Skip to main content

The Future of Food – Brian J. Ford ****

Anyone who attempts to keep on top of what we’re supposed to eat, what’s important in our diet, the debate on natural versus processed foods, infections from foodstuffs, and how trends are developing into the future, is liable to be confused. This slim volume from Professor Brian Ford aims to put us all straight.
What’s good about the book is that Ford pulls no punches and makes it clear just how spurious the whole “natural food” sales approach is, given that familiar “wholesome” foods like bread and butter are anything but natural, but the result of long-term human interference with nature. He is particularly unnerving on the subject of the various bacteria that can be found in food, and how the move away from cooking ourselves to ready meals and eating out puts us more at risk from the dangers of food poisoning. He also spends a fair amount of the content on an essential consideration for everyone with a conscience – feeding the world. As Ford points out, it is entirely practical to feed the world if we had the collective will and the systems in place. The food is increasingly there. He points out that during terrible famine in Ethopia it was a net exporter of grain. There’s something very unsettling about this.
The book isn’t without problems. Firstly it’s a little dated, being produced in 2000. So, for instance, though he refers to the health promoting bacteria of the gut, there’s no comment on the claims of pro-biotic drinks and yoghurts to make much difference there. Secondly it’s difficult to follow a structure through the book – it’s rather piecemeal, and often we hear what’s wrong with things without a clear suggestion of how to do anything different. (A certain resemblance to the TV show, Grumpy Old Men, here.) Where there is a solution, such as to feeding the world by setting up an international Food Force, it can be simplistic – how would such a force deal, for example, with the problems of a country where the ruling minority have no interest in relieving starvation of the masses, and resent outside interference (pick the dictatorship of your choice)?
Finally, when Ford looks to the future – this is part of a series designed to get the reader thinking about the future – he does so in powerful polemic form. We keep getting told we “will do this” and “will do that”, yet these bits of the book are the least convincing. Oddly, Ford himself points out the difficulty of making scientific predictions, but then charges in and does so wholesale. We are told we will probably witness the death of domestic cookery. “Old fashioned food will become a special treat. Today’s junk food will disappear…” Hmm. With a vigour that seems more wishful thinking than realistic he predicts that supermarkets will lose their stranglehold. “In the future, individual shops, friendly, warm and welcoming, will begin to reappear.” Why? What evidence is this based on? He’s on firmer ground when predicting there will be more food delivered to the home, but again imagines the cosy world of the little local greengrocer’s van, where actually it’s the supermarket’s massive distribution network that extends to most of our houses.
However, don’t get the impression that this is a bad book – it doesn’t get four stars for nothing. Firstly Ford highlights the stupidity of our anti-science backlash, and our irrational approach to (for instance) GM, reinforced by the heavy handed money-mindedness of the companies that make GM crops. Secondly he makes us aware of uncomfortable facts. And thirdly he makes us think – never a bad move. You are unlikely to agree with all this book, whatever your personal viewpoint. You may even be irritated by it. But I challenge you not to be stimulated by it.

Paperback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Jo Reed

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

Vector - Robyn Arianrhod ****

This is a remarkable book for the right audience (more on that in a moment), but one that's hard to classify. It's part history of science/maths, part popular maths and even has a smidgen of textbook about it, as it has more full-on mathematical content that a typical title for the general public usually has. What Robyn Arianrhod does in painstaking detail is to record the development of the concept of vectors, vector calculus and their big cousin tensors. These are mathematical tools that would become crucial for physics, not to mention more recently, for example, in the more exotic aspects of computing. Let's get the audience thing out of the way. Early on in the book we get a sentence beginning ‘You likely first learned integral calculus by…’ The assumption is very much that the reader already knows the basics of maths at least to A-level (level to start an undergraduate degree in a 'hard' science or maths) and has no problem with practical use of calculus. Altho

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on