Michael Pollan is a purist when it comes to food, at least from his ideas in this book, and that could easily be translated as "elitist."

In short, I didn't like this as much as Omnivore's Dilemma.
For one, he berates "nutritionism," which to most people would appear to say that the study of nutrition has little to no redeeming value. Acknowledging and agreeing with the limitations of such a reductionist approach to the science of nutrition, I would argue that the true field of nutrition is much more comprehensive, taking a holistic view of nutrition in terms of agriculture, food science, public health, culture, culinary practices, lifestyle factors, even history and definitely politics and governmental influence.
And of course, I am a member of that true field of nutrition as a registered dietitian and foodie! O:P

Granted, his overarching themes are reasonable and I agree with them, like eating more real, unprocessed food, more plant foods, and really changing the way we eat to enjoy it as a part of our culture. His finer points, however, are simply not options for the parts of the population who cannot spend the time or money required to prepare their own food from (organic/local) scratch. He seems to only espouse personal change/choice in this book, ignoring the current food system and all the other socio-economic hurdles associated with food/eating that influence those personal choices. If you put the ideas/suggestions of Omnivore's Dilemma together with the ones here, perhaps we would have a complete picture of how we got to where we are and what changes might be necessary to change it. We need to look at both sides of the supply/demand continuum to move forward (or rather, as it seems, backward) to a better food and agri-culture in America.