Practiceby Lab 10 Get started ›
Crossfire

Are seed oils something you should worry about?

What the experts say

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 ↗
Ken D. BerryMD · family physician, Tennessee

Yes. Skip them.

What it rests onHis principle verbatim: 'Skip the seed oils. Canola, soybean, corn, cottonseed. They are new, they are inflammatory, and your body is not built for them.' It sits among his core principles as a dietary instruction with an evolutionary and inflammatory rationale, addressed to a person choosing what to cook with tonight. He cites no study for it on his own site, and the claim is marked Contested.

Source: drberry.com ↗

Overview

They are not addressing the same person or the same question. Berry is telling an individual what to cook with, on a claim about inflammation in that individual. Adler is telling a public how to allocate its attention across a field of exposures.

If you are asking 'should I throw out my canola oil', that is Berry's question; if you are asking 'what should I actually worry about', that is hers. The overlap is real but narrow: both are answering the proposition 'seed oils are harmful', and they answer it opposite ways.

Where they agree

Both hold that ultra-processed food is worth avoiding, and both would remove most of the products seed oils arrive in. Neither is defending the food; they disagree about which ingredient in it is the problem, and about whether the question deserves the attention it gets.

What would settle it

Controlled human trials isolating industrial seed oil intake from the ultra-processed food matrix it travels in, with inflammatory and cardiometabolic endpoints.

Both sides currently argue past that gap: his from mechanism and clinical impression, hers from an implicit judgment that the existing evidence does not support the alarm. Adler's position would also move on evidence that public attention to seed oils increased rather than decreased attention to air pollution and PFAS, which is an empirical claim about discourse and is measurable.

Practice does not pick a winner here

You do, and your call is dated, kept, and yours to change. Follow the people you already trust and what they publish turns into a short daily practice.

Get started

Free to sign up and use. We do not ask for a card.