While the basic message here is good and seems logical (eat real foods, at meals, of the type your great-grandmother would recognize as food, don't eat packaged foods, and don't eat anything you can't pronounce), his anti-meat stance is bizarre. In the traditional diets he refers to, some of them eat meat (the French eat lots of cheese, too), a few eat almost nothing but meat (hunter gatherers might eat only meat six months of the year), and there's no science saying meat is bad for you, and he seems to be suffering from the "nutritionism" he skewers in much of this book, perhaps having a hangover from the "fat is bad for you" nonsense. Meat leaves you full for longer, and some cultures and individuals like a lot of it, and it is actual real food.
Sure, meat--red meat in particular--is horrible for the environment, but that's not what this book is about. It's about health and getting rid of the fifty years of nonsense reductionist nutrition science. So why doesn't he?