" 

 Brustopher here removed content about Kraft although even this source which appears to be the source of the ""malicious metonymy"" phrase that i recall seeing in the article at one point, chalks the Kraft changes up to Hari, saying ""This isn’t the first time that Hari has scored an unlikely victory over a food giant."" This ABC News story headline  Kraft Agrees to Take Yellow Dye Out of Mac and Cheese  implies that the changes were in response to campaigns, and it also quotes the company's denial that it's in response to the campaign: ""Company officials said, however, their decision was not in response to the petition that was launched on Change.org and has garnered more than 348,000 signatures."" In a case like this, where to we fall? What does the article say? Does it completely omit mention of Kraft as a possibly change caused by Hari's campaign, or does it mention the campaign in a way that is non-committal about whether the campaign caused the change, or does it say that the campaign caused the change? Those seem to be the three possibilities. I feel like we're going to have to tread the middle path.   "