Seed oils are toxic, says Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – but it's not so simple
Before Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Trump Administration, he joined a whole host of health influencers in proclaiming that widely used cooking oils such as canola oil and soybean oil are toxic.
T-shirts sold by his 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign now include the slogan, 'make frying oil tallow again' – a reference to the traditional use of rendered beef fat for cooking.
Seed oils have become a mainstay of the American diet because unlike beef tallow, which is comprised of saturated fats that increase cholesterol levels, seed oils contain unsaturated fats that can decrease cholesterol levels. In theory, that means they should reduce the risk of heart disease.
But research shows that different seed oils have varying effects on risk for heart disease. Furthermore, seed oils have also been shown to increase risk for migraines. This is likely due to their high levels of omega-6 fatty acids. These fats can increase inflammation, a heightened and potentially harmful state of immune system activation.
As a family physician with a Ph.D. in nutrition, I translate the latest nutrition science into dietary recommendations for my patients. When it comes to seed oils, the research shows that their health effects are more nuanced than headlines and social media posts suggest.
Seed oils — often confusingly referred to as 'vegetable oils' — are, as the name implies, oils extracted from the seeds of plants. This is unlike olive oil and coconut oil, which are derived from fruits. People decrying their widespread use often refer to the 'hateful eight' top seed oil offenders: canola, corn, soybean, cottonseed, grapeseed, sunflower, safflower and rice bran oil.
These oils entered the human diet at unprecedented levels after the invention of the mechanical screw press in 1888 enabled the extraction of oil from seeds in quantities that were never before possible.
Between 1909 and 1999, U.S. consumption of soybean oil increased 1,000 times. This shift fundamentally changed our biological makeup. Due to increased seed oil intake, in the past 50 years the concentration of omega-6 fatty acids that Americans carry around in their fatty tissue has increased by 136%.
Omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are essential nutrients that control inflammation. While omega-6s tend to produce molecules that boost it, omega-3s tend to produce molecules that tone it down. Until recently, people generally ate equal amounts of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. However, over the past century, this ratio has changed. Today, people consume 15 times more omega-6s than omega-3s, partly due to increased consumption of seed oils.
In theory, seed oils can cause health problems because they contain a high absolute amount of omega-6 fatty acids, as well as a high omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. Studies have linked an increased omega-6 to omega-3 ratio to a wide range of conditions, including mood disorders, knee pain, back pain, menstrual pain and even preterm birth. Omega-6 fatty acids have also been implicated in the processes that drive colon cancer.
However, the absolute omega-6 level and the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in different seed oils vary tremendously. For example, safflower oil and sunflower oil have ratios of 125:1 and 91:1. Corn oil's ratio is 50:1. Meanwhile, soybean oil and canola oil have lower ratios, at 8:1 and 2:1, respectively.
Scientists have used genetic modification to create seed oils like high oleic acid canola oil that have a lower omega-6 to 3 ratio. However, the health benefit of these bioengineered oils is still being studied.
Part of the controversy surrounding seed oils is that studies investigating their inflammatory effect have yielded mixed results. One meta-analysis synthesizing the effects of seed oils on 11 inflammatory markers largely showed no effects – with the exception of one inflammatory signal, which was significantly elevated in people with the highest omega-6 intakes.
To complicate things further, genetics also plays a role in seed oils' inflammatory potential. People of African, Indigenous and Latino descent tend to metabolize omega-6 fatty acids faster, which can increase the inflammatory effect of consuming seed oils. Scientists still don't fully understand how genetics and other factors may influence the health effects of these oils.
A review of seven randomized controlled trials showed that the effect of seed oils on risk of heart attacks varies depending on the type of seed oil.
This was corroborated by data resurrected from tapes dug up in the basement of a researcher who in the 1970s conducted the largest and most rigorously executed dietary trial to date investigating the replacement of saturated fat with seed oils. In that work, replacing saturated fats such as beef tallow with seed oils always lowers cholesterol, but it does not always lower risk of death from heart disease.
Taken together, these studies show that when saturated fats such as beef tallow are replaced with seed oils that have lower omega-6 to omega-3 ratios, such as soybean oil, the risk of heart attacks and death from heart disease falls. However, when saturated fats are replaced with seed oils with a higher omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, such as corn oil, risk of death from heart disease rises.
Interestingly, the most highly purchased seed oil in the United States is soybean oil, which has a more favorable omega-6 to 3 ratio of 8:1 – and studies show that it does lower the risk of heart disease.
However, seed oils with less favorable ratios, such as corn oil and safflower oil, can be found in countless processed foods, including potato chips, frozen dinners and packaged desserts. Nevertheless, other aspects of these foods, in addition to their seed oil content, also make them unhealthy.
A rigorous randomized controlled trial – the gold standard for clinical evidence – showed that diets high in omega-3 fatty acids and low in omega-6 fatty acids, hence low in seed oils, significantly reduced the risk of migraines
In the study, people who stepped up their consumption of omega-3 fatty acids by eating fatty fish such as salmon experienced an average of two fewer migraines per month than usual, even if they did not change their omega-6 consumption. However, if they reduced their omega-6 intake by switching out corn oil for olive oil, while simultaneously increasing their omega-3 intake, they experienced four fewer migraines per month.
That's a noteworthy difference, considering that the latest migraine medications reduce migraine frequency by approximately two days per month, compared to a placebo. Thus, for migraine sufferers — 1 in 6 Americans — decreasing seed oils, along with increasing omega-3 intake, may be even more effective than currently available medications.
Overall, the drastic way in which omega-6 fatty acids have entered the food supply and fundamentally changed our biological composition makes this an important area of study. But the question of whether seed oils are good or bad is not black and white. There is no basis to conclude that Americans would be healthier if we started frying everything in beef tallow again, but there is an argument for a more careful consideration of the nuance surrounding these oils and their potential effects.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Mary J. Scourboutakos, University of Toronto
Read more:
Ultraprocessed foods – like cookies, chips, frozen meals and fast food – may contribute to cognitive decline
How Crisco toppled lard – and made Americans believers in industrial food
Migraine sufferers have treatment choices – a neurologist explains options beyond just pain medication
Mary J. Scourboutakos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Queen Camilla's ‘Health Issues' Revealed After King Charles' Cancer Found ‘Incurable'—She's on ‘Her Last Legs'
A lot of the conversation about the British Royal family in the last few years has been about the health of different members of the family. Sure, the feuds take a lot of the attention, but it's impossible to ignore that the health of various members of the royal family has been under scrutiny lately. This includes King Charles, who has cancer and is reportedly very sick, and Kate Middleton, who was diagnosed with cancer as well, and who is now cancer-free. Health speculation now includes Queen Camilla, too. The Queen is reportedly not doing very well, with a source telling RadarOnline, 'Camilla really is on her last legs – literally. Along with all her other health issues, she can now hardly walk.' More from StyleCaster Trump Accused of Stealing King Charles' Thunder After the Royal Made a Clear Stance Against the President Prince William Faces Devastating News After King Charles' Cancer Found 'Incurable' Related: See what Queen Camilla looked like throughout the years The source explained her issues in detail and what is being done to manage them. 'She gets these Sole Bliss shoes made by a company in London shipped into the palace by the truckload as she is trying to cover up her feet deformities on royal engagements. She has the shoes hand-tooled to cover up the bony looking growths on the sides of her feet and totters around in them trying to pretend like there's nothing wrong.' However, the source also added that 'sooner or later she could be headed for a wheelchair – if she lives much longer,' explaining that 'Her spending on medics and specialists is through the roof as she's too vain to admit she needs a wheelchair.' Reportedly, the Queen has been warned against painful surgery to remove bunions. The outlet also reports the Palace has hidden the Queen's ailments for a while, as she reportedly had to have surgery for a pickled liver due to her decades of drinking years ago. She also recently had pneumonia. However, it seems now the stress of her husband's illness and the desire not to appear crippled in public are putting great strain on her. All of this comes amid reports that King Charles' cancer is reportedly incurable, but manageable, according to royal writer and associate editor of the Daily Telegraph, Camilla Tominey. 'The talk now is that he may die 'with' cancer, but not 'of' cancer following a rigorous treatment program,' she wrote. Tominey also said that planning for Charles' 80th birthday in 2028, while 'very tentative,' is going ahead. Not just that, there are reportedly plans for King Charles and his son, Prince Harry, to reunite publicly at the Invictus Games in Birmingham in 2027. 'There is an awareness that the impasse cannot continue forever, not least if it starts to reflect badly on the king.' Prince Harry recently spoke of his desire to reconcile with his father, referencing his illness specifically, and indicating that he didn't know how long his father had left. The hope would be that the reunion would also include Prince Harry's kids. However, it looks like there are plenty of health concerns in the royal family, and right now, there's very little anyone can do but see how things develop. Best of StyleCaster The 26 Best Romantic Comedies to Watch if You Want to Know What Love Feels Like These 'Bachelor' Secrets & Rules Prove What Happens Behind the Scenes Is So Much Juicier BTS's 7 Members Were Discovered in the Most Unconventional Ways
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Norma Swenson, an Author of ‘Our Bodies, Ourselves,' Dies at 93
Norma Swenson was working to educate women about childbirth, championing their right to have a say about how they delivered their babies, when she met the members of the collective that had put out the first rough version of what would become the feminist health classic 'Our Bodies, Ourselves.' It was around 1970, and she recalled a few of the women attending a meeting she was holding in Newton, Mass., where she lived. It did not go well. One of them shouted at her, 'You are not a feminist, you'll never be a feminist and you need to go to school!' 'I was stricken,' Ms. Swenson remembered in a StoryCorps interview in 2018. 'But also feeling that maybe she was right. I needed to know more things.' She did, however, know quite a bit about the medical establishment, the paternalistic and condescending behavior of male doctors — in 1960, only 6 percent of incoming medical students were female — and the harmful effect that behavior had on women's health. She had lived it, during the birth of her daughter in 1958. Despite the initial tension — the woman who had berated Ms. Swenson felt her activism was too polite, too old-school — the members of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, as they called themselves, invited Ms. Swenson to join their group. She would go on to help make 'Our Bodies, Ourselves' a global best seller. It was a relationship that lasted for the next half-century. Ms. Swenson died on May 11 at her home in Newton. She was 93. The cause was cancer, her daughter, Sarah Swenson, said. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.