Product 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 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.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #121 in Books
• Published on: 2008-01-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 256 pages

Amazon.com
Amazon Significant Seven, January 2008: Food is the one thing that Americans hate to love and, as it turns out, love to hate. What we want to eat has been ousted by the notion of what we should eat, and it's at this nexus of hunger and hang-up that Michael Pollan poses his most salient question: where is the food in our food? What follows in In Defense of Food is a series of wonderfully clear and thoughtful answers that help us omnivores navigate the nutritional minefield that's come to typify our food culture. Many processed foods vie for a spot in our grocery baskets, claiming to lower cholesterol, weight, glucose levels, you name it. Yet Pollan shows that these convenient "healthy" alternatives to whole foods are appallingly inconvenient: our health has a nation has only deteriorated since we started exiling carbs, fats--even fruits--from our daily meals. His razor-sharp analysis of the American diet (as well as its architects and its detractors) offers an inspiring glimpse of what it would be like if we could (a la Humpty Dumpty) put our food back together again and reconsider what it means to eat well. In a season filled with rallying cries to lose weight and be healthy, Pollan's call to action—"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."--is a program I actually want to follow. --Anne Bartholomew

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. In his hugely influential treatise The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan traced a direct line between the industrialization of our food supply and the degradation of the environment. His new book takes up where the previous work left off. Examining the question of what to eat from the perspective of health, this powerfully argued, thoroughly researched and elegant manifesto cuts straight to the chase with a maxim that is deceptively simple: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. But as Pollan explains, food in a country that is driven by a thirty-two billion-dollar marketing machine is both a loaded term and, in its purest sense, a holy grail. The first section of his three-part essay refutes the authority of the diet bullies, pointing up the confluence of interests among manufacturers of processed foods, marketers and nutritional scientists—a cabal whose nutritional advice has given rise to a notably unhealthy preoccupation with nutrition and diet and the idea of eating healthily. The second portion vivisects the Western diet, questioning, among other sacred cows, the idea that dietary fat leads to chronic illness. A writer of great subtlety, Pollan doesn't preach to the choir; in fact, rarely does he preach at all, preferring to lets the facts speak for themselves. (Jan.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From The Washington Post

Reviewed by Jane Black

In his 2006 blockbuster, The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan gave voice to Americans' deep anxiety about food: What should we eat? Where does our food come from? And, most important, why does it take an investigative journalist to answer what should be a relatively simple question?

In the hundreds of interviews Pollan gave following the book's publication, the question everyone, including me, asked him was: What do you eat? It was both a sincere attempt to elicit a commonsense prescription and, when it came from cynical East Coast journalists, a thinly veiled attempt to trap the author. "Oh! So he shops at farmers markets," we snipped enviously to one another. "Well, easy for him out there in Berkeley where they feast on peaches and cream in February! What about the rest of us?"

In Defense of Food is Pollan's answer: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

For some, that instruction will seem simple, even obvious. (It will seem especially so to those who read Pollan's lengthy essay on the same topic in the New York Times magazine last year.) But for most people, those seven little words are a declaration of war on the all-American dinner. Goodbye, 12-ounce steak. Instead, how about three ounces of wild-caught salmon served with roasted butternut squash and a heap of sautéed kale? For many, following the rules may not be so simple after all.

Yet in this slim, remarkable volume, Pollan builds a convincing case not only against that steak dinner but against the entire Western diet. Over the last half-century, Pollan argues, real food has started to disappear, replaced by processed foods designed to include nutrients. Those component parts, he says, are understood only by scientists and exploited by food marketers who thrive on introducing new products that hawk fiber, omega-3 fatty acids or whatever else happens to be in vogue.

Pollan calls it the age of "nutritionism," an era when nutrients have been elevated to ideology, resulting in epidemic rates of obesity, disease and orthorexia, a not yet official name for an unhealthy obsession with healthy eating. "What we know is that people who eat the way we do in the West today suffer substantially higher rates of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and obesity than people eating any number of different traditional diets," he writes. "When people come to the West and adopt our way of eating, these diseases soon follow."

Part of Pollan's answer to improving our health is going back to traditional foods and ways of eating: Eat leaves, not seeds. Steer clear of any processed food with a health claim. And for goodness sake, don't eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognize as food.

But equally important is changing the way we relate to food. Pollan argues that we've traded in our food culture -- a.k.a. eating what Mom says to eat -- for nutritionism, which puts experts in charge and makes the whole question of what to eat so confusing in the first place. Indeed, Pollan makes a strong case that the "French paradox" -- the way the French stay thin while gobbling triple crème cheese and foie gras -- isn't a paradox at all. The French have a different relationship with food. They eat small portions, don't come back for seconds and spend considerably more time enjoying their food -- an eminently sensible approach.

In Pollan's mind, trading quantity for quality and artificial nutrients for foods that give pleasure is the first step in redefining the way we think about food. The rules here: Pay more, eat less. Eat meals, not snacks. Cook your own meals and, if you can, plant a garden.

Each of the rules is well supported -- and only occasionally with the scientific mumbo-jumbo that Pollan disparages. But what makes Pollan's latest so engrossing is his tone: curious and patient as he explains the flaws in epidemiological studies that have buttressed nutritionism for 30 years, and entirely without condescension as he offers those prescriptions Americans so desperately crave.

That's no easy feat in a book of this kind. What should we eat? The answer is here. Now we just have to see if Americans are willing to follow good advice.

Copyright 2008, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.

Customer Reviews

A Vegetable Romance
Michael Pollan's sage advice, "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly plants," is now what I tell my patients who ask me about losing weight. Its embarrassing that most medical schools offer less than a day of education to nutrition when patients are constantly concerned with their food habits-- and for good reason. Pollan has put together the ultimate book on eating in America. This is what your doctor should be telling you.

His sagely and researched approach to the American national food disorder should be mandatory for all of us-- the chronic dieters, the fast food lovers, and those of us wondering which fats are the good ones these days.

The icing on the refined-sugars cake is that Michael Pollan, while educating, is also absolutely fascinating.

Must read if you need to eat to survive
I saw this book featured on Nightline, and I was intrigued by some of the talking points such as only shopping on the outside of the grocery store. As an endurance athlete, I know I need to be more cerebral about what food I am putting into my body, so I thought this book would help. I also approached this book with some reservations, as I consider my political leanings conservative, and I am not a vegetarian. Instead of getting a lot of left-wing meat-eater-hating nonsense, this book quite nicely lays out the problems of consuming processed food. After reading it, I personally have considered not just what foods I consume, but how I go about purchasing it, preparing it, and savoring it, as well. The discussion concerning the necessity of a balanced diet (i.e., not cutting carbs or fat out of your diet) is enlightening. This book debunks everything modern food companies market as healthy and nutritious- example- truly healthy food doesn't have an advertising budget, avoid foods that claim to be healthy! Overall, this book was very enlightening. If you care about the health of your family or yourself, you need to read this book. There's no hidden agenda here, other than educating a very misled American public about what healthy eating really means.

Leaves out the most damning facts about processed food
It's a pretty good book, but doesn't hit hard enough. If it really told the whole story, most readers would really take a step back and reevaluate whether or not supermarket food is okay to eat. He points out that 1982 marked a turning point in the US. Before that, most supermarket food would be considered food. After 1982, food became loaded with adulterants, and really can not be called food. If most food on the shelves toady were subject to the "imitation food" labeling law that was repealed in 1973, most everything today would be labeled "imitation". Certainly anything sold by General Mills, Kraft, Nestle, and the other big processors would be labeled imitation. They do not have any products that could ahve avoided the imitation label. That is why the law was repealed, so that they could start adulerating food, e.g. removing the nutrients, selling them off separately for profit, then adding in synthetic nutrients, which are very cheap to manufacture. Nearly all supermarket food is now imitation. He does point out, that most of our food is made from corn, soy. But he fails to point out that all artificial colors, and most artifical flavors, sweeteners, and preservatives are made from by-prodcuts of petroleum refineries. Here is how artificial colors are made (this applies to all colors with the prefix FD&C: Benzene (a very toxic solvent)is the by-product of refining crude oil into other products such as diesel and gasoline. Sulfuric acid and Nitric acid is added to the benzene to form nitrobenzene. This is then turned into aniline. Aniline is extremely toxic, and is the building block for all artificial colors. And this is not the worst thing that is put in food. I really wish he would have discussed this issue. He does say that 2/3 of all calories in the US come from 4 plants: wheat, corn, soy, and rice. This should really concern us, as at no other time in history have human eaten so much grain and soybeans, and the fact that it is so highly processed makes it that much worse.