OP here. You are free to feed your children with this new experimental food that has never been consumed at any point of human evolution on this planet.
The last time we tried this expriment with novel new foods 10% of USA got diabetes.
Do tell me how your children will end up in 20 years of this kind of food.
Similary cramming meat down our gullets morning day and night is a recent change too. And entire cultures do fine without dairy. "imitation" would make sense but "fake" doesn't.
> Good points until you showed obvious bias with the "fake food" comment.
What leads you to believe that the clear conflict of interests pointed out by OP changes in any way if OP doesn't use a marketing term to refer to their product?
Not OP. Then what "value" did you even bring to this conversation then, other than to say this person has bias? Because the natural interpretation of your comment is "oh, good facts, but see he has this bias because of this word, therefore the facts must be wrong or misleading or cherry picked". That interpretation sure sounds like an ad-hominem. If there is bias, state your counter points to prove that point.
I responded to a comment that used the term "ad hominem" wrongly. A dictionary could explain proper usage of that term better than I could so I don't bother
