#BookReview: Food or War by Julian Cribb

Insane Conspiracy Theories Bring Every Other Claim Into Question. I *wanted* to like this book. I *really* did. The premise is something I’m interested in and could see happening – if we do not solve the global food system and make it truly sustainable for billions of people, the food crises resulting from our failure to solve this problem *will* lead directly to war.

But in Chapter 4 in particular, and in particular the section of Chapter 4 regarding “Food or Poison”, the author seriously espouses several claims that are truly nothing more than conspiracy theories claimed only by the truly scientifically illiterate, such as that autism, male infertility, depression, and even gender identification are caused by chemicals in both pesticides used in growing food and in the packaging used to store and present food.

The fact that the author would even seriously consider such claims, much less try to seriously propose them, brings into question literally every other claim that the author makes throughout this book, and thus this book must be given 0 stars – it is absolutely not worthy of human consumption.

Hell, Jeremy Robinson’s book HUNGER, a fiction tale wherein world hunger is solved via genetic modification that then turns everything that eats the modified food into monsters – is more believable than this purportedly nonfiction tale.

This review of Food or War by Julian Cribb was originally published on May 29, 2019.

0 Replies to “#BookReview: Food or War by Julian Cribb”

  1. The book does not say what this reviewer claims. It cites numerous scientific sources, including the famous Harvard study of neurodevelopmental toxicity in children. Further, it states “This is not to argue that all autism originates with the diet, or any single source… a famous study among US nurses by Harvard School of Public Health found that autism rates in their children were double for those who lived close to freeways and industrial areas with heavy air pollution”.

    1. First, I would genuinely like to applaud you for dropping by to attempt to defend yourself. I always welcome feedback, even when it disagrees with my own positions.

      That said, the keyword in your rebuttal is “all”. As in, as you state: “This is not to argue that all autism originates with the diet”. Meaning that you are in fact claiming that at least some autism originates with the diet.

      Thus, while you are indirectly calling me a liar in claiming that this book does not say what I say it does, *even in your own rebuttal* you admit that it does in fact make *exactly* one of the claims you came here to attempt to refute.

      I’m not interested in a war here, I’m simply giving my own (always honest) reaction to the text I read. Perhaps you should attempt to revise the text for better clarity before publication on Sept 2, 2019 if I am somehow mistaken here? As noted in my reply to your more brief version of this comment on Goodreads, I am in fact attempting to reach out to Cambridge University Press (for those unaware, the publisher of this book) for permission to publish the entire section in contention as an excerpt in order to allow our readers to judge for themselves who is being more accurate here. If such permission is granted, I will publish said excerpt as soon as possible. If it isn’t, I will explore the legality of publishing it after publication of the book, as I believe in submitting any competing claims to the objectivity of reality and allowing third parties to judge for themselves based on the presented evidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.