Lara AdlerEnvironmental health educator · MPH candidate (self-described)
No, and arguing about them is drawing attention away from the exposures that do matter.
What it rests onHer words: 'while we're all arguing over which seed oils are toxic (they're not), and whether taking red dye out of junk food is going to make people healthier (it won't), the real issues of air pollution, PFAS in literally everything, heavy metals, microplastics, and the regulatory rollbacks that will directly increase disease and death are being overlooked.' The surrounding argument is about attention and incentives rather than biochemistry: she holds that this content performs well in an algorithm, that it reeks of privilege because it focuses on food additives while ignoring pollutants that fall hardest on low-income communities, and that it makes reasonable people dismiss anyone citing legitimate exposure research. She offers no dose-response argument about linoleic acid, and it would overstate her to imply she did.
Source: talkingtoxins.substack.com ↗
