The Gospel of Food: Everything You Think You Know About Food Is Wrong

by Barry Glassner

Enjoy what you eat. From the author of the national bestseller The Culture of Fear comes a rallying cry to abandon food fads and myths for calmer and more pleasurable eating. For many Americans, eating is a religion. We worship at the temples of celebrity chefs. We raise our children to believe that certain foods are good and others are bad. We believe that if we eat the right foods, we will live longer, and if we eat in the right places, we will raise our social status. Yet what we believe to be true about food is, in fact, quite contradictory. Offering part exposé, part social com-mentary, sociologist Barry Glassner talks to chefs, food chemists, nutritionists, and restaurant critics about the way we eat. Helping us recognize the myths, half-truths, and guilt trips they promulgate, The Gospel of Food liberates us for greater joy at the table.

Genres: Food, Nonfiction, Science, Health, Nutrition, Food Writing, Cooking

304 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Barry Glassner has appeared on numerous television and radio programs, and has written for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. A professor of sociology at USC, Glassner lives in Los Angeles. His most recent book is THE GOSPEL OF FOOD: Everything You Think You Know About Food Is Wrong.

Reviews

[Ellen · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm giving this book one star because I feel angry at it. This book does contain some good points that have affected the way I think about food and dieting, but they are buried in layer upon layer of very poorly organized writing. I have no doubt that Glassner's book is well-researched, and I appreciate him taking on the current flap over how fat Americans are, but honestly! I want to sit Glassner down for a conversation about "sign-posting" (let your audience know what your overall structure is and where you are going) and to ask him "So what?" at practically every turn.

The high point of the book is where Glassner suggests that perhaps the reason for weight gain in America is not fast food, but dieting itself. Props to him for pointing out that restrictive diets followed by almost inevitable bingeing is far less healthy than simply eating what you want in the first place. And props to him for defending fast food as a convenient and tasty option in a breakneck speed world. It was refreshing to read a book about food written by someone who recognizes that, dammit, sometimes you just have to eat something processed and convenient or you will starve!

But for crying out loud - am I supposed to be surprised that the media catches on to diet hype and shamelessly promotes the platforms of diet proponents that haven't done their research? Am I supposed to be surprised that the government groups who put forth dietary standards are (GASP) heavily influenced by the food industry? That food labeling is often misleading? Do people really not know this stuff?

And what was the story with the chapters on restaurants? First we're told that restaurants go out of their way to provide super-de-duper extra special meals for food critics and the super-rich. Again, ummm....not surprising. So perhaps critics don't get everything right. But then we get paragraph after patronizing paragraph about how food adventurers are clearly not smart enough to recognize good food, and we should really listen to the critics instead. Perhaps this issue (which really seems of little importance to me) is a complex one, but the way it's portrayed in the book makes it very hard to tell exactly what point Glassner is trying to make.

And, I have to add that the portrayal of vegetarians as people who are solely and foolishly committed to avoiding meat on health grounds is vastly oversimplified. Both The Omnivore's Dilemma and Animal, Vegetable, Miracle have sophisticated discussions of vegetarianism that have made me question my committment to a meat-free diet, and I find it particularly galling to be dismissed so summarily by a man whose mind has clearly been clouded by plate after plate after plate of foie gras. Hmph!

[Sarahfina · Rating 1 out of 5]

My god. Where do I begin with this book?
Lets start with all of the breathless reviews by the NY Times, LA Times, etc. Their raving reviews baffle me.

Next I should explain that I went in a fan. I liked Glassner's pervious book Culture of Fear very much. He's a sociologist by trade and Culture of Fear was well researched and persuasively argued.

Those attributes, however, do not describe The Gospel of Food. Unless you were going to say something like "This book is, like, the opposite of well researched and persuasively argued".

I suppose I could sum up Glassner's argument in this book as; "No one really knows what food is good for you or why people are fat because nutritional research is too hard to conduct and most scientists have ideological or monetary motives that sway their research anyway. So you should just eat whatever and being fat is probably fine."

Then, absurdly, Glassner goes on to use NUTRITIONAL RESEARCH to prove his point! Let me rephrase that so I'm sure I'm being clear. Glassner states, repeatedly, that nutritional research is not to be trusted and goes on to prove this point by offering the results of nutritional research. OK? So there's that.

On one page Glassner explains that the results of one study showing that meat is bad for you cannot be trusted because the study was sponsored in part by a bread company (or something like that) and then, ON THE VERY NEXT PAGE, he writes (very smugly I might add)about how stupid people are for dismissing the results of a study showing that chocolate is good for you because the study was sponsored in part by Nestle. I don't normally write in my books but the margins of this book are starred and underlined all over with phrases like "WTF!" and "??!??!".

Glassner's tone is smug and condescending throughout. Anyone who eats is sure to find a section that will offend them as Glassner takes aim at people who only eat "authentic" ethnic food, people who don't eat meat, people who don't like fast food, people who don't like genetically modified food, anyone who buys 2% milk, etc. In his opinion everyone's a sap (or racist or sexist or delusional) who has fallen prey to savvy marketing and no one could possibly have a legitimate reason for wanting to avoid or embrace any one type of food.
Which brings me to my main beef with his book. Glassner completely ignores political reasons for avoiding (or embracing) certain foods. He shrugs off vegetarians in the first chapter, laughing that they think not eating meat will do everything from prolong their life to "end world hunger". He goes on to poke fun at the British for not eating genetically modified foods because they've been declared perfectly safe by our own FDA (who has never been wrong about that kind of thing before)without mentioning the myriad political and humanitarian reasons one might wish to abstain. Since Glassner's a sociologist that seems to be decidedly falling down on the job.

He explains that soy is bad for you in large quantities and causes the depletion of the rainforest so you might as well chow down on a side of beef. His argument reminds me of the kids in some of my undergrad polisci classes who would say relativist shit like "well everything is probably made in a sweatshop so who gives a fuck if everything I own is made by Nike?" If I had to sum up Glassner's arguments in one word, it would be "specious".

He goes on to write that being fat is perfectly healthy and that there's no good data supporting the idea that obesity is a. an epidemic (he actually explains, I imagine with a straight face, that there are not more fat people now than there ever were. I guess he thinks his audience has no eyeballs.)
b. bad for you (he says you don't get heart disease or die "significantly" earlier - only a couple of years. I wish he would explain to the folks dying of cancer in my clinic that a couple of years isn't a "significantly" longer amount of time to spend on earth.)
c. due to eating too many calories.

The argument is so outrageously stupid and in conflict with any evidence that anyone who has known someone who is obese has observed first hand that it barely warrants a shrug but it's so irresponsible that it enraged me. I wish he would come over to my ex-step-brother's house and tell him that being obese is perfectly healthy while said step-brother sleeps hooked up to his CPAP machine to fight his sleep apnea.

Or maybe he could swing by my old pulmonary hypertension clinic and dispute all of the research I collected the last year showing that obesity was a major cause of certain kinds of PAH, a progressive and deadly disease.

The fact is - this guy is not an MD and it really, really shows. Far be it from me to criticize someone for not being a doctor of all things. But anyone who has spent time in a pulmonary clinic would probably punch Glassner on the nose for writing something as stupid as "obesity is not shown to cause health problems."

I think this book could have been good. It could have explored things like why and how we hear in the news one day that coffee will kill you and the next that coffee will save you from cancer. Nutritional research *is* hard to conduct and it *is* conflicting. But so is all research. Should I write a smug dismissal of sociology because sociologists disagree about whether civic engagement is or is not declining? No. The point of research is to search for the answer until an idea or theory prevails - and we make decisions using the best research we have. Glassner may think that conflicting data means that we should all go gorge ourselves on Big Macs and Panda Express if we feel like it. But I think most people have better sense than that.

[Joseybird · Rating 2 out of 5]

First, the reason why I didn't give this book 1 star: it makes a few excellent points, successfully arguing why Big Food and Fast Food isn't "evil," like some extremists seem to be arguing, and successfully calling into question a few kernals of common food wisdom.

Now, the bad:

I read this book soon after Michael Pollen's In Defense of Food, and I must say, Gospel of Food is both very similar and markedly inferior.

Glassner's premise is simple (hint: it's the title's tagline) but his execution is sloppy and his tone unecessarily insulting. It falls into that unfortunate, easy trap of being overtly political; I'm reminded of one of Ann Coulter or Al Franken's books, which snear at liberals or conservatives, knowing that their audiences are merely looking for a shallow validation of their own views and confirmation that the Opposition are Ignorant, Evil Fools.

The Gospel of Food is, simply, aimed at people who are tired of others/the public/etc. criticizing their All American Unhealthy Diet yet who feel some sort of insecurity about those choices nonetheless (if they didn't, why would they read such a book as this?). Glassner spends most of his time critisizing people and studies that tell us which foods are good and bad and what may be making America fat (there's also a whole section devoted to arguing how innacurate professional restaurant reviews are; its presence in the book confused me). What he does not do--and what ultimately completely undermines his argument--is suggest what people can or should do about the situation, or what about the food world is commendable. In his Defense of Food, Pollen doesn't just criticize the food industry; he suggests a positive, alternative point of view and mode of consuming. Books that sound the alarm on some practice, view, event, etc, tend to be ineffective if they don't include a positive message (for example, terrifying the public about the dangers of global warming are unlikely to provoke action unless the public is told what they can do to help). The most I was able to glean from Gospel of Food was that deliberate food consumption was for the rich and that one shouldn't care about what one eats, whether one gets fat, etc.

Like the above-mentioned political books, Glassner throws in the occasional snear at "liberals" who preach the "Gospel of Naught." This sort of direct and unecessary political jibe lightly punctuates Glassner's prose, and I found its presence utterly confusing. When I read a political pundit's book, I know what to expect; the politics of the intended audience are very clear. But the political of Gospel of Food's intended audience isn't clear, and this occasional snearing language probably alienates more readers than Coulter's or Franken's (a liberal who reads Coulter or a conservative who reads Franken does, after all, knows exactly what she is getting into!). The only people I know or know of who hold anything resembling Glassner's views are -- ironically? -- liberals. And, holding such views, they have no interest whatsoever in this genre of food writing.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title sums up the premise of Glassner's book fairly accurately. He makes some valid points throughout the book, but they ultimately get lost, due to a lack of organization, signposting, and an overarching tendency simply to pick holes in the arguments of others without really stating his own position very clearly.

The book also lacks any kind of structural coherence - the chapters are more like scattered essays with no real unifying concept. The opening and closing chapters are generally concerned with establishing that much of the received wisdom about food (recommended daily allowances, epidemiological claims that a given food is harmful, the demonization of McDonald's and fast food generally, overblown claims linking obesity to mortality) is highly questionable. But two chapters in the middle of the book - "Restaurant Heaven" and "The Food Adventurers" - seem completely out of place, being little more than a catalog of memorable meals the author has been privileged to enjoy in various fancy restaurants. One doesn't begrudge Glassner his dream dinners prepared by Daniel Boulud or Thomas Keller, but the rapturous descriptions included here are a pointless self-indulgence. And I think most of us don't need to have it pointed out that restaurant critics are likely to get better meals and service than your average nondescript diner.

In the end, this book was annoying, in that the valid points that Glassner has to make get lost in a welter of irrelevant detail and poor organization.

I waver between 2 and 3 stars, but ultimately give it 3; despite the distraction of the "Restaurant Heaven" chapter, the points made in the opening and closing chapters are worthwhile.

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

this book reminds me of his other book, the culture of fear, as well as freakonomics and other books that question conventional wisdom, and don't really make any strong conclusions. i found the sections on restaurants to be boring, but other than that it was interesting. i liked his points about the demonization of fast food as a class thing and how in reality many other restaurants engage in all the same practices. i also liked what he said about food companies adding all those vitiamins and stuff to cereal and water, when really it hasn't been proven to do much. i'm not sure this book really convinced me of anything, but just pointed out how complicated and intertwined issues of food, nutrition, and class are. some parts challenged me to think more about my "food snob" tendencies. also, it is important not to stress out so much about what you eat and just enjoy the whole process that goes along with eating.

[Cynthia · Rating 3 out of 5]

I stumbled upon The Gospel Of Food by Barry Glassner in the library.

It's well written.
It's non-fiction, but reads like a good novel.
It's fun for foodies.
It's humorous.
It's good to talk about food and health.
It's fun to agree and disagree.
I like to challenge my self to not believe everything I think.

[Tima · Rating 3 out of 5]

glassner's storytelling is not my style, but the information in the book is excellent

[Bernard Lavallée · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was waaayyy ahead of its time. It tackles our preconceived notions about why we consider some food as "good" and other as "bad". Without saying it outright, the author delves into issues like classism, fatphobia and racism that are inherent to a lot of food opinions. It definitely was not a mainstream discourse at that time. However, it now feels a little outdated since the discourse has evolved so much since. There are now newer books that articulate the issues better and push the subject further.

[Karl · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book should be read by everyone who eats. As with Glassner's previous THE CULTURE OF FEAR, this book adjusted my cultural perspective. If you've ever eaten, been tempted to eat, or not eaten something because "it isn't good for you," then think again. Glassner is a powerful and persuasive writer and boy does he do the research. Read it and you'll know what Glassner means by the "gospel of naught," "nutritional imperialism," and "dietary idealists." Really, a very cool read.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Strikingly similar to Michael Pollan's, In Defense of Food. Nonetheless, a well-researched and executed book poking holes in many of the prevalent theories surrounding food and nutrition.Glassner differs from Pollan in that he approaches common myths from the position of one who enjoys partaking in good food, be it a greasy burger or fresh produce.

[Pati · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gee, I'm really hungry.

I enjoyed this book overall. It follows the same style as Freakonomics, which I loved. I was frustrated by the lack of conclusions. The author never promised any, but somehow I felt cheated. Why are there hungry people in the world? Why are there overweight people in the world? Why can't scientists do a better job of researching food and the human body?

[Joni Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I couldn't put this down - it's one of the most interesting nonfictions I've ever read. A lot of the information the author shares actually changed my opinion - about dieting, obesity, fast food, health food, etc. Anyone who eats should read 'The Gospel Of Food.'

[Donald Linnemeyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great writing and great discussion of food in contemporary society. It's lacking in conclusion, though. After he tears down so many approaches, he doesn't leave much to replace it. There's something, and there's great wisdom in it, but there's also something missing.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fun read -- really enjoyable to read someone who enjoys food without the snobbishness. Glassner thinks clearly about the subject, a quality that is too rare in these, our degenerate times.

[Trisha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worthwhile read discussing our culture's food obsessions and myths. Glassner's discussion of obesity in our country is especially interesting.

[Matthew Harbowy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Acting as adequate counterpoints, Barry Glassner's "The Gospel of Food" and Christopher Cook's "Diet for a Dead Planet" provide an interesting contrast on agribusiness.

Cook's "Diet" is almost universally a polemic: despite this, his book is most fascinating during part II, tracing the roots of the conversion from agrarianism pre 1800's, and proceeds to modern corporate monoculture agribusiness of today. Rather than opening with this story and presenting a coherent explanation for "the way things are today", he instead opens with the "signs of the apocalypse" type presentation which clearly voices his agenda of fear. It is apparent that he is trying to get you scared, and then to look upon history with scared eyes so you can believe his agenda.

However, his storyline is also fascinating in its incoherency as well. He is perfectly justified in exposing the tragic irony of the existence of surplus grain at the time of bread lines and starvation, as was the situation in the beginning of the 20th century. He presents no cures- his argument is not new, and his suggested remedies of "burning GMO crops" and smashing corporatism is not a recipe for better food, but for starvation. He wants to argue that the rise of corporate farming caused the end of small farming, but he does not consider the impact of non-farm industrialization. He completely ignores the effect of inflation throughout his book, and quotes absolute changes in price to back his argument when many of those changes may not have been significant relative to the overall economy, which was becoming more dominated by manufacture and later, by technology. Most egregiously, he argues that chemicals were impoverishing the farmers, even as they "applied chemical fertlizers at twice the recommended rate". No explanation is given why farmers were overusing expensive chemicals at the cost of their profit margins and safety.

In contrast, Glassner's "Gospel" debunks many of the myths associated with modern agribusiness. As an avowed "slow food" advocate, he is not attempting to argue in favor of heavily processed food. However, he makes a good attempt to step back from much of the fear voiced in Cook's "Diet". In contrast, Glassner puts scale on many of the scares, using many of the same refernces cited in Cook's "Diet" but highligting the actual magnitude of the issues. In contrast with the dangers of smoking, which elevate your risk of disease on the order of thousands or tens of thousands, diet effects are often three to four orders of magnitude smaller and often not statistically significant- in most cases, a single case of heart disease can tip the numbers dramatically. He also exposes studies in which the effects are cited but not actually observed, instead calculated from tables of expected risk.

Both books ignore a central point that I had hoped they would cover- the twentieth century has seen an overwhelming rise in life expectancy, at the same time the price, in relative terms, of food has shrunk from consuming most of the family budget, down to a small fraction thereof. The reality of food production is that while modern life may be stressful, the realities of running a small farm are far from ideal. Very few areas of the world are capable of producing a consistent and nutritionally complete diet entirely from locally produced vegetables year in and year out. Food is a series of challenges which humanity, as a whole, has yet to conquer, both in terms of feeding the world, and nourishing and nurturing our desire to act ethically and sustainably.

Glassner's "Gospel", as opposed to Cook's "Diet", provides suggestions and recommendations throughout the text, rather than a single sparse chapter of suggestions at the end. His recommedations are simple and consistent throughout: Quit smoking. Reduce stress. Eat foods that taste good. Moderation. His prescription is that we are preoccupied with worry, and that the culture of "no" causes us to fetishise bad foods, and "safe treyf", and as a result not see the big picture with objectivity and realistic solutions. Cook has the tone of a revolutionary warrior- kill the corporations before they kill us. Warfare, however, is not the right solution, and as Glassner rightly points out, to disrespect the work of many of the men and women who work hard within business to feed the hungry and provide afforable, reasonable, and tasty choices is simply that: disrespectful. It would be naive to suggest that corporations have our best interests at heart, but they are not wholly evil, either. A dead customer buys nothing. Cook wants to hate corporations, and begrudgingly, his only positive recommedation in the last chapter (indeed, in the whole book) is a brief nod to the rise of corporate organic foods.

In summary, though, neither book is really a complete picture. Glassner does not go far enough to paint the historical picture, whereas perhaps Cook goes too far and loses the page with too many inconsistent details. If you want to be terrified, you will agree with Cook. If you want to be consoled, you will read Glassner. The truth, as always, remains elusive. Cook has no right, as Glassner might argue, to destroy the jobs that sustain the working class, but likewise, enforced sustained poverty as provided by the corporations that Glassner lionizes is no solution for the working poor, as Cook might argue. Glassner may come closer to a reasonable approach, in my opinion, but we have yet to see a truly honest body of work that provides real perspective and answers to the questions of poverty and provides a diet for a sustainable, ethical world.

[Emily · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book seemed so unfocused that it was hard to realize its premise. Eventually, it became clearer that the essential jist of it was that you should just enjoy your food and not trust socalled scientists, but it took a while to get there.

[Rene · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of interesting tidbits but very hopscotch in its approach. Difficult to discern a common theme except: eat.

[Todd Saukko · Rating 3 out of 5]

learned some new things!

[Sara Goldenberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it but it isn’t new and this kind of information changes pretty rapidly

[Lesley · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Prejudices dressed up as science are still prejudices." At the risk of sounding juvenile, this book was awesome. Well-written and full of interesting research peppered with opinion, it was a delight to read. I'm not sure Glassner proved anything. In fact, he disproves pretty much everything we're told by the food and health industries. Or at the least, he proves that they all have their biases. To sum it up, don't believe what you hear, or read on the label. Just because a food contains a particular nutrient doesn't mean you should live off of it. In fact, that's a pretty stupid idea. And don't discount fast food. I'll never look at fast food the same again. Bring on the french fries! The section on hamburgers is particularly delectable. For me, this book has affirmed what I have always thought. The people who worry about food and weight and scramble around for the newest diet or the healthiest health product are the people who have the most problems. They're the unsatisfied yo-yoers, and that's sad. What's even sadder is that millions of Americans go hungry everyday, and that is something we can do something about. One word: Pizza. It's full of nutrients and contains all your basic food groups. Be well-rounded. A healthy person enjoys food. They know that there is a time and a place for herb-roasted veggies as well as triple-layer fudge cake. Bon appetit!

[rambow · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a very easy, entertaining read that touched lightly on some important questions about how our culture approaches food. Unfortunately, the reader is left with more questions than answers because that seems to be the current state of research about food and health and weight, despite various people claiming they have The One True Answer every Tuesday. Be wary of one true answers. They're usually too simplistic to accurately capture how food and bodies work in reality.

A lot of readers will find the lack of definitive answers and the often contradictory theories frustrating, and I found the book seemed to end rather abruptly as well. Aside from its flaws, I can't help liking this book because Glassner and I see eye-to-eye on lots of things. Namely, that food is about more than just nutrition and perhaps we should be more reluctant to overthrow our preferences and traditions around food for the sake of health.

His concept of "safe treyf" introduced early on in the book is brilliant and I would have liked to see it expanded upon more. Perhaps another author will take it on in more depth.

[Haley · Rating 2 out of 5]

I feel bad talking shit about this book, since I feel like the author might snoop and get offended (since he's on goodreads). Oh wait, I don't care. Also, I don't care about his splendid meals that I can't pronounce from fancy pants restaurants that I will never be able to afford. And I don't care about the ins-and-outs of restaurant critiquing. And guess what? I don't care about his assortment of essays that bring up contradictions. And by "bring up" I mean it, since he doesn't have an opinion or make any arguments. It's just like, hey guess what? Yep. And oh, hey! Guess what? That too. Neat.

I picked this book for a report in my Soul Food class figuring that it might have to do with religion more than a little bit (the "gospel of naught" is about as religiousy as it gets), since its called the GOSPEL of food and all. I'm writing this review in procrastination for the essay I have to write about this book. But I feel like Glassner owes me since its going to be difficult to relate this to my class. And because he's super good at essays.

[Sarah Pascarella · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Why do we deify some meals and some foods, and demonize others?" That's the central question of Glassner's highly enjoyable book. A sociologist and thorough researcher, Glassner sets out to champion the notion of common sense when it comes to our daily bread. Everyone gets a critical eye, whether it's the USDA; Big Agra; Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, and Morgan Spurlock; the GOP; liberals; nutritionists; national magazines; and more. Basically, with most food studies, Glassner shows that if one wants to find and champion a certain statistic (pretty much any statistic, be it the miraculous power of almonds to the family meal as intelligence-booster), a group exists to prove it. Therefore, consumers should eat what they like, practice moderation, be conscious of their choices, and question all comers. Glassner also makes a rallying cry to alleviate hunger, especially in the U.S. His advocacy for this hugely underaddressed issue is compelling and motivating.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved this book! The author put into words so many things I think about food culture in America that I can never quite express. From dieting to GMO's, he takes many cherished taboos in modern American food culture (and so many of the fb mommy-wars I see), and talks about them from a mainly sociological point of view. I love people who point out how American fads can get so carried away that we are ridiculous about things that either don't actually matter or aren't actually true. The only reason I didn't give it 5 stars is that the brevity of the book prevented many of the arguments he presents to be fully fleshed out, and so while he expresses many ideas I love, he doesn't probably defend them quite well enough to convince those who would be hardcore on the opposite end of the spectrum. Such a great read, though!

[Elaine · Rating 2 out of 5]

My version is The Gospel of Food, why we should stop worrying and enjoy what we eat. It's a paperback. I especially enjoyed the chapter about food critics. The best restaurants will have pictures of critics hanging in the kitchen so they recognize the critics and can give them the best service and food. A Washington DC critic consulted with the CIA to better disguise himself. It worked once. Some restaurants have obscured cameras which the chef can control from the kitchen to identify critics. They have software so they can note what foods the critic especially likes. It's hard for the critic to get the same food an service that we get. It's a book based on science, but I won't be incorporating any of it in my life. It was more entertainment than anything else.

[Jesse Richman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pleasant, easy-to-swallow antidote to the claptrap being spouted by Michael Pollan, Alice Waters, et al. Yes, I'm contrary by nature, and it's always fun to see someone take a shot at the reigning orthodoxy of the moment, but Glassner does a solid job backing himself up (which is more than can be said for many fonts of the conventional wisdom).

A brief note to those who have criticized Glassner for not offering his own solutions/recommendations: the whole point here is that we have no solutions, and we're not even really clear on whether or not we have problems in need of solving. If you're looking for answers, you've missed the point entirely.

[Miriam · Rating 3 out of 5]

While it is interesting to read his perspective on the state of eating in the US, I wanted him to explicitly state his beliefs instead of simply contradicting all of the experts that he writes about. I also thought that he came from a more privileged place foodwise (how many people eat at some of the fanciest and most expensive restaurants in the world?) than most people. While he had some good things to say, I thought that because of his food experience, it was hard for him to consider the relationship the average person has with food.

[Cindy Breeding · Rating 2 out of 5]

There's a lot to love about this book. Sociologist Barry Glassner lends his keen eye to studies about food and health. He finds that Americans are obsessed with calories, fat and carbs and miss out on the pleasure of eating. He skewers nutritional imperialists, fat cat scientists pimping for big food, people who think they're too cool because they eat "authentic" ethnic cuisine and the diet nazis who take the joy out of eating.

Too bad the book is about too many things and tries to cover too much ground.

[Turi Becker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just finished The Gospel of Food, by Barry Glassner. In it, he basically calls for sanity in food attitudes - he speaks against the no-fat, no-sugar, no-gluten-cholesterol-carbohydrate-whatever groups as well as the food snobs who will only eat in four-star restaurants. He doesn't condemn fast food, but again speaks of moderation. This isn't in any way a diet book, more about the way that we think about food. Although I didn't agree with everything he said, I found myself agreeing with him more often than not.