> “I also see nothing wrong with calling cellulose "wood pulp". That's what it is, isn't it?” wood pulp would be relatively unrefined/contaminated compared to

> “I also see nothing wrong with calling cellulose "wood pulp". That's what it is, isn't it?” wood pulp would be relatively unrefined/contaminated compared to cellulose, which you’d expect to be relatively pure and harmless, so that’s what makes it misinformative. intentional ambiguation like this is a too-common media sensationalism tactic.