In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto

by Michael Pollan

book data

8,460 ratings, 4.04 average rating, 2,532 reviews (more data...)

rating	frequency	%
5		33%
4		42%
3		19%
2		3%
1		0%

edit

published

January 1st 2007 (first published 2008) by Penguin Press HC, The

binding

Hardcover, 205 pages

isbn

1594201455 (isbn13: 9781594201455)

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." These simpl...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. [close]

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | compare prices ($9.78)…

new topic
discuss this book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Next Best Boo...: OFFICIAL SUMMER CHALLENGE 2009	3836	4454	14 minutes ago
The Next Best Boo...: What are you reading?	13070	11026	22 minutes ago
College Students! : What Did You Finish Reading/What Are You Currently Reading?	1067	1384	15 hours, 18 min ago
50 Books A Year: Stephanie's 2009 Books	17	110	1 day ago, 04:17AM

friend reviews

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

lists with this book

Food-Related Non-Fiction

114 books | 202 voters

Best books of 2008

811 books | 2691 voters

More lists...

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 17,636)

sort: default (?) | date
filters: all | text-only

03/04/08

Amy rated it:

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.
...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 (56 people liked it)

2 comments

02/16/08

Ginny rated it:

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 ti...more

Like this review? yes (50 people liked it)

25 comments

01/07/08

Ken-ichi rated it:

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 bodies and human food can be, and how evolution may not have prepar...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 see 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 (10 people liked it)

add a comment

03/04/08

Happyreader rated it:

bookshelves: food-and-drink, 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 (11 people liked it)

6 comments

03/01/08

James rated it:

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 bec...more

Like this review? yes (7 people liked it)

2 comments

01/03/08

Tien marked it as to-read

bookshelves: culture, environment, food, to-read

Last night, I watched Pollan -- who looks just like one of my uncles -- on TV promoting this book. Something wonderful and empowering he said: the food industry pays very close attention to what consumers want.

In fact, they're terrified of us.

For instance, it only took a little over 100 concerned McDonald's customers writing to ask if it were true that the chain served genetically modified potatoes -- that was enough
to get the issue on the agenda at their sha...more

Like this review? yes (6 people liked it)

2 comments

07/19/08

Patadave rated it:

I’m a huge fan of Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma, (see review here) but only a big fan of In Defense of Food. The first two sections of Defense, “The Age of Nutritionism,” and “The Western Diet and Diseases of Civilization” fit perfectly with Omnivore’s posture of investigative journalism. While Omnivore included Pollan as a character, it came across as a non-biased, or relatively low-biased, intro to the foodstuffs served across America. The first two sections of Defense ad...more I’m a huge fan of Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma, (see review here) but only a big fan of In Defense of Food. The first two sections of Defense, “The Age of Nutritionism,” and “The Western Diet and Diseases of Civilization” fit perfectly with Omnivore’s posture of investigative journalism. While Omnivore included Pollan as a character, it came across as a non-biased, or relatively low-biased, intro to the foodstuffs served across America. The first two sections of Defense adhere to this even-handed journalistic method, but the final section, “Getting Over Nutritionism,” slips into more assertion and weaker argument and investigation.

Pollan is upfront about the final third of this book. He refers to his suggestions as “eating algorithms.” He doesn’t recommend what you should eat, but what you should think about before you eat. Mostly I agree with him, but there are few people in the United States who can live, and eat, the way Michael Pollan does. Lesisurely dinners prepared from foods out of your home-grown garden sounds like a great way to live, but re-arranging one’s life to create space to eat well may be impossible for most.

That said, there’s still a bushel of great advice in this book. Even if you can’t afford the time to grow your own garden, or eat every lunch gathered with friends and family, you will at least come away with an understanding of why eating anything that says “low-carb,” “low-fat,” “enriched,” or “fortified” is probably a bad idea.

In Omnivore Pollan researched where our food comes from. In Defense his research starts with asking why we think about food the way we do. Why are Americans obsessed with cholestrol, trans-fat, omega-3, and omega-6? What do nutrients have to do with food?

Pollan pulls together several threads that brought us to the nutrient-obsessed culture we have today. Three of these threads are lobbyists, scientists, and nutritionists. Together this triumvirate has eradicated any common sense about food that might have once been found in this nation. That this is a particularly national problem is very much a part of Pollan’s argument. Other cultures have long histories that have allowed them to create food cultures promote health. The French paradox ceases to be a paradox when you consider the culture that surrounds eating, and the hundreds of generations that have contributed to creating foods, and ways of eating, that combine in healthful ways.

Not only is the United States, a melange of many cultures, lacking this kind of food tradition, but it also suffers from a technophilia that rose to dominance in the 20th century and made it seem like science could solve every problem. Chemists began analyzing food to see what made it tick, and nutritionists began promoting these ingredients/nutrients as ways of achieving health. If Wonder Bread can be enriched what does it matter that it’s made out of processed flour and a little extra sweetener? A lot, according to Pollan.

When early nutritionism didn’t really work as advertised nutritionists did more research and uncovered micronutrients. Once micro-nutrients were discovered, they argued that now food chemists could mix and match ingredients to promote perfect health. Unfortunately, it seems like everytime a nutrient was thought to help or hurt later research overturned these findings. Pollan argues that this rises out of the simplified way of doing research. While nutritional research may be correct for a single ingredient it couldn’t predict how the ingredients all worked together in the food, or in relation to a human body. Food, and our relationship with food, is far too complex to be reduced to a simple formula.

Pollan’s argument persuaded me. Especially reading the two books in conjunction.

One of the pleasant things about reading Pollan is that he doesn’t take the tone of a scolding moralist in his writing. There is no right answer or rigid formula you must follow to health, only some thoughtfully considered common sense which he sums up in the opening of the book. “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” The rest of the book explains why the American diet is not really food, but food-like products, and why Americans continue to eat long after they’ve consumed more than enough to meet their nutritional needs.

Pollan’s perfect world of eating that he tries to conjure up in the last third of the book will probably never make it into most people’s daily lives. But, that shouldn’t stop anyone from striving. Even if you’re not eating green beans out of your own garden, you can still eat more fruit and vegetables and less meat. There are common-sense strategies for eating that seem to have been forgotten. In Defense of Food is a great reminder that food should lead to health, not type-2 diabetes.(less)

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

add a comment

01/24/08

Spencer rated it:

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...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 (4 people liked it)

1 comment

01/06/08

Charlotte rated it:

Read in February, 2008

Michael Pollan is absolutely on to something with his central thesis; namely, that the American diet has been taken over by "edible foodlike substances" (ie, hyper-processed foods) and the American approach to health as it relates to eating has been taken over by "nutritionism" (ie, the idea that food is nothing more than the sum of its nutrient parts). He makes an excellent case that the current epidemics of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. are the inevitable result of...more

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

add a comment

02/18/08

Andy rated it:

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

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

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

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 (4 people liked it)

add a comment

01/20/08

Elizabeth rated it:

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...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 (3 people liked it)

add a comment

12/25/08

rachel rated it:

Read in January, 2009

recommends it for: eaters

This is an excellent book about how to reclaim control of what you eat from the food industry and nutrition science. The tenets for doing this come at the end, but it doesn't read at all like a diet book with strict rules and regulations. The tenets are meant to inspire rather than regulate, and collectively come to this - "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants." Nutritionists and their followers will probably complain that Pollan doesn't use controlled experiments to make his claims. ...more This is an excellent book about how to reclaim control of what you eat from the food industry and nutrition science. The tenets for doing this come at the end, but it doesn't read at all like a diet book with strict rules and regulations. The tenets are meant to inspire rather than regulate, and collectively come to this - "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants." Nutritionists and their followers will probably complain that Pollan doesn't use controlled experiments to make his claims. He doesn't have to. Time, instinct, and tradition have taught us all we need to know.

The bulk of the book is spent discussing how nutritionism is an industry which tries to break down food into parts, and inject the "right" nutrients and ingredients into highly-processed foods which don't end up being healthy at all, mainly because they cease to be real food anymore. The industrialization of food has reduced our (and by our, Pollan means those of us which eat a Western diet) nutrients while causing us to eat and buy more than we need to, all the while making us unhealthier.

One of the biggest "whoas" for me in this book was a case where a group of 10 overweight, diabetic Westernized Aborigines (they had developed these problems AFTER they became Westernized) were asked if they would go back to eating their traditional diet. They did, and after 7 WEEKS their blood pressure was lower, triglyceride levels were better, and there were more omega-3 fatty acids in their tissues. This study supported the idea that a person CAN become healthier in a pretty short amount of time after changing their diet. I thought that since I grew up eating a pretty terrible diet I'd be screwed for life, but apparently that isn't the case. Whew! I'm glad I met people in my early 20's (not long ago) who showed me how to eat better. This book helped me think about how I can take that a step further.

This book is great inspiration for thinking about how Westerners support the industrialization of food (and how science and business egg us along) and what we can do to eat better, prevent disease, and support local, healthy food economics.(less)

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

2 comments

08/01/08

Jamie rated it:

Read in March, 2008

Part of the idea behind this whole 52 Books in 52 Weeks challenge was to branch out into genres and topics that I might not normally try. While I haven't read anything about perky single British chicks trying to make it on their own and find love in the big city or perky single British vampire chicks trying to fight crime and find love in the big city, this book by Michael Pollen about nutrition and eating well does signal a bit of a departure for me.

Pollen's manifesto here isn't act...more Part of the idea behind this whole 52 Books in 52 Weeks challenge was to branch out into genres and topics that I might not normally try. While I haven't read anything about perky single British chicks trying to make it on their own and find love in the big city or perky single British vampire chicks trying to fight crime and find love in the big city, this book by Michael Pollen about nutrition and eating well does signal a bit of a departure for me.

Pollen's manifesto here isn't actually that much about nutrition, though. His specific advice about what to eat doesn't get much more specific than what he presents as both his "eater's manifesto" and his seven word summary of the whole book: "Eat food, not to much, mostly plants." The rest is just elaboration.

The elaboration starts with Pollen's differentiating "food" from "non-food." He does this mainly by railing against what he calls "nutritionism," which is the recent trend where food scientists (and food marketing professionals) focus on the nutritional content of food rather than whole foods. A lot of this has its genesis from when the U.S. government wanted to recommend eating less meat and dairy, but the lobby groups from those industries had a Class A freakout and through political pressures got the recommendations changed to focus more on nutrients rather than foods. So "Eat less meat and dairy" got malformed into "Choose lean protein sources like fish, chicken, and fat-free dairy products."

This is bad, Pollen argues, because scientists and policy makers don't know that much about how the individual nutrients behave outside of their complex, whole food systems. And, worse, they're sometimes wrong in entirely harmful ways. Think margarine here. This whole nutrient obsession has also created bizarre creations like low carb pasta (what?), fat-free half-and-half (what IS one of the halves, then?), and other culinary impossibilities. Pollen goes into detail about why such concoctions are not "food" per se, but "food products" and generally bad for you. His advice is generally to avoid anything that your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food, especially if it tries to make health claims. Replace that stuff with whole foods, especially plants and especially the leafy greens of plants.

In general, a lot of Pollen's suggestions make sense, and the book is written in an easy to read, almost conversational tone that makes it easy to (pardon the pun) digest. Some of his advice is hard to swallow (dang, another pun), like eschewing (oops, puns everywhere) anything with more than five ingredients and only buying stuff that you've either grown yourself our bought directly from a grower. Still, it's good food for thought (ah, sorry), and a lot of what he says about how senselessly the government regulates food labeling gives you plenty to chew on (dang, that one just slipped in there). (less)

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

12/22/07

Nif rated it:

Read in January, 2008

I've been reading tons of books about food and the American food industry. I was afraid that this one would cover too much of the same ground as Nina Planck's Real Food, but Michael Pollan's take was quite different. He was more interested in how Americans got to this state of being so insecure about what to eat that we are willing to eat chemically engineered food substitutes marketed as "healthy" and "nutritious" instead of actual food that tastes good. Nina Planck has a re...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

11/09/07

Edan rated it:

Read in November, 2007

recommends it for: People who eat

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
So begins In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, Michael Pollan's informative, frightening, and ultimately inspiring new book. Pollan explores the dangers of nutritionism and traces how we became a culture of fat people eating "Heart Healthy!" Fritos in our cars--and/or a culture of eaters obsessed with health, and yet eating food-like substances that are in fact incredibly harmful to our bodies. He urges us to to ignore the no...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

3 comments

04/07/08

Elizabeth rated it:

Read in April, 2008

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Michael Pollan's succinct dietary advice is so simple it's practically insulting, but thanks to a combination of bad science and government influence, Americans are more confused than ever about how and what to eat. Our ancestors wouldn't recognize most of the "food" we eat today, things like refined pasta fortified with omega-3s or diet soda spiked with vitamins. By refining and processing our food and trying to add the nutrients ...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

01/03/08

Melanie rated it:

Read in January, 2008

I don't know how he does it, but Michael Pollan makes the story of the food chain and diet fads a page-turner. This book is perfect for those who want to read the much longer Omnivore's Dilemma, but just can't seem to get through all that corn. I love how he sums up what we as omnivores should eat: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." It helped me resolve to be a better steward of my body and my family's health. We already avoid anything with HFCS or hydrogenated oil, but coul...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

05/14/08

Megan rated it:

bookshelves: listened-to

Read in May, 2008

I get it. We are all going to die from either high fructose corn syrup poisoning, or the oodles of other chemicals in the food-like substances we eat on a daily basis. This book was extremely interesting and educational, yet makes me feel as if it's completely an uphill battle to eat healthy. As a single mom, I surely can't afford to buy only organic and grass-fed foods, and I can assure you that I won't be giving up my microwave any time soon. But at least I found some small changes I can m...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

9 comments

01/11/09

Cheryl rated it:

Read in September, 2008

I finished reading this book just this morning. It's less lengthy than the other books of his I have (and have not yet read: The Omnivore's Dilemma and Botany of Desire). I do look forward to those other books, but I was invigorated by In Defense of Food as it takes an informed activist approach to looking at how and why we eat the way we do, and what "forces" are interested in maintaining that zeitgeist.
The option Pollan counters with is so simple, so logical, so easy (once one ...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

12/27/08

Byron rated it:

bookshelves: health, philosophy

Read in January, 2009

This book does a very good job of pointing out the ills of the Western diet. It all makes good logical sense and he presents research as well that has convinced me that I should try to make a major diet shift.

He advocates a slower paced lifestyle with more attention and time spent on preparing and eating food. I really like the following line in the final few pages where he talks about gardening: "Much of what we call recreation or exercise consists of pointless physical labor,...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comment

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 881 882 next »

recent status updates | recommend it | blog it

combine
other editions (8)

More editions...

quotes from this book

"The sheer novelty and glamor of the Western diet, with its seventeen thousand new food products every year and the marketing power - thirty-two billion dollars a year - used to sell us those products, has overwhelmed the force of tradition and left us where we now find ourselves: relying on science and journalism and government and marketing to help us decide what to eat." More quotes...