Art

  Beauty

  Games

  Movie

  Music

  Toy

MENU

  Apparel

  Automotive

  Baby

  Beauty

  Books

  Classical

  DVD

  DigitalMusic

  Electronics

  GourmetFood

  HealthPersonalCare

  Jewelry

  Kitchen

  Magazines

  Miscellaneous

  Music

  MusicTracks

  MusicalInstruments

  OfficeProducts

  PetSupplies

  Photo

  HomeGarden

  Software

  SportingGoods

  Tools

  Toys

  VHS

  Video

  VideoGames

  All Product

QUICK SEARCH

TOP SEARCH

Ipods
Sony
Television
Portable Dvd Players
Mp3 Players
Bose
Cameras
Cell Phone

Editor Reviews:

Product Description:
A national bestseller that has changed the way readers view the ecology of eating, this revolutionary book by award winner Michael Pollan asks the seemingly simple question: What should we have for dinner? Tracing from source to table each of the food chains that sustain us— whether industrial or organic, alternative or processed—he develops a portrait of the American way of eating. The result is a sweeping, surprising exploration of the hungers that have shaped our evolution, and of the profound implications our food choices have for the health of our species and the future of our planet.

Rating : - Omnivore's Dilema-Moral Confusion
I found Michael Pollan's book to be quite informative and interesting. The strength of the book was the detailing of much of the modern food chain and our dependence on but a very few staple items, namely corn and soy, to supply a very high percentage of our caloric needs. The percentage of our total caloric needs ultimately supplied by corn is quite amazing. There are many interesting facts that should make readers much more interested in a more varied diet, and making sure the food they eat is as nutritional as it should be. The weakness of the book was in Pollan's assertion that "humans invented morality", but he was in moral turmoil over the morality of killing/eating meat. If you honestly believe that matter plus time pus chance = you, it's hard to see how this turmoil emerges. Only if morality is not invented, but objective, does the issue of how we treat animals have any moral force. The author appears to reject this underlying true objective morality all the while wringing his hands over what he ought to eat, and how we treat the animals we raise conforms to a true objective morality. He obviously doesn't believe that "humans invented morality". I guess that's just the moral ambiguity you need to get on the New York Times Books of the year list. We should obviously be as kind as possible to the animals under our care, and we should, as Pollan asserts, make our food chain as transparent as possible, which would affect a positive change in that direction. The first step in trying to figure out what we should do is trying to figure out if there is anything we should do. There obviously is-but the author cannot get you there.