The omega 6/3 thing about seed oils mentioned in the article is real. It can be a big cause of inflammation. Plus, seed oils often have pretty toxic extraction procedures, especially for the cheap stuff.
But tallow and animal fats aren’t the solution. Olive oil is. And I guess avocado oil if you need something more neutral and/or with a higher smoke point.
I don’t quite follow. You’re saying that because not everyone can feasibly partake in healthier food, nobody should? Also, the current economic realities around certain food items aren’t fixed in stone. Taxes, tariffs, regulations, and all sorts of other policy levers can make big changes to the market.
No, I’m saying that it isn’t possible significantly shift peoples’ diets to olive oil from other fats and oils because olive oil consumption is supply-constrained.
The Atlantic article is about the marketing of shortening and hydrogenated vegetable oil. The authors are a psychiatrist and a writer for Oprah. It really says nothing about vegetable oils that don’t contain trans fats.
And most of the non-crank advice on light vegetable oils is just to avoid scorching them when cooking. Scorched oil, like any burnt foodstuff, contains free radicals that can be carcinogenic. One of the strongest pieces of science-based dietary advice is “don’t eat burnt stuff.”
It’s about the use of hexane as an extracting agent in food processing. Hexane’s nasty stuff that should go nowhere near the food chain, but the article has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
I don’t know about avocado oil, but you’re not going to be able to solve America’s love of deep fried food with olive oil both due to the cost and due to the practicality.
Yeah, olive oil is not for deep frying. But maybe Americans shouldn’t be having quite as much fried food? (I say this as someone who just had fried food for dinner.)
As I mentioned in another comment, today’s food economics are not written in stone. There are all sorts of tax and subsidy levers in the public policy toolbox. One reason, say, soybeans and soybean oil are so cheap in the U.S. today is farm subsidies.
But humans being drawn to fatty and sugary foods is written into our DNA. Unless you find some way to ban fried food, people are still going to eat it. A lot. You would need a massive cultural shift away from fatty and sugary foods and that would take more than taxes and subsidies because things like fried chicken and waffles are now considered part of someone’s culture.
It’s about frequency and quantity. Sure, people will always have a taste for unhealthy food. But until sugar/corn was massively subsidized in the U.S., people didn’t eat nearly as much sweet junk. It took a massive cultural shift to get to where we are today. Massive cultural shifts happen.
It sure would take a massive cultural shift for black people to give up a lot of soul food staples since, again, it’s a big part of their culture.
And I have no idea why you think less subsidies would make people who make soul food eat less fried food. They were eating fried food when they had to make it with pig fat and had no choice and they’re still making it now, often still with pig fat. Subsidies are not involved.
I think you need to do a little exploration into soul food and also how important it is. This is a lot bigger than just “we need to stop eating this stuff, it’s unhealthy.”
In regards to subsidies, I was talking specifically about sweets, not fried food. Did you know that ~20% of calories in the American diet are from corn syrup? It’s an epidemic, and it’s in large part due to subsidies. People aren’t going to lose their sweet tooth, but they’d buy soda less often if it wasn’t so heavily subsidized.
As for fried food, granted, it’s a huge part of many cultures. But the fries at McDonalds aren’t. And taxes, for instance, are a real lever that can impact how often and how much certain foods are consumed.
Let me ask you something. Do you consider yourself a progressive? If so, why are you so convinced progress in certain areas is impossible?
The omega 6/3 thing about seed oils mentioned in the article is real. It can be a big cause of inflammation. Plus, seed oils often have pretty toxic extraction procedures, especially for the cheap stuff.
But tallow and animal fats aren’t the solution. Olive oil is. And I guess avocado oil if you need something more neutral and/or with a higher smoke point.
Olive oil doesn’t scale to match anything near current human consumption — a big chunk of what’s sold as olive oil is already counterfeit.
Olives, canola and soy beans are all the same thing - they are all fruits not seeds.
Canola is rapeseed
I don’t quite follow. You’re saying that because not everyone can feasibly partake in healthier food, nobody should? Also, the current economic realities around certain food items aren’t fixed in stone. Taxes, tariffs, regulations, and all sorts of other policy levers can make big changes to the market.
No, I’m saying that it isn’t possible significantly shift peoples’ diets to olive oil from other fats and oils because olive oil consumption is supply-constrained.
Okay… But it’s still a healthier solution than vegetable oil or tallow for the portion of the population that can be supplied with it, right?
Please share your proof of any negatives of seed oil, because it’s bullshit
You can read the transcripts if you don’t want to watch the videos. Enjoy!
Yeah, that’s not a great source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nutritionfacts-org/
Mostly because of his bias for veganism, which those linked videos have nothing to do with. But if you prefer more mainstream sources: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/how-vegetable-oils-replaced-animal-fats-in-the-american-diet/256155/
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324844#vegetable-oil
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9655691/
The Atlantic article is about the marketing of shortening and hydrogenated vegetable oil. The authors are a psychiatrist and a writer for Oprah. It really says nothing about vegetable oils that don’t contain trans fats.
And most of the non-crank advice on light vegetable oils is just to avoid scorching them when cooking. Scorched oil, like any burnt foodstuff, contains free radicals that can be carcinogenic. One of the strongest pieces of science-based dietary advice is “don’t eat burnt stuff.”
And what of that last link?
It’s about the use of hexane as an extracting agent in food processing. Hexane’s nasty stuff that should go nowhere near the food chain, but the article has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
I think the point is that hexane is commonly used to extract seed oils, the subject of this thread.
I don’t know about avocado oil, but you’re not going to be able to solve America’s love of deep fried food with olive oil both due to the cost and due to the practicality.
Yeah, olive oil is not for deep frying. But maybe Americans shouldn’t be having quite as much fried food? (I say this as someone who just had fried food for dinner.)
I agree, but switching people to less unhealthy frying oil is easier than stopping them from eating so much fried food.
As I mentioned in another comment, today’s food economics are not written in stone. There are all sorts of tax and subsidy levers in the public policy toolbox. One reason, say, soybeans and soybean oil are so cheap in the U.S. today is farm subsidies.
But humans being drawn to fatty and sugary foods is written into our DNA. Unless you find some way to ban fried food, people are still going to eat it. A lot. You would need a massive cultural shift away from fatty and sugary foods and that would take more than taxes and subsidies because things like fried chicken and waffles are now considered part of someone’s culture.
https://50kitchen.com/culinary-history-chicken-and-waffles/
It’s about frequency and quantity. Sure, people will always have a taste for unhealthy food. But until sugar/corn was massively subsidized in the U.S., people didn’t eat nearly as much sweet junk. It took a massive cultural shift to get to where we are today. Massive cultural shifts happen.
It sure would take a massive cultural shift for black people to give up a lot of soul food staples since, again, it’s a big part of their culture.
And I have no idea why you think less subsidies would make people who make soul food eat less fried food. They were eating fried food when they had to make it with pig fat and had no choice and they’re still making it now, often still with pig fat. Subsidies are not involved.
I think you need to do a little exploration into soul food and also how important it is. This is a lot bigger than just “we need to stop eating this stuff, it’s unhealthy.”
In regards to subsidies, I was talking specifically about sweets, not fried food. Did you know that ~20% of calories in the American diet are from corn syrup? It’s an epidemic, and it’s in large part due to subsidies. People aren’t going to lose their sweet tooth, but they’d buy soda less often if it wasn’t so heavily subsidized.
As for fried food, granted, it’s a huge part of many cultures. But the fries at McDonalds aren’t. And taxes, for instance, are a real lever that can impact how often and how much certain foods are consumed.
Let me ask you something. Do you consider yourself a progressive? If so, why are you so convinced progress in certain areas is impossible?