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.

~ from the main article.

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.

It refers to the consumer reports article:

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.

That just means seed oils now have equal weights of evidence for and against I guess?

I believe it. Is there any reputable evidence at all that I shouldn't?

The specific claim being debunked is that seed oils are particularly bad ("toxic") for you compared to other oils. Which is not supported by evidence.

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.

> Gotta protect those precious greasy canola seed dollars

That hits hard where it hurts.

Now let's talk about your ulterior motives, Sir.

Probably related to RFK claims.

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.

If you look at the top of HN, the top posts are usually not ones containing "scientific information". Why does this one need to meet that standard, especially when the claim it's debunking isn't based on scientific information either?

This is a blog post about a consumer reports article one of the faculty was the primary source for.

The linked article is much better and cites numerous papers.

This wasn't published in an academic journal. It was published on the News page of Harvard's School of Public Health. It's PR/publicity for the school. The purpose of the post wasn't to appease industry donors, but to call attention to a Consumer Reports article that quoted someone from Harvard. The news post is just about bragging rights for the school. The Consumer Reports article seems to be a high-quality article, though still written for the general public rather than an academic journal.

> industry donors

Which ones? The meat industry or the soy farmers?

I don't know what you're complaining about, there's plenty of links in this short piece which ends with a link to https://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-eating/do-see... , an article that is somewhat more in-depth than the text from Harvard.

> with the supposed goal of appeasing industry donors

I've literally no clue why this strange thing fell out of the sky coming from seemingly nowhere. Are you angry Harvard doesn't comply with your imaginary goal posts? I don't get it.

Interesting. Now have a friend help you do it blinded.

Like, every single damn link in the article?