Early Thoughts on the Gospel of Food

I picked up a copy of Barry Glassner's new book The Gospel of Food the other day. With the recent trend of books on food, nutrition, and cooking getting so much attention I was excited that Glassner was tackling the subject. However, being about halfway through the book I am not that impressed. I guess after reading The Omnivore's Dilemma, any book written on the subject of food would seem inferior.

But my problem with The Gospel of Food isn't just in the writing style, it's in many of Glassner's implications and conclusions. He also seems to frequently contradict himself.

Glassner starts the book off by accusing Americans, especially scientists, like the American Heart Association, and nutritionists, of succumbing to the "Gospel of Naught-the view that the worth of a meal lies principally in what it lacks." This, he argues, is why we have so many foods that are low in fat, sugar, cholesterol, carbs, additives, etc. I can accept that people often go overboard in declaring things unhealthy because they have too much fat or sugar. Too often foods are deemed unhealthy, like eggs, only to be discovered later that the dangers were over-hyped. I also agree with him that eating a variety of foods is fine. The joy we receive from eating certain foods can be a form of healing. Still, the key is moderation.

But Glassner goes too far when he sticks up for pre-packaged food, Big Food companies, irradiation, and McDonalds while he attacks the "false profits of nutrition". Glassner implies that Big Food is able to serve the public best because it gives the consumers what they want. He fails to mention the social, ethical, and environmental harms the corporations create. He does not research or question the different agricultural processes are more sustainable. He even declares the local/organic movement of not being realistic.

I also got rather bored in his section about restaurants. He writes a lot about the inside job of restaurant critics. He explains how wonderful eating meals prepared by world renown chefs can be, but admits that only the rich and powerful are able to do so. Still he goes on to describe about meals he ate and the chefs that prepared them. You know, I really don't care. I 'll never be rich or powerful and even if I were I probably wouldn't blow the years salary of waitress on such a meal.

So while there are some good things to be said in the Gospel of Food, I must also admit disappointment. My recommendation, for what it's worth, is to pick it up at the library and thumb through it. Or skip it all together and read The Omnivore's Dilemma first.