The first section of the book, in which Pollan follows the path of corn through the industrial food chain and discusses the effects of corn on our diets, supermarkets, and the environment, is fascinating. Despite being trained in the sociology of agriculture and specifically in the analysis of commodity chains, I learned a lot and found few details to quibble with (the main exception being his tendency to anthropomorphize corn, discussing it as though it intentionally chose to evolve in certain ways). If I were teaching a class on food, I would totally assign that section of the book.

The second section of the book is also good, though not as great as the first. Probably this is because I already knew that "organic" and "sustainable" are not the same and that Horizon-brand organic dairy products come from huge dairies that, from the point of view of the cow, the quality of the milk, and the environment, are little better than regular non-organic ones.

But the final section is really annoying me. Most of the things that are irritating me are much more clearly discussed at http://www.powells.com/review/2007_08..., but there were a few other things as well. Pollan keeps talking about how only omnivores have any trouble deciding what to eat, using koalas and cows as examples of animals that, being specialists, don't need to worry about whether something is an acceptable food source or not. Anyone who raises cows will tell you he's highly underestimating cows' experimentation with non-grass foods. They eat weeds and poisonous plants; they get nails and wire and bones stuck in their throats. It's a pain in the ass to have to try to remove a deer vertebra some cow has managed to lodge in her throat. I suppose this seems like a minor detail, except his entire argument is that humans (and other omnivores) are unique in facing problems deciding what is and isn't safe to eat.

Connected to that is Pollan's reference to "human nature" from time to time, something that drives me nuts when my students do it and is even more exasperating from someone who at least ostensibly has the intellectual capacity and training to not fall back on such a simplistic explanation (that is, "humans do it, therefore it's human nature"). He seems to buy in to the popular conception that there's a "human nature" that we've just smeared a little civilization and culture on top of (think of frosting on a cake).

I don't think I can finish the book--I'm increasingly irritated by his tone and the problems with his argument. It's too bad, because the book really did start off well.