In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Pollan

Feb 16, 2008 Ginny Messina rated it did not like it

Actually, there is enough good material in this book that it probably warrants another star or two. But I was so alarmed at the amount of misinformation here that one star is the best I can do.

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 put it mildly) to the food industr Actually, there is enough good material in this book that it probably warrants another star or two. But I was so alarmed at the amount of misinformation here that one star is the best I can do.

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 put it mildly) to the food industry. The same can be said of my own nutrition profession.

And obviously he is right that we should choose more whole foods and engage in practices that help us appreciate food—a useful perspective even if it isn’t a particularly cutting edge one.

But for the most part, Pollan’s reasoning about nutrition and research was pretty unsophisticated and uninformed. He carefully describes all of the reasons why nutrition research is flawed, and then employs some of the worst examples of research (animal studies and completely uncontrolled observational approaches) to support his own arguments. He quotes "nutrition professionals" whose credentials and opinions are questionable at best. Almost without exception, his observations on nutrition are wrong—sometimes subtly so, sometimes overtly so, and sometimes in ways that are actually dangerous.

Pollan defends his right to provide nutrition advice because he speaks on the authority of “tradition and common sense.” But, tradition and common sense will get you about 90% of the way to a healthy diet. The other 10% can have unfortunate and Pollan really has no sense of this.

The last part of the book has recommendations about how to eat and shop. “Shop the perimeter of the grocery store” is exactly the advice that was popular among nutritionists when I started in this field 30 years ago. It’s just as wrong now as it was then. Why would you shop the perimeter of the store if you are supposed to be eating mostly plant foods? Far better to shop the produce corner and then head to the interior for grains, beans, condiments, and spices.

Pollan doesn’t want us to eat anything with more than 5 ingredients on the label. So no prepared spaghetti sauce, salsa, fortified soymilk, or curry paste, all of which are perfectly healthful foods that play a central role in my diet.

Of course, I understand the spirit behind this and all of his recommendations—-he wants us to slow down, cook more from scratch, use more whole-food ingredients, fewer manufactured foods. He’s a big fan of the Slow Food Association, for whom he is a frequent speaker and which he admits can sometimes sound like an elitist club for foodies (I'm thinking this has something to do with the fact that it is an elitist club for foodies as a quick peek at their website shows). Slowing down to cook and eat and enjoy food are good things, but there has to be room for a little bit of compromise and a sense of reality. There is nothing wrong with eating pasta sauce from a jar or frozen vegetables or—-my favorite convenience food and I’ll defend it to my death—-butternut squash soup from a box. It’s the way many busy responsible people cook and it’s a perfectly healthful and acceptable way to eat.

I was disappointed that his entire discussion of the ethics of food choices fit into one single parenthetical sentence plus a footnote. This from the man who wrote The Omnivore’s Dilemma and who debated ethics with Peter Singer (and lost the debate). I realize this isn’t what this book is about, but Pollan knows, far better than most people, the true cost-- in terms of animal suffering and environmental destruction-- of animal food production. When he talks about how to eat, he is obligated to speak to that issue at least a little bit.

Pollan’s opening mantra—-eat food, not too much, mostly plants—-is good advice. There are other snippets of good advice in this book. For me, it was all greatly overwhelmed by faulty and uninformed reasoning , the unnecessarily restrictive requirements for food choices, and the great amount of misinformation.

All in all, a disappointing book. At least it was short (a little shorter than my review, I think! )

...more

flag 378 likes · Like · see review

Mar 04, 2008 E.A. Quinn rated it really liked it

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 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.
...more

flag 176 likes · Like · see review

Oct 29, 2015 Will Byrnes rated it really liked it

Shelves: food-nutrition

Michael Pollan - image from his site

One of the more pernicious aspects of nutritionism is that it encourages us to blame our health problems on lifestyle choices, implying that the individual bears ultimate responsibility for whatever illnesses befall him. It’s worth keeping in mind that a far more powerful predictor of heart disease than either diet or exercise is social class.

Pollan contends that Western society has replaced our relationship with food to a relationship with nutrition, to ...more

flag 124 likes · Like · see review

Jan 07, 2008 Ken-ichi rated it liked it

Shelves: snoot, food, learning, eating

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 Twin 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... ...more

flag 85 likes · Like · see review

Mar 04, 2008 Happyreader rated it it was ok

Shelves: food-and-drink, health-and-diet

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 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. ...more

flag 71 likes · Like · see review

Oct 19, 2013 Jason Koivu rated it it was amazing

Shelves: favorites, food

Books like this make me afraid to eat. Then they make me mad at the way I've been eating. Finally, they make me a better eater.

At the start, the idea seems simple: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." When I read that I thought, okay I can stop reading. I know that already, so I've got this shit down.

But what is food today? It may not be what you think it is. Most of what you find at the grocer's is not food. That complicates things just a little bit, doesn't it?

Pollan complicates that sim ...more

flag 54 likes · Like · see review

Jan 06, 2008 Charlotte rated it it was ok

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 this perverse relat ...more

flag 33 likes · Like · see review

Apr 26, 2019 Cathrine ☯️ rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: audible-or-audiobook

4 🍎 🍇 🍷 🥑
Another informative, entertaining audio on my lake walks.
Included in his final recommendations of what to consume ➖ a glass of wine with dinner. 😁
I really like this guy.

flag 25 likes · Like · see review

Oct 14, 2009 Trevor rated it it was amazing

Shelves: psychology, social-theory, food

One of the most remarkable meals I’ve ever eaten was here - http://www.royalmail.com.au/Pages/Foo.... Now, Dunkeld is a long way to go for a meal, even if you do live in Melbourne – and a ten course meal served over many hours with matching wines that costs an arm and three toes possibly isn’t something everyone would think of as value for money. However, unlike the said value for money meals I will never forget the evening I spent at this restaurant. Fantastic food, remarkable wines and delight ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

Jan 20, 2019 Diane S ☔ rated it liked it

Shelves: lor-2019, 5000-2019

Thoughts soon.

flag 21 likes · Like · see review

Mar 01, 2008 James rated it it was amazing

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 though Pollan greets ...more

flag 20 likes · Like · see review

Jul 23, 2012 Adam rated it did not like it

Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food might best be described as a book which fares best when judged by its cover. Below the title, a reader finds some dietary advice which is not a bad place to start: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." There are a few good ideas inside the book, too. It would be easy not to look much deeper, as Pollan's prose is so lively that most readers won't want to stop and give things a closer look. However, the reader who does bother to check the details sees that In ...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

Aug 26, 2017 Monica rated it really liked it

Shelves: pub_2000s, health-nutrition, kindle_nonfiction, popular, audible

"Eat food. Not much. Mostly Plants."

This pretty much encapsulates the book. When Pollan speaks of "food" he refers to things that can be grown, not things that are manufactured. The "mostly plants" refers to mostly fruits and leaves not seeds. He also recommends this for your meat. In other words, try to consume animals that were raised on real food (grass fed cows). Pollan throws lots of interesting facts about the food we consume and its origins. He is not a fan of "nutritionism" or the nature "Eat food. Not much. Mostly Plants."

This pretty much encapsulates the book. When Pollan speaks of "food" he refers to things that can be grown, not things that are manufactured. The "mostly plants" refers to mostly fruits and leaves not seeds. He also recommends this for your meat. In other words, try to consume animals that were raised on real food (grass fed cows). Pollan throws lots of interesting facts about the food we consume and its origins. He is not a fan of "nutritionism" or the nature of deconstructing foods down to their scientific components so that you can get the recommended doses of Vitamin C etc by choosing the right types of foods. Nor is he a fan of fat or calorie counting and contents. The "no fat" fad that ended up being detrimental because fat is important as are all "nutrients" in moderation. He also points out that the same food can have very different nutrients depending on the soil in which it was grown. One carrot can be more nutritious by "nutritionism" measures merely by being grown in a more nutrient rich soil. He had an interesting take on diets (aka calorie and nutrient counting) and how the notion of dieting has it's foundation in Puritanical roots.

Nutrition science has usually put more of its energies into the idea that the problems it studies are the result of too much of a bad thing instead of too little of a good thing. Is this good science or nutritionist prejudice? The epidemiologist John Powles has suggested this predilection is little more than a Puritan bias: Bad things happen to people who eat bad things.

Hadn't thought about it that way but...yep! Anyone remember that old axiom "you are what you eat" which is true, but unless you have been very focused on the origins of the food that you eat, you really aren't much in control of that. He also says:

A diet based on quantity rather than quality has ushered a new creature onto the world stage: the human being who manages to be both overfed and undernourished, two characteristics seldom found in the same body in the long natural history of our species. In most traditional diets, when calories are adequate, nutrient intake will usually be adequate as well.

Pollan reminds us that in nutrition science, much is still theory and most encouragements have agendas (even when agendas are well meaning, we can't always assume that the findings are inarguable).

But while nutritionism has its roots in a scientific approach to food, it’s important to remember that it is not a science but an ideology, and that the food industry, journalism, and government bear just as much responsibility for its conquest of our minds and diets.

I don't know about you, but in this day and age, I'm not interested in following any ideology.

All in all this book was a good reminder that like all things, we need to be mindful of what we eat. Everything has nuance in our world. Everything is advertised and marketed and spun even the scientific approaches. Pollan makes a great case for just following your body. Eat until you are full. Of course even that takes a whole lot of self-awareness, education and money. The ability to understand yourself and recognizing the difference between hunger and boredom and anxiety etc and also the ability to identify what your body craves. The healthiest eaters are also wealthier and more educated. A good book with many interesting facts about food and theories. Worthwhile.

4 Stars

Listened to the Audio book. The narration was excellent. ...more

flag 23 likes · Like · see review

Jan 03, 2008 Ganesh marked it as to-read

Shelves: culture, food, environment

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 shareholders' meeting.

Another exampl ...more

flag 18 likes · Like · see review

Jul 19, 2008 Patadave rated it really liked 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 adhere to this eve 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. ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Jul 15, 2015 Shaun rated it it was ok

Shelves: read-in-2015, health-coaching, non-fiction

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Certainly good advice, but unfortunately, Michael Pollan should have stopped there.

Ugh...what a huge disappointment. This is a perfect example of why journalists should not give nutritional advice or write these kinds of books.

Pollan starts out by stating the obvious, but then quickly learns what many nutritional professionals and public health advocates do, the obvious isn't sexy and it certainly doesn't make a bestseller. As a result the chapters that fol ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Jan 24, 2008 Spencer rated it it was amazing

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 healthful elixers or n 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.

...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Nov 13, 2017 Patrice Hoffman rated it liked it

I'm not sure I need to review Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto. Chances are the person who bought this book is looking to find out what about food needs defending. It appears everything. I came across this book because of my Sociology class in explaining how the economy and current food structures continue to lead to systematic oppression or maintain an the imbalance of wealth, inequality in this country.

Firstly, in reference to defending food, it is actual food that ne ...more

flag 10 likes · Like · see review

Jul 09, 2015 Kevin Kelsey rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: favorites, read-it-again, read-2016

Short and poignant, but very powerful. This is going to not only change what/how I eat, but my whole relationship with food. Everyone should read this.

flag 10 likes · Like · see review

Feb 18, 2008 Andy rated it liked it

**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 **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.

...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Oct 15, 2009 Laurel rated it it was amazing

Shelves: nutrition, non-fiction, health

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Those are the first sentences of Michael Pollan's delightful little book In Defense of Food. In fact, as Pollan himself admits, there's not much more to it than that. So, how to fill up a whole book when those three first sentences tell it all?

Well, as simple as that advice seems, the first sentence is more complicated than it may appear. Eat food. Sure. Of course. What else would we eat? But as we all know and often try not to think too much about -- what "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Those are the first sentences of Michael Pollan's delightful little book In Defense of Food. In fact, as Pollan himself admits, there's not much more to it than that. So, how to fill up a whole book when those three first sentences tell it all?

Well, as simple as that advice seems, the first sentence is more complicated than it may appear. Eat food. Sure. Of course. What else would we eat? But as we all know and often try not to think too much about -- what is labeled as "food" these days isn't often really food. It is processed food stripped of everything that once made it food, and then "fortified" with the vitamins and minerals it was stripped of, and loaded with various non-food items such as high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, and a multitude of non-pronounceable mystery ingredients. As just one example, Pollan lists the ingredients of Sara Lee's "whole wheat white bread" which in and of it self seems to be an oxymoron. How can white bread be whole wheat? As Pollan rattles off the makings of this mystery bread, you can't help but laugh. Instead of the basics of any "real" bread (yeast, flour, water and salt), Sara Lee's version instead has over 32 ingredients, with only about 4 that one can recognize as actual food items.

Pollan points out that, though we may be the most evolved and intelligent of all the species on the planet, we are also the only species that require food charts, diagrams, pyramids and a panel of "experts" to tell us what to eat. He goes through the history of all these "expert" recommendations, much of which seems to change with each year. First margarine would save us all from heart disease. Then... oops... turns out margarine actually significantly increases our chances of getting heart disease. First low fat food will help you lose weight. Then... oops... looks like it's the carbs that might be making you fat. But hold on....some carbs are actually good, it's the simple ones that are bad. And about all those different fats....

What are we to do with all this conflicting and changing information?

Pollan suggests a diet of fruits and vegetables, meat that is 100% grass fed, and anything that is genuinely real food. As a guide, he recommends avoiding anything that has more than a handful of ingredients (especially if you can't pronounce any of those ingredients). Shopping at a farmer's markets is always a good idea as well. He also suggests that you pretend you are grocery shopping with your great grandmother. If you pick up something that Grandma would see and say "What the heck is THAT?" then it's probably not real food and should stay on the shelf. After all, it has a long shelf life anyway, and could stay there for years and years without going bad. So there's no real rush to put it in your cart anyway. :)

Did Pollan only cite research studies that support his biases? Probably. In fact, I'm sure he did. There's so much conflicting info out there, that you can find research to support virtually any nutritional leaning you want these days. But I happened to agree with many of the points Pollan makes, so I didn't mind the bias. :)

I found In Defense of Food to be informative, educational and surprisingly funny. I recommend it to anyone who has an interest in nutrition. Or anyone who eats.

...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Aug 18, 2016 Becky rated it it was amazing

Shelves: beaurocratic-bullshit-corporations, food-drink, heeby-jeebies

A well-written book that was also perfectly narrated by Scott Brick. And, I can think of no more succinct summation than that which my sister-in-law typed to me "The Carrot> carotene." Pollan makes an excellent argument that food science is really in its infancy (and much more complex than *I* ever gave it credit for) but that what we need to focus on the whole food- a balanced, traditional meal, rather than worry about hitting our macro-nutrients each day

This book didn’t tell me anything that I A well-written book that was also perfectly narrated by Scott Brick. And, I can think of no more succinct summation than that which my sister-in-law typed to me "The Carrot> carotene." Pollan makes an excellent argument that food science is really in its infancy (and much more complex than *I* ever gave it credit for) but that what we need to focus on the whole food- a balanced, traditional meal, rather than worry about hitting our macro-nutrients each day

This book didn’t tell me anything that I didn’t expect to hear, and yet, it was still pretty disgusting to read all the ways in which food companies are actively trying to present you with anything other than actual food. It like in Neil Gaiman’s Good Omens when one of the four horsemen, Famine, is found to be doing VERY well for himself by managing a fast food chain and also a dieting cult in modern America. Nailed that one on the head.

What I found particularly refreshing about Pollan’s take is that he views food through a cultural lens to really display how Americans (and everyone catching up) have a really perverted relationship with the food that hinders us from moving beyond this sick yo-yo’ing we do with our health and our weight. The French were shown a picture of chocolate cake and asked to do word association, predominantly they said “celebration.” What did Americans say? “Guilt.” This relationship to a small indulgence just sets us up for failure- if you feel guilt you are going to lie to yourself, and probably over eat because “you are already being naughty.” Our food isn’t here to punish us, it’s the building blocks of our existence and its time to center more of our lives around it… and that also means we probably have to slow down elsewhere. It’s not easy, even Pollan says that, with two working parents, no one has time to make their own pasta noodles, or put up pounds of homegrown produce, but if we do agree to slow down, and maybe make time for those family-centered, traditional things, what would be the downside? Wouldn’t that be better?

In the end Pollan lays down 7 or so rules that expand on his initial rule of “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” They talk about actually sitting down and eating with others, becoming in tune with your own body, and understanding on a cultural level what you are eating. Did you make it? Would grandma recognize it?

To that I want to add one additional, and I think it builds directly on what Pollan has said, and it’s a “dieting” rule that I have had for a long time even when I was trying to cut calories- ANY food made with love, is diet-friendly. I used to say “If Granny baked it, its lowcal” because we should express our gratitude for the things that others have invested their energy and care into. Eat these treats from our mothers and grandmothers while we are lucky enough to have them, and don’t groan over the calories while you are eating them. Savor each bite, chew 25 times, and if you are properly relishing something, and also taking the time to listen to your body, it will let you know when it’s time to be done.
...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Feb 28, 2019 Kristie rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: audible, nonfiction, food, uno_2019

I read this one in one day and I think if I had taken my time I may have gotten more out of it. I don't think there was much in it that I didn't already know or that was surprising to hear, but it was still interesting and made sense.

I know my current diet isn't my best and I can certainly feel a difference when I'm eating well versus eating whatever is available or quick. This book certainly made me think that it's time to get back to eating basics.

I think this book is worth a read. It's not ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Jun 04, 2009 Rebecca rated it really liked it

I'm suspicious of my motivation to read this book. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with wanting to be congratulated on my eating habits.

Well, having now finished it, I'm mostly right about that. Congratulations, self. But I also learned a lot, particularly a theory about how Americans think about food that seems utterly true for the majority of my friends and family. Which is that people don't think, "Hey, I'm eating a banana, yum!" they think, "Whoa, too much sugar, not enough protein, I'm suspicious of my motivation to read this book. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with wanting to be congratulated on my eating habits.

Well, having now finished it, I'm mostly right about that. Congratulations, self. But I also learned a lot, particularly a theory about how Americans think about food that seems utterly true for the majority of my friends and family. Which is that people don't think, "Hey, I'm eating a banana, yum!" they think, "Whoa, too much sugar, not enough protein, no thanks." Which is fucked up. These people that I know mostly admit that they have food issues, and, yes, they do. This is a part of it.

If you say no thanks to real food, like popcorn with butter and salt, baked potatoes, greens with bacon, bananas, tequila and lime juice, ice cream, whatever, and instead think that you are doing yourself a big favor by eating products, like low-fat puffed corn product with added Omega-3s and fake cheese flavor, diet vitamin drinks, low carb bagels, multivitamin cereal, drink mix with Splenda and organic Oreos, yikes. And yet this describes most of the people I know.

One of the things I learned is that American spend a lower percentage of their income on food than anyone else. Low cost, low quality, but a whole lot of it. Which strikes me as connected to a larger problem--low cost stuff, and a whole lot of it. Let's spend money on amassing a huge amount of low quality foods and low quality crap for our house. Which leads to problems like "I have way too much junk in my house so I need a professional to help me organize it and clean it out" and also "I have way too much body weight so I need..." This poor spending of money creates all kinds of business opportunities.

So: less, but higher quality.

One theory is that this is inherently elitist because poor people can't spend more money or time on food. Which is impossible for me to buy, since I happen to know many non-rich recent immigrants who work full time, go to school full time, and still cook for themselves and their families. And there are millions of extremely poor non-Americans who find the time to prepare way better food that what we have. My great-grandmother raised 10 kids (seriously) on her very low wages, and she could feed them all on a head of cabbage, some chicken fat, and a couple cups of flour. That is almost certainly healthier, more delicious, and better for the environment than what most people are eating now.

But, here I am, the choir. My few idiotic attempts to talk about this with non-choir friends and family have led to anger and irritation on their part, frustration on mine. People seriously dislike change, even when they know that it's better for their health, their kids' health, and the environment, not to mention way more delicious. Do I worry about their health? Yes. It's like watching them all smoke a pack a day. ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Dec 31, 2012 Andrej Karpathy rated it really liked it

This book really changed the way I look at food and will certainly lead to changes in my eating habits.

I didn't want to ruin life for my older self (as I found out, almost all most serious western diseases can be attributed to mostly nutrition) so I resolved to drill down into nutrition science over the last few weeks in an attempt to identify a healthy diet. I've skimmed several books, read a number of articles, a few papers, blogs and so on, but it was all a trip down the rabbit hole of compl ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Feb 27, 2020 Viktoria Tomcheva rated it it was amazing

Buy this book, learn it, live it, tell your loved ones.
Pollan summarizes his advice in 7 words: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. “Eat food” turns out to be more complicated than it seems. Most of the “food” eaten in the Western Diet is processed food, junk that Pollan deems unworthy of the moniker “food” and calls “edible food-like substances” instead.Real food would be recognized by your great-grandmother and can rot. Processed food is easy to spot because it is “loud” due to TV ads and s Buy this book, learn it, live it, tell your loved ones.
Pollan summarizes his advice in 7 words: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. “Eat food” turns out to be more complicated than it seems. Most of the “food” eaten in the Western Diet is processed food, junk that Pollan deems unworthy of the moniker “food” and calls “edible food-like substances” instead.Real food would be recognized by your great-grandmother and can rot. Processed food is easy to spot because it is “loud” due to TV ads and screaming health claims like REDUCED FAT or LESS SODIUM.Pollan argues that quieter food is healthier and sums this up in his usual creative way: “If it came from a plant, eat it. If it was made in a plant, don’t.” This is one of his many Food Rules, a list of pithy recommendations that he reveals throughout the documentary. The narrative moves at a rapid clip, sliding from topic to topic, occasionally diving in political waters like when he advocates for a beverage tax as a means to reduce sugar intake. He also addresses psychological issues that lead to overeating and offers simple suggestions like using smaller plates, eating slower, and serving vegetables first.As in most health documentaries, he recommends a predominantly plant-based diet but doesn’t suggest that you stop eating meat entirely but rather consider meat a “flavoring or special occasion food.” The most inventive concept is his discussion of Nutritionism, which Pollan defines as nutrition complicated into an ideology. He explains that so-called food experts redefine food as a collection of nutrients and have historically made faulty assumptions that contradict previously held ideas. The consequences of this over complication of nutrition is contradicting health claims that have led to a decline in health, the opposite of what it was meant to do.
This may be his most controversial contention since he leaps to the opposite extreme by suggesting that nutrients are unimportant. Still, he makes a relevant point in calling out the preoccupations of nutrients over actual food endemic to the many ineffective fad diets (Atkins, South Beach, Ornish, Pritikin, etc.) Nutrients are important, they just shouldn’t be a substitute for eating real food.In his most effective segment, Pollan exposes how processing food takes out naturally occurring nutrients and vitamins. Food companies have reacted to pseudo-scientific Nutritionism by using marketing strategies that tweak nutrients. They enrich processed food with vitamins or artificially adjust nutrient content (hence the REDUCED FAT or LESS SODIUM above) to make unhealthy processed foods sound healthy.
This convoluted reasoning is why many people believe that sugary drinks like Gatorade or VitaminWater are actually good for you. The government, in turn, has subsidized processed food ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and hydrolyzed soy protein to create an inexpensive “calorie conveyor belt” that fuels the obesity epidemic.
Practically every health documentary has identified the same problem, but Pollen makes a compelling and quite sensible case as to how we got here. In my experience, many people think they are eating healthy foods when they are not and become frustrated when they continue to gain weight or find their blood sugar and cholesterol have worsened despite their efforts. I do what I can during a 15-minute office visit to challenge a lifetime of misinformation that has led to poor food choices, but this nearly 2-hour documentary does a more exhaustive job. I highly recommend it. No insurance or co-pay required.Pollen’s thesis is that we have been devaluing real food with disastrous results for our health and our happiness. His food rules offer reasonable suggestions for how to shift into a healthier diet. For individuals with obesity-related disease who are not ready to commit to a strict vegetarian or vegan diet, this documentary offers a moderate course towards healthier eating.
Biggest criticism: Pollen never bothers to match any of the health claims in this documentary with an actual source. I suspect the book version does cite sources, but the documentary just expects you to take his word for everything he says. That doesn’t work for me, even when I agree with him.
Best quote: “We’re eating fat on fat on fat on sugar on fat, sugar, and salt.” – Former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler, describing Buffalo wings. The full quote is worth reading:

“Take Buffalo wings. What are they? You start off with the fatty part of the chicken, usually fried in the manufacturing plant first. That pushes a lot of fat into that chicken wing. Fried usually again in the restaurant – that pushes more fat into that wing. Then red sauce, what is it? Sugar and salt. Then white creamy sauce on the side. That’s sugar and salt. What are we eating? We’re eating fat on fat on fat on sugar on fat, sugar, and salt.”
Eew. I can feel my arteries clogging just thinking about it. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Aug 01, 2008 Jamie rated it liked it

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 m 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). ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jul 20, 2019 Camelia Rose rated it really liked it

Shelves: science, essays, food, audio

"Eat food; not too much; mostly plants" is what consisted in Michael Pollan's Eater's Manifesto. For what he truly means, one must read the entire book. In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan tells the darkside of global food industry, the flawed nutrient studies, and the inadequate scientific understanding of nutrients. He is skeptical about "nutritionism", where a type food is reduced to its nutrients and nutrients are arbitrarily divided into good and bad camps. He thinks food is not equivalent t ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jul 30, 2015 Brennan rated it really liked it

When the most healthy person I know (Kaitlyn O'Malley) recommended this book to me and told me it was the one book that really changed what she ate and how she thought about food, I knew I had to read it. And I loved it and felt much the same way. So thanks, Kaitlyn - I really appreciate it!

I believe everyone should read this book. Michael Pollan's advice, "Eat food, mostly plants, not too much" is just brilliant and is explained in great detail throughout the book. I knew of this saying before ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jan 26, 2009 Jackie "the Librarian" rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction

Covering similar ground to his book The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan discusses ways to eat healthily despite a marketplace flooded with over-processed food and food-like products. He makes a very convincing case that food science has been oversimplified into "nutritionism", which reduces the idea of food to its component nutrients. The problem is that we still don't know everything that food does, and cannot adequately replace it by artificial means.
Even fresh food is suffering from this simplifi ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
Play Book Tag: [Poll Book Tally] In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by MIchael Pollan 3 stars	1	4	Jun 26, 2020 05:45PM
¿QUE OPINAN SOBRE ESTA LECTURA?	1	1	Jan 02, 2020 01:38AM
[ẢNH] Những món ngon nhắc đến là "chảy nước miếng" ở vùng cao phía Bắc	1	1	Oct 06, 2019 07:51PM
The diet to lose weight that is better than keto	1	2	Aug 31, 2019 06:06AM
kecap manis	1	1	Oct 27, 2018 12:11AM
kecap manis	1	1	Oct 26, 2018 11:58PM

See a Problem?

Preview — In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan

In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Michael Pollan

Books by Michael Pollan

Related Articles

Trivia About In Defense of Foo...

Quotes from In Defense of Foo...

See a Problem?

Preview — In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan

In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Michael Pollan

Books by Michael Pollan

Related Articles

Trivia About In Defense of Foo...

Quotes from In Defense of Foo...

new topic
Discuss This Book