This is analysis is off. The suggestion not to think of the new "food plate" as a pie chart is because... it's not a pie chart! It's a representational diagram. The purpose is not to have people compare the different sections of the diagram to each other (that would be the purpose of a pie chart), it's to have people compare the different sections of the diagram to their plate of food. The biggest failure to read instructions is when the claim is made that the diagram fails to convey the supporting tips. But the tip is "half of your plate should be fruits and vegetables". This analysis says that the diagram fails to properly represent "half of your diet should be fruits and vegetables." Since that's not what the text read and they aren't trying to represent that, it's true that the diagram doesn't do so. They said "half of your plate", not "half of your diet." It's not an abstract representation of portion sizes, it's literally a plate. The reality of this diagram is that it is not a chart. It doesn't convey the same information as a chart and the confirmation bias of someone that's in information science is the entire erroneous body of this article. The idea of the food plate is actually much more simple: Charts are failing to get through to those that we need to educate about food. So we're abandoning charts entirely. This diagram says, "put the square block in the square hole, put the circle block in the circle hole," like the children's toy. If you understand the intricacies of a pie chart... you're not in the target demographic.