A Dictionary of Food and Nutrition and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

A Dictionary of Food and Nutrition (Oxford Paperback Reference) Paperback – April 28, 2005


See all 5 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle
"Please retry"
Paperback, April 28, 2005
$1,420.28 $0.76
NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Product Details

  • Series: Oxford Paperback Reference
  • Paperback: 584 pages
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press; 2 edition (April 28, 2005)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0198609612
  • ISBN-13: 978-0198609612
  • Product Dimensions: 7.7 x 5.2 x 1 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 12.8 ounces
  • Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,244,124 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

Review

`Review from previous edition a book that will interest the 'edible and non-edible' fat people alike ... If you eat, then you should enjoy reading the Benders' new dictionary ... Enjoy!' Lipid Technology, November 1995

About the Author

David A. Bender teaches nutrition and biochemistry to students of medicine as well as of biochemistry, health sciences, human sciences, and nursing. With his late father Arnold E. Bender, he has written Food Tables and Food Labelling (OUP, 1986 and 1991) and Nutrition: A Reference Handbook (OUP, 1996).

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

3.4 out of 5 stars
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
If you're going to use the scientific names of organisms, you should take pains to get the spelling right. This book doesn't seem to take any pains whatever. In my perusal I have already found 20 misspelled plant names. The sloppiness in this department typifies the shoddiness of the entire work, which appears to be a decent dictionary of nutritional chemistry with a miscellaneous load of badly edited culinary information slapped on top of it for greater bulk and sales appeal to "foodies". Avoid this one like the plague: it's a piece of hackwork and doesn't belong on any serious reference shelf. The "Oxford" brand is losing any association with quality.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
By Mr. D. Brown on January 22, 2013
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Very informative, but I was expecting more on the nutritional values of individual foodstuffs: calorific values, fat and carbohydrate content, vitamin values etc
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
3 of 5 people found the following review helpful By reader from Encyclopedialand on November 24, 2009
Format: Paperback
Oxford Dictionary of Food and Nutrition is probably the worst dictionary ever to come from Oxford University Press. In its second edition (2005) there was scarcely a page without a mistake and in its third edition (2009) there are still plenty of them: from misspelled entries and wrong definitions to the chaotic use of capitalization!

The author failed to correctly spell even the simplest foreign words which can be checked in every ordinary dictionary. For example: in the second edition he was trying to convince the readers, that the Roman word for starch was amulum*. Well, everybody who has some knowledge of the Latin language, and has ever heard for any of a flock of words beginning with amyl-, knows that the word was amylum. In the third edition this mistake is corrected, but tens of others, like the Italian word focaccia for a flat cake, which is misspelled foccacia*, are not.

Some of the mistakes from previous edition were 'corrected' in a very funny (i.e. not serious!) way. Example: a kind of Russian dumplings is called tvorozhniki, but the author invented(?) the spelling tvoroinki*, which is still an entry (now with the correct one in brackets) despite the fact, that as far as I know it exists in Oxford Dictionary of Food and Nutrition only.

Another 'gem' are definitions like that of nioigome: "perfumed rice". The dictionary does not tell us neither whose it is (probably Japanese) nor what exactly does it mean (perfumed with what?).

Besides, the author plays at hide-and-seek much too often for a decent dictionary. For example: 1) at soonf he says "see fennel", but at fennel there is no mention of soonf; 2) at soondth he says "see ginger", but at ginger there is no mention of soondth.

My advice is: avoid this dictionary! Alan Davidson's The Oxford Companion to Food is incomparably better choise (though it lacks information on nutrition).
2 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful By Amazon Customer on June 11, 2009
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
The book is a little outdated, but the information inside it great. It is reader friendly and easy to find what you are looking for. I am studying to be a nutritionist and I have used this book many times. Every house should have one of these books on their bookshelf.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
2 of 5 people found the following review helpful By The Vet on January 12, 2007
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
If you are a foodie and you like to know some of the finer details, this is for you. Not a dictionary; more a trivia collection. But not really trivia as the info is solid and useful.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Customer Images


What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?