In fact, Rachael Ray does discuss similar issues on her shows. Here are just a couple of examples off the top of my head:

(1) On her travel shows, she often lists Farmer’s Markets as “must see” places in cities she visits. Giving publicity to these markets certainly promotes eating local and/or organic.

(2) On her talk show she makes comments about how to be “green.” She made one comment on Friday about recycling. Even small comments are significant because of the size of Rachael’s audience.

She might not be out there crusading, but bringing Nischan on her show evidences her interest in the subject.

As for the content, it’s not really worth discussing. Ray doesn’t discuss organics and sustainability on her show or in her publications. The fact that she has one chef involved in the SOLE food movement as an advisor is a good start, but it certainly doesn’t make her an expert or a role model in this area.

Maybe some are focusing on the form because they can’t argue with the content?

You might also want to re-read your post and find both the spelling mistake and the typo you’ve made. If you’re going to be so tacky as to point out other people’s mistakes, you might want to ensure you’re not making any of your own.

I disagree with your opinion that my post was spiteful. It was certainly not intended as such. I was a writer at Growers and Grocers when Sheryl wrote her post and she knew I have a personal blog about Rachael Ray, so a response from me is certainly not surprising. In fact, Sheryl probably expected it.

I didn’t think she was being spiteful when she referred to the 30 minute meals crowd as a group of people who don’t care where their food comes from knowing that I have a blog about Rachael Ray. I thought she was just expressing her opinion. I also hope she does not think I was being spiteful. To the contrary, I was simply expressing my opinion about how the organic movement and Rachael Ray are compatible and how a star in that field apparently agreed.

My post addresses the merits of Sheryl’s comment in the open forum of Growers and Grocers. While I certainly agree that a debate can transform into a spiteful exchange, I do not think my post is even remotely spiteful. The post actually discusses Michel Nischan and Rachael Ray more than it discusses Sheryl.

I don’t think the readers of this post were expecting a grammar lesson, but “crowd” is typically treated as a collective noun, making the singular appropriate. I hope that this did not distract you from the substance of my post.

In reference to the noun “crowd,”:

“if the members of the group function as individuals, the noun should be treated as plural.”
(http://www.english.uiuc.edu/CWS/wworkshop/writer_resources/grammar_handbook/pronoun_antecedent_agreement.htm)

Since each 30-minute-meal maker cooks in their own kitchen, we should be treating the crowd as individuals, and therefore the word “crowd” in Sheryl Kirby’s sentence should indeed be treated as plural. The use of the verb “don’t” is proper, as opposed to the implied correction of “doesn’t.”

I feel that this reflects poorly on both the writer and the editor, as it appears to be a foolishly executed act of spite.