This is one of those Rorschach books, with parts that will resonate differently with you depending on your prior views of the processed food industry. Looking around at reviews of this book, I found basically two different reactions to Moss' research and analysis, both pro- and anti-industry. I'll go over both of them, because, to paraphrase Trotsky, you may not be interested in the food industry, but it is very interested in you, and an accurate understanding of what it does and how it works is essential if you're someone who likes to eat healthy and avoid swelling into a greasy party balloon like so many of our fellow Americans (and fellow humans in general, if you look at the depressing upswing in global obesity trends).
A defense of companies like Kraft, Nestlé, or Cargill might go something like this: food companies, in many if not all cases, are simply responding to consumer desires by using innovative research techniques and the latest in food technology to feed people by providing them with a large variety of foods that offer low costs, plenty of calories, convenient preparation and storage, and endless levels of customization for even the most discriminating palate. If people didn't want this stuff, they wouldn't buy so much of it. Furthermore, even much-derided food products like Kraft cheese product were typically not developed to ensnare obtuse, obese rubes but to solve entirely legitimate problems of food preparation and distribution; in Kraft's case, how to distribute cheese in the days before refrigeration. The modern obesity epidemic isn't the companies' fault because consumers are the best judges of their own preferences for the amount of fat, sugar, or salt they ingest. Besides, obesity can be just as easily linked to things like modern patterns of car-centric transportation, more sedentary modes of employment, people's changing eating habits, or government intrusion into the agricultural market via methods like price supports than to processed food products on their own. If children find products like Lunchables so delicious they won't eat fruits and vegetables, maybe it's because they're actually good, and besides, you're the parent here. Stop trying to write your Congressman and grab a refreshing Coke instead, you'll feel better.
There is some truth to all of those statements, and hence the opposing case is a bit more complicated. Processed food companies aren't simply responding to consumer demand, they are creating demand: nobody was out petitioning for Big Gulps filled with Mountain Dew: Code Red, PepsiCo unleashed that sugary, fattening concoction on the market to make a quick buck, using advanced research to determine exactly which segments of the population would be most susceptible to its lure. Processed food products claim to offer guilt-free indulgence and convenience, but the mentality of "hey, we're just selling this stuff" is identical to the logic used by purveyors of more harmful products like tobacco companies (many of which are in fact identical to processed food companies, e.g. RJR Nabisco or Phillip Morris and Kraft). Food companies have aggressively fought efforts to make their foods healthier or their ingredients or serving sizes more comprehensible, actively lobbied for federal subsidies to support their businesses, and have behaved in cartel-like fashion in markets such as the one for breakfast cereal. Since food is necessary, its advertising to children, which can shape lifelong patterns of consumption, can't be compared to theoretically harmless advertising for other types of products. If processed food is so benign, why do the developers and executives of food companies invariably never feed their own children their products? Big Food - more like Big Fat.
In between these two reactions, each of which is valid in its own way (though I agree with the latter much more strongly), lies a bunch of interesting history and research. You'll become familiar with famous names like Betty Dickson (AKA Betty Crocker), John and Will Kellogg, and James Kraft, as well as less-famous names like Howard Moskowitz, Al Clausi, and Geoffry Bible, who worked in the industry and did a lot to shape our modern tastes and palates. I knew that people who drank diet soda often didn't actually lose weight, but I learned that a taste for salt is something that can be developed and not inborn, as opposed to fat and sugar, which everyone loves. Myth busted: Tang was not actually invented specifically for the space program. The big lawsuits against tobacco companies, along with public health efforts designed to reduce smoking, have many parallels with efforts by mayors like Michael Bloomberg of NYC to reduce obesity.
Ultimately it's hard to be very sympathetic to big food companies, even if they're merely exploiting neurochemical loopholes that we all have due to our recent emergence into a landscape where hunger has been banished (at least in the first world). I'm by nature skeptical of faddish diets (e.g. Atkins, no carb, paleo), but the effects of too much salt, sugar, and fat on people are unambiguous, even if a great deal of food that people prepare for themselves is scarcely any healthier. Moss doesn't really offer a plan to cure ourselves of our addiction to terrible foods, but this is a good history, and will hopefully help people to really think about what they eat. Calvin & Hobbes' famous Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs are no joke!