It makes sense in opposition to "unhealthy": poisoned food, damaging habits etc.
And properly forgetting """«modern[ities]»""", the term makes sense as it always did: "health, whole, holy" (are related patterns of its revealing root).
> It makes sense in opposition to "unhealthy": poisoned food, damaging habits etc.
Generally you wouldn't call poisoned food "unhealthy", you'd call it "toxic" or "poisonous". "Damaging habits" is purely subjective, which is why "healthy" and "unhealthy" are legitimately useless terms. Eating an entire stick of butter can be deemed "healthy" in the right circumstances.
> Your point is not clear.
Not liking my point doesn't mean it's unclear, friend.
You wrote «meaningless», you meant along the lines of "open", i.e. "undecided (in its instances) outside complexity", like in "using butter can be both beneficial and/or damaging", "using water can be both beneficial and/or damaging" (Brooke Shields hydrated herself to seizures last week - she diluted her sodium concentrations to dangerous levels) etc.
But the meaning of "healthy" is well defined, as posted earlier: that which promotes wholeness (lack of damage) or avoids its opposite.
But in the context of the submission, if you had exceptions about the title - «Healthy food compromised», even there the term works: turmeric is one of the few substances that promote neural regeneration, adult neurogenesis, there where possible; similarly intake Omega-3 is as if required for good brain function, but if the fish in which it is normally found is lead contaminated then the healthy good is spoiled (lead burns neural axons like a fuse); rice has sustained human growth for millennia (fifteen, I think), so it is has titles for being considered a resource, etc.
> Not liking my point doesn't mean it's unclear, friend
No pal, it was really a stub, incomplete :) You went "A is B" without justifying your judgement. A statement like "Bob Shlecklemeier is a fool" has no content until it is clear why one would say so (the only content there is that somebody has an opinion). There is no «liking» or disliking, at least until the objected idea is defined: "A is B" is not unless what is behind it is clear; the substantial part is its justification, not the conclusion.
