover about the inner workings of food, the fatter and sicker we seem to become, but I figured that was just because we don't know how to control ourselves and we, as a culture, drive everywhere.

Pollans' theory is so simple, so obvious, it makes me kind of angry I didn't notice it before. Scientists obviously don't know a lot about the inner workings of food-- nutrition is a new science, and we've witnessed such faddish changes in its fundamental precepts (margarine is better for you! antioxidants will prevent cancer! carbs are the cornerstone of a healthy diet! carbs are SATAN!) we should already be skeptical of its claims. We know so little about how food really works in the body that it's preposterous to think that we could reengineer it better than nature could. Even the produce we grow-- so carefully engineered to produce high yields and easily transportable produce, has fewer nutrients than the same food did in the 1940s. The modern, largely refined and processed, "western diet" is lethal, fattening, and leads to chronic diseases unknown in societies that eat much simpler, traditional foodstuffs. If we're so good at food science, how come we're so much worse off?

So he advises us to eat food (as in, something our great grandmothers would recognize as such-- not, in his example, a "go-gurt" squeezable yogurt tube), not too much, and mostly plants. This is enormously freeing. Until you try to avoid eating processed foods, in which case it also becomes enormously challenging. And time consuming, and expensive.

But if you can do it, it's worth it. He doesn't promise a panacea, and his recommendations don't make any health claims. That's the point. There is a mystery to the foods themselves-- how they have evolved to satisfy and sustain us-- and an art to bringing that food forth from the earth. This book is a reminder of what nutritionism taught us to forget.

...less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comments

Marianneosharp rated it:

04/11/08

Read in February, 2008

So, I should of blogged this right after I read it while it was fresh on my mind....now it's been a couple weeks and I've forgotten half of it. But - WHAT A GREAT READ! Sara, my half-cousin (she's my cousin's cousin....so what does that make her?), recommended this book when she found out how much a love Dr Oz. This book gives such an incredible depiction of the food crisis facing the typical western diet. It has taught me a lot....and when I tell you what I gained you'll just say, "well du...more So, I should of blogged this right after I read it while it was fresh on my mind....now it's been a couple weeks and I've forgotten half of it. But - WHAT A GREAT READ! Sara, my half-cousin (she's my cousin's cousin....so what does that make her?), recommended this book when she found out how much a love Dr Oz. This book gives such an incredible depiction of the food crisis facing the typical western diet. It has taught me a lot....and when I tell you what I gained you'll just say, "well duh!", but you have to read it to understand. The author is a journalist who has put an amazing amount of research into this topic. He also wrote "the Omnivore's dilemna"...some of you may recognize that title. Anyway, next month I'm hosting book club with Dr. Oz's book "You, Staying Young" which, I'm sure, is a great book but I honestly wish it were this one instead.
This book explains where food has gone bad in America. How everything that's processed is what we're consuming...and that's killing us....and how everything that's "whole" is hard to find and inconvenient. This book has definitely motivated me to eat my 5 a day....and then some. Not that I'm actually doing that but now I'm more motivated and more guilty when I don't. Now when I see the pink sugar cookie at the gas station, I look at the ingredients and I'm disgusted. No doubt, that is one GOOD cookie, but it's not "real" food. As you can see on the cover of Pollan's book, he wrote: "EAT FOOD, NOT TOO MUCH, MOSTLY PLANTS". Which, again, sounds simple but that's all we really need to know about nutrition to be set on the right path. Eat food, he says, not sad imitations. Eat like the French, enjoy the quality, texture, appearance, taste....rather that eating really quickly while being very distracted. And eat plants....not so many seeds....but lots and lots of plants. That's what our bodies were intended to eat and that's what makes them run like champs.
Anyway, great read if someone needs someone feels the need to revamp their diet. I think it's helped me as a mom....because now I feel better about the fact that I never buy my kids fruit snacks and oreo's. Okay, so maybe we compensate that high fructose corn syrup and transfat with raw sugar and real butter.....but at least I'm not filling them full of fake, processed, last-for-the-next-10-years junk food. I'm becoming the queen of healthy desserts. Now...I hope that all didn't make me seem self-righteous about my families eating habits. The truth is that what my kids eat is one of my biggest stresses each and every day...a never-ending battle. I've tried "deceptively delicious" and had success with a couple recipes.....but Rhett hates the mac and cheese with butternut squash and has now decided he will never eat mac and cheese again. So that last part about what I proudly "never" buy just makes me feel better about all the good stuff that my boys "never"eat.
...less

Like this review? yes

2 comments

Firecooked rated it:

02/18/08

bookshelves: foodie-books

Read in February, 2008

Its always easier to like and recommend a book when it summarizes what you already believe. I had a good friend comment (while we were chowing down at a party) “you’re so thin, you can eat anything”. I didn’t say anything, but I’m thin because I DON”T just eat anything; I work to eat things that taste good and are good for you (and if not, don’t eat it!). I quit using margarine probably 25 years ago (I had a good job and could afford “real” butter), I stopped drinking (and...more Its always easier to like and recommend a book when it summarizes what you already believe. I had a good friend comment (while we were chowing down at a party) “you’re so thin, you can eat anything”. I didn’t say anything, but I’m thin because I DON”T just eat anything; I work to eat things that taste good and are good for you (and if not, don’t eat it!). I quit using margarine probably 25 years ago (I had a good job and could afford “real” butter), I stopped drinking (and never started eating) stuff with artificial sweeteners 10 years ago, discovered farmers markets 15 years ago in California, and over the last few years, have eliminated High Fructose Corn Syrup and trans-fats from my diet (so I use all butter in my piecrust instead of shortening). I consider myself lucky in that I like vegetables (always have), I like to cook, don't have a big sweet tooth, and grew up eating meals consisting of real food, with a minimum of junk food (thanks Mom). So, I recommend reading this book, but realize its going to be harder for others to swallow than it was for me.

In Defense of Food builds on Michael Pollan’s first book, The Omnivore's Dilemma. This book goes to the next step, successfully explaining how things have become so confused, and why people on the typical American diet have so many overwhelming health issues that are directly attributed to what they eat. He cuts through the blather of what we hear (low-fat, high-fiber, no-cholesterol!) with a simple fact: the information on nutrition is simply missing a lot of data. Most of the studies are fundamentally flawed (such as relying on what individuals remember what they ate, or believing that they can isolate one food element without regard to other elements, some of which they don’t even know exist). On top of that, marketing organizations ("pork...the other white meat") further distort the data and influence governments and other large organizations to serve their bottom line, not our waist line. The solid data available is pretty limited: trans-fats are bad, large amounts of highly refined carbohydrates are bad, vegetables are good. The best studies have shown that returning to diets that were typical of 100 years or more ago (before we started “refining” food) substantially improved health. And that results in the manifesto: Eat food, mostly plants, not too much. One of the things that I liked about The Omnivore's Dilemma that he did not prescribe a solution, he (tried) to stay objective to the subject of discussing where the food came from. Here he delves into how to fix it… good information, but I’m not sure that it’s persuasive enough to get people to change. He does give some good tips (“eat food your great-grandmother would recognize”). And its good to keep me on the path that I’m on.

...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Ken-ichi rated it:

01/30/08

bookshelves: learning, snoot

Read in January, 2008

I am conflicted about this book. On the one hand, I agree with Pollan's thesis: food science has not served us well over the past 100 years, and we really should "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly plants." I believe that partially because of Pollan's arguments, and the revelatory reporting he did for The Omnivore's Dilemma, but mostly because I've studied biology, and have at least a limited idea of how complex human bodi...more I am conflicted about this book. On the one hand, I agree with Pollan's thesis: food science has not served us well over the past 100 years, and we really should "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly plants." I believe that partially because of Pollan's arguments, and the revelatory reporting he did for The Omnivore's Dilemma, but mostly because I've studied biology, and have at least a limited idea of how complex human bodies and human food can be, and how evolution may not have prepared us for Twinkies.

On the other hand, Pollan's rhetoric was definitely fast and loose in this book. He's an amazingly mellifluous, persuasive writer, but some portions were just bad reporting. One example: in attempting to demonstrate the ills of the Western diet, he cites a study of Aboriginal Australians who suffered from a suite of Western diseases, then decided to leave town and return to a hunter/gatherer life in the bush. Their diseases disappeared and they became more healthy, and lo, Pollan blames the Western diet. What? There are more than a few confounding factors there, including amount of exercise, sleep, sunlight, air quality, mental health, etc. And this was after several cases in which Pollan critiqued nutritionists for falling victim to the same basic fallacy: correlation is not necessarily causation.

There are several other similar examples, many of which cite studies that may very well prove his points, but for which he doesn't cite enough of the evidence to be bulletproof.

The other main problem with this book, to which Pollan readily admits but doesn't resolve, is his simultaneous critique and reliance upon reductionist science. If food is so complex that we should despair of science's ability to explain it to us, why does he spend so long discussing the latest research praising the benefits of omega-3 fats? I know he doesn't actually think science is intrinsically incapable of revealing truths about food, but his rhetoric definitely has an anti-scientific air that I can fueling irrational zealotry.

Overall, I really did enjoy most of the book. Well, Part III, in which he gets proscriptive. Pollan's most salient point: if you actually read a book called In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, then your food system is badly broken.

I think I'll look for an Orthorexics Anonymous group now......less

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

add a comment

sydney rated it:

03/17/08

Read in February, 2008

Michael Pollen is great. After writing "The Omnivore's Dilemma," which discussed both the (often disturbing) origins of American meals and our natural obsession with and anxiety about food. "In Defense of Food" attempts to deconstruct that anxiety by defining and critiquing "nutritionism" and proposing three simple rules for eating: 1) Eat food. 2) Not too much. 3) Mostly plants.

Pollan argues that "nutritionism" has taken the place of common sens...more Michael Pollen is great. After writing "The Omnivore's Dilemma," which discussed both the (often disturbing) origins of American meals and our natural obsession with and anxiety about food. "In Defense of Food" attempts to deconstruct that anxiety by defining and critiquing "nutritionism" and proposing three simple rules for eating: 1) Eat food. 2) Not too much. 3) Mostly plants.

Pollan argues that "nutritionism" has taken the place of common sense in our kitchens (or offices, cars, sidewalks, and anywhere else we're currently shoving food into our mouths). Nutritionism breaks foods down into blocks of nutrients (fats, carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins, minerals) and attempts to isolate these blocks to create scientifically-proven, replicable, predictable super foods. This leads to tons of new foods being created and marketed every year, filling our supermarkets to capacity with new flavors, low-fat microwaveable meals, and "Gogurt" yogurt tubes. (Ew.) Instead of trusting that nature probably has a pretty good handle on how to create nutritious foods for us to eat, we're handing our plates over to scientists and other "experts" to tell us how to eat. As a result, Americans are the least healthy and most food-obsessed nation in the world. Pollan wants to rectify this with his three rules.

Rule 1) Eat food: This was revolutionary for me. Basically, Pollen outlines what should and should not be classified as food, including foods with less than 5 ingredients (food), food containing high-fructose corn syrup (not food), and food that claims to improve your health (probably not food). This section of the book is amazing.

Rule 2) Not too much: To put it simply, portion sizes are out of control.

Rule 3) Mostly plants: Pollan is not a vegetarian, so don't get all freaked out and defensive about this rule. He thinks that we eat too much meat as a country, however, and that this focus on PROTEIN PROTEIN PROTEIN is coming at the expense of the fruits, vegetables, and whole grains our bodies need to function. He advocates for smaller portions of meat and larger portions of plant-based foods. (And, if you've read "The Omnivore's Dilemma," he also has some ideas about where all of this food should come from... plants and animals that are raised factory-style are going to be less healthy to eat.)

I want everyone to read this book. It's much less dense than "Omnivore's Dilemma," a very quick read, and super practical. You could read it today and put what you learned into practice tomorrow. It is by no means a diet book or a fad book-- just common sense about what we choose to fuel our bodies with. Highly highly recommended if you eat. Which you should....less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Maggie rated it:

(review of isbn 0143142747)

01/31/08

bookshelves: food

Read in January, 2008

recommends it for: everyone who would give it a chance

Great Book. I give this book a 5...even though the first half of the book was a little science0y....yet I understand the material enough to "get it." Everything I really took from this book probably came from Part III.... Which are Guidelines for Eating.

Eat Real Food: funny, isn't it? We think we are eating real food because we've become so disconnected from our food chain that we think that Lucky Charms or margerine might be real food. Eat food your great-great grandma would ...more Great Book. I give this book a 5...even though the first half of the book was a little science0y....yet I understand the material enough to "get it." Everything I really took from this book probably came from Part III.... Which are Guidelines for Eating.

Eat Real Food: funny, isn't it? We think we are eating real food because we've become so disconnected from our food chain that we think that Lucky Charms or margerine might be real food. Eat food your great-great grandma would recongnize. Stay away from anything that has a "health-claim" on it, if it's claiming to be special (less-fat) than it is probably not REAL FOOD, so it isn't something you should eat. To extend what real food is, plant or animal food should be choosen carefully. Know your food's food chain and make it as short as you can!

Not Too Much: American's think that they should stop eating when their plates are empty or there is nothing left in the serving bowls. MP suggests to stop eating when your belly is full. Eat slower, with people. We are more apt to eat slower and less when we eat meals with other people. It also makes your fewer calories you are eating last longer thus making you less apt to snack b/c you only took 5 minutes to sit and eat a microwave meal by yourself. ~Also, if you do eat meat, it should be more of a side-dish portion.

Mostly Plants: Plants are NOT over "nutrionist-ized." They have not been madel "less...of anything." The nutrients in living plants also have synergy with other plants that nutirion scientists just don't have a handle on yet. There's really more to it....but...Vegetables and Fruits are the key. Simple enough.

These are my most poignant moments in the book. There are much, much more and an awesome book reviewer could probably synthsize the information better. I took enough from the book to really take to heart it's message and it has been helpful in being a guide to helping me make better food choices, even though I already try. His guidelines are simple enough.

Our food choices are also a "vote" of sorts for better food for everyone. The more we choose better foods the more the food industry will listen. If those of us that can afford better foods buy them, the industry will listen and it could be the norm for everyone. Everyone could have affordable, good food. Good foods keep us not only healthier....but our planet healthy. It's the cycle of life. I think that we, myself included, have been so separated from this fact that we don't realize even our food choices affect our futures. ...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Amy rated it:

03/02/08

Read in March, 2008

I accidentally read Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food: An Easter's Manifesto this morning. I say "accidentally" because I really didn't set out to spend the morning this way, but Pollan's manifesto--and it is accurately labeled as such--is such a lucid, readable treatise on the ills of contemporary food culture in the United States that is gripping precisely because it is so timely and relevant. Perhaps the most convincing aspect of Pollan's approach is that rather than foc...more I accidentally read Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food: An Easter's Manifesto this morning. I say "accidentally" because I really didn't set out to spend the morning this way, but Pollan's manifesto--and it is accurately labeled as such--is such a lucid, readable treatise on the ills of contemporary food culture in the United States that is gripping precisely because it is so timely and relevant. Perhaps the most convincing aspect of Pollan's approach is that rather than focusing on the "magic bullet" solutions forwarded by the American food industry (bran! wine! chocolate! olive oil! fish!) of which his book is so scathing, Pollan advocates an intuitive approach to food that really does, in its simplest form, amount to the words on the cover: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Pollan's manifesto is divided into sections that not only clarify the U.S.'s historically corrupt and scatter-shot scientific approaches to marketing the industrialization of American food, but also the history and systemic nature of what he calls "nutritionism"--a term that helps to describe a variety of perverse American eating practices (and politics), including the religious attention we give to labels and ingredient lists rather than our own senses and traditional food practices.

As a manifesto, Pollan's advocacy of a return to eating "real food"--that is, foods your great-grandmother would recognize as such--does have a prescriptive, salvatory tone. But I would argue that contemporary American ignorance of that "real food" justifies his approach (as does our love for conversion experience, but that's another issue--perhaps). Pollan offers Go-gurt as an example of a food she might not recognize, but as I had just finished a snack of Wheat-thins, I immediately realized that many of the "healthier" choices we consume as a palliative to our consciences qualifies as non-food.

The fact that we do offer our minds--not our bellies, tongues, or eyes--such palliatives indicates to my mind just how much we are in need of a book that offers us something other than a magic bullet formula. We do, it seems, need to relearn not just what to eat but how to think about food--its history, its values, and the individual, community, local, and global implications of our relationship to the age-old center of human existence means that we do, indeed, require a manifesto to provide a cultural adjustment and help us relearn our forebears' art of finding, preparing, and eating food....less

Like this review?