Thank you for sharing such in-depth information. You clearly know the lengthy and complex process of oil refining. As I mentioned, there are knowledgeable and passionate people on both sides of the ongoing oil debate, and I assume it will continue for some time.
For me, the critical aspect of w-6 is not the percentage in a single oil, but that a wide range of these oils are in nearly everything people eat, which is where there becomes an overabundance that creates an imbalance.
From what I have researched and through my own experience, the closer our food is to its original form, the healthier we will be. Full stop. I believe this wholeheartedly.
As far as the processing, I believe that no amount of chemical is insignificant because it accumulates with all the other seemingly insignificant exposures to become significant. Chemicals or no chemicals, I prefer minimal steps. The process outlined demonstrates all the added points at which microplastics or heavy metals can seep into the mix. This is becoming increasingly concerning due to their presence in many foods, which has a cumulative effect. Take, for instance, the use of “naturally mined minerals.” How does the average consumer know what those minerals are? How are they mined? How are they stored? What trace of those are there in the end product, and after years of digesting them, what is the result? Many steps create many questions.
No process is perfect, but for me, the simpler, the better.
I appreciate you sharing your comprehensive thoughts. The subject of oils and fats is clearly very complex and nuanced. I mentioned in my post that some of these oils, in and of themselves, may not be deleterious if used solely for cooking, but the widespread use of them in nearly all ultra-processed foods creates a situation where people are consuming them in far greater amounts than they were once intended.
That is where many people far smarter than I are sounding alarm bells that they may be contributing to the harmful inflammation that is wreaking havoc on America’s health. People like Dr. Michael Greger, Dr. William Li, Dr. Casey Means, Dr. Kara Fitzgerald, Dr. Dale Breseden, and Dr. Catherine Shanahan, to name a few.
I agree with you that evolution and geography is integral to people’s metabolic composition and needs. To your point about India and vegetarians, while they may not get their Omega 3 from oils, they can get it from various vegetarian sources such as flax, chia, and hemp seeds, walnuts, and kidney beans. Their bodies may have adapted to utilize vegetarian sources better than others. Interestingly, from a quick search according to The Indian Express, 72% of Indians eat fish, and consumption has increased almost threefold from 2005 to 2021, so the majority are getting their Omega-3 from some fish.
I have been a pescatarian for over 40 years and in the years that I didn’t eat much fish, I was very mindful to consume foods high in Omega 3 such as dark leafy greens, kidney beans, flax seeds, and nuts, so I know it is achievable.
Ultimately, with so many confusing choices, I aim to distill my diet down to clean, tried-and-true foods. I’ve chosen olive oil as our mainstay to keep it simple since it has been around since biblical times, and it is very well studied with proven anti-inflammatory benefits. So far, it has proven very effective for my family’s health.
Granted, there will always be people on both sides of the debate, but that helps fuel investigation and discussion.
Here are the fatty acid composition of the oils in your report, the Hatelful 8, the desired ones and a couple of others:
Saturated W6. W9. W3
Canola 9 21 61 10
Corn. 16. 34. 51. traces
Cotton seed. 26. 48. 23. 1
Soybean. 14. 54. 25. 7
Sunflower. 8. 60. 25. 0.3
Safflower. 9. 77. 13. Traces
Grape seed. 12. 70. 18. 0.3
Rice Bran. 17. 31. 42. 1
Olive 15. 10. 75. 1
Avacado. 19. 16. 60. 1
Coconut. 90. .. 7. ..
Macadamia nut. 13. 3. 78. ..
Butter 62. 3. 26. 4
Lard. 43. 12. 47. 1
Beef Tallow. 32. 38. 20. 4
Duck fat. 28. 16. 49. 1
Palm. 49. 11. 41. traces
Sesame. 16. 42. 41. traces
Mustard. 12. 15. 54. 6
Please look at this picture and then take a considered decision. Based on high w6, sunflower, safflower and grape seed oils can be excluded. You have in the USA, a modified sunflower oil, called high oleic sunflower oil with 85% w-9, only 4% of w-6, superior even to Olive oil. Canola, corn and rice bran have significant levels of w-9 which will compensate for their w-6 content. They don’t deserve to be in Hateful 8 and can be very balanced oils. Lard and duck fat score among the animal fats, because of their significant w-9 content. Palm is similar to lard. Sesame oil is superior to beef tallow with its much higher w-9 content. The point, therefore, is that even in the Hateful 8, there are some that can limit w-6 and offer significant w-9. Only soybean, mustard and butter have some worthwhile levels of w-3. Soybean is high in w-6, a downside. Mustard has 54% of w-9, additional plus, even though it is made up largely of 22:1. It is strange that mustard oil is not approved in the USA, even though it is a cultural icon in large parts of India.
On w-3, the only major universal source is fish. Out of 7 plus billion world population, about 1.2 billion could be vegetarians, no meat of any kind including fish, eggs ok for some, dairy is fine. Almost 90% of these vegetarians could be from India. This is a centuries old situation, they have practically no access to w-3, because most plant oils do not contain any significant w-3 and the ones like flaxseed containing significant w3 are not everyday oils. It means the large vegetarian population has evolved without having w-3. Their metabolisms have undergone suitable adjustments to account for the absence of w-3. This fact doesn’t find a place in most discourses on cooking oils in the West.
I have to take exception to many of your views, especially about oil processing and the scare it creates in ordinary reader’s mind. Partly because of lack of actual details. Let me list.
In solvent extraction, the solvent, which has only a boiling point of 65 C ( hexane) is completely removed by vac distillation and complete vac drying. The temperatures used are about 70-80 c and in vac the boiling point of hexane can get to be as low as 40 C also. Only single digit ppm levels will remain when the oil is brought for refining. There is unwarranted and unattended chemical scare here.
In degumming, the gummy phospholipid components are removed from the oil in the first step of refining. The gums remain dissolved in oil and can foul further processing. Hence. For this, either steam or hot water only is used normally which brings out the gum removed by centrifuging. A small amount of phosphoric may be used sometimes, but it goes away in the aqueous layer along with the ‘hydrated gums’. Normally only soybean oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil are degummed, as they contain upto 3% gums or phosphatides as they are chemically called. Sunflower oil may be subjected before this to a process called winterisation, basically chilling to remove natural waxes present in the oil. The waxes are filtered out.
Subsequent refining and deodorisation steps are done with steam. No harmful chemicals here, nor their residues. In between, the oils may be bleached, to remove dark colours naturally present in them and not removed in degumming and refining. Here, oils are heated with activated carbon and diatomaceous clay ( Wyoming is famous for these clay mines) at high temperature and these are removed by ultra fine filtration. The oils get a sheen or sparkle here, because all other microscopic suspended particles have been removed in this step. Deodorisation is the last step, removal of any volatile compounds that have been formed or are not removed in the previous steps.
Thus, except the use of hexane ( petrol) in the very first extraction, all processing involve mostly steam or natural mined materials. So, the scare about unwanted chemicals being present in refined oils is unsubstantiated and unwarranted. The refining process has been known for over a hundred years and have been refined with time.
Not all unrefined oils are suitable for high temp cooking and nor all of them are refined either ( e.g olive oil, coconut oil etc are normally used as such. Some unrefined oils like peanut oil are suitable for high temp use as well. Refined oils are usually suitable for repeat use ( 2-3 times may be), and the oils themselves have long shelf life.
Please note that the now villainous linoleic acid (w-6) is ubiquitous in almost all cooking oils. In most of the oils you have listed in your essay, side A or side B, it is present to the tune of 10% (olive oil) to about 70% ( safflower, grape seed). Even your other favourite, avacado oil contains about 15-16% w-6. Knowledgable people like you must base the recommendations to the public based on the fatty acid composition and the desirable objective of limiting w-6 intake. Not on the basis of seed oils, fruit oils, animal fats etc. Avacado oil, peanut oil and canola oil all contain about 60% of w-9, 15-20% of w-6 and the rest are saturates. Two of them are seed oils and one a fruit oil ( fruit seed). Three very similar oils but where is the justification for castigating two of them because of seed connection, while accepting the third one. If one wants to say that avacado oil is superior because it is unrefined and contains things like anti oxidants etc, then they should not bring the point of w-6 into the argument. You know that w-9 ( oleic acid, mono unsaturated fatty acid, MUFA) is the safest among the three types, defining the superior status of olive oil.
Palm oil is a fruit oil, from fruit pulp. Contains 45% MUFA and 45% saturates and very little w-6. Technically it is a very good oil. World must pressurise Malaysia and Indonesia to produce them without environment degradation, the minus point about palm oil now.
Thank you for sharing such in-depth information. You clearly know the lengthy and complex process of oil refining. As I mentioned, there are knowledgeable and passionate people on both sides of the ongoing oil debate, and I assume it will continue for some time.
For me, the critical aspect of w-6 is not the percentage in a single oil, but that a wide range of these oils are in nearly everything people eat, which is where there becomes an overabundance that creates an imbalance.
From what I have researched and through my own experience, the closer our food is to its original form, the healthier we will be. Full stop. I believe this wholeheartedly.
As far as the processing, I believe that no amount of chemical is insignificant because it accumulates with all the other seemingly insignificant exposures to become significant. Chemicals or no chemicals, I prefer minimal steps. The process outlined demonstrates all the added points at which microplastics or heavy metals can seep into the mix. This is becoming increasingly concerning due to their presence in many foods, which has a cumulative effect. Take, for instance, the use of “naturally mined minerals.” How does the average consumer know what those minerals are? How are they mined? How are they stored? What trace of those are there in the end product, and after years of digesting them, what is the result? Many steps create many questions.
No process is perfect, but for me, the simpler, the better.
I appreciate you sharing your comprehensive thoughts. The subject of oils and fats is clearly very complex and nuanced. I mentioned in my post that some of these oils, in and of themselves, may not be deleterious if used solely for cooking, but the widespread use of them in nearly all ultra-processed foods creates a situation where people are consuming them in far greater amounts than they were once intended.
That is where many people far smarter than I are sounding alarm bells that they may be contributing to the harmful inflammation that is wreaking havoc on America’s health. People like Dr. Michael Greger, Dr. William Li, Dr. Casey Means, Dr. Kara Fitzgerald, Dr. Dale Breseden, and Dr. Catherine Shanahan, to name a few.
I agree with you that evolution and geography is integral to people’s metabolic composition and needs. To your point about India and vegetarians, while they may not get their Omega 3 from oils, they can get it from various vegetarian sources such as flax, chia, and hemp seeds, walnuts, and kidney beans. Their bodies may have adapted to utilize vegetarian sources better than others. Interestingly, from a quick search according to The Indian Express, 72% of Indians eat fish, and consumption has increased almost threefold from 2005 to 2021, so the majority are getting their Omega-3 from some fish.
I have been a pescatarian for over 40 years and in the years that I didn’t eat much fish, I was very mindful to consume foods high in Omega 3 such as dark leafy greens, kidney beans, flax seeds, and nuts, so I know it is achievable.
Ultimately, with so many confusing choices, I aim to distill my diet down to clean, tried-and-true foods. I’ve chosen olive oil as our mainstay to keep it simple since it has been around since biblical times, and it is very well studied with proven anti-inflammatory benefits. So far, it has proven very effective for my family’s health.
Granted, there will always be people on both sides of the debate, but that helps fuel investigation and discussion.
Please note that metabolically, the plant based w-3 is inferior to the analogues from fish. This is another significant consideration.
Here are the fatty acid composition of the oils in your report, the Hatelful 8, the desired ones and a couple of others:
Saturated W6. W9. W3
Canola 9 21 61 10
Corn. 16. 34. 51. traces
Cotton seed. 26. 48. 23. 1
Soybean. 14. 54. 25. 7
Sunflower. 8. 60. 25. 0.3
Safflower. 9. 77. 13. Traces
Grape seed. 12. 70. 18. 0.3
Rice Bran. 17. 31. 42. 1
Olive 15. 10. 75. 1
Avacado. 19. 16. 60. 1
Coconut. 90. .. 7. ..
Macadamia nut. 13. 3. 78. ..
Butter 62. 3. 26. 4
Lard. 43. 12. 47. 1
Beef Tallow. 32. 38. 20. 4
Duck fat. 28. 16. 49. 1
Palm. 49. 11. 41. traces
Sesame. 16. 42. 41. traces
Mustard. 12. 15. 54. 6
Please look at this picture and then take a considered decision. Based on high w6, sunflower, safflower and grape seed oils can be excluded. You have in the USA, a modified sunflower oil, called high oleic sunflower oil with 85% w-9, only 4% of w-6, superior even to Olive oil. Canola, corn and rice bran have significant levels of w-9 which will compensate for their w-6 content. They don’t deserve to be in Hateful 8 and can be very balanced oils. Lard and duck fat score among the animal fats, because of their significant w-9 content. Palm is similar to lard. Sesame oil is superior to beef tallow with its much higher w-9 content. The point, therefore, is that even in the Hateful 8, there are some that can limit w-6 and offer significant w-9. Only soybean, mustard and butter have some worthwhile levels of w-3. Soybean is high in w-6, a downside. Mustard has 54% of w-9, additional plus, even though it is made up largely of 22:1. It is strange that mustard oil is not approved in the USA, even though it is a cultural icon in large parts of India.
On w-3, the only major universal source is fish. Out of 7 plus billion world population, about 1.2 billion could be vegetarians, no meat of any kind including fish, eggs ok for some, dairy is fine. Almost 90% of these vegetarians could be from India. This is a centuries old situation, they have practically no access to w-3, because most plant oils do not contain any significant w-3 and the ones like flaxseed containing significant w3 are not everyday oils. It means the large vegetarian population has evolved without having w-3. Their metabolisms have undergone suitable adjustments to account for the absence of w-3. This fact doesn’t find a place in most discourses on cooking oils in the West.
Second para, last line. “There is NO unwarranted and unattended chemical scare here.”
I have to take exception to many of your views, especially about oil processing and the scare it creates in ordinary reader’s mind. Partly because of lack of actual details. Let me list.
In solvent extraction, the solvent, which has only a boiling point of 65 C ( hexane) is completely removed by vac distillation and complete vac drying. The temperatures used are about 70-80 c and in vac the boiling point of hexane can get to be as low as 40 C also. Only single digit ppm levels will remain when the oil is brought for refining. There is unwarranted and unattended chemical scare here.
In degumming, the gummy phospholipid components are removed from the oil in the first step of refining. The gums remain dissolved in oil and can foul further processing. Hence. For this, either steam or hot water only is used normally which brings out the gum removed by centrifuging. A small amount of phosphoric may be used sometimes, but it goes away in the aqueous layer along with the ‘hydrated gums’. Normally only soybean oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil are degummed, as they contain upto 3% gums or phosphatides as they are chemically called. Sunflower oil may be subjected before this to a process called winterisation, basically chilling to remove natural waxes present in the oil. The waxes are filtered out.
Subsequent refining and deodorisation steps are done with steam. No harmful chemicals here, nor their residues. In between, the oils may be bleached, to remove dark colours naturally present in them and not removed in degumming and refining. Here, oils are heated with activated carbon and diatomaceous clay ( Wyoming is famous for these clay mines) at high temperature and these are removed by ultra fine filtration. The oils get a sheen or sparkle here, because all other microscopic suspended particles have been removed in this step. Deodorisation is the last step, removal of any volatile compounds that have been formed or are not removed in the previous steps.
Thus, except the use of hexane ( petrol) in the very first extraction, all processing involve mostly steam or natural mined materials. So, the scare about unwanted chemicals being present in refined oils is unsubstantiated and unwarranted. The refining process has been known for over a hundred years and have been refined with time.
Not all unrefined oils are suitable for high temp cooking and nor all of them are refined either ( e.g olive oil, coconut oil etc are normally used as such. Some unrefined oils like peanut oil are suitable for high temp use as well. Refined oils are usually suitable for repeat use ( 2-3 times may be), and the oils themselves have long shelf life.
Please note that the now villainous linoleic acid (w-6) is ubiquitous in almost all cooking oils. In most of the oils you have listed in your essay, side A or side B, it is present to the tune of 10% (olive oil) to about 70% ( safflower, grape seed). Even your other favourite, avacado oil contains about 15-16% w-6. Knowledgable people like you must base the recommendations to the public based on the fatty acid composition and the desirable objective of limiting w-6 intake. Not on the basis of seed oils, fruit oils, animal fats etc. Avacado oil, peanut oil and canola oil all contain about 60% of w-9, 15-20% of w-6 and the rest are saturates. Two of them are seed oils and one a fruit oil ( fruit seed). Three very similar oils but where is the justification for castigating two of them because of seed connection, while accepting the third one. If one wants to say that avacado oil is superior because it is unrefined and contains things like anti oxidants etc, then they should not bring the point of w-6 into the argument. You know that w-9 ( oleic acid, mono unsaturated fatty acid, MUFA) is the safest among the three types, defining the superior status of olive oil.
Palm oil is a fruit oil, from fruit pulp. Contains 45% MUFA and 45% saturates and very little w-6. Technically it is a very good oil. World must pressurise Malaysia and Indonesia to produce them without environment degradation, the minus point about palm oil now.