Scientists debunk claims of seed oil health risks
hsph.harvard.edu
hsph.harvard.edu
The same traces are found in de-cafeined coffee and many d’avoir extracts.
Eg https://www.npr.org/2025/06/19/nx-s1-5405595/claims-that-see...
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and others have said that seed oils are poisoning Americans. The medical community mostly rejects those claims, but they are causing problems for farmers.
A lot of people are going to die.
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-eating/do-see...
which actually not only mentions scientific papers including big meta-studies, but actually links to them. That's rare these days. Maybe the consumer reports article should be the main article, though.
While it’s true that many foods that use seed oils—such as packaged snacks and french fries—are unhealthy, they also tend to be high in refined carbohydrates, sodium, and sugar. “Sure, if you cut back on these foods, chances are you’re going to feel better,” Crosby said. But these other components, not the seed oils themselves, are the culprit behind weight gain and other negative health outcomes.
That said, the title really should be "Scientist dismisses claims ..." (singular) as it's a press release that quotes a single scientist who no longer works for Harvard and who asserts that no scientific papers find the seed oils to have health risks.
He may well be correct in that assertion, but that has to be taken as hearsay.
To clarify further, factually,
* in 2022 he was reported as being adjunct associate of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
* Today he is unlisted on the staff rolls of Harvard.
* In 2022 he was reported to have made a statement that "scientific evidence does not support these claims, according to experts" where the claims in question were reported to be that "that seed oils such as canola and soy are “toxic,”".
While I personally have no belief that seed oils are in any way toxic I will strongly note, and urge you to see for yourself, that there is ample room for the opposite to slip through,
* whoever reported the statement claimed to have been made by Guy Crosby may have made an error in presenting a claim for Crosby for comment or in reporting back Crosby's response.
* of all the papers that Crosby has read he may have not read one or several that reveal a toxin (yes, this is unlikely but possible, no human has read their complete field).
> I'll just take his word for it,
"His word" in this press release is hearsay. The text of the press release was not written by him. It is not uncommon for people quoted in press releases to take issue with how their actual position has been reported.
It itemizes the claims of seed oil opponents, then links to peer reviewed studies to refute most of them. All seem to be from reputable journals. None of the linked papers note that they've been retracted. Nobody is citing Facebook here, unlike some proponents of the theory that seed oil is the number one cause of "inflamation" or whatever.
That's pretty solid reporting, and exceeds my standard of evidence when it comes to health reporting for the most part.
Admittedly, linking to the blog instead of the actual article was silly.
The MSG-scam, the alleged link between autism and vaccination and the seed oil craze each go back to single persons who published claims that for some reason went viral.
In my limited experience, claims like these (flat Earth, Moon Hoax, chemtrails...) went viral because they were outlandish, unsupportable claims not backed by science and sometimes even contradicting personal observation. Some people (and I'd say it's more likely to be scientifically not very literate persons) have a predisposition to latch onto bull crap. Let's call people with this trait '(social(ly)) influenceables' because they're frequently the audience to whatever social influencers choose to spew out.
You could present an influenceable with a multiple choice test where possible or plausible theories are presented as answers next to a highly improbable or impossible one, and they sure as hell will agree with the improbable one.
So this (if my impression is not skewed, which is very possible) would suggest that while not very scientifically literate, influenceable persons still have an acute sense for what counts as generally accepted and what counts as fringe theory. They don't have to, and they wouldn't (apart from the ongoing background activity of rumors that always float through the hearsay space). But we're not living in ordinary times, our society is in deep crisis, and for some reason, as in the 1930s, fringe theories and mysticism seem to have become attractive again.
Well, apparently attractive enough for the U.S. government to peddle outlandish health-related theories.
As you note, there's plenty of evidence that a high fat diet causes assorted health issues. Seed oils specifically are not a disproportionately strong culprit.
That hits hard where it hurts.
Now let's talk about your ulterior motives, Sir.