194
America Stopped Cooking With Tallow for a Reason
(www.theatlantic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
194 points (100.0% liked)
News
23655 readers
3161 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The omega 6/3 thing about seed oils mentioned in the article is real. It can be a big cause of inflammation. Plus, seed oils often have pretty toxic extraction procedures, especially for the cheap stuff.
But tallow and animal fats aren't the solution. Olive oil is. And I guess avocado oil if you need something more neutral and/or with a higher smoke point.
Please share your proof of any negatives of seed oil, because it's bullshit
You can read the transcripts if you don't want to watch the videos. Enjoy!
Yeah, that's not a great source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nutritionfacts-org/
Mostly because of his bias for veganism, which those linked videos have nothing to do with. But if you prefer more mainstream sources: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/how-vegetable-oils-replaced-animal-fats-in-the-american-diet/256155/
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324844#vegetable-oil
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9655691/
The Atlantic article is about the marketing of shortening and hydrogenated vegetable oil. The authors are a psychiatrist and a writer for Oprah. It really says nothing about vegetable oils that don't contain trans fats.
And most of the non-crank advice on light vegetable oils is just to avoid scorching them when cooking. Scorched oil, like any burnt foodstuff, contains free radicals that can be carcinogenic. One of the strongest pieces of science-based dietary advice is "don't eat burnt stuff."
And what of that last link?
It's about the use of hexane as an extracting agent in food processing. Hexane's nasty stuff that should go nowhere near the food chain, but the article has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
I think the point is that hexane is commonly used to extract seed oils, the subject of this thread.
Olive oil doesn't scale to match anything near current human consumption — a big chunk of what's sold as olive oil is already counterfeit.
Olives, canola and soy beans are all the same thing - they are all fruits not seeds.
Canola is rapeseed
I don't quite follow. You're saying that because not everyone can feasibly partake in healthier food, nobody should? Also, the current economic realities around certain food items aren't fixed in stone. Taxes, tariffs, regulations, and all sorts of other policy levers can make big changes to the market.
No, I'm saying that it isn't possible significantly shift peoples' diets to olive oil from other fats and oils because olive oil consumption is supply-constrained.
Okay.. But it's still a healthier solution than vegetable oil or tallow for the portion of the population that can be supplied with it, right?
I don't know about avocado oil, but you're not going to be able to solve America's love of deep fried food with olive oil both due to the cost and due to the practicality.
Yeah, olive oil is not for deep frying. But maybe Americans shouldn't be having quite as much fried food? (I say this as someone who just had fried food for dinner.)
I agree, but switching people to less unhealthy frying oil is easier than stopping them from eating so much fried food.
As I mentioned in another comment, today's food economics are not written in stone. There are all sorts of tax and subsidy levers in the public policy toolbox. One reason, say, soybeans and soybean oil are so cheap in the U.S. today is farm subsidies.
But humans being drawn to fatty and sugary foods is written into our DNA. Unless you find some way to ban fried food, people are still going to eat it. A lot. You would need a massive cultural shift away from fatty and sugary foods and that would take more than taxes and subsidies because things like fried chicken and waffles are now considered part of someone's culture.
https://50kitchen.com/culinary-history-chicken-and-waffles/
It's about frequency and quantity. Sure, people will always have a taste for unhealthy food. But until sugar/corn was massively subsidized in the U.S., people didn't eat nearly as much sweet junk. It took a massive cultural shift to get to where we are today. Massive cultural shifts happen.
It sure would take a massive cultural shift for black people to give up a lot of soul food staples since, again, it's a big part of their culture.
And I have no idea why you think less subsidies would make people who make soul food eat less fried food. They were eating fried food when they had to make it with pig fat and had no choice and they're still making it now, often still with pig fat. Subsidies are not involved.
I think you need to do a little exploration into soul food and also how important it is. This is a lot bigger than just "we need to stop eating this stuff, it's unhealthy."
In regards to subsidies, I was talking specifically about sweets, not fried food. Did you know that ~20% of calories in the American diet are from corn syrup? It's an epidemic, and it's in large part due to subsidies. People aren't going to lose their sweet tooth, but they'd buy soda less often if it wasn't so heavily subsidized.
As for fried food, granted, it's a huge part of many cultures. But the fries at McDonalds aren't. And taxes, for instance, are a real lever that can impact how often and how much certain foods are consumed.
Let me ask you something. Do you consider yourself a progressive? If so, why are you so convinced progress in certain areas is impossible?
No, I consider myself a realist.
Okie dokie.