What do you think?
Rate this book
Formerly Known As Food: How the Industrial Food System Is Changing Our Minds, Bodies, and Culture
One of Bustle's "17 Best Nonfiction Books Coming Out In June 2018" • One of The Revelator's "16 New Environmental Books for June" • One of Equinox's "5 Books High Performers Should Read in June" • One of Foodtank's "18 Books Making a Splash This Summer" • One of CivilEats' "22 Noteworthy Food and Farming Books for Summer Reading—and Beyond"
From the voice of a new generation of food activists, a passionate and deeply-researched call for a new food movement.
If you think buying organic from Whole Foods is protecting you, you're wrong. Our food—even what we're told is good for us—has changed for the worse in the past 100 years, its nutritional content deteriorating due to industrial farming and its composition altered due to the addition of thousands of chemicals from pesticides to packaging. We simply no longer know what we’re eating.
In Formerly Known as Food, Kristin Lawless argues that, because of the degradation of our diet, our bodies are literally changing from the inside out. The billion-dollar food industry is reshaping our food preferences, altering our brains, changing the composition of our microbiota, and even affecting the expression of our genes. Lawless chronicles how this is happening and what it means for our bodies, health, and survival.
An independent journalist and nutrition expert, Lawless is emerging as the voice of a new generation of food thinkers. After years of "eat this, not that" advice from doctors, journalists, and food faddists, she offers something completely different. Lawless presents a comprehensive explanation of the problem—going beyond nutrition to issues of food choice, class, race, and gender—and provides a sound and simple philosophy of eating, which she calls the "Whole Egg Theory."
Destined to set the debate over food politics for the next decade, Formerly Known as Food speaks to a new generation looking for a different conversation about the food on our plates.
From the voice of a new generation of food activists, a passionate and deeply-researched call for a new food movement.
If you think buying organic from Whole Foods is protecting you, you're wrong. Our food—even what we're told is good for us—has changed for the worse in the past 100 years, its nutritional content deteriorating due to industrial farming and its composition altered due to the addition of thousands of chemicals from pesticides to packaging. We simply no longer know what we’re eating.
In Formerly Known as Food, Kristin Lawless argues that, because of the degradation of our diet, our bodies are literally changing from the inside out. The billion-dollar food industry is reshaping our food preferences, altering our brains, changing the composition of our microbiota, and even affecting the expression of our genes. Lawless chronicles how this is happening and what it means for our bodies, health, and survival.
An independent journalist and nutrition expert, Lawless is emerging as the voice of a new generation of food thinkers. After years of "eat this, not that" advice from doctors, journalists, and food faddists, she offers something completely different. Lawless presents a comprehensive explanation of the problem—going beyond nutrition to issues of food choice, class, race, and gender—and provides a sound and simple philosophy of eating, which she calls the "Whole Egg Theory."
Destined to set the debate over food politics for the next decade, Formerly Known as Food speaks to a new generation looking for a different conversation about the food on our plates.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published June 19, 2018
98 people are currently reading
1124 people want to read
About the author
Kristin Lawless
3 books11 followersKristin Lawless (she previously published as Kristin Wartman) is an author and journalist focusing on the intersections of food, health, politics, and culture. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, Newsweek, VICE, Huffington Post, Civil Eats, and Grist, as well as in academic journals such as Critical Quarterly, The Black Scholar, Tikkun Magazine, and The New Labor Forum. Her first book, FORMERLY KNOWN AS FOOD, is an exploration of how the industrial food system is changing our minds, bodies, and culture.
Kristin is also a Certified Nutrition Educator and works as a nutrition consultant with doctors in New York City. She holds a Masters Degree in Literature from the University of California, Santa Cruz. She lives in Brooklyn.
Kristin is also a Certified Nutrition Educator and works as a nutrition consultant with doctors in New York City. She holds a Masters Degree in Literature from the University of California, Santa Cruz. She lives in Brooklyn.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 140 reviews
October 20, 2019
There are many things in this book with which most people can agree—e.g. eat whole unprocessed foods and breast feeding is best for baby. Toward the end of the book the author promotes cultural changes that would allow busy people and economically disadvantaged people to eat healthy diets—e.g. universal basic income and pay people to cook. These latter changes are a bit "pie-in-the-sky" dreams, but there are rational arguments as to why they would be beneficial to the economy and everyone's health.
But when the book came to the discussion of the microbiota and endocrine disruptions, things became really scary. I decided to use quotations from the book rather than using my own words to describe what the book says. I don't believe all the suggestions of cause and effect are necessarily true. I do hope the scientists working in the fields of nutrition, toxicology, food safety, disease, and human health are studying these issues.
I'd like to repeat here that I don't believe everything suggested by the above quotations. But it sure makes for some interesting reading.
But when the book came to the discussion of the microbiota and endocrine disruptions, things became really scary. I decided to use quotations from the book rather than using my own words to describe what the book says. I don't believe all the suggestions of cause and effect are necessarily true. I do hope the scientists working in the fields of nutrition, toxicology, food safety, disease, and human health are studying these issues.
... A woman of child-bearing age who was born by C-section, fed formula, or received antibiotics at any point in her life—or if this is true of her mother or grandmother—does not have the important bacterial species B. infantis.... if any one of those scenarios applies to you, your mother, or your grandmother ... you no longer harbor B. infantis in your body and are therefore unable to pass it on to your children. ... The demise of the bacterium coincides most eerily with the perplexing increase in all of these diseases of autoimmune origin, like atopic dermatitis, food allergies, environmental allergies, colic, asthma ... ... ... Indeed, atopic dermatitis in babies born between 1960 and 2000 has risen fivefold, and type 1 diabetes incidence in children has also increased fivefold. (p99)The author goes on to stress that the lack of these microorganisms can have effects later in adult life.
... 97 percent of American babies do not have B. infantis in their gut. On the other hand, the majority of infants in less-industrialized countries have a gut dominated by Bifidobacteria. (p101)
... down the line the implications are profound for preventing chronic diseases like cancer, especially those in the gastrointestinal tract. Bear in mind that the United States has seen an alarming rise in the incidence of colon and rectal cancers in people in their twenties and thirties, something previously unheard of.The book then explores the surprising ways emulsifiers act on our microbiota. Emulsifiers are found in almost all processed foods and show up on labels as xanthan gum, carrageenan, polysorbate 80, guar gum, and soy lecithin.
The emulsifiers that we have tested are disrupting the composition of the gut microbiota, they're changing the species of bacteria, and they are doing it in a way that promotes inflammation ... (p122)Then the narrative moves on to artificial sweeteners. In the following excerpt a connection between ingestion of sweeteners and glucose intolerance is noted. Glucose intolerance is a key marker in diagnosing diabetes.
The researchers also did a small-scale study in humans and for one week gave artificial sweeteners in amounts allowed by the FSA to people who had never previously consumed artificial sweeteners. The researchers found that amount was enough to alter the subjects' gut bacteria and induce glucose intolerance in more than half the participants. (p127)The book's narrative groups all these together forming the following conclusion.
And as we piece this puzzle together, antibiotics, emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, and our highly processed diets, which are missing vital components, are likely resulting in the elimination of all but the most hearty, aggressive strains of bacteria, which are potentially encroaching on the intestinal mucosal lining, causing inflammation and eventual disease. (p129)Then the book moves on to a really scary subject, endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). They are scary because they are biologically active in extremely small doses. One famous example is BPA of which 99 percent of Americans have detectable levels in their blood. The FDA has required that BPA not be used the manufacture of baby bottles, so the plastic industry has substituted BPS, a compound that this book says is similar to BPA. Now levels of BPS in the blood are on the rise.
...female rodents exposed to BPA in the womb exhibit risk factors for breast cancer and as they age are developing full-blown carcinomas in the mammary gland. (p148)Some other examples of endocrine-disrupting chemicals are TBT and other organotins which are used in the lining and sealing of food cans.
... low-dose fetal exposure in mice led to an increase in body weight, liver weight, and abdominal fat mass when those mice became adult males. (148)
... organotins change how the body responds to calories. ... ... animals that we treat with these chemicals don't eat a different diet than the ones who don't get fat. They eat the same diet ... They're eating normal food, and they're getting fatter ...(p151)The book goes on to explain that tests on rats have shown this effect can be passed on to subsequent multiple generations. If the human body response is similar, the following are the results.
Your maternal grandmother was exposed to TBT while your mother was in the womb. While your mother was developing as a fetus, you were developing as germ cells within her ovary. This means that not only was your mother exposed to the chemical, but you were exposed to it as a germ cell. What's even more alarming is that your future children (the fourth generation) are also affected, even though your children had no direct exposure to the chemical. (p153)I'm sure there are many people willing to conclude that the obesity epidemic has nothing to do with overeating. It's all those chemicals.
I'd like to repeat here that I don't believe everything suggested by the above quotations. But it sure makes for some interesting reading.
June 25, 2018
Kristin Lawless believes in the importance of whole organic foods, breast feeding, etc., but says it is not enough. She will scare you to death with her descriptions of what is getting into our food supply and what it is doing to our bodies. And all this has come about in the last 75-100 years--for the sake of speed, efficiency, convenience and profit. "What about public health, nourishment, stewardship of the land and water, the preservation of Earth and all its species, and the protection of the young and their future?"
There is much information here and it is not always easy to read. Alarming to say the least. But perhaps it is time that all of us really understand what we are feeding ourselves and our families and what it may be doing to our health.
Lawless concludes her book with 'a radical food manifesto' listing what she'd personally like to see happen but only if we come together and demand change:
--the end to poor-quality industrial foods, primarily pushed on low-income people;
--that food processors stop marketing infant formula to parents;
--warning labels on processed food packaging stating these foods may be harmful to your health;
--third party testing of chemicals used in and on our food supply;
--affordable access to chemical-free and whole foods for all;
--nutrition and cooking classes in our schools;
--a universal basic income;
--a wage given for cooking and household work;
--a six-month paid parental leave to encourage breast feeding.
Read this book and perhaps be inspired to join her challenge for better food, as well as a better world, for all.
I received an arc of this book from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange foe my honest opinion. I am grateful for the opportunity.
There is much information here and it is not always easy to read. Alarming to say the least. But perhaps it is time that all of us really understand what we are feeding ourselves and our families and what it may be doing to our health.
Lawless concludes her book with 'a radical food manifesto' listing what she'd personally like to see happen but only if we come together and demand change:
--the end to poor-quality industrial foods, primarily pushed on low-income people;
--that food processors stop marketing infant formula to parents;
--warning labels on processed food packaging stating these foods may be harmful to your health;
--third party testing of chemicals used in and on our food supply;
--affordable access to chemical-free and whole foods for all;
--nutrition and cooking classes in our schools;
--a universal basic income;
--a wage given for cooking and household work;
--a six-month paid parental leave to encourage breast feeding.
Read this book and perhaps be inspired to join her challenge for better food, as well as a better world, for all.
I received an arc of this book from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange foe my honest opinion. I am grateful for the opportunity.
August 15, 2018
This book is a gut punch that is not easily digested (see what I did there?), in which the author basically takes everything that you've always kind of known about processed food and shoves it in your face until you can't look away or unsee what you see. Basically a manifesto, Lawless mercilessly deconstructs the industrialized food complex of America. Heavy on diagnosis, light on a scalable prescription, I'd recommend this to anyone to read. It may not have a lot of solutions on offer, but you can't solve a problem that you don't acknowledge. This book details that problem in excruciating (but in a good way-- the brutality of this book is kind of a masterpiece) detail
April 4, 2018
(from my Bellevue Farmers Market blog post, minus the pics)
THE PRICE OF DOMESTICATION
We were dogsitting this past week, and, whenever it came time to feed the critters, I would find myself philosophizing about the price of domestication: in exchange for a steady food supply, wolves/dogs gave up their freedoms. On the plus side, they wouldn't starve. On the minus side, every day they must eat the same bowl of kibbles. The kibbles have been pumped up with pleasing synthetic flavors and a smidge of actual meat by-product, but it's still a little bowl of kibbles, twice a day, day in and day out, getting more and more stale the longer the bag sits out.
It's a dog's life.
But I was also reading Kristin Lawless' Formerly Known as Food: How the Industrial Food System is Changing Our Minds, Bodies, and Culture and discovering some uncomfortable parallels.
34964836.jpg
Like dogs being domesticated, we've made a deal of questionable benefits. In exchange for convenient, always-available food, we've handed over our ability to choose what we eat. Yes, some of us can afford to be choosier in our groceries, but it's gotten harder and harder to avoid that darned bowl of kibbles. The corn, soy, canola, synthetic flavors, emulsifiers, sweeteners, preservatives, pesticide residues, packaging plastics, oxidized fats, antibiotics, and so on, are everywhere. Buy organic all you like. You cannot escape.
The book makes for some grim reading. There are the usual alarming facts about rising obesity, metabolic syndrome, and allergies, which we've almost become inured to, but what was newer to me was the discussion of cumulative effects of pesticide and chemical build-ups in fields, foods, and oceans, as well as permanent changes to our microbiota caused by diet-induced extinction. Did you know that DDT, banned way back in 1979, is still found in the umbilical cord blood of newborn infants? Discouraging, to say the least. Or that TBT, an organic pollutant used in paints and coatings for boats back in the 1960s (and since banned), has nevertheless so leached into our waters and been biomagnified up the food chain, that we're eating it today. So what, you say? Well, TBT is an "obesogen," causing animals in studies to "have more and bigger fat cells...They're eating normal food, and they're getting fatter." As an added bonus, TBT-induced weight gain can be passed down generationally.
Fine, fine, you concede. There's nothing to be done about the DDT, but I just won't eat seafood. Oh, but TBT is just one kind of "organotin" we are exposed to. There are others,
used in the linings and sealings of food cans, in polyvinylchloride (PVC) plastics, as fungicides and pesticides on crops, as slimicides in industrial water systems, and as wood preservatives. Like many other classes of chemicals, organotins were wrongly deemed environmentally safe for many years -- and they appear to be everywhere in our environment.
And remember the BPA fuss? Because it messed with our hormones, public uproar got it removed from baby bottles and water bottles and such. Sad to say, the plastic compounds used as replacements still have endocrine-disrupting characteristics. Plastic in food and drink packaging is unavoidable nowadays. Buy organic all you like, and 90% of the time, it's still being delivered to you in plastic.
Lawless makes a very compelling argument for breastfeeding but recognizes that women who have to work outside the home and who don't have the most understanding schedules or workplaces for pumping breast milk face impossible situations. In fact, Lawless points out relentlessly how economic and social class constrain food choice, from gestation onward. Some of us can't simply "choose" to breastfeed and buy organic and home-cook our meals:
When food movement leaders say the solutions are to eat whole foods and buy organic, they leave out the crucial fact that we need to collectively reject the production of poor-quality processed foods and stop the production of dangerous pesticides and other environmental chemicals that contaminate many foods. Critics do not often articulate this omission, but it is largely why the movement is perceived as elitist, and rightly so. If the food movement's solutions are market based and predicated on spending more for safer and healthier food, they ignore how impossible these solutions are for most Americans...The food movement has allowed these [crappy, processed] products and additives to exist alongside a cleaner and safer food supply for the privileged few.
Food movement leaders also emphasize the importance of home cooking and cooking whole foods from scratch. Yet many fail to mention that the majority of Americans do not have the time, money, or resources to cook meals from whole foods at home. And when these leaders do acknowledge that lack of time to cook is a problem, they usually address it through providing better ways to cook healthy foods quickly.
I plead guilty to all of these charges.
What solutions does Lawless suggest, if you haven't already succumbed to despair? I admit, I was paralyzed by her solutions. She called for some fairly reasonable measures, like longer paid leave for new moms and household-skills classes for all, but then ventured into suggestions that made my eyes widen: universal basic income, paying people to cook at home, shorter work weeks, and so on. I just didn't see where all the money would come from. Yes, I agree our health as a society would improve, but it's hard to fund programs based on "we'll save money later, years down the road."
I liked better her mentions of urban farming programs on unused land, which has been done successfully in places like Milwaukee and Detroit, although the thought of sending inexperienced college kids out to run them made me think of Chairman Mao sending out all the academics to do the national farming and finding that--whoa!--they didn't actually know how, and now everyone's gonna starve! I guess if this FoodCorps hired the kids who'd done 4-H and had a little experience, but that's a dwindling pool nowadays.
In any case, I highly recommend the book as an eye-opener. And, if you've got the time and money, invite someone over for a home-cooked meal of whole foods, cooked and served on glass and metal.
THE PRICE OF DOMESTICATION
We were dogsitting this past week, and, whenever it came time to feed the critters, I would find myself philosophizing about the price of domestication: in exchange for a steady food supply, wolves/dogs gave up their freedoms. On the plus side, they wouldn't starve. On the minus side, every day they must eat the same bowl of kibbles. The kibbles have been pumped up with pleasing synthetic flavors and a smidge of actual meat by-product, but it's still a little bowl of kibbles, twice a day, day in and day out, getting more and more stale the longer the bag sits out.
It's a dog's life.
But I was also reading Kristin Lawless' Formerly Known as Food: How the Industrial Food System is Changing Our Minds, Bodies, and Culture and discovering some uncomfortable parallels.
34964836.jpg
Like dogs being domesticated, we've made a deal of questionable benefits. In exchange for convenient, always-available food, we've handed over our ability to choose what we eat. Yes, some of us can afford to be choosier in our groceries, but it's gotten harder and harder to avoid that darned bowl of kibbles. The corn, soy, canola, synthetic flavors, emulsifiers, sweeteners, preservatives, pesticide residues, packaging plastics, oxidized fats, antibiotics, and so on, are everywhere. Buy organic all you like. You cannot escape.
The book makes for some grim reading. There are the usual alarming facts about rising obesity, metabolic syndrome, and allergies, which we've almost become inured to, but what was newer to me was the discussion of cumulative effects of pesticide and chemical build-ups in fields, foods, and oceans, as well as permanent changes to our microbiota caused by diet-induced extinction. Did you know that DDT, banned way back in 1979, is still found in the umbilical cord blood of newborn infants? Discouraging, to say the least. Or that TBT, an organic pollutant used in paints and coatings for boats back in the 1960s (and since banned), has nevertheless so leached into our waters and been biomagnified up the food chain, that we're eating it today. So what, you say? Well, TBT is an "obesogen," causing animals in studies to "have more and bigger fat cells...They're eating normal food, and they're getting fatter." As an added bonus, TBT-induced weight gain can be passed down generationally.
Fine, fine, you concede. There's nothing to be done about the DDT, but I just won't eat seafood. Oh, but TBT is just one kind of "organotin" we are exposed to. There are others,
used in the linings and sealings of food cans, in polyvinylchloride (PVC) plastics, as fungicides and pesticides on crops, as slimicides in industrial water systems, and as wood preservatives. Like many other classes of chemicals, organotins were wrongly deemed environmentally safe for many years -- and they appear to be everywhere in our environment.
And remember the BPA fuss? Because it messed with our hormones, public uproar got it removed from baby bottles and water bottles and such. Sad to say, the plastic compounds used as replacements still have endocrine-disrupting characteristics. Plastic in food and drink packaging is unavoidable nowadays. Buy organic all you like, and 90% of the time, it's still being delivered to you in plastic.
Lawless makes a very compelling argument for breastfeeding but recognizes that women who have to work outside the home and who don't have the most understanding schedules or workplaces for pumping breast milk face impossible situations. In fact, Lawless points out relentlessly how economic and social class constrain food choice, from gestation onward. Some of us can't simply "choose" to breastfeed and buy organic and home-cook our meals:
When food movement leaders say the solutions are to eat whole foods and buy organic, they leave out the crucial fact that we need to collectively reject the production of poor-quality processed foods and stop the production of dangerous pesticides and other environmental chemicals that contaminate many foods. Critics do not often articulate this omission, but it is largely why the movement is perceived as elitist, and rightly so. If the food movement's solutions are market based and predicated on spending more for safer and healthier food, they ignore how impossible these solutions are for most Americans...The food movement has allowed these [crappy, processed] products and additives to exist alongside a cleaner and safer food supply for the privileged few.
Food movement leaders also emphasize the importance of home cooking and cooking whole foods from scratch. Yet many fail to mention that the majority of Americans do not have the time, money, or resources to cook meals from whole foods at home. And when these leaders do acknowledge that lack of time to cook is a problem, they usually address it through providing better ways to cook healthy foods quickly.
I plead guilty to all of these charges.
What solutions does Lawless suggest, if you haven't already succumbed to despair? I admit, I was paralyzed by her solutions. She called for some fairly reasonable measures, like longer paid leave for new moms and household-skills classes for all, but then ventured into suggestions that made my eyes widen: universal basic income, paying people to cook at home, shorter work weeks, and so on. I just didn't see where all the money would come from. Yes, I agree our health as a society would improve, but it's hard to fund programs based on "we'll save money later, years down the road."
I liked better her mentions of urban farming programs on unused land, which has been done successfully in places like Milwaukee and Detroit, although the thought of sending inexperienced college kids out to run them made me think of Chairman Mao sending out all the academics to do the national farming and finding that--whoa!--they didn't actually know how, and now everyone's gonna starve! I guess if this FoodCorps hired the kids who'd done 4-H and had a little experience, but that's a dwindling pool nowadays.
In any case, I highly recommend the book as an eye-opener. And, if you've got the time and money, invite someone over for a home-cooked meal of whole foods, cooked and served on glass and metal.
March 16, 2018
Formerly Known as Food is an Eye-Opener written by a nutritional expert and consultant. The author’s message is clear and concise and is one that, in my opinion, should be heard by everyone. Even when we think we are making healthy choices we may not be and the ramifications of unhealthy food choices go deeper than many believe. I found this book tremendously informative. It was educational and comprehensive but it could get a bit heavy at times for people with only a casual interest in how our eating patterns are shaping our overall health. I found it best to read in chunks so as not to get overwhelmed with all of the information. I voluntarily read an advanced reader copy provided to me by the publisher through NetGalley. This did not affect my rating. I have provided an unbiased and honest review.
June 18, 2018
Initially not a bad book. But she gets really preachy in bits, and I just cannot with it right now.
July 1, 2018
Preachy and sanctimonious. Guess we all have to live on water and lettuce we grow ourselves but not, Heaven forfend, in any dirt you'd find today, you'd have to find 200 year old dirt.
January 17, 2024
learned a lot more than I initially thought I would as this book spanned a wide range of topics.
April 22, 2018
Formerly Known As Food delivers great knowledge to improve the way we eat. It's interesting and easy-to-understand. I enjoyed reading it.
Thank you NetGalley and St.Martin's Press for an ARC of this book.
Thank you NetGalley and St.Martin's Press for an ARC of this book.
May 6, 2018
Presented decently, but no new information. Same thing I've read in previous books on this subject matter.
July 8, 2020
Ugh. That was so depressing. Change will not come with individual choices, yet we have no leadership--no one who will work to preserve the earth and its future.
August 16, 2018
Okay. So. The first reason this gets one star is that it was an absolute bore to read. Science info dump paragraph after paragraph. Even though I was interested in the book's subject, that was barely strong enough to keep me reading.
The second reason is that her very first proposed solution to solving the world's food problems is socialism. In her last chapter she got extremely political, and while I realize our food system has unfortunately become quite political, I don't think the first necessary change should be adopting a universal basic income and starting more government programs. Yes, of course the European countries' practice of offering new parents a year's paid leave sounds great, and of course that would provide a great foundation for establishing breastfeeding, but we need to look at the WHOLE picture. Who's paying for what? (She managed to mention that question and leave it unanswered, as they always do, because THE PEOPLE WOULD GET TAXED OUT OF THEIR MINDS.) Hi, Bernie!
Anyway, those were the major issues I had with the book, but I did take notes as I read it and I will share what I learned/liked, in no particular order.
- I liked her pointing out that baby formula is the first processed food we ever get introduced to outside of the womb. I found it interesting that most hospitals are now banning the goodie bags often given out to new mothers, containing multiple formula samples. It decreases the chance that they will try breastfeeding, and gives the incorrect claim that it's healthy and just like breastmilk. I did think the author did not give any attention whatsoever to mothers who can't breastfeed or, like me, tried and couldn't keep it up for the minimal 6 months. That comes with a LOAD of guilt and mom-shaming, and she could've approached the subject a bit more gently, imo.
- Her discussion of the extinction of the B. Infantis bacteria blew my mind. I had never heard of this, and now will be researching supplements in the event I have another child.
- She shared a study on mice whose parents had no issues of glucose intolerance being exposed to artificial sweeteners, and they developed the intolerance. This and other studies prove that it's a GUT ISSUE, not usually hereditary. Even Darwin himself (the father of the false theory of evolution) eventually admitted his greatest fault was placing too much faith in genetic determinism. Environmental factors contribute so much more!
- BPA was replaced with BPS, which is equally dangerous. MY WHOLE LIFE IS A LIE. My kid's sippy cups aren't even safe!
- She shared a statistic that men's sperm count dropped 59% since 1973, and that at this rate, almost all men will be infertile by 2060. Whether or not this is true, it scares me to death.
- Chemical manufacturers provide their own safety data. HOW STUPID IS THIS???!! Reminds me of the vaccine industry...hmmmmm.....
- I absolutely LOVED her chapter on the history of women's work in the home in the 1800s. Wow. She hit the nail right on the head with all of that. It wasn't sexist at all. She magnified the glory and truly the powerful influence women had in the home, and how some of that has been lost with women in the workforce and losing the talent and art of cooking.
I will continue reading on this subject for sure, but this is not one I will reference again.
The second reason is that her very first proposed solution to solving the world's food problems is socialism. In her last chapter she got extremely political, and while I realize our food system has unfortunately become quite political, I don't think the first necessary change should be adopting a universal basic income and starting more government programs. Yes, of course the European countries' practice of offering new parents a year's paid leave sounds great, and of course that would provide a great foundation for establishing breastfeeding, but we need to look at the WHOLE picture. Who's paying for what? (She managed to mention that question and leave it unanswered, as they always do, because THE PEOPLE WOULD GET TAXED OUT OF THEIR MINDS.) Hi, Bernie!
Anyway, those were the major issues I had with the book, but I did take notes as I read it and I will share what I learned/liked, in no particular order.
- I liked her pointing out that baby formula is the first processed food we ever get introduced to outside of the womb. I found it interesting that most hospitals are now banning the goodie bags often given out to new mothers, containing multiple formula samples. It decreases the chance that they will try breastfeeding, and gives the incorrect claim that it's healthy and just like breastmilk. I did think the author did not give any attention whatsoever to mothers who can't breastfeed or, like me, tried and couldn't keep it up for the minimal 6 months. That comes with a LOAD of guilt and mom-shaming, and she could've approached the subject a bit more gently, imo.
- Her discussion of the extinction of the B. Infantis bacteria blew my mind. I had never heard of this, and now will be researching supplements in the event I have another child.
- She shared a study on mice whose parents had no issues of glucose intolerance being exposed to artificial sweeteners, and they developed the intolerance. This and other studies prove that it's a GUT ISSUE, not usually hereditary. Even Darwin himself (the father of the false theory of evolution) eventually admitted his greatest fault was placing too much faith in genetic determinism. Environmental factors contribute so much more!
- BPA was replaced with BPS, which is equally dangerous. MY WHOLE LIFE IS A LIE. My kid's sippy cups aren't even safe!
- She shared a statistic that men's sperm count dropped 59% since 1973, and that at this rate, almost all men will be infertile by 2060. Whether or not this is true, it scares me to death.
- Chemical manufacturers provide their own safety data. HOW STUPID IS THIS???!! Reminds me of the vaccine industry...hmmmmm.....
- I absolutely LOVED her chapter on the history of women's work in the home in the 1800s. Wow. She hit the nail right on the head with all of that. It wasn't sexist at all. She magnified the glory and truly the powerful influence women had in the home, and how some of that has been lost with women in the workforce and losing the talent and art of cooking.
I will continue reading on this subject for sure, but this is not one I will reference again.
November 26, 2023
I didn't read this in any depth, there was a lot of skimming involved.
The introduction starts by pointing out that skim milk, broccoli florets in a bag, Kashi cereal, soy milk, and Annie's mac & cheese are all bad for you. This pretty much sets the tone for the book. Also only milk in a glass bottle with as low a temp pasteurization as possible, obtained directly from a single source farm is acceptable.....and cholesterol and saturated fat aren't bad for you because her grandma, uncle and a random doctor all ate loads of it and lived past 90 (well, to be fair, there was also lots of science quoted). This last one kinda falls into Gary Taubes territory, but at least the rest of his book was some good science on sugar, not a hodge podge of dooms day nutrition data.
So, I skimmed through the industrialized food and how it isn't good for you, actually agree there. And skimmed through all the stuff about children and breastfeeding, I don't care. Skimmed through the parental leave portion, because well, I'm not from the USA so it's not applicable. Skimmed through the organic food, soil depletion, additive, trans fat, & oils sections. Came across as scare mongering, whether I agree or disagree. Found the 1800s housewife vs. 1950s housewife section amusing and annoying. I'm not sure how we got that being a housewife in the 1800s was so great or appreciated, it was a thankless job, and if you had the money.......you paid someone else to do it!! Also, amusing that washing machines are a good invention because laundry was a drudgery but food conveniences aren't because cooking is rewarding. Says who I'd like to know?? I'd say that cooking 3 meals a day, unpaid, for your whole life, is pretty much the definition of drudgery.
And if you belong to the Brooklyn food coop the author does, she is totally judging you based on how well you meet her definition of whole food shopping.
The introduction starts by pointing out that skim milk, broccoli florets in a bag, Kashi cereal, soy milk, and Annie's mac & cheese are all bad for you. This pretty much sets the tone for the book. Also only milk in a glass bottle with as low a temp pasteurization as possible, obtained directly from a single source farm is acceptable.....and cholesterol and saturated fat aren't bad for you because her grandma, uncle and a random doctor all ate loads of it and lived past 90 (well, to be fair, there was also lots of science quoted). This last one kinda falls into Gary Taubes territory, but at least the rest of his book was some good science on sugar, not a hodge podge of dooms day nutrition data.
So, I skimmed through the industrialized food and how it isn't good for you, actually agree there. And skimmed through all the stuff about children and breastfeeding, I don't care. Skimmed through the parental leave portion, because well, I'm not from the USA so it's not applicable. Skimmed through the organic food, soil depletion, additive, trans fat, & oils sections. Came across as scare mongering, whether I agree or disagree. Found the 1800s housewife vs. 1950s housewife section amusing and annoying. I'm not sure how we got that being a housewife in the 1800s was so great or appreciated, it was a thankless job, and if you had the money.......you paid someone else to do it!! Also, amusing that washing machines are a good invention because laundry was a drudgery but food conveniences aren't because cooking is rewarding. Says who I'd like to know?? I'd say that cooking 3 meals a day, unpaid, for your whole life, is pretty much the definition of drudgery.
And if you belong to the Brooklyn food coop the author does, she is totally judging you based on how well you meet her definition of whole food shopping.
July 20, 2018
(1 1/2). This is not a great book. However, it is filled with great information. In fact, it is downright scary. Lawless presents a very compelling case about how the nutritional quality of food (and our lives) have suffered badly in the modernization and profit driven food industries. It is, as well, one of those books that you have to skim fairly regularly of you will nod off. The solutions that Lawless presents are not viable but maybe there are no real solutions to what she presents. It is a shame. A worthwhile research piece.
May 10, 2018
I do have a pet interest in this topic and have read a couple in a similar vein. This is a good primer in the current state of affairs in our industrial food system. If you enjoyed this and wanted more nuanced exploration, check out "The Dorito Effect", "The World According to Monsanto", "Combat Ready Kitchen", "The Omnivore's Dilemma", "Fast Food Nation" and "Food, Inc".
August 28, 2018
I get what she’s saying and I believe that we should eat unprocessed whole natural foods. I also agree that the food industry is more concerned about making money than about our health.I feel that she comes across a bit angry and that some of her solutions are unrealistic.
September 3, 2018
Depressing read about our contaminated food supply. Author hits the right notes but gives some unrealistic solutions.
February 14, 2025
This book should be subtitled “Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here” because according to Kristin Lawless, there is absolutely no hope for mankind as far as food goes. Even organic food is tainted by inadequate soil and genetically-modified seeds. The chemicals used in our crops are killing us and making infertility inevitable. I could go on and on.
I was hoping for a book more like Michael Pollan’s “In Defense of Food” or Marion Nestle’s “What to Eat” both of which give advice on how to avoid the pitfalls of processed foods. Lawless makes no room for nutritious choices. It is ALL going to kill us in the end.
I sometimes didn’t know if I should take her seriously. She goes on and on about the beauty of evolution (which she describes like a benevolent life-giving force) and how after 200 million years it has perfected breastmilk to make a perfect food. Sadly, the chemicals in our world, according to Lawless, have destroyed all that and the effects are irreversible. If evolution is true, then it seems like “it” would be able to compensate for this dilemma. Lawless seems to recognize her faulty reasoning in Chapter 6 when she says, “Even Darwin recognized that the environment might be just as important as natural selection.”
She makes sweeping statements like “Nine thousand chemicals touch our food, but only one thousand [of them] have ever been tested. Later she says 80,000 chemicals are used in our foods, but only 1,000 have been approved as safe. Where does she get these figures?!
To be fair, she points out many legitimate concerns. Our environment really is full of “endocrine disruptors” that are making Americans more and more sick. But her hysteria is off-putting to say the least.
I was hoping for a book more like Michael Pollan’s “In Defense of Food” or Marion Nestle’s “What to Eat” both of which give advice on how to avoid the pitfalls of processed foods. Lawless makes no room for nutritious choices. It is ALL going to kill us in the end.
I sometimes didn’t know if I should take her seriously. She goes on and on about the beauty of evolution (which she describes like a benevolent life-giving force) and how after 200 million years it has perfected breastmilk to make a perfect food. Sadly, the chemicals in our world, according to Lawless, have destroyed all that and the effects are irreversible. If evolution is true, then it seems like “it” would be able to compensate for this dilemma. Lawless seems to recognize her faulty reasoning in Chapter 6 when she says, “Even Darwin recognized that the environment might be just as important as natural selection.”
She makes sweeping statements like “Nine thousand chemicals touch our food, but only one thousand [of them] have ever been tested. Later she says 80,000 chemicals are used in our foods, but only 1,000 have been approved as safe. Where does she get these figures?!
To be fair, she points out many legitimate concerns. Our environment really is full of “endocrine disruptors” that are making Americans more and more sick. But her hysteria is off-putting to say the least.
April 29, 2022
An amusingly overwrought book - perhaps it doesn’t come across quite so intensely when you don’t listen to the audiobook but my god. Any communicator regarding health and nutrition science who speaks in dramatic absolutes while also warning of past “certainties” in these areas that we now know were wrong should be taken with a groan of salt. I don’t think enough care was taken to emphasise the emergent nature of “gut health” science and the section on the effect of disrupting chemicals on sexual health and reproduction included behavioural information about animals that - while it was noted animal studies don’t account the norms of human society and so aren’t 1:1 comparable - didn’t take enough care to address societal factors. it kind of read like “soy is making men girly” discourse from a few years back.
I think this author is a terf at best, if not outright angling to put women back in the kitchen where she seems to think they belong. she idealises the past despite stating she isn’t trying to do that, appeals to the health and lifestyle of her grandmother, talks a lot about matrilineal lines and places a LOT of responsibility on mothers. even if that’s not her intention, the way she is presenting this science is a strong appeal to traditional gender roles in a way i found profoundly annoying to listen to.
This book was a hard slog. I didn’t enjoy it and found it difficult to trust. Especially knowing the author runs a “can i eat this?” type deal where she - a journalist - is giving nutrition advice to strangers who submit food items for her and she tells them whether they’re “safe.” I think this speaks to a problem about these sorts of communicators: they do too much, don’t allow for nuance, and go beyond stoking reasonable urgency and wander into fear mongering orthorexic territory.
i see the value of this book but i think the concreteness of the health info is over exaggerated and the effect of this book on the average reader is more likely to result in hopelessness and panic. This book should be read as an academic overview of change to work towards not a diet book telling you how you personally have failed. In the landscape of dramatic, how-to-diet-perfectly books i think it’s important to state that this book should not be read like your plant paradoxes and other such books. this is a review of the industry, science, social factors. however i still find it a little eye roll inducing because of its conspiratorial tone. i appreciate its acknowledgement of the food movements failures in pushing whole foods to a population who can’t really access them, pushing personal responsibility etc. i’m reviewing this only to state as loudly as i can that this is not a personal responsibility, you must change your diet type book and if you read it as such and are now panicking about your own purchasing and preparation, please redirect that energy to broader change actions.
on the other hand, i would also encourage the reader to consider that health data about diet is not really as clear cut as we think and as she says herself our understanding of what helps and harms us and how much food affects us, how much we can control our health outcomes, is always changing and information like this should be tempered with a healthy dose of chilling the fuck out.
there’s no sense of stoking food fear and encouraging this near orthorexic approach. do your best, eaters and readers, but don’t worry if you have soy milk and boxed vegan macaroni for your kids sometimes. there’s a medium ground of enjoyment, ease, affordability, and nutrients.
Another thing I think is interesting to note is that I found it hard to find critical responses to this book. Googling Lawless and this book almost exclusively produced works she herself has published, or her own website, for me even when I included terms designed to produce reviews or responses.
fascinating to see other reviewers say she’s too socialist or something when a lot of her solutions are things many other countries have like social support, paid leave, paid maternity leave. this book is a bizarre mix of elements and i would not recommend. if you are american some of these elements may be useful despite its flaws but for those of us in other countries with higher social support in general would do better to look elsewhere.
I think this author is a terf at best, if not outright angling to put women back in the kitchen where she seems to think they belong. she idealises the past despite stating she isn’t trying to do that, appeals to the health and lifestyle of her grandmother, talks a lot about matrilineal lines and places a LOT of responsibility on mothers. even if that’s not her intention, the way she is presenting this science is a strong appeal to traditional gender roles in a way i found profoundly annoying to listen to.
This book was a hard slog. I didn’t enjoy it and found it difficult to trust. Especially knowing the author runs a “can i eat this?” type deal where she - a journalist - is giving nutrition advice to strangers who submit food items for her and she tells them whether they’re “safe.” I think this speaks to a problem about these sorts of communicators: they do too much, don’t allow for nuance, and go beyond stoking reasonable urgency and wander into fear mongering orthorexic territory.
i see the value of this book but i think the concreteness of the health info is over exaggerated and the effect of this book on the average reader is more likely to result in hopelessness and panic. This book should be read as an academic overview of change to work towards not a diet book telling you how you personally have failed. In the landscape of dramatic, how-to-diet-perfectly books i think it’s important to state that this book should not be read like your plant paradoxes and other such books. this is a review of the industry, science, social factors. however i still find it a little eye roll inducing because of its conspiratorial tone. i appreciate its acknowledgement of the food movements failures in pushing whole foods to a population who can’t really access them, pushing personal responsibility etc. i’m reviewing this only to state as loudly as i can that this is not a personal responsibility, you must change your diet type book and if you read it as such and are now panicking about your own purchasing and preparation, please redirect that energy to broader change actions.
on the other hand, i would also encourage the reader to consider that health data about diet is not really as clear cut as we think and as she says herself our understanding of what helps and harms us and how much food affects us, how much we can control our health outcomes, is always changing and information like this should be tempered with a healthy dose of chilling the fuck out.
there’s no sense of stoking food fear and encouraging this near orthorexic approach. do your best, eaters and readers, but don’t worry if you have soy milk and boxed vegan macaroni for your kids sometimes. there’s a medium ground of enjoyment, ease, affordability, and nutrients.
Another thing I think is interesting to note is that I found it hard to find critical responses to this book. Googling Lawless and this book almost exclusively produced works she herself has published, or her own website, for me even when I included terms designed to produce reviews or responses.
fascinating to see other reviewers say she’s too socialist or something when a lot of her solutions are things many other countries have like social support, paid leave, paid maternity leave. this book is a bizarre mix of elements and i would not recommend. if you are american some of these elements may be useful despite its flaws but for those of us in other countries with higher social support in general would do better to look elsewhere.
November 22, 2018
Formerly Known As Food Presents a rigorous analysis of both the effects of industrial foods on our bodies and the social and political mechanisms that have gone into creating our society's vexed relationship to food preparation. While this book, at times, reads like a gloss of other's writings on the subject, her discussion of the emerging research on the human microbiota combined with her pointed criticisms of the alternative food movements emphasis on personal choice and responsibility felt like a new and exciting addition to the dietary advice genre. I especially loved her discussion of the ways in which the skilled labors of food production have been rendered invisible and supposedly expendable by the food industry so that only those with extreme privilege are justified in expending time and money by cooking at home. I also adored her explanation for the strange alignment constructed between patriotism and processed food.
My main criticisms of this book lie in the fact that it was not very readable. Often it felt like a mere presentation of the author's research findings without any underlying narrative. The book would have benefitted from some attention given to humanizing those most affected by the processed food industry, presenting the voices of individual consumers rather than just the findings of UC Davis scientists.
That being said, I was impressed with this book and would feel comfortable recommending it to my students and my colleagues. I hope more journalists will follow Lawless's lead and present the problem of health and nutrition in the United States as stemming from a complex and multilayered set of issues that should be addressed both through community organizing and strategic policy change. "Voting with your fork" is not nearly enough!
My main criticisms of this book lie in the fact that it was not very readable. Often it felt like a mere presentation of the author's research findings without any underlying narrative. The book would have benefitted from some attention given to humanizing those most affected by the processed food industry, presenting the voices of individual consumers rather than just the findings of UC Davis scientists.
That being said, I was impressed with this book and would feel comfortable recommending it to my students and my colleagues. I hope more journalists will follow Lawless's lead and present the problem of health and nutrition in the United States as stemming from a complex and multilayered set of issues that should be addressed both through community organizing and strategic policy change. "Voting with your fork" is not nearly enough!
March 30, 2023
Talking about a book that makes one feel hopelessly screwed. Fortunately, the book did provide me with some inspiration to try and avoid overly processed junk and eat more whole foods, even though they (too) are all full of deadly chemicals that are killing me if she is to be believed. It is just so wonderful to learn that because of my grandas and mothers' choices, I am screwed regardless of what I eat.
Anyhow, rather than rehashing what other reviews stated, I'll mention one thing from my own experience that is contrary to her claim that eating healthily is only something people of privilege can do, whereas people of color and the poor are forced by the evil capitalist system to only buy processed junk. I disagree with her since I find that junk food is not cheap. Even the off-brand chips, cereal, packaged foods, meats, frozen dinners, candy, soda etc...seem too expensive to me. I am someone who has never even made it up to the poverty line financially, and I learned that one of the cheapest ways to eat is oatmeal, brown rice, beans, potatoes, carrots, spinach, mushrooms, and kale. With food like this, it was possible to live between $1 and $2 a day (before inflation that is). Eating at this level of healthy is WAY cheaper than eating junk food.
Yes, there are some "food deserts;" neighborhoods without any fresh produce. If folks like Thomas Sowell are to be believed, these are the unforeseen consequences of the race riots from the last century. But still, I bet bags of beans and rice can be located and they'll be cheaper than junk food.
Anyhow, rather than rehashing what other reviews stated, I'll mention one thing from my own experience that is contrary to her claim that eating healthily is only something people of privilege can do, whereas people of color and the poor are forced by the evil capitalist system to only buy processed junk. I disagree with her since I find that junk food is not cheap. Even the off-brand chips, cereal, packaged foods, meats, frozen dinners, candy, soda etc...seem too expensive to me. I am someone who has never even made it up to the poverty line financially, and I learned that one of the cheapest ways to eat is oatmeal, brown rice, beans, potatoes, carrots, spinach, mushrooms, and kale. With food like this, it was possible to live between $1 and $2 a day (before inflation that is). Eating at this level of healthy is WAY cheaper than eating junk food.
Yes, there are some "food deserts;" neighborhoods without any fresh produce. If folks like Thomas Sowell are to be believed, these are the unforeseen consequences of the race riots from the last century. But still, I bet bags of beans and rice can be located and they'll be cheaper than junk food.
April 30, 2018
The first part of this book annoyed and depressed me. Your food has touched plastic? It was in a factory? It's not organic? Not good enough. Wait! Organic isn't good enough either! I felt like nothing I could ever eat was good enough—because America's food system isn't set up to get us the kind of food Lawless is talking about here.
But perhaps she did that on purpose, because she had me by the end of the book. She helped me to see the problem with our food system. She is calling for nothing less than a complete revamp of the way we grow, distribute, and eat food—and she's calling for people to be paid for the cooking and housework done at home.
While I don't know if I agree with all her ideas, I found the chapter on the devaluing of women's work absolutely fascinating and would recommend the book for that chapter (especially if you're a stay-at-home mom like me).
Her ideas for revamping the food system presented at the end are bold and eye-opening. I would love to see the means to grow, buy, and cook real food available to everyone, not just the 1%. Some of the ideas sounded a little far-fetched to me, but many seemed quite sensible. Plenty of food for thought, if nothing else!
But perhaps she did that on purpose, because she had me by the end of the book. She helped me to see the problem with our food system. She is calling for nothing less than a complete revamp of the way we grow, distribute, and eat food—and she's calling for people to be paid for the cooking and housework done at home.
While I don't know if I agree with all her ideas, I found the chapter on the devaluing of women's work absolutely fascinating and would recommend the book for that chapter (especially if you're a stay-at-home mom like me).
Her ideas for revamping the food system presented at the end are bold and eye-opening. I would love to see the means to grow, buy, and cook real food available to everyone, not just the 1%. Some of the ideas sounded a little far-fetched to me, but many seemed quite sensible. Plenty of food for thought, if nothing else!
March 31, 2018
Thank you to NetGAlley and St. Martin's Press for permission to read this book early.
This book is an in-depth look at where we are in the world with our food production and ingestion. It is a bit frightening to read all that our food goes through from start to the time we put it into our mouths and disheartening to know that the agencies we rely on to label our food, or test our food, are not set up to work in our best interests.
Eat whole foods, breast feed our children, change labeling, (plus other suggestions) are repeated throughout and culminate in the author's 'manifesto' to incite change. . I liked that the author addressed the issues of poverty and urban access to quality, whole food products. I like the well referenced and cited statements.
On the whole this is an informative book but a very technical and challenging read. It is FULL of information that is worth reading if you can hang in there and take it in small bites.
This book is an in-depth look at where we are in the world with our food production and ingestion. It is a bit frightening to read all that our food goes through from start to the time we put it into our mouths and disheartening to know that the agencies we rely on to label our food, or test our food, are not set up to work in our best interests.
Eat whole foods, breast feed our children, change labeling, (plus other suggestions) are repeated throughout and culminate in the author's 'manifesto' to incite change. . I liked that the author addressed the issues of poverty and urban access to quality, whole food products. I like the well referenced and cited statements.
On the whole this is an informative book but a very technical and challenging read. It is FULL of information that is worth reading if you can hang in there and take it in small bites.
December 29, 2023
I would have given this book 4 stars (maybe even 5) if it hadn't been for the last three chapters.
The first chapters are full of eye-opening, important information that everyone should be aware of.
As for the last three chapters, instead of helpful advice on how we can start to provide better nutrition for families, the author gave a lengthy tirade on the need for universal basic income, paying homemakers, etc. A previous review called these, pie in the sky dreams. I couldn't agree more. Extreme changes are certainly needed within our food system, but socialism isn't the answer.
The first chapters are full of eye-opening, important information that everyone should be aware of.
As for the last three chapters, instead of helpful advice on how we can start to provide better nutrition for families, the author gave a lengthy tirade on the need for universal basic income, paying homemakers, etc. A previous review called these, pie in the sky dreams. I couldn't agree more. Extreme changes are certainly needed within our food system, but socialism isn't the answer.
February 22, 2019
Well this was kinda depressing to read lol. I looked at my lunch with guilt that lasted all of 5 minutes as I reached the tail end of the book. She is passionate about the subject though.
2019 reading challenge - Your favourite prompt from a past POPSUGAR Reading Challenge - 2018 POPSUGAR Reading Challenge - A Book About a problem facing society today
2019 reading challenge - Your favourite prompt from a past POPSUGAR Reading Challenge - 2018 POPSUGAR Reading Challenge - A Book About a problem facing society today
April 21, 2019
Food is as integral a part of our social array as it is a part of our personal health. This book discusses the impact of the profit motive on the degradation of our food supply. Well-documented with well-reasoned arguments, you will not see packaged food the same way ever again after reading this book.
June 19, 2019
Beware. Very alarmist in tone. A lot of "this could cause" or "may be linked with;" making a lot of suggestions that are not backed by data. I quit reading about halfway through when she starting claiming autism was caused by diet and/or an "imbalance" in the "gut microbiota." This is not proven science, and is also an idea anti-vaxxers push. I think this book is lacking scientific rigor.
July 3, 2022
The author moves from pseudo science to science to social issues, and conspiracy theories and back. Frequently mixing things altogether.
There is good information here in and things we consumers need to be aware of. 8 just wish it was not wrapped in hand waving mumbo jumbo.
There is good information here in and things we consumers need to be aware of. 8 just wish it was not wrapped in hand waving mumbo jumbo.
September 28, 2019
Nothing earth shattering new. Common sense.
December 9, 2018
This book reminds me a little of "Fast Food Nation." It's a cautionary tale of what we are actually doing to our bodies by consuming pesticide-ridden, chemically treated foods. There's a ton of fascinating info throughout the whole book, but it's definitely a terrifying read. Lawless does include some suggestions on what the US can do to detoxify our food system, but it's hugely unsettling to read how the foods we're consuming (especially as infants) is probably the reason why so many of us end up with diseases and chronic conditions. There were a few sections that felt a little too textbook, but overall, this was an eye-opening (and disturbing) title.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 140 reviews