
The Facts About Seed Oils And Your Health
Every decade has a new food enemy. First, it was fat. Then, it was sugar. Now, seed oils are under fire—blamed for causing obesity and chronic disease.
They're almost impossible to avoid. Seed oils are in everything—from salad dressings and fast food to protein bars and even baby formula. Critics claim they're harmful, while supporters argue they're safe, affordable, and even good for you.
However, the truth is more nuanced. The debate is often oversimplified. Even the term 'seed oil' is misleading, lumping together oils that have been part of traditional diets for centuries with those created for large-scale food production.
At its core, the controversy isn't just about whether seed oils are inherently good or bad—it's about how they're processed and consumed.
If you've been following health trends, you've probably heard claims that seed oils are toxic and should be avoided. What exactly are seed oils, and why do some people consider them harmful?
At their most basic, seed oils are extracted from seeds. This might seem harmless—after all, olive oil comes from olives, and coconut oil from coconuts.
But not all seed oils are the same. Some, like sesame and flaxseed oil, have been integral to traditional diets for centuries and are extracted through natural, cold-press methods that preserve their nutrients and antioxidants.
Others, however, are highly processed. Industrial seed oils—like soybean, corn, canola, sunflower, safflower, cottonseed, grapeseed, and rice bran—are mass-produced through high-heat extraction and chemical refining.
Manufacturers frequently use solvents like hexane to extract the maximum amount of oil. These oils are refined, bleached, and deodorized, earning them the label 'RBD' oils. This process makes them neutral in taste and more shelf-stable, but it also removes beneficial compounds like vitamin E and antioxidants.
Many industrial seed oils were never intended for human consumption. Canola oil began as rapeseed oil, primarily used as a machine lubricant until Canadian scientists modified it in the 1970s to remove toxic compounds. The name itself—a blend of 'Canada' and 'oil'—was a marketing invention. 'Vegetable oil' is another misleading term—it's often a blend of industrial seed oils marketed to sound healthier than it is.
Cate Shanahan, a Cornell-trained physician-scientist specializing in dietary fats, explains that industrial seed oils were not developed with nutrition in mind.
'The crude oil from these seeds is inedible,' she told The Epoch Times. 'Soy and canola weren't bred for nutrition—they were bred for high yields and industrial durability.'
Most soy grown in the United States isn't intended for human consumption at all. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, more than 70 percent of U.S. soybeans are used for animal feed, while another 5 percent is processed into biodiesel. What remains is primarily refined into soybean oil—a product stripped of much of the soy plant's original nutritional value.
Additionally, more than 90 percent of American soy is genetically modified to withstand herbicides like glyphosate, allowing farmers to spray entire fields without harming crops. This high-intensity farming, combined with heavy industrial processing, results in oil far removed from its original form.
Unlike traditional oils such as olive or sesame, which retain their natural antioxidants, industrial seed oils require extensive refining to become shelf-stable. Shanahan argues that this process removes beneficial compounds, making them more prone to oxidation and degradation.
'What works for machines doesn't always work for humans,' Shanahan said.
Seed oils' health effects are hotly debated. Some experts say they're a heart-healthy alternative to butter and other animal fats, while others believe they might contribute to inflammation and disease.
For decades, scientists have debated the role of different fats in heart health. Research suggests that replacing saturated fats—found in butter and red meat—with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) from seed oils may offer cardiovascular benefits.
Advocates argue that the science is well-established.
'The research on seed oils is consistently positive,' Matthew Nagra, a naturopathic doctor, told The Epoch Times. 'Numerous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that replacing saturated fat with seed oils rich in polyunsaturated fats can lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, America's top killer, without any clear detriment.'
Large-scale studies support this claim. A 2021 study of more than 500,000 people found that those who replaced saturated fats with oils like canola, corn, and olive oil had a lower risk of heart disease and early death.
'Our findings support shifting the intake from solid fats to non-hydrogenated vegetable oils for cardiometabolic health and longevity,' the authors wrote. Examples of solid fats include butter and lard.
A 2025 JAMA Internal Medicine study reinforced these findings, showing that people who ate more plant-based oils—such as olive, soybean, and canola—lived longer and had lower heart disease and cancer rates. Meanwhile, those who ate more butter had a higher risk of early death. The researchers estimated that swapping butter for plant oils could reduce overall mortality risk by 17 percent, including a 17 percent drop in cancer-related deaths.
Because of this growing evidence, the American Heart Association (AHA) continues to recommend seed oils as part of a heart-healthy diet.
Not everyone agrees with the AHA's endorsement of seed oils, and some experts question the research behind it.
'This study is of low quality,' Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, told The Epoch Times in an email. 'It lumps extra virgin olive oil with soybean and safflower oil, which is ridiculous.' He also criticized the study's methodology, arguing that it fails to accurately measure butter consumption and instead relies on an imprecise estimation method. 'This kind of nutritional epidemiology fuels dogma rather than providing clarity,' he said.
Beyond concerns about research methods, critics argue that the real issue with seed oil is oxidation.
Refining makes seed oils more resistant to spoilage, allowing them to last longer on store shelves. However, once exposed to heat, air, or light—especially during cooking—their chemical structure begins to break down.
Unlike traditional oils such as olive or sesame, which naturally contain antioxidants that help prevent degradation, industrial seed oils lose these stabilizing compounds during processing. As a result, they are more vulnerable to oxidation, a process that creates byproducts like aldehydes and free radicals. These compounds can damage cells, promote inflammation, and contribute to chronic disease.
Heat accelerates this process. Studies show that repeatedly heating vegetable oils—such as those used in restaurant fryers—can generate oxidative byproducts linked to tissue damage and increased cholesterol levels in lab animals. Some research has also found oxidized linoleic acid, a degraded form of omega-6 fat, accumulating in human fat tissue and artery plaques, raising concerns about long-term health effects.
Not all experts agree that oxidation is a major threat.
'These processes have pros and cons,' says Christopher Gardner, a nutrition professor at Stanford. 'They help prevent oils from breaking down but also strip away some beneficial components.'
A review in The Scientific World Journal found that while refining removes antioxidants like vitamin E and polyphenols (compounds that help protect cells), it also eliminates impurities, making the oils more stable and less likely to spoil.
Still, oxidation happens faster in seed oils than in other fats. Research shows that PUFAs degrade more quickly when exposed to heat, light, and air, whereas monounsaturated fats (found in olive oil) and saturated fats (found in butter and beef tallow) remain more stable.
If there's one thing both critics and defenders of seed oils agree on, They're everywhere. And that's no accident.
Cheap, abundant, and heavily subsidized seed oils are a pillar of the modern food industry. The U.S. government pours billions into supporting crops like soybeans, corn, and cottonseed, making their oils far more affordable than alternatives like olive or avocado.
Soybeans dominate the market, accounting for about 90 percent of U.S. oilseed production. In 2016, the soybean industry alone received $1.6 billion in subsidies—helping to keep production high and costs low.
Government support doesn't just make seed oils cheap for home cooks—it makes them the backbone of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which now make up nearly 60 percent of the American diet. Along with refined grains and added sugars, seed oils form the foundation of modern processed foods, used to enhance texture, extend shelf life, and boost flavor at a low cost. These ingredients appear in everything from breakfast cereals to frozen dinners, making them nearly impossible to avoid in a typical supermarket.
A 32-ounce bottle of canola oil costs about $5.79, while the same amount of extra virgin olive oil can cost $13.99 or more. For food manufacturers trying to keep costs down, the choice is obvious. Because they're inexpensive, neutral in flavor, and relatively shelf-stable, seed oils are a food manufacturer's dream—allowing processed foods to last longer, taste better, and remain profitable.
Shanahan estimates that seed oils account for 20–30 percent of the average American's daily calorie intake. This figure wasn't easy to calculate, as seed oils aren't tracked as a category. Shanahan analyzed decades of production data from crops like soybeans and canola, using government and industry reports to uncover the extent of seed oils' presence in modern diets.
'Humans have never consumed polyunsaturates at this level before,' she warns. 'Historically, diets relied mainly on animal fats, not oils rich in PUFAs. If you don't know to avoid them, you're eating vast quantities.'
Gardner agrees—but says the issue isn't just seed oils. The rise in seed oil consumption isn't because more people are making homemade salad dressings, he said. It's because ultra-processed foods—where these oils are used heavily—now dominate the American diet.
Gardner argues that even if seed oils were removed from the food supply tomorrow, ultra-processed foods wouldn't disappear—they'd just be reformulated.
'If the same UPFs were made with another oil like butter, beef tallow, lard, or coconut fat, those foods would not suddenly become health foods.'
At its core, the debate over seed oils is about more than just the oils themselves. It's about the processed foods they're in—and whether we should be eating so many of them in the first place.
Rather than fixating on eliminating seed oils altogether, experts say the bigger issue is reducing ultra-processed foods and choosing high-quality, stable fats when cooking at home.
'If you want to improve your health by cutting back on seed oils, the best way to do that is by eating fewer ultra-processed foods,' Gardner advises. 'That would be a win in several ways—less sugar, less refined grain, and less sodium.'
For those looking to make better choices in their kitchens, experts recommend using stable, minimally processed oils that are less prone to oxidation: Avocado: High in monounsaturated fats, stable for high heat
High in monounsaturated fats, stable for high heat Extra virgin olive: Rich in antioxidants, ideal for drizzling or light cooking
Rich in antioxidants, ideal for drizzling or light cooking Butter and ghee: Naturally stable for high-heat cooking
Naturally stable for high-heat cooking Coconut: High in saturated fat, making it oxidation-resistant Flaxseed: High in omega-3s, best for dressings
High in omega-3s, best for dressings Walnut: Antioxidant-rich, flavorful in salads
Antioxidant-rich, flavorful in salads Sesame: Aromatic and moderately heat-stable Soybean
Corn
Canola
Cottonseed
Sunflower
Safflower
Grapeseed
Rice bran
While some specialty versions exist in cold-pressed forms, they are far less common than their mass-produced, highly processed counterparts.
The debate over seed oils is far from over, but one thing is clear: How you consume them matters.
A drizzle of canola oil on a homemade salad is not the same as eating French fries fried in old restaurant oil. Relying on ultra-processed foods filled with cheap oils, sugar, and additives is where the larger problem lies.
For most people, the best way to improve their diet isn't to worry about every drop of seed oil—it's to eat more fresh, unprocessed foods, says Gardner.
'It seems bizarre to blame the plant oils and not the foods they're in.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Gulf Insider
14-06-2025
- Gulf Insider
Vitamin D May Help Slow Cellular Aging, Study Finds
vitamin D supplementThe Reality Of Vitamin D SupplementationEvery morning, millions of people take a vitamin D supplement, thinking mostly about stronger bones and a healthier immune system. However, quietly, at the cellular level, something else may be happening—something that could change how we think about aging. A long-running study recently found that people who took daily vitamin D supplements for four years had slightly less shortening of their telomeres—a marker linked to cellular aging—than those who didn't. While experts caution that the real-world health benefits remain unclear, the findings could shed light on the protective effects of vitamin D on specific aging-related diseases, the study authors noted. The study, known as the VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL), showed that people taking 2,000 IUs of vitamin D lost about 140 fewer base pairs from their telomeres than those taking a placebo—a small but statistically significant difference. Telomeres are regions of DNA at the ends of chromosomes that naturally shorten with age. Shorter telomeres have been linked to health risks like heart disease and Alzheimer's disease. The study findings suggest a promising role for vitamin D in slowing a pathway for biological aging and age-related chronic disease, Dr. JoAnn Manson, the study's coauthor and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in an email to The Epoch Times. Although the results are encouraging, Manson says more research is needed. 'Replication of these results in another randomized trial will be important before changing general guidelines for vitamin D intake.' Participants in the study started out with an average of 8,700 base pairs. Independent experts say the difference in loss of base pairs observed in the study is very small and falls within the range of normal fluctuation, meaning it may not translate into measurable real-world benefits. 'This 140-base-pair difference is like saying your hemoglobin went from 13.0 to 13.1,' said Dr. Mary Armanios, a professor of oncology and director of the Telomere Center at Johns Hopkins University. 'It trends in the right direction, but it doesn't carry clinical meaning.' 'It is only at the extremes that telomere length matters in aging,' she added. More broadly, Armanios cautioned against thinking of telomeres as a simple aging clock. While very short telomeres can signal aging-related disease, unusually long ones are not always better and have been linked to higher cancer risk, according to 2023 research from her group published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 'Most people fall in a healthy middle range, and that's exactly where we want to be,' she said. She also noted that the method used to measure telomere length—quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)—can be affected by lab factors like temperature and sample handling. These variables can make small differences unreliable. Among telomere testing methods, qPCR is the least reproducible. While some experts urge caution in interpreting the telomere data, Manson said the new findings align with earlier VITAL results. Those results showed that vitamin D reduced inflammatory markers and lowered the risk of advanced cancers and autoimmune diseases by improving immune function. Previous studies on vitamin D and telomere length have shown mixed results, including some that found no effect—or even a correlation between higher vitamin D levels and shorter telomeres. Guidelines from the National Academy of Medicine recommend 600 IU per day for most adults and 800 IU for those over 70. The Endocrine Society also recommends supplements for older adults, people with prediabetes, and others at higher risk of deficiency. 'Most professional societies do not recommend routine vitamin D screening or supplementation for the general population,' said Manson. However, certain groups—older adults, those with limited sun exposure or absorption issues such as Crohn's disease or celiac disease—may benefit from modest supplementation. Other studies have suggested that vitamin D may promote healthy aging in older people. The DO-HEALTH trial, a large European study in adults age 70 and older, found that daily 2,000 IU of vitamin D led to modest improvements in bone strength and infection rates—but not a reduction in new chronic diseases. Longer-term observational research, like Germany's ESTHER study, linked higher vitamin D levels with lower rates of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. However, as a nonrandomized study, it couldn't rule out confounding lifestyle factors. More large, diverse, and long-term trials are needed to determine who benefits most, at what dose, and for which outcomes. Vitamin D metabolism is tightly regulated by the body, so only small to moderate amounts are needed to support health. A 2,000 IU daily dose is safe, as demonstrated in the five-year VITAL trial, with no increased risk of side effects. Very large doses—over 10,000 IU per day—may lead to elevated calcium levels and potential toxicity, Manson noted. For now, experts agree that this latest analysis does not mean everyone should start taking vitamin D supplements to slow aging. 'Vitamin D has known benefits, like for bone health,' Armanios said, 'but telomere length shouldn't be the main reason to start taking supplements.' However, for those already taking vitamin D for bone, muscle, or immune support, the findings may offer one more reason to continue. Vitamin D is found in fortified foods such as milk, cereal, and orange juice, and in fatty fish like salmon and sardines. Moderate sun exposure also helps the body make its own supply. 'Although it's easier to pop a pill,' said Armanios, 'being active outdoors and eating a healthy diet will do far more to support long-term health.' Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition and public health at New York University, said the findings are intriguing but still require further confirmation and clarity on their clinical significance. In the meantime, she encouraged people to spend time outdoors when possible, noting that 'sunlight on skin is the best source of vitamin D, far superior to supplements—even if just for a few minutes a day.'


Gulf Insider
03-06-2025
- Gulf Insider
China Schools Isolate Students Amid COVID Surge
Doctors and residents across China continue to report more infections and deaths as the latest wave of COVID-19 continues, portraying a far more severe situation than the Chinese regime is letting on. Schools in various provinces are reportedly suspending classes and placing students in quarantine, leading to growing concerns among the public of a return of lockdowns, according to information provided to the Chinese language version of The Epoch Times and on social media.A 'home quarantine notice'—issued by a primary school in Guangzhou and circulated by Chinese netizens on China's TikTok equivalent, Douyin, before it was posted to social media platform X on May 26 before CCP censors could delete it—has attracted widespread attention. The notice said that a third grade student was ordered to undergo quarantine for seven days after being diagnosed with COVID-19. After the quarantine period, health certificates from a clinic and community health service agency were required for the student to return to school. Schools in Shaanxi and Jiangsu also suspended classes after some students exhibited fevers, which were suspected to be COVID-19 infections. The Chinese communist regime's official data show that the COVID-19 infection rate doubled in April, with 168,507 cases, including 340 severe cases and nine deaths. The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) said that infection rates in China's southern provinces were higher than those in the north. Chinese state media Xinhua reported on May 28 that, according to health officials, the upward trend of COVID-19 infections has slowed, and in most provinces the epidemic has reached a peak or is on a downward trend. However, residents across the country told The Epoch Times that the situation is far worse and that official data continue to not match their lived experience. Because of the CCP's history of covering up information and publishing unreliable data, including the underreporting of COVID-19 infections and related deaths since early 2020, accounts from local medical doctors and residents can offer valuable information for understanding the situation on the ground in the totalitarian country. Kang Hong, a doctor at a clinic in Guangzhou city in China's south who used a pseudonym for safety concerns, told The Epoch Times on May 29 that most of those infected with COVID-19 in this wave have been adults, although it has also affected children. 'Their symptoms are far more severe than the common cold,' including the white-lung symptom often seen in COVID-19 patients, he said. Kang said that most patients came to the clinic for cold symptoms and fevers. They are not being tested for COVID-19 'because hospitals in China had not conducted large-scale nucleic acid testing for a long time because it was worried about causing social panic,' he said. Many patients are also unwilling to take a COVID-19 test, Kang said, 'because they know they are infected with the COVID-19 [based on their symptoms] and were unwilling to spend more than 100 yuan [about $13.90] for testing.' He said that a doctor in a tertiary hospital in Guangzhou, where his daughter works, has died from COVID-19 in recent days. 'It's a senior doctor who only got tested when his symptoms became serious, and the result was COVID-19,' Kang said. Although COVID-19 infections have increased, the local health bureau has told doctors that they do not need to report confirmed cases, he said. Click here to read more Also read: Covid Vaccine for Children and Pregnant Women Removed From Recommended Immunization Schedule


Gulf Insider
31-05-2025
- Gulf Insider
Overlooked Chemicals In Food May Threaten Your Health
Scientists are sounding the alarm on what they call an overlooked threat to public health: synthetic chemicals from packaging and processing equipment contaminating the food supply—particularly ultra-processed items—and potentially fueling a rise in chronic health conditions. A comprehensive review article recently published in Nature Medicine highlights some of the most prevalent types and sources of synthetic chemical contaminants in food: chemicals known as food contact chemicals (FCCs), which may contribute to chronic health conditions, including endocrine disruption, reproductive issues, and increased cancer risks. The widespread nature of FCC contamination may have escaped public attention because these chemicals migrate invisibly into food through routine processes we usually consider safe. Unlike visible food safety concerns such as bacterial contamination or spoilage, FCCs transfer silently from materials that come into contact with food through four key routes, as identified by the researchers: transportation, processing, packaging, and preparation. Transportation introduces FCCs through storage containers and tubing systems used to move food products. During this stage, chemicals from container coatings and transport equipment can leach into foods—especially when exposed to temperature changes or extended contact periods. Food processing—the industrial transformation of raw ingredients into finished products—exposes foods to machinery, conveyor systems, and processing equipment that contain various synthetic materials. The high temperatures and mechanical processes involved in manufacturing can accelerate chemical migration from these surfaces. Plastic food packaging represents a significant source of contamination, as it involves prolonged direct contact between synthetic materials and food products. Food preparation, which differs from processing because it involves the final steps before consumption, often includes heating. Higher temperatures lead to increased migration, the researchers noted. All FCCs that migrate into food or drinks are important because people will likely ingest them, the authors wrote. The study identified how specific harmful substances migrate through these pathways. Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether—a known endocrine disruptor and potential carcinogen—transfers from coatings of metal food storage containers during transportation and storage. Phthalates migrate from polyvinyl chloride tubing into milk during processing and transport. Even cleaning agents used to disinfect storage and transport containers can leave residues that end up in food. Fast food products face particularly high contamination levels because they encounter multiple packaging types throughout the production and service chain, including disposable containers, wrappers, and serving material, said Bryan Quoc Le, a food scientist and principal food consultant at Mendocino Food Consulting, in an interview with The Epoch Times. The health implications of FCC exposure extend far beyond minor concerns, with research linking these chemicals to severe chronic conditions that affect millions of people, according to the study. Phthalates in food packaging pose significant reproductive health risks, with certain types linked to preterm birth. This early delivery increases the risk of developing chronic conditions later in life, including kidney disease and diabetes. Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)—a man-made chemical used as a plasticizer—demonstrates particularly concerning effects in adults, with studies associating exposure with obesity and diabetes. Some evidence shows a 40 to 69 percent probability that DEHP exposure directly causes these conditions. Perfluorooctanoic acid—another common food contact chemical—carries even more severe risks. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified it as carcinogenic to humans, meaning it definitively causes cancer in people exposed to sufficient levels. Bisphenols, including the well-known bisphenol A (BPA), function as endocrine disruptors, interfering with the body's hormone systems. This disruption can affect reproductive health, metabolism, and development, particularly in children and pregnant women. Alternatives like bio-based coatings, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-free barriers, and safer plasticizers are currently available, but they come with trade-offs in cost, performance, and shelf life, said Vineet Dubey, a Los Angeles environmental attorney who focuses on consumer safety issues, in an interview with The Epoch Times. 'As always, change will take time and requires the buy-in of food companies, which have already invested in technology, factories, and industrial farm-to-table systems that package food the 'old' way,' he noted. Ultra-processed foods face the greatest contamination risk due to their complex manufacturing processes and extensive packaging requirements, according to the recent study. These products include breakfast cereals and bars, ready-made frozen meals, processed meats like chicken nuggets, energy drinks with significant added sugar, packaged bread, sodas, snacks like cookies and chips, candy, and condiments like ketchup and mayonnaise, Dr. Mia Kazanjian, the co-director of Stamford Health's Breast Center, who was not involved in the study, told The Epoch Times. 'These are the foods that are exposed to these chemicals most during the packaging, processing, and storage,' she said. Despite the widespread nature of FCC contamination, people can take practical steps to reduce their exposure and protect their health. Health experts recommend reducing the consumption of ultra-processed foods when possible. Instead, prioritize fresh, whole foods that require minimal processing and packaging. When purchasing packaged foods, choose products with minimal packaging or packaging made from safer materials. Glass and stainless steel containers pose significantly lower risks than plastic alternatives because they are less likely to leach harmful chemicals into food. Replace plastic food storage containers with glass or stainless steel alternatives. These materials resist chemical migration better. Avoid heating food in plastic containers, as elevated temperatures accelerate chemical migration from plastic into food. Transfer food to glass or ceramic containers before microwaving or heating. Use wooden, glass, or stainless steel utensils and cutting boards instead of plastic alternatives when possible. Plastic cutting boards can contain hundreds of chemicals. Choose fresh ingredients over packaged alternatives when possible, and prepare meals at home rather than relying on heavily packaged convenience foods. Kazanjian expressed hope that in the foreseeable future, our food system can be redesigned to minimize the use of potentially hazardous synthetic chemicals. 'It starts with more widespread awareness,' she said, adding that the more people know about this, the more advocacy there will be, and the more movement we will have toward a safer food supply—but it will take time. 'But certain things can be done in short order,' Kazanjian added. 'For example, we need more advanced testing to pick up on all the chemicals in these products. Then we need food companies to avoid using them and invest in safer alternatives.' Lead study author Jane Muncke emphasizes the need for a 'holistic' approach to policymaking that integrates considerations of planetary and human health, including FCCs and their effects. Recent regulatory action provides some hope. In 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked authorizations for 23 phthalates in food contact use and limited use to nine compounds. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now requires manufacturers and processors of Di-n-pentyl phthalate, a specific phthalate, to notify the agency before starting or resuming new uses. According to Muncke, all food packaging, processing equipment, and other food contact materials require adequate safety testing regarding migrating food contact chemicals and microplastics using modern testing methods. Quoc Le said, 'The more we learn about this topic, the clearer it becomes that there is a real problem, which may explain many health problems that exist today—especially those that are severe and undiagnosed in some individuals.'