Since starting this book, I’ve heard some things about Dan Barber that have definitely colored the way that I view his work, and I even feel like I could see some of that reflected as I continued reading the book. However, I still find value in the ideas explained in the book. The book is very much in the vein of Michael Pollan, including the way the book was broken up in four foci (soil, land, sea, seed), much as Pollan’s books often are broken down along themes. One of the critiques I have heard of Barber’s work is that his emphasis is very much on a fine-dining experience and so have a small footprint of impact, and I agree; the sustainable systems he explores in this book are fascinating, but I am very much left wondering how they can translate to the way most people eat. That is one of the major ways I see Barber’s work as different from Pollan’s — reading Michael Pollan made me want to change the ways I eat, whereas Barber’s work just made me say, hmm, interesting.

Quote

A sustained food system is more than a set of farming practices, as the dehesa and Veta la Palma proved, and more than an attitude toward food production and consumption, although both of these are central to it. It’s a culture, too, and while we may idealize small farmers for their rugged individualism, as agents of change their power is limited. – p. 330