https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...5c2d24-ba52-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html I thought this was a good article and timely given that the USDA is asking for public input on what should be the definition of "healthy". The article makes a point (and I agree) that food isn't "healthy". It's either nutritious or it's not. Or rather it's somewhere along that continuum. We are "healthy" or not but "healthy" isn't a word that we should be using regarding food. It sounds like it's just semantics but when people consider what might be best to eat they shouldn't be looking for food labeled as healthy or natural but rather just how nutritious it is. For most people, we should be looking more at food that is high in nutrition and low in calories. That's not "healthy" baked potato chips or "fat free" products that are high in sugar. It's interesting (to me) that the government tries to define and regulate things like the words "healthy" and "natural" on food packaging as if that is going to actually help someone find a better diet.