Doctor reveals the 'hateful 8' seed oils that could harm your health
Americans are becoming more cognizant of the ingredients in their food amid the Make America Healthy Again movement.
Seed oils — which are plant-based cooking oils that are often used in processed, packaged foods – have been touted by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as "unknowingly poison[ing]" Americans.
Any oil that comes from seeds is classified as a seed oil, but that also includes some that are beneficial, such as sesame seed oil, peanut oil and flax oils, according to board-certified family physician Cate Shanahan, M.D., who is based in Florida.
Shanahan, who specializes in using traditional food to promote health and reverse disease, shared with Fox News Digital which seed oils should be avoided.
"I had to create a term that described the harmful oils in our food supply … the 'hateful eight seed oils' or the 'hatefully eight oils,'" she said.
Those eight include corn, canola, cotton seed, soy, sunflower, safflower, rice bran and grape seed.
There are several factors that make these eight specific oils unhealthy, according to Shanahan.
The process to extract the oil is "not selectively bred to yield their oil easily," she noted — it requires high heat and pressure, leading to the presence of a neurotoxin called hexane.
The oils contain polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can break down and turn into toxins during the heating process, according to Shanahan.
"Even after processing, they can continue to degrade, especially when exposed to heat during cooking, leading to further toxin generation," she said.
It's necessary to refine the oils to make them edible, but that process removes nutrients.
"Some of these nutrients are very important, like choline and lecithin and other phospholipids," noted Shanahan. "They're important for our brain and our nervous system and our cellular division and fertility and key things in life like that."
Seed oils are commonly found in processed "junk" food, as well as foods served in restaurants and in hospitals.
"What makes a 'junk food' a 'junk food' is in the ingredients," Shanahan said. "When you pay attention to the ingredients, are they wholesome or not? These hateful eight seed oils are not wholesome."
Seed oils overall have been linked to an increased risk of colon cancer, as Fox News Digital recently reported.
Some health agencies, however, have spoken in defense of seed oils.
In 2024, the American Heart Association (AHA) published a piece asserting that "there's no reason to avoid seed oils and plenty of reasons to eat them."
The American Heart Association has stated that "there's no reason to avoid seed oils and plenty of reasons to eat them."
The piece argued that it is "misleading" to state that the fatty acids in seed oils "break down into toxins when used for cooking, causing inflammation, weakening the immune system, and contributing to chronic illnesses."
The AHA also pointed to other ingredients beyond seed oils that could lead to unhealthy outcomes.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
"The real concern should be overeating ultraprocessed foods, which may contain harmful ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup, added sugar and sodium," the post reads.
"It's so odd that the internet has gone wild demonizing these things," said Dr. Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine in California and a nutrition scientist at the Stanford Prevention Research Center. "They are not to be feared."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s policies will make America's maternal mortality rates worse
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists rightly criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s announcement at the end of last month that his department will no longer recommend the Covid vaccine for pregnant women. Covid was the leading cause of maternal mortality in 2021, and the ACOG correctly pointed out that the vaccine is safe and that it provides needed protection for expectant mothers and their unborn children. The decision by Kennedy's agency to delete the recommendation that pregnant women be vaccinated against a virus that was recently the leading cause of maternal death should prompt us to ask: Where are pregnant women in Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' plan? As a maternal health physician, public health expert and equity leader, I'm as unhappy as ACOG is with the specific decision the HHS has made to stop recommending the Covid vaccine for my pregnant patients. Contracting Covid during pregnancy increases the risk of complications, including death. But I'm even more outraged and alarmed by something else HHS has done on Kennedy's watch: omit maternal mortality review committees (MMRCs) and perinatal quality collaboratives (PQCs) from the new structure of HHS. Maternal mortality review committees show us what is killing mothers and how we can stop it. Perinatal quality collaboratives give us the tools to act. They help hospitals and providers implement lifesaving solutions. These programs are not bureaucratic add-ons, but the main reason our nation has made progress in reducing maternal deaths. And yet, in a new proposed budget, programs run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system, maternal mortality review committees and perinatal quality collaboratives are conspicuously missing. Together, these programs have led to measurable improvements in maternal outcomes across the country. From 2021 to 2023, the U.S. saw statistically significant decreases in maternal mortality. That's not a coincidence — it's the result of a national, coordinated strategy rooted in evidence and accountability. The removal of this infrastructure is more than a policy shift — it's a dismantling of the very system that allowed us to fight back against a maternal health crisis. And the stakes are especially high for Black women and rural mothers, who face the greatest disparities in maternal outcomes. Without MMRCs, we lose the ability to track those disparities. Without PQCs, we lose the mechanism to fix them. In smaller hospitals, especially, quality improvement isn't a given — it's something PQCs make possible by helping teams implement patient safety bundles that might otherwise remain unused. Forty-six states and six U.S. territories have MMRCs supported by a CDC grant. This funding provides support to perform case reviews of maternal deaths, while the CDC provides the infrastructure, including a database that allows the results of such reviews to be aggregated. Data from MMRCs in 38 states in 2020, for example, showed that the leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths was mental health conditions, inclusive of suicide and accidental overdose, and 84% of those deaths were deemed preventable. Those findings gave rise to federal programs such as the maternal mental health hotline which, I'm thankful, will continue to be supported in the proposed HHS budget. The CDC also provides funding to support 36 state-based PQCs. This is an example of how the programs work together: In Louisiana, our maternal mortality review identified obstetric hemorrhage as our leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths in 2018. As a result, the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative (LaPQC) through the reducing maternal morbidity initiative and the safe births initiative worked to implement the AIM obstetric hemorrhage patient safety bundle. As a result, Louisiana mothers experiencing hemorrhage saw a 39% decrease in severe maternal morbidity (SMM), with a 58% decrease among Black women. These aren't anecdotes. They are blueprints for saving lives. Like the decision to stop recommending the Covid vaccine, if the decision to remove these programs from the budget stands, we will reverse course. The U.S. already has the highest maternal mortality rate among high-income countries. Removing these programs is likely to make the national crisis worse. We cannot allow that. My message to policymakers is simple: You can't 'Make America Healthy Again' if you ignore the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. Reinvest in the programs that are working. Fund the programs that show us why mothers are dying and what to do to keep more mothers alive. Preserve the public health infrastructure that has already started to move the needle in the right direction. If we as a country fail to act, then more mothers will die — and the tragic part is, we'll know we had the tools to prevent it. This article was originally published on
Medscape
29 minutes ago
- Medscape
Contraceptives for Poorest Countries Stuck in Warehouses After US Aid Cuts
LONDON (Reuters) -Contraceptives that could help prevent millions of unwanted pregnancies in some of the world's poorest countries are stuck in warehouses because of U.S. aid cuts and could be destroyed, two aid industry sources and one former government official said. The stock, held in Belgium and Dubai, includes condoms, contraceptive implants, pills and intrauterine devices, together worth around $11 million, the sources told Reuters. It has been stalled since the Trump administration started cutting foreign aid as part of its 'America First' policy in February, as the U.S. government no longer wants to donate the contraceptives or pay the costs for delivery, they said. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has instead asked the contractor managing its health supply chain, Chemonics, to try to sell it, two of the sources said. An internal USAID memo, sent in April, said a quantity of contraceptives was being kept in warehouses and they should be "immediately transferred to another entity to prevent waste or additional costs". A senior U.S. State Department official told Reuters no decision had been made about the future of the contraceptives. They did not respond to questions about the reasons why the contraceptives were in storage or the impact of the U.S. aid cuts and delays. A spokesperson for Chemonics said they were unable to comment on USAID's plans, but added that the company is working with clients to deliver life-saving aid globally and would continue to support the U.S. government's global health supply chain priorities. The stock represents just under 20% of the supply of contraceptives bought annually by the U.S. for donation overseas, a former USAID official told Reuters. Selling or donating the contraceptives has been challenging, according to the former USAID official, although talks are ongoing. Another option on the table is destroying it, at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars. As time goes on, shelf-lives will also become an issue, one of the sources said. The sources told Reuters that one of the key delays is a lack of response from the U.S. government about what should be done with the stock. It had been destined largely for vulnerable women in sub-Saharan Africa, including young girls who face higher health risks from early pregnancy as well as those fleeing conflict or who otherwise could not afford or access the contraceptives, the sources added. The condoms also help stop the spread of HIV, the former USAID official said. "We cannot dwell on an issue for too long; when urgency and clarity don't align, we have to move on," said Karen Hong, chief of UNFPA's supply chain. She said the agency is now working on Plan B to help fill critical supply gaps. (Reporting by Jennifer Rigby; Editing by Andrew Heavens)
Time Magazine
34 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
As Fluoride Bans Spread, Who Will Be Hit the Hardest?
Cavities and dental costs are at risk of skyrocketing as a growing number of states consider banning the use of fluoride in public water —and children from low-income households are likely most vulnerable. In March, Utah became the first state to prohibit adding fluoride to drinking water. A couple months later, Florida followed suit. Several other states are now considering similar bills. In a recent study published in JAMA Health Forum, researchers projected what would happen if the entire country were to stop adding fluoride to the water supply. The potential impact on both people's oral health and their dental bills was substantial: Tooth decay, the study found, would increase by about 7.5%—representing about 25 million more cavities—and the U.S. would face about $9.8 billion in additional costs over five years, including both what families would have to pay out-of-pocket for dental care and what the government would need to pay for public health insurance. And those impacts would disproportionately affect children on public insurance plans or without insurance, the researchers found. Fluoridated water is 'an amazing public health intervention that comes straight from the tap,' says the senior author of the study, Dr. Lisa Simon, an internal medicine physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital, who is also a general dentist. 'Fluoride works for everyone—it benefits adults, it benefits children,' Simon says. 'But the people who derive the most benefit from it are people who have a harder time accessing routine dental care.' 'Unfortunately, in our country, that is more likely to be children and families who are low-income, who rely on public insurance, or who otherwise face challenges in getting to a dentist,' she says. States' moves to ban the use of fluoride in public drinking water come as the Trump Administration—due in large part to the influence of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—has pushed back against the practice. Kennedy has long blasted water fluoridation, claiming it is linked to arthritis, bone cancer, IQ loss, and more, and signaled that HHS will stop recommending it. The Environmental Protection Agency has said that it is studying the potential health risks of fluoride, and the Food and Drug Administration said it is taking steps to remove prescription ingestible fluoride supplements for children from the market. Some research suggests that fluoride could be associated with lower IQ scores, but only at significantly high levels of exposure—the amount of fluoride that is added to public water, based on federal guidelines, is far lower. And the majority of public health experts, pediatricians, and dentists insist that water fluoridation is a long-standing practice that is both safe and effective at protecting oral health and fighting cavities and tooth decay. 'It's been touted to be one of the most successful or greatest public health initiatives, right up there with vaccinations,' says Dr. Tomitra Latimer, a pediatrician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago. U.S. localities started adding fluoride to public water in 1945, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has credited the public health initiative for the 'dramatic decline in cavities' in the country in the years since. According to the CDC, drinking fluoridated water reduces cavities by roughly 25% in both children and adults. Tooth decay, though preventable, is one of the most common childhood diseases. And children of color, children who come from low-income households, children on public insurance plans that limit which providers they can see, and children who live in rural areas and have to travel long distances to access care—all of them are at greater risk of developing cavities, according to Latimer. Children with autism also tend to have a heightened risk of developing cavities because they may struggle with brushing their teeth regularly, she says. While there are alternative sources of fluoride that people can purchase, the cost may be out of reach for many families, Latimer says. That's why, she says, fluoridated water is so critical: It's an easily accessible tool that can help protect the oral health of children who are most vulnerable to cavities. And for generations, it's flowed straight from the tap.
