Product Description

This leading dictionary contains over 6,150 entries covering all aspects of food and nutrition, diet and health. Jargon-free definitions make this a valuable dictionary that clearly explains even the most technical of nutritional terms. From absinthe to zymogens, it covers types of food (including everyday foods and little-known foods, e.g. payusnaya), nutritional information, vitamins, minerals, and key scientific areas including metabolism and genomics. This new and fully revised edition features many entry-level web links, updated and conveniently accessible via the Dictionary of Food and Nutrition companion website, providing relevant extra information. Expanded appendices contain a wealth of useful material, including Recommended Daily Allowance lists. An essential A-Z for nutritionists, food manufacturers, caterers, health-care students, food science/technology students, and anyone who has an interest in, or enjoys, food and wants to find out more about what they eat.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #56022 in Books
• Published on: 2009-01-29
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 608 pages

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).

Customer Reviews

Probably the worst Oxford dictionary ever
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).