What do you think?
Rate this book
The Food Police: A Well-Fed Manifesto About the Politics of Your Plate
A rollicking indictment of the liberal elite's hypocrisy when it comes to food.Ban trans-fats? Outlaw Happy Meals? Tax Twinkies? What's next? Affirmative action for cows? A catastrophe is looming. Farmers are raping the land and torturing animals. Food is riddled with deadly pesticides, hormones and foreign DNA. Corporate farms are wallowing in government subsidies. Meat packers and fast food restaurants are exploiting workers and tainting the food supply. And Paula Deen has diabetes! Something must be done. So says an emerging elite in this country who think they know exactly what we should grow, cook and eat. They are the food police. Taking on the commandments and condescension the likes of Michael Pollan, Alice Waters, and Mark Bittman, The Food Police casts long overdue skepticism on fascist food snobbery, debunking the myths propagated by the food elite. You'll Organic food is not necessarily healthier or tastier (and is certainly more expensive).- Genetically modified foods haven't sickened a single person but they have made farmers more profitable and they do hold the promise of feeding impoverished Africans.- Farm policies aren't making us fat.- Voguish locavorism is not greener or better for the economy.- Fat taxes won't slim our waists and "fixing" school lunch programs won't make our kids any smarter.- Why the food police hypocritically believe an iPad is a technological marvel but food technology is an industrial evilSo before Big Brother and Animal Farm merge into a socialist nightmare, read The Food Police and let us as Americans celebrate what is good about our food system and take back our forks and foie gras before it's too late!
242 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 1, 2013
15 people are currently reading
547 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
May 27, 2013
I had really high expectations for this book, and it greatly disappointed me. Let me preface this by saying that I agree with the author on many (not all) of the ISSUES he discusses (particularly the chapters on organics and local foods), but it is so difficult to find the substantive arguments buried within the dozens of pages of ranting and name-calling that I almost gave up. I'm really not sure about what the author's goal was in writing this book. If his objective was to start a conversation about our food system and correct all the misconceptions that are floating around out there amongst people in all segments of the political spectrum, I'm not sure that calling those who feel strongly about eating local/organic/slow food 'communists whose primary goal is to destroy capitalism' is the most productive way of going about it. The author also did the reader a great disservice when he lumped all parties he disagrees with (Michael Pollan, Michelle Obama, the 'guvmint', environmentalists, people who eat organics, hippies, liberals, academics, I could go on and on....) together as 'the food police.' In many cases, these actors are NOT unified in their views on food politics, let alone in their approaches on how to improve the food system. However, because these parties are united in the author's mind as 'the enemy,' he often employs the tactic of switching between the arguments of very different actors and then using the discrepancies between them as evidence that they are wrong. Overall, I think that this book is a step in the wrong direction with respect to food system discourse, but it fits perfectly within the current political climate and strategy. Name-calling, belittling, and contempt completely overpower any of the author's rationality and logic. This book disappointed me EVEN MORE because the author is a very respected and prodigious researcher and has conducted so many cutting-edge and useful consumer choice experiments that the public SHOULD be informed about. So to anyone who is genuinely interested in the politics of our food system, my advice is to skip the inflammatory rhetoric that characterizes this book and pick up Paarlberg's "Food Politics" instead.
May 29, 2013
While I agree with a few of the author's points (esp. that we should not attempt to legislate what others eat...did we learn nothing from Prohibition?) I found his overall tone overbearing and offensive. I felt that he was deliberately missing some of the important issues that those he refers to as the "food police" put forward. Yes, most of our food is genetically modified in that it has been selectively bred over time. My concern is transgenic organisms; I don't believe that we know the long term effects on our food supply and health. I was also angry at his announcement that an equivalent acreage of monoculture farmland provide more calories than the varied resources of Polyface Farm. Again, deliberately missing the point. The fields of corn and beans immediately surrounding me here in the Midwest are not an immediate form of human nutrition (I can't go out and get all my family's dinner from that field!), unlike the non-industrial agriculture embraced by many small farmers. I felt that he gave short shrift to the notion that monoculture is historically risky (think Irish potato famine). This is by no means an exhaustive discussion of my thoughts on the matter...suffice it to say that he made me angry enough that I waited several days to post a review!
June 30, 2019
What a whiny rant this is! The author's fears that people will think he's a corporate shill (p.174?) are well-founded, but he's not even a very good one. The whole premise of this is that corporate profits are a better guide to nutrition than public health is. It's an easy set of arguments to poke holes in, so I won't bother.
It's a shame, because he does have a couple of interesting and legitimate points, but he's just unreadably whiny.
Skimmed in the course of about 2 hours. Did not read every word, just couldn't.
It's a shame, because he does have a couple of interesting and legitimate points, but he's just unreadably whiny.
Skimmed in the course of about 2 hours. Did not read every word, just couldn't.
May 17, 2013
As a dietetics student there was much that I wanted to disagree with from a nutritional perspective however, I must reluctantly concede to many of Jayson Lusk's points because the major theme was, in my opinion, that: food choices should, first and foremost, be left up to the consumer. Mr. Lusk advocates the freedom of choice, right to consumer education and transparency in policy.
May 5, 2014
This book is such a disaster. While I agree with Jayson Lusk's underlying thesis -- that hysteria is far too pervasive in our modern discussion of sustainable American food policy -- his presentation of his arguments is just as knee-jerk and problematic as the attitudes of the "food police" he decries. And who are these food police anyway? Mostly, they're a moving target encompassing whomever Mr Lusk disagrees with: socialists are a common target, and Michael Pollan, Alice Waters and Michelle Obama are named often. But there's no real evidence that these people are unduly influencing American food policy, and Mr Lusk's ranting against them sounds mostly like the defensive posturing of someone who's having a hard time coping with the fact that he isn't one of the cool kids.
Would, though, that this book was just angsty posturing. The experience of reading this book is a bit like reading the diary of a mentally unbalanced person who, towards the end, finally starts medication and stops frothing with rage at the slightest irritation. I can't even tell whether he's sincere in the outrage that riddles (and weakens) the first two-thirds of the book or whether he figures that the pundits of rage whose talk shows he's aiming to appear on will only read that far so he can actually talk like a sensible person after that. Well, as sensible as possible given that this book contradicts itself and ignores history, economics and common sense whenever convenient. It's too bad, because there's a great idea behind this book. The execution is just awful and inconsistent and hard to take seriously.
Would, though, that this book was just angsty posturing. The experience of reading this book is a bit like reading the diary of a mentally unbalanced person who, towards the end, finally starts medication and stops frothing with rage at the slightest irritation. I can't even tell whether he's sincere in the outrage that riddles (and weakens) the first two-thirds of the book or whether he figures that the pundits of rage whose talk shows he's aiming to appear on will only read that far so he can actually talk like a sensible person after that. Well, as sensible as possible given that this book contradicts itself and ignores history, economics and common sense whenever convenient. It's too bad, because there's a great idea behind this book. The execution is just awful and inconsistent and hard to take seriously.
February 25, 2014
As an agricultural producer involved in large scale grain and cattle farming, and local vegetable production, I found this a fascinating read. There are plenty of differences between Canadian and American policies and regulations, but there are many issues that are similar. The number of references was great, and I'd like to see more. A lot of people mentioned that the author liked to rant, and I feel it prudent to point out that many people rant about food issues, but they generally don't have pages of decent references behind them- and they generally don't fear for their future career. I give the author kudos for writing this book on such a touchy subject. It's excruciatingly difficult to remain diplomatic, professional and unemotional when writing about food and from many of the books and articles I have read, he did a pretty decent job of remaining calm. For example- I never saw anyone referred to as 'the devil' or 'that evil corporation'.
I have recommended this book to people concerned about agricultural practices, and to people who are so confused that they believe brown milk comes from a brown cow. It is by no means a comprehensive guide to all of the issues we face in the food production industry, but it is an excellent starting point. I stumbled across this book via a twitter retweet. A picture of a page referring to the use of hormones in beef caught my eye, and after a bit of digging I discovered that it was a quote from this book.
I have recommended this book to people concerned about agricultural practices, and to people who are so confused that they believe brown milk comes from a brown cow. It is by no means a comprehensive guide to all of the issues we face in the food production industry, but it is an excellent starting point. I stumbled across this book via a twitter retweet. A picture of a page referring to the use of hormones in beef caught my eye, and after a bit of digging I discovered that it was a quote from this book.
October 22, 2014
If you consider yourself to be open-minded, you should read this book, especially if you've seen Food, Inc. or read anything by Michael Pollan. It offers a different perspective, and makes you think about some things in a way you haven't before.
But here's the thing: it comes at it from a mostly economic perspective, but the writing isn't nearly as appealing as that of Freakonomics, etc. It's harsh, it's combative, and it will turn many people off.
Still, stick with it. Read and think about the ideas. Better yet, read the last chapter first. It's gentler and presents some of the big ideas of the book. Then go back and read the rest for the details. A lot of things in this book make sense, and you may be challenged to consider some new ideas. You may not agree with them, but you should think them through nonetheless.
But here's the thing: it comes at it from a mostly economic perspective, but the writing isn't nearly as appealing as that of Freakonomics, etc. It's harsh, it's combative, and it will turn many people off.
Still, stick with it. Read and think about the ideas. Better yet, read the last chapter first. It's gentler and presents some of the big ideas of the book. Then go back and read the rest for the details. A lot of things in this book make sense, and you may be challenged to consider some new ideas. You may not agree with them, but you should think them through nonetheless.
October 20, 2012
I won a copy of this book though a contest here on goodreads and I love it. The book was well written and had a good editor. The book reminded me of a book that I would have read for school. While reading it I wanted to highlight what I thought were important parts that I may need to remember! I would recommend this book to people who are interested in the politics behind the food industry. I would also caution them that this is one guys perspective despite how well decorated Jayson Lusk is in his field. Overall I enjoyed this book a lot and plan on recommending friends and family to check it out too.
May 5, 2013
5 stars because it was interesting to read, NOT because I agree with it. The author is a blooming idiot, who admits he'd rather be fat and lazy and let someone else do the food prep and work. The book is based more on his opinions than any real fact. He actually seems pleased that the butterflies are dying so he can eat wheat and corn cheaply and easily - schmuck! I wanted to toss this across the room on several occasions, but as it was a library book and I don't want to pay damaged book fees, I couldn't.
May 17, 2013
Wendell Berry nailed it when he said, "Eating is an agricultural act." With that being said, anyone who eats should more actively participate in the food system. This book shines light on the often-overlooked side of the agricultural discussion. Jayson Lusk writes the book in an easy-to-follow format that will make you think and challenge you to seriously consider your opinions on food.
Do yourself a favor and at least read the first chapter. I'd venture to guess if you're a red-blooded human being, you won't be able to put it down before you're through the whole thing.
Do yourself a favor and at least read the first chapter. I'd venture to guess if you're a red-blooded human being, you won't be able to put it down before you're through the whole thing.
August 13, 2016
Poorly written rant basically, not much argumentation, let alone research. I should say I share most of the substantive views of the author on food matters - I have little patience for "organic" or "local" or "natural" or similar fads. But I don't need to buy a blog rant on such issues, when there's plenty of that for free on the web.
May 23, 2018
“Many have bought hook, line, and sinker, into the local, organic, and natural food movements without carefully considering where they are being led— or in many cases pushed.” Lusk provides a well-informed perspective of the politics and policies behind the food industry, from farm to fork. Enjoyed his thorough research, humble explanations and questions, and clarity.
July 26, 2022
What a dick. Not recommended.
July 23, 2014
agricultural economist speaks up (and up and up -- some of his key points suffer a bit from excessive repetition) on behalf of modern efficient big farming and the beleaguered Big Food capitalists who aim to give us what we want and in opposition to nanny state liberals like Michael Pollan, Alice Waters, Michelle Obama, and (disclaimer: my friendly acquaintance) Kelly Brownell who want to ban trans fats, impose taxes on all things unhealthy, and hector you and your kids [via school lunch rules] into sharing their foodie preferences.
Makes some I believe useful observations. The chapter on +/- of locavorism reminded me of one of those Slate columns on environmental impact of some choice such as cloth vs. plastic diapers -- always a lot more complex than it might appear at first (e.g., local food didn't itself travel as far to market, but if to get everything you want YOU have to drive a car to Wal-Mart + Trader Joe's + farmer's market, and if your locality is suboptimal for growing a particular vegetable you want so it is done more inefficiently, the benefits of local may be offset). He's also fairly convincing on the theme that the same government many believe has messed up farm policy drastically is the one you'd be trusting to get everything right and be uncorrupted by lobbying when it comes to establishing food/nutrition tax and subsidy policy (Happy Meals no, local kale yes!).
On the other hand........(a) a little too trusting for my taste in his own field -- a number of ideas are shot down in passing with something like "economics models have shown that a fat food tax would make hardly any difference in the obesity problem", (b) the worship of free choice (how dare some Ivy League educated elitist tell us what to eat) is logically consistent, but he doesn't really acknowledge extent to which that ship has sailed. Somebody is getting their stuff into the schools and advertised on kids' cartoons, and on the gov't. food plate, and receiving subsidies to grow this or not grow that. Only questions are who and for what foods. He sometimes paints it as organics/locavores/snobs vs. completely free market in which fully informed people with a range of choices and knowledge of their consequences just happen to pick stuff that costs less and is palatable and bravely accept the negative health and envtl. consequences that ensue. (c) doesn't address at all the "food desert" issue, which was surprising since he spends a lot of time chiding elitists for their lack of contact with the real world.
such concerns notwithstanding, an interesting read. It's not as though he is a talk radio blowhard just issuing evidence-free rants about wanting his g.d. quarter-pounder with cheese no matter what some fancy-pants has to say about it. Michelle Obama's White House garden appears to have him unhinged, but for the most part it was sane and stays at least reasonably well tied to evidence and coherent argument.
Makes some I believe useful observations. The chapter on +/- of locavorism reminded me of one of those Slate columns on environmental impact of some choice such as cloth vs. plastic diapers -- always a lot more complex than it might appear at first (e.g., local food didn't itself travel as far to market, but if to get everything you want YOU have to drive a car to Wal-Mart + Trader Joe's + farmer's market, and if your locality is suboptimal for growing a particular vegetable you want so it is done more inefficiently, the benefits of local may be offset). He's also fairly convincing on the theme that the same government many believe has messed up farm policy drastically is the one you'd be trusting to get everything right and be uncorrupted by lobbying when it comes to establishing food/nutrition tax and subsidy policy (Happy Meals no, local kale yes!).
On the other hand........(a) a little too trusting for my taste in his own field -- a number of ideas are shot down in passing with something like "economics models have shown that a fat food tax would make hardly any difference in the obesity problem", (b) the worship of free choice (how dare some Ivy League educated elitist tell us what to eat) is logically consistent, but he doesn't really acknowledge extent to which that ship has sailed. Somebody is getting their stuff into the schools and advertised on kids' cartoons, and on the gov't. food plate, and receiving subsidies to grow this or not grow that. Only questions are who and for what foods. He sometimes paints it as organics/locavores/snobs vs. completely free market in which fully informed people with a range of choices and knowledge of their consequences just happen to pick stuff that costs less and is palatable and bravely accept the negative health and envtl. consequences that ensue. (c) doesn't address at all the "food desert" issue, which was surprising since he spends a lot of time chiding elitists for their lack of contact with the real world.
such concerns notwithstanding, an interesting read. It's not as though he is a talk radio blowhard just issuing evidence-free rants about wanting his g.d. quarter-pounder with cheese no matter what some fancy-pants has to say about it. Michelle Obama's White House garden appears to have him unhinged, but for the most part it was sane and stays at least reasonably well tied to evidence and coherent argument.
Want to read
March 28, 2013Just got my free copy of "The Food Police."
May 22, 2016
What a refreshing book. It's so nice to here a reasonable response to all of the food fascism, and persistent half-truths with food. Will probably reread.
December 29, 2013
Very informative. Good stuff. Coercion is odious everywhere, but especially at the dinner table.
July 30, 2018
One of the easiest books to put down in disgust at its lack of intellectualism and poor writing. Simply put this is a book with a strawman of a Left-Wing Food Police waging a war on your individualism with misguided idealism.
The book ignores the critical health science and real social arguments upon which the policies it comments are based and more critically fails to educate anymore than a Fox News broadcast. I was also left less than impressed by what felt to be clear pandering to corporate interests.
The book ignores the critical health science and real social arguments upon which the policies it comments are based and more critically fails to educate anymore than a Fox News broadcast. I was also left less than impressed by what felt to be clear pandering to corporate interests.
September 27, 2021
The problem with this text is it mostly addresses certain policies—like the prohibition of "big gulps" in Michael Bloomberg's New York or the imposition of sin taxes on various foods and beverages for their unhealthy qualities—on the notion they violate liberty; namely the liberty of consumers to choose, w/out state-sanctioned artificial barriers or coercion, that which satisfies their preferences. Yet liberty is the pursuit of virtue. What virtue is there in gluttony; in the distribution and sale of that which produces a sluggish, hopeless existence? Research consistently shews our unhealthy diets have hideous outcomes—higher rates of depression, higher rates of certain diseases, higher medical costs, physical weakness, etc. And the harms of this affect everyone. Making sugar more expensive to consume and healthier foods cheaper to purchase is just one of many ways to promote the long-term well-being of the soul; for what we have beheld is half the population being enslaved to the vice of gluttony, in the same way a drunk is enslaved to alcohol.
December 28, 2023
I almost stopped reading this book when I was half way through it, as it seemed to be nothing but a rant, with very little factual evidence and I was getting bogged down. However, it picked up after that point and the second half was well worth the read. The book is ten years old now, so it may be somewhat outdated, although I think that many of the author’s arguments probably still hold water. So my advice: start at chapter 5!
September 15, 2017
Dr. Lusk has written not just an entertaining book but one that should be read by every food activist. There is entirely too much unscientific misunderstanding and advice about food, production and characterization of safety and nutrition. This book fills a big gap for food production. I intend to read his next book, Unnaturally Delicious, as well.
August 28, 2020
Lusk presents thought provoking facts and figures to help consumers hear data instead of opinion. Though he does share his opinion, his main goal is to share the things that the “food police” and their followers do not want consumers to know. It is an interesting read in thinking through who benefits and who is harmed by the decisions that are made for consumers through taxes and new policies.
September 7, 2020
There were unnecessary pot shots at some of favourite people in the beginning of the book plus a little time spent on the soap box. In the end, Lusk does offer a number of studies and explanations of current farming practice that proved his point much more effectively than the approach in the beginning of the book.
oh, and I'm pretty sure communism and socialism are not the same thing.
oh, and I'm pretty sure communism and socialism are not the same thing.
June 12, 2018
I’ll eat what I damn well want to eat.
F*ck Michael Pollan and all the other busybodies who want to control our lives!
I gave it an extra star to counter the reviews by the anti-capitalist snowflake crowd.
F*ck Michael Pollan and all the other busybodies who want to control our lives!
I gave it an extra star to counter the reviews by the anti-capitalist snowflake crowd.
August 23, 2017
I really liked this book! Jayson Lusk does not pull any punches.
June 9, 2018
I apreciated his response to authors such as Michael Pollen and his toned-down approach to food compared to so much of what we hear in the media.
March 11, 2025
Kind of interesting but this topic isn't really one I typically think about
October 20, 2014
So conflicted with this book. So many pages dog-eared. I agree with a lot of what he says, but not the reasons that he gives or the rationale to justify those ideas. He uses smarmy tactics to make his points, but distorting some facts or only telling the half of the story that suits his purposes. I groaned audibly several times and got angry at others. Many times I had to put the book down and walk away.
To be fair, some of the people he "attacks" do this too. But his tone is argumentative and condescending, which is rage-inducing. His logic is often flawed. His use of facts is judicious. Some examples of lines from the book:
Walmart is the largest seller of organic in America (p 85). Well, sure they are. They are also the largest seller of non-organic because they are just the biggest grocery chain in the U.S. That's just a misleading sentence.
Organic use more resources, resources cost more, we value these resources so we pay more, and when the prices rise well use less (paraphrasing p 94). That is flawed, and circular "logic" if I've ever seen it. If it already costs more, why is the organic movement growing? Because we're idiots? Because human behavior is more complex than economic theory?
On p 156, he quotes one MD in a commentary on ONE article as saying that obese children should be removed from their homes, and then extrapolates (without additional citations) to say that the "food police"will take your kids by force if you don't feed them what they the food police, tell you. Who was this one commenter? We never know.
In the last chapter, he finally summarizes his main point of the book, and while I'll spare you the details,the overall gist is summarized early on in the book - "choose what you will, but don't deny others the choice". Unfortunately, even that is an oversimplification that ignores a lot of the ensuing arguments he puts forth. I can say that I do mostly agree with him. The problem is that he spoke out the other side of his mouth in the preceding chapters and I was left thinking...was this last chapter written by the same man?!?!
To be fair, some of the people he "attacks" do this too. But his tone is argumentative and condescending, which is rage-inducing. His logic is often flawed. His use of facts is judicious. Some examples of lines from the book:
Walmart is the largest seller of organic in America (p 85). Well, sure they are. They are also the largest seller of non-organic because they are just the biggest grocery chain in the U.S. That's just a misleading sentence.
Organic use more resources, resources cost more, we value these resources so we pay more, and when the prices rise well use less (paraphrasing p 94). That is flawed, and circular "logic" if I've ever seen it. If it already costs more, why is the organic movement growing? Because we're idiots? Because human behavior is more complex than economic theory?
On p 156, he quotes one MD in a commentary on ONE article as saying that obese children should be removed from their homes, and then extrapolates (without additional citations) to say that the "food police"will take your kids by force if you don't feed them what they the food police, tell you. Who was this one commenter? We never know.
In the last chapter, he finally summarizes his main point of the book, and while I'll spare you the details,the overall gist is summarized early on in the book - "choose what you will, but don't deny others the choice". Unfortunately, even that is an oversimplification that ignores a lot of the ensuing arguments he puts forth. I can say that I do mostly agree with him. The problem is that he spoke out the other side of his mouth in the preceding chapters and I was left thinking...was this last chapter written by the same man?!?!
August 18, 2015
There were good an bad parts about this book. Right from the beginning the tone was a bit hostile and defensive. Jayson is very opinionated, which is fine and important when trying to bring (a) point(s) across, however, his lack of neutrality as I'll call it, is a bit overwhelming and distracting. It often feels like he is jumping from idea to idea. It is written more like a diary where the author is ranting constantly rather than portraying the necessary information to get his point across, which is to debunk all these health myths regarding organic food, GMO's, obesity, locavorism, farm policies, food taxes, etc.
Even from the very first line in the book in the dedication, "For those who wish to eat without a backseat driver," it is obvious that there is some hostility. Though backseat drivers can be annoying, wrong, sometimes even dangerous, they do serve their own purpose, and when it comes to food it is partially our job to educate ourselves as much as we can in lieu of as much as we care to in order to eat to the best of our abilities if we so please. The best of our abilities can also mean different things to different people - some people might strive to eat cheap, some may focus on nutrition, some may want to avoid animal cruelty, some may want to eat organic to avoid as many chemicals as possible, etc. We all have different goals, and not to say specifically that any are right or wrong or more right or wrong than another, but that backseat driver is providing a different perspective that is quite important to prevent you from having blinders on and to keep your perspective broad and open to varying possibilities and pieces of information. We can't ever fully control our food sources if you think about it, so there will always be a hint of a backseat driver, even if they're not in your "car" and even if you can't hear their backseat commentary.
Food is such a complex topic and though I understand that Jayson means well in arguing that what we eat should be up to us, I don't think that it is 100% wise to get rid of our backseat drivers, if it were even a possibility at this point in the 21st century.
Even from the very first line in the book in the dedication, "For those who wish to eat without a backseat driver," it is obvious that there is some hostility. Though backseat drivers can be annoying, wrong, sometimes even dangerous, they do serve their own purpose, and when it comes to food it is partially our job to educate ourselves as much as we can in lieu of as much as we care to in order to eat to the best of our abilities if we so please. The best of our abilities can also mean different things to different people - some people might strive to eat cheap, some may focus on nutrition, some may want to avoid animal cruelty, some may want to eat organic to avoid as many chemicals as possible, etc. We all have different goals, and not to say specifically that any are right or wrong or more right or wrong than another, but that backseat driver is providing a different perspective that is quite important to prevent you from having blinders on and to keep your perspective broad and open to varying possibilities and pieces of information. We can't ever fully control our food sources if you think about it, so there will always be a hint of a backseat driver, even if they're not in your "car" and even if you can't hear their backseat commentary.
Food is such a complex topic and though I understand that Jayson means well in arguing that what we eat should be up to us, I don't think that it is 100% wise to get rid of our backseat drivers, if it were even a possibility at this point in the 21st century.
May 15, 2021
[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]
In my long association with the University Near Here, I had never before used its Interlibrary Loan service to get a book. Guess what? It's easily accomplished online in these days of modern times, and (although it took longer than promised) I was able to check out The Food Police by Jayson Lusk, magically transported from the B. Thomas Golisano Library of Roberts Wesleyan University, Rochester NY. Win!
Lusk is a professor in agricultural economics at Oklahoma State. And he, like many of us of a libertarian bent, is dismayed and outraged by the nannies, blue-noses, and noodges that have taken it upon themselves to alter the diets of the tubby American people. In his sights are NYT food writer Mark Bittman; journalist/activist/Berkeley prof Michael Pollan; NYU prof Marion Nestle; NYC's Mayor Bloomberg; and their ilk.
Lusk is unsparing, showing how his opponents' elitist values are backed up with nothing more than shaky science, bad economics, and (above all) an overweening craving for reshaping the diets of the little (or, considering their waistlines, not-so-little) people. Among the topics considered: locavorism (eating food produced within N miles of your table), organics, "Frankenfood" (genetically modified eats), farm regulations and subsidies, and efforts to impose taxes and onerous regulations on "bad" food.
Lusk's heart is in the right place, and I'm in total agreement with his general thesis. If I had to quibble, it would be with his tone: it's very much preaching to the choir, not likely to persuade anyone who isn't already likely to agree with him.
It's a short book, and you might get some ammunition for your next debate with a "food activist", should you get into that sort of thing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews