Whether or not to read The Omnivore's Dilemma: A dilemma in itself

I would have liked to begin my book blog with something powerful, something like the best quotes from the best books I've ever read. But, if I try to do that, this undertaking will never begin. I suppose I should start where I am, with what I'm reading now. No better place to begin than where you are.

One of the more recent books I've read is Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma. I should probably confess my bias towards Pollan before I even picked up the book. As an environmentally conscious vegetarian who tries to eat both locally and seasonally, I suspected that - rather than convert me to a new way of life - Michael Pollan's research would help build a foundation under habits I already felt were best.

The book, as Pollan describes it, is a "long and fairly involved answer to the seemingly simple question..." What should we have for dinner? Being omnivorous, humans are in a special place in the world (no, don't feel too special: we share this splendid designation with rats) because evolution has not programmed us with specific guidelines about what to eat. Americans, Pollan points out, are in a doubly tough situation: we have neither evolution nor culture to guide us through the vast world of food choices. Which is why Americans are so susceptible to food fads. Fat is bad! No, it's not - bread is bad! No, wait!....

In The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan traces our food from its very inception - at the farm, feedlot, and in the forest- to our plates. Throughout the course of the book, he eats a meal based on each of the food systems he chronicles.

Pollan first addresses the industrialization of our food system and our utter dependence on commodity corn. He traces that corn to the feedlot animals it sustains, the hundreds of chemical derivatives it supplies, and the "Republic of Fat" it creates. Moral of this story: the logic of nature and the logic of industrial food are not compatible. The American food system is absurd and utterly unappetizing. He then focuses on grass, turning a skeptical eye on "Big Organic" and investigating a system (dubbed "Beyond Organic") that seems to truly work in harmony with natural systems to produce multilaterally good food. In the last of the three sections, Pollan goes to the forest to eat a meal as a modern hunter-gatherer.

I was thrilled by the book through the first section and well into the second section, but the fervor with which I devoured it waned significantly by the third section. Before diving into criticism, though, I'll offer up some positives: Pollan is a good writer. As a journalist, he does a great job of making the information very accessible. The story varies between scientific description and personal narrative, preventing the reader from getting too bogged down in facts. Simply put, he's easy to read. Also important to note is that he isn't far afield of a typical American - that is, he's not a crazy raw-food-vegan-hippie-anti-imported-food-leftist. He eats at McDonald's like everyone else, and he's skeptical of those who swear by organic just as he's skeptical of our industrial food system.

That said, I did have some serious criticisms:
1. Repetition! Maybe others need to hear things a thousand times, but please - spare me. Not only did I get bored with the driving home of the main ideas, but I might like to send him a thesaurus. I'll be fine if I don't hear the words boon, atavistic, or ruminant anytime soon.
2. He hit the "evolutionary design" idea pretty hard. I agree that it is good to know that a cow evolved to eat grass, but he offered it up for nearly every (I might even venture to say every) discussion in the book. My boyfriend Alex and I read the book together, and he had a good point: if you're trying to convince someone that feedlots are bad, and that person doesn't have much sentimental feeling about cows, they're probably not going to be very moved by the evolution argument.
3. Talk about animosity towards vegetarians! I know that its not your dietary choice, but seriously, must you scoff at us so? To call us "animal people" is a bit demeaning. Don't write the movement off so quickly. Pollan didn't even address two important reasons to adopt a vegetarian diet: as an environmental choice, or as a statement that says "I don't agree with the way meat is raised in this country, and I will not partake until I can know that it was produced in an environmentally sustainable and humane manner".

In the end, I was a little disappointed by a closer look at the "food guru". That doesn't change the fact that I would recommend this book (maybe with some qualifiers based on the criticisms above) to anyone unfamiliar with how food in America is made. It's important to know where our food comes from, and in my opinion, it's important that it change. If Pollan will help you down that path... by all means, dear reader...