America Stopped Cooking with Tallow for a Reason
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
But claiming the opposite is quite counterfactual, and warrants scrutiny.
A more interesting point about oil is their burning point. It is better to use animal based oil that won't burn than a vegetable oil that will. Another thing to know is that you can mix a tasty oil with low burning point (butter, unrefined sesame) with one with a higher burning point (any Extra refined will do) and will be able to heat your pane a bit more.
I generally try to steer clear of partisan politics on HN, but this doesn't feel like partisan politics anymore. This is 2+2=5 stuff.
This would be fine if we hadn't elevated the epistemological standing of "published in a peer reviewed journal" so far that it's treated as nearly the same as "true" instead of a more accurate "something that somebody claims." It would also be fine if we never based public policy on unreplicated or cherry picked research, and always considered the possibility that even the consensus view might be wrong. (Look how many "consensus views" of the 1700-1800s are now seen as bunk.)
I'm all for evidence based policy, but for that to work we need a robust mechanism for evidence that contradicts the prevailing narrative to be heard, evaluated, and fairly assessed.
Even more recently than that. I am not sure whether aether theory (of electromagnetic waves) made it into 1900s but it was a consensus view late into the 1800s, the idea that some races were intrinsically inferior was a consensus view well into the 1900s, and the idea that homosexuality was a a treatable disease even more recently.
> It would also be fine if we never based public policy on unreplicated or cherry picked research
I think that the general public and politicians do not understand this. I have read claims that the British government was confused by getting conflicting scientific advice during the pandemic. It would come as no surprise to anyone who understood the implications of people using complex models of something novel.
I could swear there was a lawsuit or something related to fries being cooked with cow when people thought they were not
And competently-done deep frying doesn’t result in much absorption of the oil into the food. But, as the oil polymerizes, it gets stickier and more ends up in the food.
(Yes, those apparently healthy oils, high in polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids, are even unstable at room temperature. Old flaxseed oil is sticky and utterly disgusting. Old canola oil is not quite as nasty smelling but still rather sticky.)
>But in recent years, a fringe theory has gained prominence for arguing that seed oils are toxic
Sources please. I would say this certainly not "fringe" theory.
here is a good breakdown of the recent data around saturated fat and heart disease.
tl;dr - it is a risk factor, but is not the end-all, be-all risk factor that some of us grew up hearing over and over it that it was.
While it would be advisable to adjust our views on different fats based on new evidence, the changes being proposed have absolutely nothing to do with anything resembling evidence.
There are also a lot nuances like if we're talking about EVOO unheated in a salad vs like canola oil repeatedly heated used in frying. Animal fat is more 'stable' than vegetable oil which forms harmful compounds when repeatedly heated to high temperatures so you can say it may be better than vegetable oil for that particular use-case without saying it is categorically better for all use-cases.
Did the Monsanto filter get applied? This article was of course an argument on the side of seed oil, but perhaps we don’t even want a conversation about this, do we?