different examples vs. logical fallacy

Regarding "healthiness," eating out of date food is only unhealthy if the food is rancid or otherwise compromised, otherwise, (depending on the food I guess) it is healthy. Likewise, Mountain biking is only good for your health if you avoid serious injuries, otherwise it is unhealthy.

Eating out of date food (I think we can reasonably assume here a date just outside of the posted expiration date, unless Linda has some kind of odd fetish for drinking chunky milk or eating maggot-covered fish) poses a risk similar to that of mountain biking. If your reason for the false equivalence has to do with the level of risk each activity poses, then I guess I can see the fallacy. We don't know how aggressively Linda mountain bikes, what kind of equipment she wears, etc., and in fairness, we don't know how out of date the food is that she eats. Perhaps this is personal judgement call, but given my background knowledge of both activities I see them as close enough to equal risk. Likewise, where something is this close, I use the "reasonable doubt" standard where I wouldn't call it fallacy.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.

There are two contextual points I want us to bear in mind in order to understand what my reason is for the false equivalence, since you seemed to wonder halfway through your second paragraph. One is that although out of date falls on a spectrum of quality, a point I note in my Answer, hence my proviso throughout, Linda and her BF both assume that the food is of the age that it might make her sick. 

Second, the immediate purpose of Linda's comparison is to show that her BF is inconsistent for prohibiting her eating the food but supporting her going mountain biking. I allude to this point in my Answer's opening sentence.

Now, while there might be similarity in the risks between eating the food and mountain biking, with respect to putting Linda out of work, that similarity is not strong enough to conclude that it is inconsistent for the BF to prohibit the former and support the latter. This is because of an important difference relevant to why the BF may prohibit one and support the other: food of the age that it might make her sick is unhealthy, whereas mountain biking is not unhealthy. The false equivalence which aimed to find the BF inconsistent fails because of a health disparity, not a risk disparity. 

Regarding "healthiness," eating out of date food is only unhealthy if the food is rancid or otherwise compromised, otherwise, (depending on the food I guess) it is healthy."

Linda and her BF assume that the food’s age risks making her sick.

Likewise, Mountain biking is only good for your health if you avoid serious injuries, otherwise it is unhealthy."

Healthiness and unhealthiness of physical activities is not a matter of whether you got injured in the course of going at it. Something can be healthy even though accidents happen.