I don't think it's overly critical, but I also find it unlikely that I'd be in this particular conversation with one of the destitute mouths that has trouble feeding itself. This is more about debating the input at the time, knowing potential dangers and deciding what to avoid (or not) if one has the means, not banning things from those who need the savings. Healthy food is something I choose to purchase, even though that means my meal budget is major compared to where it once was.


I agree, but you're adding meaning to the article. It says only that several experts have opinions on several practices/products. As I said, I can admit bias, but then I am also biased against Lowe's Garden Centers because I know that typically their product does not equal that at my Garden Center. It doesn't mean they cannot shop there, but we have to remember that bias isn't always a white lie, nor an ultimatum.



I can't have zero tolerance, because someone else is always going to have different "facts" from what I know. I respect the purely scientific viewpoint, but it isn't completely appropriate for everyday discourse. I agree that hyperbole isn't appropriate either, but we cannot be unyielding in this discussion. I actually would want/expect to see something like these replies occurring after a post like mine, so I'm glad they did. Discussing different viewpoints is how we learn.


Thank you.