Diet For a New America

I looked at some of the reviews here for Diet for a New America. Almost all of the reviews are either 5 stars or 1 star. John certainly does generate rather extreme responses. So, I thought I'd take a look at the negative reviews and see what they have to say.

I read some of the reviews of other books made by those who gave Diet for a New America negative reviews to see where they are coming from. One of the negative reviewers gave a 5 star rating to a Protein Power book. So much for that reviewer's knowledge of nutrition. Doctors of both mainstream and alternative medicine virtually unanamously condemn Atkins and his clones.

Some of the reviews complain that John's presentation is too emotional. Nature isn't always so kind. Not all animals are cute little puppies to play with. Fair enough - I'm not going to go pet an aligator any time soon. But does that then mean we have the right to engage in systematic torture of animals? I'd say that is a rather extreme leap. So is the fact that John tries to tug at our hearts so bad? I guess some readers believe that we humans are merely more "protein conversion machines" that the meat industry thinks of the aninimals it tortures.

Some critics would say that John isn't qualified to talk like an expert in nutrition, the environment, animal husbandry, etc. Okay, except for one thing. People who ARE experts in these fields, such as former cattle rancher Howard Lyman (of Oprah Winfry "McLibel" fame,) nutrition experts Dr. T. Colin Campbell of Cornell University, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, etc. all readily endorse John Robbins work.

Possibly the most controversial subject matter would be John's environmental statistics. Even many vegetarians feel that John is too one-sided on this and try to distance themselves from John for this reason. I'm not an environmental expert, so I guess I can't legitimaly argue with authority who is right. However, even taking more conservative numbers, such as the 450 gallons of water per pound of beef, (instead of John's 2,500 to 12,000 gallons per pound,) even the conservative number is many times less efficient than vegetables. And the vegetables are much more healthy too. So, even conservative numbers are damning enough.

In John's latest book, he give more information as to why he feels the conservative numbers are faulty. And I feel that John makes a credible case for his position. But in the end, it doesn't matter, the conservative numbers are bad enough!

Even so, I'd still say that some of the material in Diet for a New America is dated. If you haven't read it yet, skip it and go for The Food Revolution. Also get Reclaiming Our Health.

Oh, and as far as the video of Diet for a New America, well, I know that nobody could do justice to Diet for a New America in one hour. So perhaps I was expecting too much. But I just found the video version just way too skimpy. I wish I knew of a better video on the environmental issues, but I don't. Sadly, I really can't recommend the video.


A classic of environment-friendly literature   August 4, 2004
Dennis Littrell (SoCal)
49 out of 56 found this review helpful

This is a radical polemic with a clear intention: to increase the number of vegans in the world. In a way it is a throwback--with similar effect--to Upton Sinclair's famous novel, The Jungle, about the filth in the Chicago stockyards, except that it is non-fiction (mostly, anyway). John Robbins wants to rub our nose in the filth, neglect and cruelty characteristic of the meat and poultry industries. He wants an end to the mass production and consumption of animal foods.

He begins with some amazing and heart-warming stories about the courage and selflessness of animals and how much they do for us. Then he turns his focus to the way we treat the animals we use for food. It is difficult to read this part of the book, and indeed I confess that I skipped ahead. I already know about those appalling conditions having seen them on TV. Next he argues that we need less protein than the "protein empire" wants us to believe. He goes on to show how we can get all the protein our bodies require through a vegan diet. Then he argues that many cancers can be prevented with a proper diet that excludes animal products while implicating the products of the meat and poultry industries in the development of many diseases, especially the chronic diseases epidemic in the Western world. He concludes with a general manifesto in favor of an agrarian kind of heaven on earth.

I am sorry to report, as other reviews have, that there are many errors and misconceptions in the book. In a minor error on page 176, for example, Robbins writes that "wheat...is 17% protein." Actually (as the USDA chart on the next page shows) 17% of the calories from wheat are in the form of protein, which is decidedly not the same thing. That chart also shows that 49% of the calories from spinach come from protein, but this does not mean that if you ate a pound of spinach you would eat almost half a pound of protein. Spinach is not 49% protein. It has water and fiber, etc. and it doesn't have a lot of calories.

More important than the outright errors are the misrepresentations in the way Robbins sometimes presents his facts. For example on pages 266-267 he writes that instances of cervical cancer are "highest among women who consume diets high in fat, particularly animal fat." He adds that "cervical cancer in women in developing countries who began intercourse before age seventeen is two to three times higher than for those who began later." What he doesn't say (and probably didn't know) is that cervical cancer is caused by a papillomavirus and as such is a sexually transmitted disease.

He also writes about the deforestation of America. The rate he gives from 1967 to 1986 when he wrote the first edition of this book is "one acre every five seconds." (p. 361) Actually, the amount of forested lands in the United States has increased by quite a bit since 1967 and some of that increase was during the years in question.

I mention these shortcomings because I want to be fair, even though I realize that Robbins is more intent on serving his cause than being fair. I can put that aside because I believe that Robbins has done a fine public service in writing this book because it is a much-needed counterpoint to the billions of dollars worth of pro-meat and poultry industry propaganda and advertising that is constantly intruding upon our lives.

Bottom line: for all its faults this is a classic of environmentalist literature and an extraordinary book that changed the lives of untold thousands of people by persuading them to adopt a more environment-friendly diet. However I wish that there was an updated edition (instead of just a reprint of the edition of 1987) that corrects some of the errors and takes cognizance of what has happened since then.


Used to be a vegan...   June 5, 2004
32 out of 74 found this review helpful

When I first read this book over a decade ago, I was convinced. I turned to vegetarianism and then veganism for about 4 years. I began looking sallow, unhealthy and started losing my hair. Then someone told me about the work of Weston Price and Francis Pottenger who studied primitive tribes in the 30's that ate mostly meat and dairy along with minimal fruits and vegetables and almost no grains. I immediately rebounded in health and look and feel 10 x better.
I have no problem with most of Robbins' assertions in this book, but feel that what it really portrays is the corporatization of food manufacturing. It is possible to shop and buy naturally and humanely raised meat and dairy products, just as one would buy organic fruits and vegetables. Therein lies the difference for me, that animals raised unnaturally become sick, require more antibiotics, and generally are much fatter and unhealthier than those that are fed their normal diet (i.e., grass for cows). So to eat an unhealthy animal is unwise in the first place.
A good reference book is "Why Grassfed is Best" by Jo Robinson.


Don't Waste Your Money or Your Health On This Book   March 19, 2002
Stephen Byrnes (Honolulu, HI United States)
31 out of 69 found this review helpful

...Robbins claims that eating meat damages the environment when actually it is the livestock farming methods used that do the damage. He also fails to consider the reality that commercial agriculture also does considerable damage to the environment due to its reliance on agrochemicals and pesticides.

Why the double-standard?

His "proof" that eating animal foods and fats causes various diseases is, again, based on selected studies and evidence and fails to consider the opposing data. His claims that vegans and/or vegetarians have better health than others who eat a healthy omnivorous diet are wrong. Some large studies have actually shown that vegetarians have higher rates of several cancers (endometrial, prostate, uterine, Hodgkin's disease, and malignant melanoma) than evenly matched omnivores (AJCN, 1994, 59(suppl):1136S-42S).

His claims that a low-fat, vegetarian diet will spare you from heart disease are also wrong (Eur. Heart J, 1997, 18:18-22). His claims that eating meat will cause osteoporosis have been disproven many times (AJCN, 1999, 69:147-52).

As a practitioner, I can confidently tell you that some of the sickest people I've dealt with have been vegans or vegetarians. Do not be misled by this book: There are health risks to vegetarian diets, especially for children.

Better nutrition books to invest in would be Uffe Ravnskov's "The Cholesterol Myths," Christian Allan's "Life Without Bread," and Sally Fallon's "Nourishing Traditions."

Think twice before buying this book or following the suggestions in it.


The usual unscientific vegan/veggie claptrap......   February 8, 2003
M. Arin Joquer (Fairfax ,California USSA ;-))
28 out of 84 found this review helpful

... A spiritualist/healer/veggie galpal of mine keeps thrusting tomes like this at me. She's attracted to the challenge of conquering my cynicsm , I guess. At any rate-it ended up in the pile of half and quarter read-through books that I have agreed to have a look at and that have ended up on the floor , to the sounds of my peaceful slumber. For THAT at least ,I'm grateful

The facts are in , people. A diet plentiful in animal products is not only good for you-it's your natural diet. The agriculture-based grain-heavy diet is a fairly recent phenom' in the timeline of human history...and it's a ruinous one as well. I've never known a healthy vegan/veggie type ,and living in N. California , I've known plenty. As a group , they fall into the same categories of body/mind types you see in the victims of other eating disorders. I can handle the spiritually driven veg's..if you wish to mortify yourself for the sake of farm animals , that's your business. But what DOES annoy me are the ones who arrogantly proclaim that meat-eaters are unhealthy or are GOING to be at some point ( Who was it that said that the four most wonderful words are "I told you so" ?).

Basically , what you have here is religion , not a prescription for a healthy life. And there's not an Evangelical or a speaker-in-tongues that's got a thing on the diet cultist..ughh.

I have to give the author some credit , however. He took on the "sacred/scared cow" ,if you'll pardon me..., of Kosher slaughter. But as another reviewer pointed out ,the author makes no mention of humanely AND organically raised farm animals. But that wouldn't fit in with the agenda , now would it? The best thing I ever did was to abandon the grain-fruit-vegetable diet ,all it cost me was my eczema ,my allergies, greying hair ,constipation and several pounds of fat. It feels great to be wrong in the company of the righteous...

" your spiritual self , your unnatural self " Nietzsche