Rarely before has a textual analysis of nutritional policy advice held its audience captive. Stephen Hilgartner's Science on Stage provides a valuable, timely and, not least, entertaining contribution to science studies literature that gives a detailed description of how scientific credibility is produced by institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Using Erving Goffman's dramaturgical perspective to look at science advice as performance, Hilgartner shows how scientific credibility is produced and challenged in social action, rather than being an inherent property 'held' by institutions. The study focuses on a five-year period during which three controversial NAS reports, each giving policy prescriptions on the US diet, were produced. Two of the reports were successfully completed (albeit the subject of intense debate), whereas the third never made it to publication. The debate about dietary recommendations was polarized and reports were often described as 'pro' or 'con' dietary change. The period during which the three reports were produced saw a growing support for new nutrition advice reducing intakes of fat, cholesterol and salt and increasing consumption of fruits, vegetables and high-fibre foods. A different committee wrote each of the three reports. The group that authored the first report was made up of scientists opposed to the new nutrition advice. The committee behind the second report were proposing a reduction of fat intake, inclusion of vegetables, citrus fruits and cereals in the daily diets and reducing consumption of smoked and salt-cured foods. The third report, which was withdrawn before publication, became the object of a bitter debate, as its advice was incompatible with the recent guidelines from the previous pro-dietary-change report. In his analysis, Hilgartner uses Goffnan's notion of stage management to demonstrate how the control of information is central to the NAS's