In Defense of Food

I don't have much to say about Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food. It is a study of nutrition and ultimately a defense of "whole foods," or foods in their original form, sans unnatural nutrients, lab-created additives, or corn or soy based substitutes. It's an interesting look at how the food industry uses nutrition fads to sell all kinds of "pseudo-food" that are essentially lab creations: breakfast cereals, boxed pastries, most bread, snack foods, etc. Fritos can make claims about being "heart-healthy" because of some crazy loophole - having just enough whole grains and unsaturated fats that the FDA can say that it has "weak and uncertain evidence that this product when eaten in place of foods with higher saturated fat contents might reduce the risk of heart disease" or something very similar to that.

Most interesting are the parts in which he deconstructs the fat bias our culture has, to the point where all fat is bad, which is absolutely contrary to all research. Trans fats are certainly bad (and research shows it) and saturated fats are probably a little bad (research shows), but most other fats are actually really good, and without them our health declines. He jumps from this to show how the food industry has been so incredibly influential in taking over supermarkets and now is even creeping into the realm of medicine. With all the health claims they make, they have even shaped how doctors recommend diets for people with heart conditions. No-fat foods, non-red meats, and whole grains are all big items for people with heart conditions when in fact, there's little science behind all of that. Pollan argues that what people with heart conditions really need are whole foods: plants, whole grains (without all the extra additives), and only a minimal amount of meat. Meat is meat, and while red meat is not as good for you as other meats, if you substitute a large chunk of red meat with a large chunk of white meat, you're really not much better off, especially if it's in the form of bacon or a hamburger.

In the end of the book, he proposes several "food rules." These are quite interesting and serve as great guidelines for eating.

This book is a good read, but I would only recommend it to a small portion of people. If you really want to learn about the food industry, healthy eating, and sustainable foods, then read Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma, which is a fantastic book. It's a lot longer and more in depth than In Defense of Food, but it's worth it. If you Omnivore's Dilemma seems too daunting, then give Ominvore's Dilemma for Young People a try. It's geared toward teens, but is still an excellent read. Or, you could watch Food, Inc., a riveting documentary on the food industry that Pollan contributes to. If you just want rules and guidelines in an easy-to-read form, then pick up Pollan's Food Rules. I'd only recommend In Defense of Food to people interested in nutrition but unsure of where to start, or people who have read Food Rules who would just like a little more background information. Otherwise, stick to the other books. They are either better or more functional.

In A Sentence: A well-written and well-researched look into the food industry and nutrition, but ultimately just an attempt to cash in on the success of Omnivore's Dilemma.


RATING: 4 out of 5 stars



book completed March 24...5 books, 24 days...at this rate I'll read 76 books