I came away from the article with a similar feeling. The whole article is stuffed with cheap shots. From the equivocation on processed foods, to reliance on imp

I came away from the article with a similar feeling. The whole article is stuffed with cheap shots. From the equivocation on processed foods, to reliance on impossible to refute claims that don't even seem to say anything: "it's different from what 'plant food' would seem to denote" and suggesting gullibility of people who "will take it at face value." First of all, would they really take it as a face value substitute for a familiar food? Secondly, what exactly is the problem? Is it that the ingredients are bad? If so shouldn't you just say that? Is it that they aren't bad but people might be tricked into thinking they are the real thing? Because that doesn't seem representative of the average experience and wouldn't even be a problem if it actually was happening. But none of that is unpacked. It's left there as a vague allusion to a criticism, in a form you can't respond to because the criticism isn't clear.