I’ve mentioned a few times on twitter (and here, I think) that I’ve been reading a book that made me angry. It’s taken me a long time to get through it because I’ve gotten so angry and made a lot of notes in it and basically read it out loud to Nathan in my rants. I decided tonight I didn’t want to waste any more days on it, so I finished it. And I’m surprised my eyes are still in my head. That’s how much eye rolling I did.

Yes, Gospel of Food, I am talking about you.

Overall issues with the book?

• He discusses how other authors have taken studies and interpreted the results in ridiculous ways. And then he does the exact same thing. (I’ll talk more about that.)
• The book is so disjointed! He  spends the first 2/3 of the book trying to upturn everything we think about food. Then he talks about restaurant reviewers and how ethnic food has been Americanized. And then how fast food is good for America. And then a very brief discussion about hunger in America.
• He writes in way that sounds like he totally disregards the benefits of whole and organic eating, but then his bio discusses his Sunday morning ritual of going to the Hollywood’s Farmer’s Market. Pick a side, buddy.
• His overall attitude? There’s a lot of food research out there. A lot of it disagrees. All of it can’t be right. If we don’t know what to believe, we shouldn’t believe anything.
• He puts people in two polarizing categories: people who are gluttonous and eat without care and people who eat in a way that deprives them of all pleasure. He doesn’t even acknowledge that there are a lot of people who eat well and food still makes them happy. (There are a lot of food bloggers out there that prove this. I want to eat like some of them!)
• He tends to end chapters with a snarky jab that only makes me angrier. (Example referring to the hamburger: “Until the naysayers come up with an equally tempting and affordable alternative, maybe they should hold off pontification about what may well be the most widely consumed entree in history.” p. 173)

Particular issues?

• Women who eat foods they are familiar with absorb more of the nutrients from the food based on a study of women eating foods of several different clutures, including their own. Glassner says this difference is because they enjoy the food. He proposes that we get the best nutritional benefit from foods we enjoy. He doesn’t stop to consider other reasons for this. Is it because their bodies are more familiar with foods? Or because they eat more of the food they are familiar with? Just seemed like a huge leap for me.
• He tries to blame obesity on everything except food. Particularly societal and economic gaps. Economic stress, living in distressed neighborhoods, lack of parental support, chronic loss of sleep are all stresses that impoverished people deal with. And the result of this stress? Sickness and obesity. You know what I think? When I am worried about finances/ feel stress/ lack of support/ sleep deprived I make BAD FOOD CHOICES. I go for the easy, the comforting, the unhealthy, the cheap. And he tries to separate these. That the stress causes health problems. I need to move on. I could get stuck here for a while.
• Really? You think that a food that has petroleum in it should be allowed to be called “natural” because petroleum comes from the earth? REALLY?
• “The worst that can be said about synthetic chemicals in conventional foods is that they may be high enough in some cases to put fetuses and small children at risk.” (p. 62) That’s not enough???
• Let’s run down his defense for fast food: It is a savior for single parents with limited time and finances. Children are given permission to eat with their fingers and be kids. Immigrants have a place to learn social norms. Homeless people have somewhere to get warm and get the American meal of meat, potatoes, and vegetable (where’s the vegetable in burger adn fries? the lettuce and tomato on the burger?). Teenagers have a safe place to hang out. Employees are generally happy and fulfilled by the work. Oh, and kids can exercise in the playland.

I could go on and on. But I like to end things on a positive note.

I do like some things…

• He uses someone else’s term: nonundelows. Foods that are non-, un-,de-, or low-. I LOVE this term. He likes full fat yogurt and acknowledges that nonundelows leave us unsatisfied and hungry.
• He acknowledges that the interactions of nutrients within foods are more beneficial nutritionally than the nutrients on their own. He has a beautiful paragraph that reads like “In Defense of Food.”

Okay. So that’s done. And my anger is done. And I’m moving on to the next book. And that feels good.