[skh]

I doubt you can find a credible source to say that wheat is poisonous or otherwise causes harm in the way that most people associated that word as it pertains to food. It may not be healthy and some people may think it’s better to eat other things but they don’t think it kills people or otherwise seriously harms a person.

But even if you are right as it pertains to wheat your claim is that no food can be deemed safe. That’s a big claim and one that is very hard to support. We know some foods are safe (in the general sense of the term).

[chillacy]

Tricky claim because everyone who says wheat is dangerous, you could claim is not credible to you, whereas someone else might find them to be credible. Could be real tautological.

[skh]

It’s not tricky. I’m a reasonable person. A credible source would be a published, peer reviewed research paper. There are other credible sources. This is just one example of a credible source.

[freedomben]

> But even if you are right as it pertains to wheat your claim is that no food can be deemed safe

I think you've confused me with will4274 who said:

> It's impossible to prove that a food item is safe. The two categories are known to be bad and not know to be bad.

Regarding the subject tho, I think definitions of "safe" and also who would comprise a "credible source" are probably more to the crux of the discussion.

[skh]

Yes, I thought you made the comment that will4274 made.