| The End of Food | 
 enlarge | List Price: $26.00
Buy New: $15.38
You Save: $10.62 (41%)
Buy New/Used from $15.00
Avg. Customer Rating:   (based on 12 reviews)
Sales Rank: 13398
Category: Book
Author: Paul Roberts
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin
Studio: Houghton Mifflin
Manufacturer: Houghton Mifflin
Label: Houghton Mifflin
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Unknown), English (Published)
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 416
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.3
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.2 x 1.3
ISBN: 0618606238
Dewey Decimal Number: 363.8
EAN: 9780618606238
ASIN: 0618606238
Publication Date: June 4, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Paul Roberts, the best-selling author of The End of Oil, turns his attention to the modern food economy and finds that the system entrusted to meet our most basic need is failing.
In this carefully researched, vivid narrative, Roberts lays out the stark economic realities behind modern food and shows how our system of making, marketing, and moving what we eat is growing less and less compatible with the billions of consumers that system was built to serve.
At the heart of The End of Food is a grim paradox: the rise of large-scale food production, though it generates more food more cheaply than at any time in history, has reached a point of dangerously diminishing returns. Our high-volume factory systems are creating new risks for food-borne illness, from E. coli to avian flu. Our high-yield crops and livestock generate grain, vegetables, and meat of declining nutritional quality. While nearly one billion people worldwide are overweight or obese, the same number of people?one in every seven of us?can't get enough to eat. In some of the hardest-hit regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa, the lack of a single nutrient, vitamin A, has left more than five million children permanently blind.
Meanwhile, the shift to heavily mechanized, chemically intensive farming has so compromised soil and water that it's unclear how long such output can be maintained. And just as we've begun to understand the limits of our abundance, the burgeoning economies of Asia, with their rising middle classes, are adopting Western-style, meat-heavy diets, putting new demands on global food supplies.
Comprehensive in scope and full of fresh insights, The End of Food presents a lucid, stark vision of the future. It is a call for us to make crucial decisions to help us survive the demise of food production as we know it.
Paul Roberts is the author of The End of Oil, which was a finalist for the New York Public Library's Helen Bernstein Book Award in 2005. He has written about resource economics and politics for numerous publications, including the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Harper's Magazine, and Rolling Stone, and lectures frequently on business and environmental issues.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 7 more reviews...
 The End of Food September 9, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
This is a most thoght-provoking book. I was introduced to it through an interview with the author on NPR and was intrigued because he had written The End of Oil a few years ago and was pretty much spot on about what has transpired. Food - its production, consumption, history, etc. - is so well-covered in this book that I can never, ever think about food in the same light, or not think about it for that matter.
Not Malthus, Any More Than Climatologist Hansen is Chicken Little August 26, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
I agree this is among the very best of this century's "Declinist Literature". Although the author covers a lot of problematic ground, from avian flu to bioengineering to obesity, what sticks with me the most is his urgent Cassandra alarm about the looming danger of worldwide famine.
Those who poo poo Roberts as "Malthusian" should read more carefully the section with Malthus, who was writing his doomsday predictions at a time when the whole New World still lay there rich in topsoil, ripe for takeover by millions of starving European farmers. Sure, Malthus was proven wrong - at that time - but he would've been correct if the New World hadn't been quickly deforested/deprairied and farmed to feed teeming Europe. There is no frontier left, (the Amazon is the last big frontier left on Earth to be cleared and farmed, and we all know about that grim scenario),everywhere soils are massively depleted and threatened by flood, pests and drought from climate change, while our addiction to natural gas derived fertilizer is a recipe for major famines when the pipelines are cut off by war or peak oil. There is little water left in China, India and many other regions, which - as Roberts shows - import water indirectly in the form of grain from those that still have water. But anway, how is it "Malthusian" to point out rationally that fecund soil has peaked all over the Earth?
Recommended to go with it is Eating Fossil Fuels: Oil, Food and the Coming Crisis in Agriculture
Perhaps Roberts was hastily edited or not edited(for example, "eighteen hundred years ago" instead of "eighteen thousand years" in the section on Cro Magnon diet. Yet readers should realize that many major publishers no longer use copy editors and sometimes agents without training in editing are now asked to do the job without pay, so get used to errors and typos).
 Decent book, badly edited August 13, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
Robert's "End of Food" includes a lot of good information, but there are probably 200 places where a good editor would've challenged the author to reword or tighten up the manuscript. I wonder whether his editor even read the book carefully, or whether he/she knew enough about the subject to properly edit it. A few examples of the issues I'm talking about:
At the beginning of the book Roberts lays out a ridiculously simplified, linear reductionist theory of the role meat consumption played in man's history (except that he rolls it out as fact rather than no small amount of speculation).
There are a number of factual inaccuracies that should've been caught or at least reworded. Example: He states that meat is easier to digest than plant foods, which in many cases is simply wrong. Cooked rice, for example, is half-digested before it's even in the stomach.
Three times Roberts refers to soil as dirt. In 45 years I've never heard a farmer (or any agricultural specialist) refer to soil (in a field)as "dirt". This carelessness on Robert's part is enough to make thoughtful readers question whether he's been shoddy in other areas too. There are at least a dozen places where he refers to animal manure as poop, which is just plain silly, and makes Roberts sound like a goofball. Imagine if physicians referred to a laceration as a "Bo-Bo" in a medical report, not once, but 12 times? Could you take him seriously?
Roberts is very very loose with his date references. Sometimes he's wrong. On p. 118 he states "By the late 1960s the U.S. was in deep economic trouble......having lost it manufacturing lead to low-cost rivals like Japan...." But in fact in the late 60s very little U.S. manufacturing had shifted to Japan. Roberts is only about 15 years off there.
Then, on page 152 he writes, "...by the late 1980s....African output faltered;...The timing couldn't have been worse. Just as Africans were producing fewer bushels [in the late 80s], a new glut of grain , unleashed by Butz's "fence row to fence row" policy, sent prices plummeting". The problem with this is that Butz's fence row policy was implemented in 1971, almost 20 years before the African output faltered, which is many years too much lapsed time to have had a meaningful direct effect.
Finally, what possible reason is there for a 26 page prologue in a general interest book such as this? 26 pages! Where was Robert's editor? If a writer's proposing a 26 page prologue, there's at least a chapter missing in the body of the book.
All in all I enjoyed the book, although it's not nearly as well-written as Pollan's food books.
 Difficult to plod all the way through August 6, 2008
3 out of 6 found this review helpful
I had read Roberts' earlier "the end of oil" and had forgotten how difficult it was to read through. This book is slightly less interesting despite the more interesting topic, which in theory should be more malthusian than the end of oil, but Roberts treats every issue with a very vacillating, politician-like ambiguity. It's surprising for example that he doesn't make more out of the peaking of fossil fuels in relation to fertilizer for food production. Every time he comes near to making a point he hedges and describes the optimistic and pessimistic viewpoints without really taking a stand.
Typical of his writing style as well is his tendency to travel all over the globe interviewing random peasants, farmers, executives, etc., as if a travelogue somehow makes the subject more accessible. Presumably this is because he is a journalist, not an expert per se in the issue of agriculture or food. But after so many round the world trips interviewing a farmer in china for ex. and his woes the reader begins to get tired of his peripatetic descriptions.
In summary I found it hard to really get a grip on any of the issues he presents except in a very vague way and I found it equally hard to get all the way through to the end without giving up. And this is not because I don't find the issue serious-- if anything, I think he is far too optimistic: the lack of freshwater supplies, peaking of fossil fuels, lack of arable land, increasing loss of topsoil, increasing population pressures, will probably result in some kind of malthusian crisis.
 No end to hysteria and fear July 30, 2008
3 out of 11 found this review helpful
THe funny thing about the modern era is how it has consistantly been shaped by the idea of the coming doomsday. The method (nuclear war, overpopulation, climate change) shifts with the wind, but the constant is a belief in the inevitable fall of our "evil" civilization unless we sign up for one political agenda or another.
Paul Roberts is making a career in trading on fear. He was crowned as a genius for writing a book about an energy crisis (the end of oil) shortly before the crisis arrived. As a followup, he is selling on fears about food.
This book is poorly researched, badly organized and doesn't quite understand what point it wants to make. It can't decide if it wants to be whiny book about how walmart for social changes in America because it sells cheap food or if it wants to trade in hysteria about rising food prices and diminishing food resources. He can't decide if he wants to complain about the efficiency of a meat diet or global warming or family social dining habits.
And in the end, the book doesn't lead anywhere. It ends with Roberts putting out a political agenda about food. Ironically (in a sad sense),
Roberts perscription for fixing his food "crisis" in the end are all the things that the world has been doing for the last 50 years. Bluntly, we need to apply brute force science to food production with a goal of increasing production regardless of consequences or costs.
He pushes genetic modification as one answer. He pushes the elimination of meat production in favor of factory farmed fish as another. And he wants international planning to drive food production.
In summary, he doesn't make his case or lay the groundwork for the changes he is suggesting. He can't construct an argument to save his life and depends on a shotgunning facts out as a substitute.
|
|
|
