Nutritional science is hard and we have very limited ability to actually study it and make strong recommendations. Cherry-picking phrases and results from limited power studies just muddies the waters.
Here's the founder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger
> In his lectures, videos, and writings about nutrition he tries to persuade people to change their eating habits from a Western pattern diet to a whole foods, plant-based, healthy diet—optimally to vegan diet—and says that such a diet can prevent and reverse many chronic diseases.
> Retired physician Harriet A. Hall ... has written that ... Greger often overstates the known benefits of such a diet as well as the harm caused by eating animal products (for example, in a talk he claimed that a single meal rich in animal products can "cripple" one's arteries), and he sometimes does not discuss evidence that contradicts his strong claims.
"Disastrous" is clearly a gross overstatement.
- Nutritionfacts.org is non-profit - Their conclusions are based on studies. - They're not trying to sell supplements or food products.
Do they omit certain studies that contradict their overall conclusions? Sure. That doesn't mean anything to me.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/
> - Nutritionfacts.org is non-profit - Their conclusions are based on studies. - They're not trying to sell supplements or food products.
IMO: Your website is trying to sell a lifestyle. Their conclusions are made in advance; then they attempt to rationalize them with studies after the fact.
> Do they omit certain studies that contradict their overall conclusions? Sure. That doesn't mean anything to me.
That is a major red flag in science reporting.
Cherry-picking doesn't mean anything to you?
> Impossible Burgers contain heme iron, which is disastrous to the body.
Then posted
> Well, in that case, heme iron may not be so bad. I'm not here to debate that.
Are you revoking your initial claim?