Scientific American should be embarrassed to have published this. This is textbook pseudoscience: cherry-picking evidence to support a position that you're alre

Scientific American should be embarrassed to have published this. This is textbook pseudoscience: cherry-picking evidence to support a position that you're already predisposed to believe. This doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, just that it is not even remotely a scientific perspective on the situation. Its "USDA citation" is to what amounts to a marketing-focused whitepaper.