Diet for a Poisoned Planet

I got this book thinking I would get information that wasn't a given. The author presents information as fact but does site in text. It is very dated. But not a bad start on a journey to eating responsible foods.

this book is scary but informative. even being a bit older the infomration it contains is still very relavant and not dated. well set up and easy to refernce too. excellent book.

This book, even though it was written over 10 years ago, is profound its findings. It has changed the way I look at food and ingredient labels. The most valuable information is what he discoverd about added preservatives and pesticides in the foods we eat. It will make you NEVER want to eat packaged food again! His Red Light, Yellow Light, Green Light suggestions for foods unsafe, moderately safe, and relatively safe is MOST helpful. If you are trying to improve your knowledge of what is healthy to eat and what is toxic, this book is an IMPORTANT book to have and keep in your library. I find myself referring back to it on a regular basis as I continue to try and memorize and avoid the bad additives in food. BUY THIS BOOK!!

Pages six through ten in John C. Stauber's terrific book, "Toxic Sludge is Good for You", is entirely about the history of the heavy PR movement against this Steinman Poison Planet book. Stauber also explains the very conservative Everett Koop's close relations to prominent anti-environmentalist Elizabeth M Whelan (Whelan, to her credit, is however strongly opposed to tobacco). They joined with others in the chemical and P.R. industry to try to kill the effect of the Steinman book's initial release. As with Gary Webb in "Dark Alliance", and John Perkins with "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", unrepentantly bad organizations know that you have to attack (in the case of Webb) or sometimes ignore (in the case of Perkins) the hardcore truth tellers; Today's public relations industry has to pay for "experts" to "prove" again and again that pollution and other bad things are either being overstated or cover up a much larger "benefit". Steinman's book has been classically smeared. On one side are the usual corporate groupies, heartless investors, and unfortunate dupes of a very uncool Public Relations campaign and on the other side is the rest of the world who wants to keep toxic stuff out of their children's bodies. If you are interested in this book, also check out the very interesting and very referenced "Toxic Sludge" recounting as well. Steinman should be thanked, not pilloried, for fighting to keep food safety, health and the environment in the marketplace of ideas.

Do buy this book (even if you have the old edition), but also buy the 1995 book The Safe Shopper's Bible (co-authored by Steinman), and when the two disagree on an individual food item (as they do in a number of cases), believe the one with the most toxic rating, rather than believing the new edition. Here's why. I own the 1990 edition, and the Safe Shopper's Bible, and have just received a copy of this new edition, and while I have only spent an hour or so comparing the three, unfortunately there are definite indications that this update was done in a rather uncareful manner. Yes, there are differences between the 1990 and present editions; some foods have been moved from one safety category (e.g., Green Light) to another (e.g., Yellow Light). And when this has been done, the reason is usually noted in the book, which is also helpful. While relatively few entries are affected by such enhancements, they are no doubt valuable enough to justify buying the new edition, even if you already have the old one. And, of course, if you don't have the old one, you absolutely need this book. However, I do not believe that this new book is the result of a comprehensive re-review of the available government testing results and/or other current information. I say this for the following reason (based on an analysis of the section covering seafood): 1. Most of the entries in the new edition are copied verbatim from the 1990 edition. 2. Updated, and conflicting, information to some of these copied entries appeared in the seafood section of the 1995 book Safe Shopper's Bible (co-authored by Steinman), which indicates to me that new information became available at that time. 3. Despite the changed information in the 1995 book, in many cases the (apparently outdated) information from the 1990 entry is copied, verbatim, into this "twenty-first century" edition of the work, without any note indicating that there was a return back from its status of 1995. Here are some examples: 1. The Green Light section of this new book lists Halibut as follows: "Halibut from Alaska, California, and Iceland is virtually pollution free, although your best bet is Alaskan or Icelandic halibut. Halibut is a moderate mercury accumulator. Some Los Angeles-area halibut may be tainted with PCBs." This entry is identical to the one in the 1990 edition of the book. However, the 1995 Safe Shopper's Bible lists Halibut from California as a Red Light fish (the worst possible rating). The listed contaminants supporting that rating are DDT, DDE, DDD and PCBs. This important update is nowhere reflected in the new edition, which has the older (and conflicting) information. Why go back to the original information? Is it possible that California Halibut suddenly got better? Perhaps, but it seems more likely that the text of the old edition was simply thoughtlessly propagated into the new one, despite the availability of new (and conflicting) information. 2. This new edition lists Salmon i

This is a superb reference for anyone interested in understanding what goes into the food that they eat, and how to make informed choices about their diet. Some of the specific suggestions for foods, and the glossary of pesticiddes and chemicals in the back may be a bit dated by now (I would strongly recommend that the authors update it - I would buy it in a second), the most important aspect of this book is information about _why_ certain foods carry a heavy toxic load, which gives you a framework for making general decisions about eating. I bought this book in 1994, and it was a constant companion until I lent it to someone (if it was you - please give it back!), and lost it. But I had already memorized most of the basic rules that I use to chose the way that I eat. And I am going to buy another copy.