I'm in agreement with other reviews on here about how only part of the book is useful, but wanted to write my own review because I checked out two books on this topic and both were repulsive for the same reason.
Why oh why must the person interested in exploring ways of producing food and reducing ecological impact be subjected to the anti-corporate radical pseudo-scientific leanings of the current organic farming community? On the one hand, books like Food Not Lawns are ostensibly about encouraging participation in these endeavours. In fact, they are exclusionary because they try at each turn to subvert the reader's "sacred cow" beliefs about lifestyle (and rarely if ever seem to examine any negative impacts of their own lifestyles). Food Not Lawns is quite open about its agenda. The problem is that it means the book is only going to appeal to people who share those beliefs, and those people would probably find the book redundant. I found it a bit redundant in many places, and I don't even subscribe to the hippie-dippie stuff.
These radical eco-activists see themselves as progressive when in fact they are reactionary. They seem to see a life devoted to tending one's own small plot of land as the zenith of human life potential (in the long run, that is--after all the protests are over). But I reject that. The goal, to my mind, ought not to be a return to the early days of agriculture where one is essentially a subsistence farmer (as the author seems to want us to do), but a way to fix the environment while improving the living standards we have. The author asks us to question whether we really need exotic vacations. No, I suppose not. But I would certainly try to protect exotic vacations, if I could!
The problem is that these kinds of books alienate the readers who could do the movement the most good. Leaders of communities, industry, and churches tend to be conservative in their lifestyles and personal attitudes, but have the most influence on the greatest number of people. But the current movement seems to believe that appealing to 'the man' would somehow cheapen their victory. They seem to demand that each person come to the tree-hugging side voluntarily and enthusiastically, and God forbid any money enter into the transaction. Well, that's all a lot of nonsense. The best thing that could happen for their cause is that some businessman discovers how to make organic forest gardening highly profitable, because then it will spread like wildfire. After all, which is more likely? That a businessman with a plan to make money on responsible gardening expands a business, or that the majority of people independently come over the tree-hugging side? A 2012 Gallup poll estimated that 46% of Americans are still creationists, for crying out loud! The 'grassroots movement' thing is ridiculously inefficient, because people aren't likely to just change their attitudes without tangible incentives (like cash in their hand).
Update: Almost forgot--this one other thing. I can't stand when people use the word 'exponentially' incorrectly, and this author did it twice in the first 40 pages. I want there to be a universal rule implemented--"Didn't pass calculus, don't get to use the word 'exponential'". The author said things like (not literally, I don't have the book with me) "The community will become exponentially involved." I understand that she's trying to say that there will be significant community involvement, but for there to be exponential involvement, the involvement has to be measured against something else. Like "The community engagement will increase exponentially with time."