Was safe a poor choice of words? With regards to safe starch and fats what does the term safe mean to you? Was there a better term to use?
Paul Jaminet made it perfectly clear that the word "safe" referred to the lack of glutens that could cause problems for some people.
I don't like food couched in terms of danger and safety, it feels too much like orthorexia. "Safe starch" is framing the issue from a low-carber's perspective - "you can get away with this". If you're comfortable with the idea we've been eating tubers for hundreds of thousands of years they're just normal starches. Ditto normal dietary fats. If you're switching from a very low carb diet how about acceptable starch to get the ball rolling :)
Not a poor choice at all.
If the low carbers actually bothered to read Paul's blog they'd know perfectly what a safe starch was as opposed to relying on chronic low carbers to explain what safe means.
I think it's a very unfortunate choice of words. The word "safe" automatically conjures up its opposite, "dangerous" in many peoples' minds. People who don't have the time or inclination to read blog posts (or don't know about the blog post to begin with) are going to be put off by a group of people who are conflicted about whether or not things like rice and sweet potatoes are dangerous.
Paleo with no oil, nuts etc 2 Answers
Overfeeding: Starch vs Fat 2 Answers