Mark Bittman Paves the Whales

Mark Bittman Paves The Whales

Mark Bittman is a New York Times writer and the author of some highly useful cookbooks which bridge the gap between real cooking and modern lifestyles. So Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating seems at first as if it might be a more practical (“With More Than 75 Recipes!”) version of Michael Pollan's food-system polemics like The Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food (the cover of which it especially resembles):



It certainly starts out like the work of a New York Times writer:

Two years ago, a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) landed on my desk. Called Livestock's Long Shadow, it revealed a stunning statistic: global livestock production is responsible for about one-fifth of all greenhouse gases—more than transportation.

Unfortunately, the New York Times writer this mainly sounds like is Thomas Friedman, whose standard breathless lead-in was mocked recently by Matt Taibbi: "I was in Dubai with the general counsel of BP last year, watching 500 Balinese textile workers get on a train, when suddenly I said to myself, ‘We need better headlights for our tri-plane.'" Everything about this paragraph throbs with self-importance: the report didn't come in the mail, it landed on his desk at the Times, with an urgent thud ("Bittman! Friedman! I need global greenhouse gas statistics— that means now, ladies!") The report doesn't contain, it reveals a statistic, which stuns Bittman (though it shouldn't be that surprising to a leading food writer that modern agriculture uses a lot of fossil fuels). And all that's just in the opening paragraph. At this rate, by the third chapter he'll be spraying cranial fluid every time a carrot arrives in his inbox, demanding action.

Indeed Bittman soon reveals that his is no mere feelbad meditation on food, but an actionable diet plan with truly planetary consequences. And not just in the sense that yo' mama so big, when she rubs her legs together, it makes global warming:

If I told you that a simple lifestyle choice could help you lose weight, reduce your risk of many long-term or chronic diseases, save you real money, and help stop global warming, I imagine you'd be intrigued. If I also told you that this change would be easier and more pleasant than any diet you've ever tried, would take less time and effort than your exercise routine, and would require no sacrifice, I would think you'd want to read more.

He might think that. You might be thinking, how do I get away from this relentless huckster before I wind up with a timeshare in Florida and a complete set of ShamWow?

Cutting through the hype, Bittman's basic premise is that if we eat less meat and more greens, the pounds (and the planet) will take care of themselves. Eating less meat may seem a simple choice, but only in the sense that "Stop drinking" and "Relate to hot girls as people" are simple choices, too, which often prove devilishly difficult to carry out. Eating less meat is no sacrifice only if you find Pan-Cooked Greens With Tofu and Garlic (p. 211) every bit as satisfying as steak. The change is easier and more pleasant only if you have the time to devote to learning new ways of meal-planning. And so on. It's not that these things aren't true, possible or undeniably beneficial, it's that Prof. Harold Hill keeps selling us on all the fabulous benefits of having a band while gliding over any mention of the need to practice.

Most of all, there's that reference to global warming. I expect publishers have been trying for years now to find a way to make global warming into a diet book, thus bringing two of today's hottest trends together, and Bittman does valiant work in connecting the dots between industrial agriculture and global warming. Again, it's not that any of this isn't true, necessarily, it's that it's hyped so breathlessly to make this the most important, most impactful, most earthsaving diet book in the history of mankind:

Could improved health for people and planet be as simple as eating fewer animals, and less junk food and super-refined carbohydrates?
Yes.

Helpful tip: never answer "no" to the question "Is it really this simple?" in Bittman's book. For baby boomers, who can turn any personal choice into an issue of planet-sized portent, it’s no longer enough to lose weight to save your arteries or your sex appeal; only the prospect of rescuing an entire celestial body will keep you away from the donut cart.

To be fair, having pounded the podium into organic mulch in his first few chapters, Bittman does tone it down in in the next 100 pages or so, with a more temperate run-through of our present food system that will be familiar to Pollan readers, especially those of In Defense of Food. Familiar, that is, but not comparable in its impact or interest— Bittman does essentially none of the reporting Pollan does, never taking us to meet food scientists or feedlot operators; he's saving the planet without leaving his desk. (He even explicitly prefaces a section on factory farming by saying he's going to "skip most of the deplorable stuff," as if dramatization would get in the way of self-dramatization.)

Nor is his account as well organized as Pollan's critique, flitting about semi-randomly from topic to topic as long as every factoid he flings supports his general thesis. That opening statistic about agricultural greenhouse gases returns at the end of chapter 2 as if we'd never heard it before; every activity is reduced to its measure in fossil fuels consumed—as if efficiency alone weren't a numbers game that industrial agriculture is destined to win.

And not to sound like I’m shilling for the American Michael Pollan Council, but in contrast to Pollan's coolly incisive dissection of the problems, Bittman’s anger often runs ahead of his grasp on logic:

It doesn't take a genius to see that an ever-growing population cannot continue to devote limited resources to produce ever-increasing amounts of meat, which takes roughly 10 times more energy to produce than plants. Nor can you possibly be "nice" to animals, or respectful of them, when you're raising and killing them by the billions.

Like a soy burger, this looks like it has the meaty fiber of an argument, but crumbles at the first touch of a fork. Set aside the sloppy writing (that first "produce" should surely be "producing"), and it's a logical muddle: how much meat is taking 10 times more energy to produce than what plants, the meat we eat now or the ever-increasing amounts? And is it the killing or the numbers that make raising meat not nice? Are we talking my individual niceness (hence the second person), or society's (hence the billions), which are presumably two different forms of niceness? A fiery but confused paragraph like this doesn’t exist to inform, it exists to keep you wound up enough to keep turning the page. Bittman is to Pollan on nutritionism what Dan Brown is to Graham Greene on Catholicism.

Okay, but even if Bittman's book is a clip job, doesn't it serve a purpose if it calls more attention to the very real problems in our food chain? I think not, because the lack of nuance in Bittman's account extends not only to the problems but to the solutions. Because ultimately he's writing a diet book, which is to say a book preaching hope and salvation for those who follow the one true path, he ignores and even flatly contradicts himself on the sticky dilemmas that Pollan wrestles with.

Pollan recognizes that food prices will have to go up to support better forms of agriculture. But Bittman preaches that you'll be saving money in no time (and his factoids have food prices shooting up in one chapter and falling, thanks to industrial efficiency, in the next). Bittman pushes buying less meat as a way to reduce the impact of meat on the planet, but never considers the irony that that's likely in the short term to increase the market share of industrial meat, as the conscientious people support their local farmers less and the unconscientious ones buy 48-packs of lamb chops at Sam's Club.

Which leaves only the second half of the book, the recipes. How are they? They look all right, in a Mediterranean-diet-with-a-touch-of-Asian kind of way. The breakfast and lunch ones are simple and pretty attractive; there’s no question that Bittman has a genuine knack for idiot-proofing contemporary flavors so that the harried, not-all-that-culinarily-skilled yuppie can turn out something respectable that matches modern tastes in a fairly short amount of time.

The dinner ones are more problematic, because they look less like a change from anything anyway (when Bittman suggests a 40-minute cassoulet containing a pound of sausage or pork chops, he’s not making a healthful cassoulet, he’s just mucking up a classic dish with bad technique), and because many of them are too vague to really help the cook who has no clue what to do with a kohlrabi or a squash. Telling people they can use any old vegetables they want in a stir-fry isn’t likely to be news to them, and it isn’t likely to lead to terribly good stir-fries, either.

And that’s the problem with what ought to be the most useful part of this book: there’s not enough depth to it. Are 77 recipes, even ones that teach basic skills, enough to put my family and the planet on an entirely new basis for eating? It seems unlikely.

To put the comparison in Bittmanesquely reductive terms, at a shipping weight of 1.2 pounds per book, a case of Food Matters uses as much fuel (according to calculations that just landed on my desk) as a 733-mile road trip. Deborah Madison’s Vegetarian Cooking For Everyone weighs in at a much heftier 4.3 pounds, which is as much oil as 3.6 sperm whales, but it contains over 1400 recipes, making it approximately 20 times as efficient to take those sperm whales on a road trip. Can it really be this simple, that if you want to take Bittman’s advice, you can get all you really need of it from this review and then spend your money more wisely on a comprehensive vegetarian cookbook like Madison’s— or, indeed, Bittman’s own How To Cook Everything Vegetarian? Yes.

Thanks for this edition of Mike's Book Nook. I've always thought that Bittman was a self aggrandizing poseur (It's part of that whole "I'm from New York" ego trip). This seals the deal.

Gorgeous stuff, MikeG. Thanks for posting this for us to enjoy!

stevez wrote:Thanks for this edition of Mike's Book Nook. I've always thought that Bittman was a self aggrandizing poseur (It's part of that whole "I'm from New York" ego trip). This seals the deal.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. I like Bittman's approach to cooking. I've always seen him as a "Rachel Ray for the Upper West Side", teaching people that they too can cook real food without breaking their back. He focuses on good ingredients and basic flavors and gets good results.

But, I was highly skeptical of this book that veered into political waters. He always struck me as a bit of a bon vivant-in-training, and taking up an issue seems contrary to his "brand".

Mike's review clearly confirms that.

Best,
Michael

Mike,

First off, I haven't read the book, just your review. If you picked up and purchased the book in the first place, knowing Bittman's style and personality, why the shock or surprise and why keep reading if he's not delivering the goods. Something about the book or concept of eating less meat must have appealed to you in the first place. The prevention of global warming claims through diet are hard to prove at best, but they appeal to a certian audience. While 75 recipes is not a lot, it seems like a good starting base to riff on for those looking to make a lifestyle change in the way they cook and eat. Maybe it's poorly written or overly bombastic in style, but it would seem books like this are aimed at people who are looking to make a change.

It's not that these things aren't true, possible or undeniably beneficial, it's that Prof. Harold Hill keeps selling us on all the fabulous benefits of having a band while gliding over any mention of the need to practice.

Come on! Really? If I want to lose weight and maintain, I need to change the way I eat for the rest of my life? Isn't that assumed?

If we only read well-written stuff from those with whom we agree, we'd be dumb. But that's not us. We're here, after all.

I can't stand Bittman. His smug, consistent claim to make something just as good as a recognized classic using bad ingredients, bad technique and 1/10 the time has never convinced me. Many great dishes are actually simple and quick. So, why insult a cuisine or dish by making a weak 15 minute version of something that should take 3 days and have 50 steps?

Mike, can I borrow the book?

I'll agree that bad recipes are not defensible, especially dumbed down classics. My wife devours cookbooks and when she tries a recipe that sucks after executing the steps correctly, my answer is always, "just because it was published in a book"....you get the idea. I'll also agree it's fun and important to read/listen to/watch material we don't agree with. What joy would there be in life with no one to make fun of? I suppose the concept of eating less meat as a long term lifestyle change is easy fodder for a large portion of this forum, so Bittman is the proverbial fish in a barrel.

Mike G wrote:Can it really be this simple, that if you want to take Bittman’s advice, you can get all you really need of it from this review and then spend your money more wisely on a comprehensive vegetarian cookbook like Madison’s— or, indeed, Bittman’s own How To Cook Everything Vegetarian? Yes.

I got his vegetarian cookbook on a friend's recommendation. For various reasons, I'm cooking more and more vegetarian meals. So far, I've found that the recipes I read that seem too easy to be true, where he raves about the taste, in the end turn out to be just not that good. I'm having to do some significant tinkering with them. I was veering between that and Madison's, and I think I'm going to go find Madison's at a bookstore and see how that one looks.

This may mark me as having gone to the dark side (mwah hah hah), but I am kind of looking forward to making my own seitan using Bittman's instructions. That's on the agenda for this weekend. It better turn out better than his frickin' baked tofu which I'm still rewriting.

It's funny, the intro to How to Cook Everything Vegetarian was short, concise, and thoughtful. Your review certainly makes me curious to see what thoughts he has on this now. I don't think I'd buy the book but I'd certainly read it.

Mike-

Brillant and witty review. I, too, cannot stand Bittman, although I admit that How To Cook Everything has been useful to me from time to time.

I especially enjoyed this passage of your post:

Mike G wrote:Most of all, there's that reference to global warming. I expect publishers have been trying for years now to find a way to make global warming into a diet book, thus bringing two of today's hottest trends together, and Bittman does valiant work in connecting the dots between industrial agriculture and global warming. Again, it's not that any of this isn't true, necessarily, it's that it's hyped so breathlessly to make this the most important, most impactful, most earthsaving diet book in the history of mankind:

Could improved health for people and planet be as simple as eating fewer animals, and less junk food and super-refined carbohydrates?
Yes.

The reason why I enjoyed this passage so much is that I've been joking for months that the concepts of going "green" and "carbon footprints" will soon be taken to their logical extremes, and then, beaten, pounded and churned into nothing but meaningless media drivel which we learn to tune out and that, before long, mass shameless consumption will be back in vogue. For years, we've been told how to go greener in expunging our waste ("if it's brown flush it down,"), and soon, it will apply to our breathing: By how much can we reduce our carbon footprints if we hold our breath for a minute every other minute?

But fusing, as you say, the two biggest trends in our culture with a straight face is really jumping the shark and, of course, Bittman is the one to step up and do it (although I suspect he's not the first). That is not to say that he doesn't have some points (sure, eating more locally-raised veggies and less meat can lead to weight loss as well as reduce our carbon footprins), but I'm waiting for a segment on the Today show where Kathie Lee trots out women who've lost 20 lbs just by shopping at their local farmer's markets instead of the McDonald's drive-thru because, like, McDonald's wastes so much gas, and they way they, like, treat their animals, like, is soooo bad. In other words, it's not enough to alter your diet to improve your health (too selfish), you have to also save the environment. By the same token, it's not enough to make sensible "green" changes in your life, such as programming your heat and recycling, you also have to going into debt getting that tankless water heater, and if you don't, you're a terrible person. Put simply, I'm not surprised to see Pollan's well-researched (albeit preachy and flawed) theories be reduced to marketing drivel: it's the American way.

I hate Bittman for the simple reason he gets to ride around Spain in the summertime with Claudia Bassols.

http://www.claudiabassols.com/images/Cl ... assols.jpg

Love "How to Cook Everything," though. Agree with Michael's RR analogy and JeffB's philosophy on consumption of knowledge.

Eh, I like Bittman well enough. His style can be a little annoying at times (although I don't think the opening paragraph that is critiqued here is problematic at all -- to be honest, it sounds like a critique by someone who has it in for Bittman, although I find the critiques farther down more substantive), but he's accessible, fills an important niche, and, in my experience, his recipes work fine. I'm tempted to check out the book, but I probably will skip straight to the recipes, based on the review.

Loved your opening critique comparing Bittman to Thomas Friedman, a man whose reputation I cannot understand. I have learned a few things from Bittman's How To Cook Everything, though his recipes can be rather dumbed down. His new religion of less meat and more whole grains is evident in today's NYT, where he preaches savory grain dishes for breakfast. Those NYT columnists must have a lot more time in the morning than I do.

Santander wrote:Love "How to Cook Everything," though. Agree with Michael's RR analogy and JeffB's philosophy on consumption of knowledge.

The "How to Cook Everything" TV show was what really turned me off to this guy. He'd go into some 5 star chef's kitchen, watch him make his signature dish, then go about making his own take as if to teach the chef a thing or two. The chefs would always smile at him and act all enthusiastic and buddy buddy with him because, you know, he's from the New York Times.

stevez wrote:

Santander wrote:Love "How to Cook Everything," though. Agree with Michael's RR analogy and JeffB's philosophy on consumption of knowledge.

The "How to Cook Everything" TV show was what really turned me off to this guy. He'd go into some 5 star chef's kitchen, watch him make his signature dish, then go about making his own take as if to teach the chef a thing or two. The chefs would always smile at him and act all enthusiastic and buddy buddy with him because, you know, he's from the New York Times.

Agree there - the TV show was smarmy and condescending. But the cookbook is well-researched, regionally-informed, and very straightforward, with a particularly excellent index. It feels and works like a good textbook. And in terms of simplicity, he doesn't cut any corners on risotto, osso bucco, bolognese, or the many other standards that really take some patience or attention. His scrambled eggs recipe calls for 20 minutes and a double boiler!

aschie30 wrote:But fusing, as you say, the two biggest trends in our culture with a straight face is really jumping the shark and, of course, Bittman is the one to step up and do it (although I suspect he's not the first).

Maybe I read too many yoga magazines or hang out with too many hippies. All this information is pretty old hat to me. Heck, I can pull out my copy of Recipes for a Small Planet and most of this (except for global warming) is in that book, including claims that eating veg keeps weight off. (Saying the information is old hat is not a knock against Mark Bittman, btw. Now I'm so curious I have to read the book.)

Bittman seems like a pretty cool guy to me from his blog and what little I've seen of him on TV. I'd party with him and Mario Batali any day.

grits wrote:Maybe I read too many yoga magazines or hang out with too many hippies. All this information is pretty old hat to me. Heck, I can pull out my copy of Recipes for a Small Planet and most of this (except for global warming) is in that book, including claims that eating veg keeps weight off. (Saying the information is old hat is not a knock against Mark Bittman, btw. Now I'm so curious I have to read the book.

If you mean that that the advice to eat veggies instead of McDonald's is old hat, sure it is. But there is a whole billion dollar diet industry built around making old hats new and adding a global, "save the environment" angle to dieting will seem fresh as a daisy, even revelatory, to many people.

Mike G wrote:And that’s the problem with what ought to be the most useful part of this book: there’s not enough depth to it. Are 77 recipes, even ones that teach basic skills, enough to put my family and the planet on an entirely new basis for eating? It seems unlikely.

No, 77 recipes are not enough, but of course, if people buy the whole line of Bittman cookbooks, they will be well on their way to a new basis for eating. 77 was probably the number determined by actuaries to be not quite enough to make people feel like they have a full cookbook, but just enough not to feel like they got ripped off.

aschie30 wrote:

grits wrote:Maybe I read too many yoga magazines or hang out with too many hippies. All this information is pretty old hat to me. Heck, I can pull out my copy of Recipes for a Small Planet and most of this (except for global warming) is in that book, including claims that eating veg keeps weight off. (Saying the information is old hat is not a knock against Mark Bittman, btw. Now I'm so curious I have to read the book.

If you mean that that the advice to eat veggies instead of McDonald's is old hat, sure it is. But there is a whole billion dollar diet industry built around making old hats new and adding a global, "save the environment" angle to dieting will seem fresh as a daisy, even revelatory, to many people.

That's my point. This is far from new information in some of the media I read, including the global warming piece. Again, not knocking Bittman when I say this.

I was gone the whole day so it's a pleasant thing to find that such a good discussion took off in my absence.

I agree with all kinds of things here, so I won't rehash them, but to this point:

Maybe it's poorly written or overly bombastic in style, but it would seem books like this are aimed at people who are looking to make a change.

The thing is, I believe it's possible to be right and still to have written a bad book. And that's what I think this is— hectoring, smug, poorly organized in its arguments, blithely dismissive of the dilemmas inherent in what it advocates (as Pollan is not), shameless in how it apes a better book from the cover on, and, even as it rips into the entire food industry for how it shapes our attitudes about food, curiously silent on one huge and pernicious source of nutrition misinformation-- the publishing business and its addiction to diet books.

Anybody who took from what I wrote that they need to read it... no, you need to read Pollan. Cook from Bittman if you want, I think his cookbooks have merit within their convenience-cooking genre (better Bittman than Semi-Ho, God knows), but read Pollan.

grits wrote:

Maybe I read too many yoga magazines or hang out with too many hippies. All this information is pretty old hat to me. Heck, I can pull out my copy of Recipes for a Small Planet and most of this (except for global warming) is in that book, including claims that eating veg keeps weight off. (Saying the information is old hat is not a knock against Mark Bittman, btw. Now I'm so curious I have to read the book.)[/quote]

And I can say that the recipes in Frances Moore Lappe's book are more likely to turn out a tasty product as she tested them pretty extensively. And you can say the same with the Living More with Less Cookbook which was authored by the late Doris Longacre.
(Egads, quoting books from 35 years ago.)

Mike G wrote:Anybody who took from what I wrote that they need to read it... no, you need to read Pollan. Cook from Bittman if you want, I think his cookbooks have merit within their convenience-cooking genre (better Bittman than Semi-Ho, God knows), but read Pollan.

Well, if you write a review of a book, positive or negative, you're inevitably going to drum up some interest in the book. We're all adults here....no reason we can't read both books and make up our own minds. I enjoy Bittman's blog and have no problems with him, and I'd like to hear what he has to say and check out the recipes.

Quote:
Maybe it's poorly written or overly bombastic in style, but it would seem books like this are aimed at people who are looking to make a change.


The thing is, I believe it's possible to be right and still to have written a bad book. And that's what I think this is— hectoring, smug, poorly organized in its arguments, blithely dismissive of the dilemmas inherent in what it advocates (as Pollan is not), shameless in how it apes a better book from the cover on, and, even as it rips into the entire food industry for how it shapes our attitudes about food, curiously silent on one huge and pernicious source of nutrition misinformation-- the publishing business and its addiction to diet books.

Anybody who took from what I wrote that they need to read it... no, you need to read Pollan. Cook from Bittman if you want, I think his cookbooks have merit within their convenience-cooking genre (better Bittman than Semi-Ho, God knows), but read Pollan.
I was gone the whole day so it's a pleasant thing to find that such a good discussion took off in my absence.

I agree with all kinds of things here, so I won't rehash them, but to this point:

Maybe it's poorly written or overly bombastic in style, but it would seem books like this are aimed at people who are looking to make a change.

The thing is, I believe it's possible to be right and still to have written a bad book. And that's what I think this is— hectoring, smug, poorly organized in its arguments, blithely dismissive of the dilemmas inherent in what it advocates (as Pollan is not), shameless in how it apes a better book from the cover on, and, even as it rips into the entire food industry for how it shapes our attitudes about food, curiously silent on one huge and pernicious source of nutrition misinformation-- the publishing business and its addiction to diet books.

Anybody who took from what I wrote that they need to read it... no, you need to read Pollan. Cook from Bittman if you want, I think his cookbooks have merit within their convenience-cooking genre (better Bittman than Semi-Ho, God knows), but read Pollan.

Fair enough. Your argument makes more sense with the context of the comparison of Bittman vs. Pollan with the pictures included. I wasn't able to see those until last night (pics are blocked at work).

I actually started reading the Pollan book Omnivore's Dilemma last week and it's fairly interesting, if a little dry. My problem is when I do find time to read lately, I tend to pick up my copy of Hamburger America which is much more satisfying than reading Pollan; extrapolate from there. For Pollan, I can appreciate his mantra of "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." but feel that he's nailed the essence of trying to get past the typical Western diet in 7 words.

grits wrote:

Mike G wrote:Can it really be this simple, that if you want to take Bittman’s advice, you can get all you really need of it from this review and then spend your money more wisely on a comprehensive vegetarian cookbook like Madison’s— or, indeed, Bittman’s own How To Cook Everything Vegetarian? Yes.

I got his vegetarian cookbook on a friend's recommendation. For various reasons, I'm cooking more and more vegetarian meals. So far, I've found that the recipes I read that seem too easy to be true, where he raves about the taste, in the end turn out to be just not that good. I'm having to do some significant tinkering with them. I was veering between that and Madison's, and I think I'm going to go find Madison's at a bookstore and see how that one looks.

Since I began frequenting farmer's markets a few years back and having joined a CSA two years running, I have gotten much more into cooking vegetables. I just like 'em. They're fresh, colorful and can be delicious.

Knowing this, I sought out a cookbook to use as a reference guide, a helping hand when I felt stymied by a new veg or bored with old techniques (having outgrown Chez Panisse: Vegetables which I still consult but find a little limited). I checked out from the library How To Cook Everything Vegetarian, Deborah Madison's Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone and Madhur Jaffrey's World Vegetarian. I skimmed through them to see what interested me to cook and tried more than a few recipes from each. Final rankings? 1) Bittman 2) Jaffrey 3) Madison. I am sure there are many other options, but these 3 had the heft that Mike described above and some claim towards encyclopedic compendium of vegetation prep and cooking.

I found Bittman's book to be wide ranging with a Mediterranean and Asian bent, with numerous suggested twists on most recipes. It seemed a broader array of recipes than the others, while still including enough new-to-me preparations that I find intriguing. Bittman's recipes might seem sparse, but I've found it a fine guide. Besides, if you know what you like, have some technique, get good produce and taste as you go, you'll rarely end up with something less than pretty good (to your palate).

I've probably cooked a couple dozen recipes and the success rate is high. There's a cabbage salad with wheat berries and whole grain mustard that has been a go-to since I first tried it in the summer. In fact, I very much enjoyed the incorporation of recipes for grains - in addition to wheat berries, my consumption of farro, whole wheat cous cous, and bulgur have all gone up since I've been using the book.

So, absolutely, thumb through a book to see if it contains recipes that you like. Bittman's tome works well for me. Now back to the regularly scheduled dissection of his other work discussed above.

I'm a Bittman fan, because I'm a lazy cook and his recipes are easy for me to follow. Jim is reading this book, and because I've been pretty much immersed in the science of climate change for the past six years, I read the dust jacket with interest.

dustjacket wrote:We are finally starting to acknowledge the threat carbon emissions pose to our ozone layer,

To our what? Do you mean "our atmosphere"? Then why not say that? The only carbon "emissions" threatening the ozone layer are CFCs, but global warming and the hole in the ozone layer are two totally different issues.

It's such a rudimentary mistake, it makes me suspect this book underwent no scientific review.

That said, we're trying to eat lower on the food chain, and the recipes Jim has tried so far have been great!