Although a reasonable summary of the extremist view, the author shows no curiosity about alternative explanations or consideration that he may be misinformed.

Read this book side-by-side with anything by Jayson Lusk or Robert Paarlberg and you'll cringe at how little Bittman knows how to step outside his comfortable worldview. ( )

Yes, it is a book that openly advocates trying to orient the US food system to put pro-health, social justice and anti-poverty goals first. It is not a practical "do this" guide for an individual trying to personally become a healthier eater or personally diminish one's own environmental impact; in fact it points out how that inevitably falls short because the issue is systemic, not personal. If you aren't open to a progressive view of the economy, and reject that categorically, this isn't the book for you; but, then, you already have the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. This is a book for people who are open to thinking about things differently, and being challenged; know that going in.

Is it a work of academic history or science? No. It's a popular work of advocacy journalism. It's written out of anger, and urgency. He thinks it's immoral to create or work for a food system that harms the planet and the poor, that exploits animals, workers and the soil, all to make a tiny percentage of investors insanely rich. You may agree or disagree, but I say good for him for going for it, and for stating a case that's unpopular in the US so strongly. He is doing a brave and important thing, using his name and reputation to bring attention to a difficult issue, with a book that someone like me, who enjoys his cooking work and past journalism, might pick up from a library shelf. A nice change from doing PBS shows with celebrities.

Is it a perfect book? For me, the early "historical" parts were less engaging, but long, while the latter parts, which contained more of what I was interested in, went by too quickly. But it's given me a lot to engage with, and some new academics to read. ( )

The Wonder Bread generation knew that white bread had a dark side, “enriched” to replace milled-away nutrients. But our tastes were simple, and we had faith that cheap Space Age foods could feed the world. Bittman produces a well-rounded history of how our diet of Lunchables failed to science our way to health, and fortifies us for change.

Mostly Junk, Barely Any Meat. This anti-capitalist, anti-European, anti-agriculture screed is little more than a run down of a leftist view of world history (with concentrations in the post-Industrial Revolution world) as it relates to food . It often points to old and out-dated research in support of its claims, and its bibliography is both scant - barely 1/3 the size of similar nonfiction titles - and not cited in the text at all. (Instead, it uses a system of referring to a particular phrase on a particular page number inside the bibliography itself, rather than having a notation in the text of the narrative. Which is obfuscation intended to hide the text's lack of scholarly merit, clearly.) For those who know no better, it perhaps offers an argument that will at least confirm their own biases. But for anyone who has studied any of the several areas it touches in any depth at all, its analysis is flawed due to the very premises it originates from. All of this to say, this is a very sad thing. Based on the description of the book, I genuinely had high hopes for it, as food and its history and future is something that truly fascinates me and this could have been a remarkable text. Instead, it is remarkable only for how laughable it is. Not recommended. ( )

What a contrast with my previous food read, RESETTING THE TABLE. I had a feeling I was being swayed too much towards buying this book based on the title. It is not my style at all; it's just one bad thing listed after another. Everything that has ever happened to our food system since the dawn of history has been bad - did you know that? I don't care how many facts may be in it; I never find unbalanced works like this to be educational.

I thought that midway through we would finally shift gears towards directing the barbs merely at the junk food industry, but the general negativity towards all modern agriculture never ceased.

I would love to get Bittman and Paarlberg together for a debate. Here are just a few ways they would explicitly part company:

- Normal Borlaug, leader of the "Green Revolution." To Bittman, he "virtually ignor(ed) what was traditionally grown" in his blind zest for bringing in chemical fertilizers and pesticdes.

- Whether organic farming yields would fall far short of levels that could effectively feed the world's current population - Bittman calls it "a moronic argument".

- Whether Alice $100-a-plate, I-never-step-foot-in-a-supermarket Waters has anything of value to teach us about food systems

I had to rub my eyes in disbelief when I read this on page 243: "Although it's immoral and cruel, and overseen by mostly immoral and cruel people - only a few of whom were sadistic masterminds - the [food] system is largely the result of incremental decisions..." What?! People who work in modern food businesses are "mostly immoral and cruel"? "Mostly"! You might think the majority of them misguided. But "immoral" and "cruel" are some really nasty words to depict "most" people overseeing an industry. ( )