Let me give you a little bit of behind the scenes history as a prelude here: first, god invented almonds. And they were good. Later on, respected media outlets such as this one wrote about almonds, acknowledging that they were good. So far, so good (;)).
But what happens next? Sadly I have to report to you that on the darker fringes of the internet, haters and biters will stoop to any low level in order to gain attention for themselves even if it means denigrating almonds or almond-based products. I for one am sick of it. First we have to hear from some guy about how almond milk is bad. Yeah right. What's next? That's right, it's another grandiose individual with some serious psychological complexes trying to get some shine from pretending that people shouldn't even eat almonds.
Why does one "James Hamblin," an alleged journalist for The Atlantic, believe that it is bad to eat almonds? The answer is "Because James Hamblin is a disgusting attention-seeker seeking attention by riding the coattails of trailblazing almond news outlets like Gawker.com." But if you would like to pretend as if James Hamblin is sincere in his paper-thin almond objections, then fine. Here are the actual reasons he gives.
1. Almonds use a lot of water and they're grown in California and California is in a drought.
SOLUTION: Grow them somewhere else! Nobody cares!
2. Almonds are so popular that they're worth a lot of money and sometimes people steal them.
SOLUTION: The same thing is true of fine art. Do we advocate burning down museums, because of that? No! Idiot!!!
Those are the only objections to almonds in his whole trolling piece of garbage I hesitate to label a real news story!!!!!
Next time I want to hear a dumb opinion about almonds I'll give it to you son!