Reddit mentions of The Omnivores Dilemma

The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. Great introductory book to how the U.S. food system functions. Outlines the prevalence of corn in the American diet, "big organic", where bacon comes from, sustainable farms, and the dependency on fossil fuels. Made me alter my diet and I can no longer look at supermarket bacon the same.

I disagree with this and with /u/flyinggeorge, by a little. It is fun and easy to poke fun at people about what is or isn't natural but that's just to say that (a) people have an exceedingly poor grasp of chemistry, and (b) definitions are hard.

But on the other hand it's really easy to do this: how much work, and of what sort, has something undergone between its creation and your consumption? The more work, and the less comprehensible the work is to the consumer, the more industrial / processed the ingredient is.

Take Chez Panisse, or St. John.

I can look at the menu and tell you pretty well exactly what everything is and how it's made, and my knowledge of chemistry fell off around the same time I could drive a car. I'm willing to bet that I could go into the kitchen and somebody would know where everything, or nearly everything, was sourced.

Take sweet potatoes or shrimp I can get at the farmer's market. I can tell you the same sort of stuff - how it was grown/caught, by whom, and how it got to my plate. If you're eating with me and I'm serving you that, you can ask and I can tell you a pretty good history of the food from seed / egg to stomach.

Compare a steak (or if you prefer, a bag of greens) from the grocery store: I know what it is, but I don't know - and probably don't want to know - where it came from, or how the cow/greens was/were treated en route.

Compare American cheese: I think we'd all agree it's one step further removed from the steak / greens because the ordinary consumer probably can't tell you how it's made, much less where.

Now where does "swiss or cheddar" fall? It depends, right? Take Rogue River Blue, for instance. I can tell you how it's made, from what it's made - even which cows (generally) produce the milk. And it's done the same way, roughly, as cheese has been made for a long goddamned time. So near as I can tell, it's closer to the sweet potato / shrimp.

Which is why I asked about the Chez Panisse example - I'm willing to bet that most of the folks here, if we were eating at Chez Panisse and a dish came out with American cheese on it, we would be a little bemused, because however you define 'natural,' that's not it. If rogue river blue comes out, you're probably OK with that. Why? One fits in the idea of what Chez Panisse is all about; the other does not.

Now, I'm not meaning to make a normative judgment. If you went to Alinea or the Fat Duck, you'd hardly be surprised to find cheese + sodium citrate, and you'd be less surprised if you couldn't learn about the origin of every ingredient. They're all great places, but they do different things.

This is all just a longwinded way of saying "just because definitions are squishy doesn't meant they're meaningless."

Edit: tl;dr: Maybe 'natural' means 'I know what this is and where it comes from.'

Double edit: typos / clarity

Triple edit: it occurs to me that I'm borrowing, heavily, from Michael Pollan's argument in The Omnivore's Dilemma.

Which is a misnomer; you may not use a corn product directly, but if you're eating beef or chicken, there's a good chance they're corn-fed, at least in the states. Most foods in the US, even basic components, somehow end up having corn or soy used in the production process. This is because they're easy to break down in to constituent parts, ie starch, sugar, protein, etc, due to their subsidized existence (Soy is the other half of the Corn crop rotation cycle for a lot of farmers). I'm not an expert on this by any means; I just read The Omnivore's Dilemma (have not watched Food Inc). I didn't even finish, I got so mad. But give it a read, you'll have serious rage before you're done with the first quarter of the book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594132054?pc_redir=1397737524&robot_redir=1

This is stated almost exactly in Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma. Why the news flash (not even new at the time!) didn't reach the public discourse when this book hit the bestseller lists seven years ago--that's beyond me.

This was read by Michael Pollan who wrote a book (The Omnivore's Dilemma) which is a pretty good narrative and comparison in what actually happens in industrial food (from the grain, to the meat, to the table), organic industry, sustainable farming and hunting/gathering your own food. It's well researched and very well written.

Another book that's also similar in topic, but specific to the history and current operations of industrial foods is Salt, Sugar, Fat. I would recommend both.

Edit: I think a lot of people are missing the point of the video. It's not about industrial food = bad. It's about having a relationship with the food that you eat, to treat it as an experience rather than calories. Seriously, try cooking! It's very rewarding when you happen to make something delicious and enjoy it by yourself or with others.

Off the top of my head:

The Psychopath Test is a wittily written personal study of detecting, treating and (possibly) rehabilitating psychopaths.

The Freakonomics books are written by both an economist and a journalist (so easy to read) and contain slightly left-of-centre economic theories with easy to follow research. These are excellent.

The Omnivores Dilemma is both engaging and though provoking. It's All about the production of food in the modern age. In particular, four different meals.

The Code Book is one of my all-time favourites. As the title suggests it's about all forms of cryptography. If you have a mathematical bent I also like Singh's book about Fermat's Enigma).

I'm a mathematics major working in computer science who reads anything that isn't nailed down and is very active in the SCA (historical re-enactment).

I basically stumbled onto this without looking for it. I got bits and pieces from books about other topics entirely and had an epiphany.

Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs And Steel" is about the history of warfare and spends a few chapters talking about how agriculture is a very important weapon of war. It compares and contrasts the ability of nomadic and agrarian peoples to store calories and how that in turn dictates the range of their raiding bands. An army, after all, runs on its stomach and logistics is critical. In doing this it spent some time talking about how nomadic people's collect food and a few pages noting that women do most of that. Which was the exact opposite of what I'd thought to be the case because - like everyone else - I'd been immersed in popular culture that worships hunting and assumes men have always played the economic roles they play today.

That prompted me to dig deeper into that leading to reading various studies about how aboriginals spend their time to validate Diamond's claims and they confirmed him. The Grandmother Hypothesis and studies showing health and survivability of primitive children are not correlated with having a father but strongly correlated with having a maternal grandmother pretty much nailed it and completely shifted my view.

What got me thinking about the definitions of hunting and gathering was that there doesn't appear to be a solid agreed upon scientific definition for them. I'd look specifically for examples of women hunting out of curiosity and when I'd find them ... I would disagree with the papers. Sure, Mardu women bring home a lot of meat. Their environment is chock full of lizards. Lizards everywhere. You can't swing a basket without having it fill up with lizards. Is that "hunting"? ... No ... I don't think so. And this author counts fishing as hunting(in a tribe where men do it a lot) while that author counts it as gathering(in a tribe where women do it a lot) and that author puts it in a third category entirely ... there is some obvious bullshittery going on here but I myself couldn't decide if its hunting or gathering.

Then I read The Omnivores Dilemma and it has a chapter on mushroom hunting. The author described in great detail the massive difference between harvesting domesticated plants ... plants that want us to take their fruits ... and hunting wild plants that don't want to be found by us. He ardently defended the term "hunting" over "gathering" for seeking out wild truffles by describing the difficulty he experienced in doing it.

That made it click. The difference between hunting and gathering is the likelihood of failure. Once I applied that definition to it it became very easy to classify a given activity as hunting or gathering.

SCA life, as well, makes you realize that the past is a different time with different social dynamics. Being in a space with lots of people who practice traditional crafts and seeing how their work is respected contrasts hugely with modern life. In modern life we look at a sweater knitted by your grandma as a crappy horrible gift that you only wear when visiting grandma to make her feel good. In the SCA there are people who spend entire events chatting by a fire while spinning thread or weaving clothe and they are immensely popular with a queue of people a mile long who want some of their output to make garb with. Their work is highly valued and grants them high social status. I'd be perfectly happy with the "traditional" division of labor if women's work paid as well and had the same social status it had before we mechanized it.

Edit It took about two years between starting to think about it in GG&S and having the epihphany while reading Omnivores Dilemma. Another important book in the middle was Mismeasure of Man. Its about the junk science people engage in when trying to justify the current social order. By focusing on historical divisions that are no longer sensitive subjects (like today in america we think of a person of English descent and a person of Irish descent simply as White whereas once this was a bitter divide with english people comparing irish people to animals and insisting they were inherently less intelligent etc) it is able to highlight just how stupid people can be when trying to "scientifically prove" that the dominant social group is dominant because of inherent superiority. The reason I remember the Mardu paper so clearly is that I read it right after Mismeasure and having just read Mismeasure the political agenda of the Mardu paper author was painfully obvious. It was clear the author was pushing a feminist agenda by trying to get women in on the mantle of hunting. See! Women hunt too! Look at these women hunting! I could see how I wanted to jump on that train and shout, "Women hunt too!" but I was also painfully aware how if I did I'd look as silly as the people who Wanted To Believe papers dissected in Mismeasure because the argument wouldn't convince anyone who didn't want it to be true already. The things we honor, idealize, and romanticize about hunting ... simply don't apply to picking lizards up off the ground and eating them. That they are made of meat is a technicality. I couldn't articulate why it wasn't really hunting yet, but I knew I wasn't happy with calling it hunting and felt drawing attention to the Hunting Women of the Mardu was a bad political argument.

That's because here in North America, all of our food has been invaded by the Subsidized Corn market. There's a really great book called 'The Omnivore's Dilemma', which does an amazing job outlining the history of Corn, what it is, what we use it for, and how it's aweful for feeding cattle.

Honestly, i don't read a ton of fitness books... just no need really, but i have read a couple good ones:

Born to run

Omnivore's dilemma

Eat and run

For anyone who wants some more insight on the topic, The Omnivore's Dilemma will literally change the way you think. I personally think it should be required reading in every high school in america, as 1 step towards combating the obesity epidemic.

There was no disease before we domesticated draft animals. Educate yourself from all sides before entering the debate, please.

Edit for sources:

First I just want to say that their is no "source" for the history of the First Nations. We've spent hundreds of years erasing every trace of their culture and history from our collective memories. So either you make a commitment to go educate yourself about how these people lived, and see firsthand that they lacked most major diseases, which tied into their susceptibility to smallpox and co and therefore the genocide, or you believe the hype. Sorry but I am under no burden whatsoever to educate you about these people's lifestyles.

With that said, if you insist on some sources, here's some good reading material:

Guns, Germs and Steel

Omnivore's Delima

A People's History of the United States of America