2018 Tarih Konularına Göre Tamamı Çözümlü Çıkmış Sorular ücretsiz kitap indir

Nathan Bartlett nathandbartlett — Would it kill the man to write something that wasn't depressing and cynical of humankind? Excellent writing as always but dang, lots of sad stories in here.

Kinue Chen jane8228b97c — A book that while affecting at times, skips over far too much to be considered good.

Sofia Manrique sofiamaga — Disturbing, on multiple levels Publisher’s Weekly called this book a “Delightful romp though the food processing industry,” but I found Twinkie, Deconstucted a rather chilling appraisal of the state of modern food. Ettlinger sets out on what seems a lighthearted quest to source all the ingredients in a Twinkie, on the face of it an interesting and possibly edifying task. Certainly, choosing a Twinkie as his subject is clue enough that this will be a purely wink-wink/nudge-nudge sort of examination. The problem, for me, was that what he unearthed was not as entertaining as it was disturbing. Twinkie, Deconstructed has come in for a great deal of criticism from various quarters for not engaging some of the deeper issues that Ettlinger raises, but then blithely abandons. I would agree. Some even accuse him of being an apologist for the food industry, a serious charge indeed. This, I can’t go along with. Instead, I’d say the chief problem is he stubbornly adhered to a flawed plan for a book. Clearly, he set out to deconstruct the Twinkie in a casual, gee-whiz-look-at-that narrative. And I have to say he unearthed a number of downright fascinating factoids. But then the quest began to be a trudge, as Ettlinger doggedly wrote chapter after chapter for each and every one of the Twinkie’s many ingredients, regardless of the fact that one ingredient begins to blur into another after the first dozen or so. There was a great deal of discussion of chemical processes, some of which left me scratching my head. Time and again Ettlinger is taken through vast processing plants to find how this ingredient or that is produced. But just as often he is denied access to processing plants and forced to speculate how one component or another is engineered. There are a disconcerting number of secrets behind something as prosaic as a Twinkie, it seems. Ettlinger ultimately unveils what he calls the "Twinkie Nexus" - a vast international supply-and-demand-driven mechanism controlled by multinational conglomerates too complex and too multi-tentacled to fully comprehend. Again, the main problem is this: what virtue is there of tracking down each ingredient but then not really coming to grips with the bigger issues? All trees, no forest. I can't say that Ettlinger never addresses any of the darker issues, such as the role processed foods may play in the nationwide epidemic of obesity and diabetes. He does mention this, but only very briefly, and then scampers on to the next gee-whiz moment, leaving the “heavy” arguments mostly to the last chapter, "Consider the Twinkie." There he implies we have no reasonable alternative to the industrialized processed food industry. More to the point, he seems to lay the blame – and responsibility – squarely at the feet of the consumer. The argument goes something like this: We want it, so they produce it. We buy it. We eat it. So we should suffer the consequences, because it's ultimately our fault it was produced in the first place. But who the heck came up with the idea for something like Gogurt, anyways? Somehow I doubt there was a popular clamor for this product, a corporate brainchild if ever there was one. Products are researched. Studies are done. Advertising campaigns are launched. Wants are created. And, despite the habitual use there of the passive voice, someone does those things. To paraphrase Pogo, we have met the enemy, and he isn't us. “Before getting on a high horse to decry the excessive pressure of capitalism that force food to be so overwhelmingly engineered," Ettlinger writes, "we need to remember this: no farmer would bring his or her crops to market without the promise of a reward.” Huh? Come again? I’m not sure I follow that argument. And why am I left with the feeling he regards a desire for a healthier diet as "getting on a high horse"? At the end of the book, he suddenly solemnly averes, "There are choices to be made – so it is up to us to keep on top of things in the food world.” Is it, really, up to us? It doesn't much seem like it from what I gleaned from this book. It seems instead as if much is being kept from us, at least if Ettlinger's notable lack of success in penetrating "industrial secrets" (a leit motif of the book) is any indication. If ever there were an argument for stronger government oversight of the food industry, this is it. What hope has the average consumer of navigating the hazardous food maze? Ettlinger certainly doesn’t provide any. I couldn’t help but think he wasted an opportunity – nay, evaded a responsibility – to urge a greater transparency in food production. I gave this book three stars not so much because I “liked” it as because I was disturbed by it. And that, despite all my criticisms, is a good thing. Perhaps it was even the author’s intent, though I sincerely doubt it. Twinkie, Deconstructed was obviously marketed as entertainment. While I hate to sound like an utter stick in the mud, just how sad (and disturbing) is that?