What do you think?
Rate this book
Tofu: A Culinary History
The surprising, spicy story of this globe-trotting vegetable protein staple.
To the untrained eye, there’s nothing as unexciting as tofu, normally regarded as a tasteless, beige, congealed mass of crushed, boiled soybeans. However, tofu more than stands up on its own. Reviled for decades as a vegetarian oddity, the brave, wobbly block has made a comeback. This global history of bean curd stretches from ancient creation myths and tomb paintings, via Chinese poetry and Japanese Buddhist cuisine, to deportations in Soviet Russia and struggles for power on the African continent. It describes the potentially non-Chinese roots of tofu, its myriad types, why “eating tofu” is an insult in Cantonese, and its environmental impact today.
Warning: this book actually makes tofu exciting. It’s anything but bland.
To the untrained eye, there’s nothing as unexciting as tofu, normally regarded as a tasteless, beige, congealed mass of crushed, boiled soybeans. However, tofu more than stands up on its own. Reviled for decades as a vegetarian oddity, the brave, wobbly block has made a comeback. This global history of bean curd stretches from ancient creation myths and tomb paintings, via Chinese poetry and Japanese Buddhist cuisine, to deportations in Soviet Russia and struggles for power on the African continent. It describes the potentially non-Chinese roots of tofu, its myriad types, why “eating tofu” is an insult in Cantonese, and its environmental impact today.
Warning: this book actually makes tofu exciting. It’s anything but bland.
- GenresFoodNonfictionHistory
272 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2024
1 person is currently reading
53 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 of 1 review
April 20, 2025
First of all: I am, in fact, a nutritionist (though it is not my day job). I have completed all of the requisite training and certification where I live to legally call myself a nutritionist. My specific focus in nutrition science has always been the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, because the pseudoscience around food literally kills people EVERY YEAR and I think that human lives matter, so with that said...
This loses 4 stars for pseudoscience. It dedicates an entire section in the last chapter to promoting anti-GMO pseudoscience with all the usual hallmarks: cherry-picked studies with small sample sizes, no peer review, no credible citations, a lack of reproducible results, and an absolute misrepresentation of scientific consensus.
GMOs have killed a total of 0 people. Anti-GMO pseudoscience has killed literally millions of people and continues to kill millions every year. Let’s take a look at a single example of this.
Anti-GMO activism has significantly delayed the adoption of Golden Rice, a genetically modified crop designed to combat vitamin-A deficiency (VAD), which causes blindness and millions of deaths annually in developing countries. Opposition by groups like Greenpeace and activists such as Vandana Shiva has included misinformation campaigns, vandalism of experimental crops, and lobbying against regulatory approvals. These efforts have fostered public fear and governmental hesitancy, despite scientific consensus on Golden Rice's safety and effectiveness. Consequently, millions of preventable deaths, particularly among children, have occurred due to the persistence of VAD in vulnerable populations.
Here are the numbers:
“Worldwide, over 124 million children are estimated to be vitamin A deficient. Improved vitamin A nutriture would be expected to prevent approximately 1-2 million deaths annually among children aged 1-4 years. An additional 0.25-0.5 million deaths may be averted if improved vitamin A nutriture can be achieved during the latter half of infancy. Improved vitamin A nutriture alone could prevent 1.3-2.5 million of the nearly 8 million late infancy and preschool-age child deaths that occur each year in the highest-risk developing countries.”
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1600583/)
“With an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 children becoming blind annually, vitamin A deficiency constitutes the leading preventable cause of blindness in low- and middle-income nations... Moreover, half of the children affected by severe vitamin A deficiency-induced blinding xerophthalmia are estimated to die within a year of becoming blind”
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8801165/ [sourced in: https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitam...])
That is 250,000–500,000 kids who become permanently blind because of vitamin A deficiency EVERY YEAR, half of whom DIE, and ANOTHER 1–2 million children also die (without first becoming blind) from VAD preventably.
The American Council on Science and Health describes the situation thusly:
“Vitamin-A deficiency around the world leads to between 250,000 and 500,000 children going blind – every single year. Half of them die within a year of losing their sight. And several other health problems stem from this urgent issue.
“Yet, a solution to this global health threat is available today, and it could quickly help 250 million preschool children around the world who are vitamin-A deficient, as estimated by the World Health Organization.
“That said, exactly how many countries today are growing "Golden Rice" – a genetically-modified seed with three genes that produce beta-carotene, a vitamin-A precursor – to assist their underfed and vulnerable populations?
“Zero.
“Yes, it's difficult to fathom, that an effective tool for improving health and battling starvation on a global scale – one that's been available since 1999 and backed by more than 100 of the world's most distinguished scientists – is still not being used.”
(https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/18/...)
In this book on tofu, Thomas claims, “an article co-signed by more than three hundred scientists and legal experts in 2015 claims such a consensus is fabricated.”
Let’s take a look at this: 1. it’s an OPINION PIECE, not a study, meta-analysis, or systematic review; 2. “legal experts” are not scientists; 3. the lead author, Angelika Hilbeck, has a track record of literally conducting pseudoscience:
The Central Commission for Biological Safety [Zentrale Kommission für die Biologische Sicherheit] noted a study in which Hilbeck was involved having “numerous deficiencies in the experimental setup without independent scientific confirmation, [zahlreiche Mängel bei der Versuchsanstellung ohne eine unabhängige wissenschaftliche Bestätigung]“ and, according to the ZKBS, "the authors' interpretations raise doubts about the care with which the study was conducted [die Interpretationen der Autoren lässt „nach Auffassung der ZKBS Zweifel an der Sorgfalt aufkommen, mit der die Studie durchgeführt wurde].“
Let’s take a look at a letter signed by actual, renowned scientists.
As the American Council on Science and Health pointed out:
“In fact, last June more than 100 Nobel laureates strenuously defended the science by signing a letter addressed to Greenpeace, condemning that organization for its longstanding and rabid anti-GMO position.”
(https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/18/...)
The opinion piece Thomas cites as his sole evidence against GMOs is “No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety” and he quotes: “Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims that a ‘scientific consensus’ exists on GMO safety.”
This is factually incorrect. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus on GMOs. They require more regulatory approval than virtually any other food, and they have been tested extensively. In particular, a study spanning more than 2 decades that observed 100 BILLION ANIMALS (yes, BILLION, not million) found that, after switching from non-GMO to GMO feed… there were no deleterious effects on the animals or the humans who ate them.
See (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25184...) also cited in (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin...) & (https://www.iflscience.com/comprehens...).
Study after study, meta-analysis after meta-analysis, systematic review after systematic review finds GMOs safe. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...)
Let’s take a look at an evidence-based response to Thomas’ fear-mongering and unsubstantiated claim (with citations) to the article he cited:
“Opponents of genetically modified organisms sometimes shift the argument to claims that limiting the use of GMOs will protect the natural environment. But they don’t explain the environmental benefits, and they ignore the significant positive (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...) impacts of genetically modified crops. Studies conducted on GMO use from 1996 to 2016 show that widespread use has led to an 8.2% reduction in pesticide use and cut fuel use (and consequent greenhouse gas emissions), equivalent to removing 16.7 million cars from the roads.
“When science and logic fail, anti-GMO proponents switch to claims of economic harm, claiming that market consolidation will harm farmers. However, from 1996 to 2020, genetically modified crops increased (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35983...) farm incomes by $261.3 billion, “equat[ing] to an average farm income gain across all GM crops grown in this period of about $112/hectare.” In 2020 alone, farm income gains were $18.8 billion. Small farmers, especially in developing nations, have seen substantial benefits, with a reported return of $5.22 for each dollar invested in GM seeds.”
(https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2024/pu...)
Even the claims which label GMOs as guilty by association because they are produced by “big agro” fall apart when it comes to Golden Rice:
“Golden Rice was not invented for profit, and after 2004, when Syngenta renounced all commercial interest in the rice, it would no longer be developed for profit. The rice would benefit the poor and disadvantaged, not modern, multinational corporations. It would be given free of charge to subsistence farmers who can save seeds and plant them from one harvest to the next, without restriction or payment of fees or royalties. The rice was not developed primarily for the benefit of farmers, as were most other GMOs that had been designed to be resistant to herbicides or pesticides. Instead, it was developed for the sole purpose of helping users: the malnourished poor suffering from vitamin A deficiency. And Golden Rice is not a crop upon which a major genetic engineering effort conferred a relatively minor advantage such as a longer shelf life or slightly improved taste, as was true, for example, of the long-since-abandoned Flavr Savr tomato. That’s why, for all the vitriol, the real villain of the story is regulation, rather than activism run amok.”
(https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/17/...)
And that was just ONE of Thomas’ pseudoscientific claims.
In the introduction, the description of tofu as a "superfood" is based on the entirely fallacious concept of superfoods. The entire notion of "superfoods" is a marketing construct rather than a scientific reality. While foods like tofu are often labeled as "superfoods" due to their nutrient density or specific health benefits, all foods are ultimately composed of the same basic macronutrients (proteins, fats, carbohydrates) and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals). No single food contains everything the human body needs in perfect proportions, nor does any food possess unique, almost magical health properties that set it apart categorically from others. Simply put, there are no "superfoods.” (Except, perhaps, for Golden Rice, as it could save literally millions of children’s lives every year.)
Mentioning a couple small, isolated studies does not transform tofu into a superfood, nor does quoting an opinion piece written by a noted pseudoscientist and signed by a bunch of “legal experts.”
This loses 4 stars for pseudoscience. It dedicates an entire section in the last chapter to promoting anti-GMO pseudoscience with all the usual hallmarks: cherry-picked studies with small sample sizes, no peer review, no credible citations, a lack of reproducible results, and an absolute misrepresentation of scientific consensus.
GMOs have killed a total of 0 people. Anti-GMO pseudoscience has killed literally millions of people and continues to kill millions every year. Let’s take a look at a single example of this.
Anti-GMO activism has significantly delayed the adoption of Golden Rice, a genetically modified crop designed to combat vitamin-A deficiency (VAD), which causes blindness and millions of deaths annually in developing countries. Opposition by groups like Greenpeace and activists such as Vandana Shiva has included misinformation campaigns, vandalism of experimental crops, and lobbying against regulatory approvals. These efforts have fostered public fear and governmental hesitancy, despite scientific consensus on Golden Rice's safety and effectiveness. Consequently, millions of preventable deaths, particularly among children, have occurred due to the persistence of VAD in vulnerable populations.
Here are the numbers:
“Worldwide, over 124 million children are estimated to be vitamin A deficient. Improved vitamin A nutriture would be expected to prevent approximately 1-2 million deaths annually among children aged 1-4 years. An additional 0.25-0.5 million deaths may be averted if improved vitamin A nutriture can be achieved during the latter half of infancy. Improved vitamin A nutriture alone could prevent 1.3-2.5 million of the nearly 8 million late infancy and preschool-age child deaths that occur each year in the highest-risk developing countries.”
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1600583/)
“With an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 children becoming blind annually, vitamin A deficiency constitutes the leading preventable cause of blindness in low- and middle-income nations... Moreover, half of the children affected by severe vitamin A deficiency-induced blinding xerophthalmia are estimated to die within a year of becoming blind”
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8801165/ [sourced in: https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitam...])
That is 250,000–500,000 kids who become permanently blind because of vitamin A deficiency EVERY YEAR, half of whom DIE, and ANOTHER 1–2 million children also die (without first becoming blind) from VAD preventably.
The American Council on Science and Health describes the situation thusly:
“Vitamin-A deficiency around the world leads to between 250,000 and 500,000 children going blind – every single year. Half of them die within a year of losing their sight. And several other health problems stem from this urgent issue.
“Yet, a solution to this global health threat is available today, and it could quickly help 250 million preschool children around the world who are vitamin-A deficient, as estimated by the World Health Organization.
“That said, exactly how many countries today are growing "Golden Rice" – a genetically-modified seed with three genes that produce beta-carotene, a vitamin-A precursor – to assist their underfed and vulnerable populations?
“Zero.
“Yes, it's difficult to fathom, that an effective tool for improving health and battling starvation on a global scale – one that's been available since 1999 and backed by more than 100 of the world's most distinguished scientists – is still not being used.”
(https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/18/...)
In this book on tofu, Thomas claims, “an article co-signed by more than three hundred scientists and legal experts in 2015 claims such a consensus is fabricated.”
Let’s take a look at this: 1. it’s an OPINION PIECE, not a study, meta-analysis, or systematic review; 2. “legal experts” are not scientists; 3. the lead author, Angelika Hilbeck, has a track record of literally conducting pseudoscience:
The Central Commission for Biological Safety [Zentrale Kommission für die Biologische Sicherheit] noted a study in which Hilbeck was involved having “numerous deficiencies in the experimental setup without independent scientific confirmation, [zahlreiche Mängel bei der Versuchsanstellung ohne eine unabhängige wissenschaftliche Bestätigung]“ and, according to the ZKBS, "the authors' interpretations raise doubts about the care with which the study was conducted [die Interpretationen der Autoren lässt „nach Auffassung der ZKBS Zweifel an der Sorgfalt aufkommen, mit der die Studie durchgeführt wurde].“
Let’s take a look at a letter signed by actual, renowned scientists.
As the American Council on Science and Health pointed out:
“In fact, last June more than 100 Nobel laureates strenuously defended the science by signing a letter addressed to Greenpeace, condemning that organization for its longstanding and rabid anti-GMO position.”
(https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/18/...)
The opinion piece Thomas cites as his sole evidence against GMOs is “No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety” and he quotes: “Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims that a ‘scientific consensus’ exists on GMO safety.”
This is factually incorrect. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus on GMOs. They require more regulatory approval than virtually any other food, and they have been tested extensively. In particular, a study spanning more than 2 decades that observed 100 BILLION ANIMALS (yes, BILLION, not million) found that, after switching from non-GMO to GMO feed… there were no deleterious effects on the animals or the humans who ate them.
See (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25184...) also cited in (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin...) & (https://www.iflscience.com/comprehens...).
Study after study, meta-analysis after meta-analysis, systematic review after systematic review finds GMOs safe. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...)
Let’s take a look at an evidence-based response to Thomas’ fear-mongering and unsubstantiated claim (with citations) to the article he cited:
“Opponents of genetically modified organisms sometimes shift the argument to claims that limiting the use of GMOs will protect the natural environment. But they don’t explain the environmental benefits, and they ignore the significant positive (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...) impacts of genetically modified crops. Studies conducted on GMO use from 1996 to 2016 show that widespread use has led to an 8.2% reduction in pesticide use and cut fuel use (and consequent greenhouse gas emissions), equivalent to removing 16.7 million cars from the roads.
“When science and logic fail, anti-GMO proponents switch to claims of economic harm, claiming that market consolidation will harm farmers. However, from 1996 to 2020, genetically modified crops increased (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35983...) farm incomes by $261.3 billion, “equat[ing] to an average farm income gain across all GM crops grown in this period of about $112/hectare.” In 2020 alone, farm income gains were $18.8 billion. Small farmers, especially in developing nations, have seen substantial benefits, with a reported return of $5.22 for each dollar invested in GM seeds.”
(https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2024/pu...)
Even the claims which label GMOs as guilty by association because they are produced by “big agro” fall apart when it comes to Golden Rice:
“Golden Rice was not invented for profit, and after 2004, when Syngenta renounced all commercial interest in the rice, it would no longer be developed for profit. The rice would benefit the poor and disadvantaged, not modern, multinational corporations. It would be given free of charge to subsistence farmers who can save seeds and plant them from one harvest to the next, without restriction or payment of fees or royalties. The rice was not developed primarily for the benefit of farmers, as were most other GMOs that had been designed to be resistant to herbicides or pesticides. Instead, it was developed for the sole purpose of helping users: the malnourished poor suffering from vitamin A deficiency. And Golden Rice is not a crop upon which a major genetic engineering effort conferred a relatively minor advantage such as a longer shelf life or slightly improved taste, as was true, for example, of the long-since-abandoned Flavr Savr tomato. That’s why, for all the vitriol, the real villain of the story is regulation, rather than activism run amok.”
(https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/17/...)
And that was just ONE of Thomas’ pseudoscientific claims.
In the introduction, the description of tofu as a "superfood" is based on the entirely fallacious concept of superfoods. The entire notion of "superfoods" is a marketing construct rather than a scientific reality. While foods like tofu are often labeled as "superfoods" due to their nutrient density or specific health benefits, all foods are ultimately composed of the same basic macronutrients (proteins, fats, carbohydrates) and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals). No single food contains everything the human body needs in perfect proportions, nor does any food possess unique, almost magical health properties that set it apart categorically from others. Simply put, there are no "superfoods.” (Except, perhaps, for Golden Rice, as it could save literally millions of children’s lives every year.)
Mentioning a couple small, isolated studies does not transform tofu into a superfood, nor does quoting an opinion piece written by a noted pseudoscientist and signed by a bunch of “legal experts.”
Displaying 1 of 1 review