This story is unavailable.

A response to a grumpy publisher’s accusations

Dear Tim Boucher: You did not only reject our story, you removed all previous ones from your publication as well. We are still scratching our heads as to why.

We published our first story on your publication, after being personally invited by YOU. We have not made a single change to our website, our profile, or the style and structure of our stories since we received that invitation, other than our regular updating of our lists of the most wholesome restaurants. Since nothing changed on our side, our only assumption is that something changed on yours. But instead of explaining what that is, we find ourselves publicly accused for a number of things, and mocked for our privacy policy.

The only irony that we see here is that you accuse us of “advertising” our website — a FREE analysis and discovery tool for wholesome restaurants in the US, that also raises awareness about modern nutrition issues and dangers— yet you invite us to advertise with you at rates that you will only discuss in private. We are not sure who is trying to make a dime here, and not in a very transparent way…

Eatosophy is a collaborative effort. We are a team of people that are passionate for clean food, and we choose to disclose what we consider important. Just because you put a name out does not make you more transparent, and that certainly does not apply to your publication’s guidelines, objectives, and “advertising rates”. You might be better off focusing on the opinions expressed in and the scientific knowledge that is freely shared through our articles, rather than nitpicking on our profile and wording, digging up details and connecting them in a way that makes us look dishonest to cover your true motives.

Best of luck and have an “organic” day yourself!


One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.