MAHA Tailwinds for Palm Oil
A new tailwind is blowing in favor of palm oil as a healthier cooking oil as ubiquitous cooking oils like soy and canola are blamed for the health crisis in the USA.
This was sparked by Robert F. Kennedy’s campaign to Make America Healthy Again which blamed seed oils like soy and canola for causing the health crisis in America among other common food ingredients.
In highlighting seed oils as bad for human health, RFK Jr. poked the bear in the established medical establishments and the seed oil industries among others.
Hot off the press, RFK Jr. has scientists scrambling to defend their positions when he accused their research on vaccines as "a deceitful propaganda stunt by the pharmaceutical industry," and said the scientists who authored it had "meticulously designed it not to find harm"
It's understandable of Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of the Annals and a professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University and Anders Peter Hviid, head of the epidemiology research department at the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark to defend their work as failure to do so would rubbish their status in the medical field.
But taking on a researcher or two is nothing in comparison to taking on the soybean industry in America.
American soy growers are up in arms against MAHA with claims of health benefits from seed oils and dire warnings of the plight of American farmers should seed oils be legislated as bad for human health.
Media platforms like the National Public Radio with claims to inform the public, increase understanding of the world, and enrich the experience of everyday life called up the usual bunch of seed oil proponents to shift the blame from seed oils to ultra processed foods.
The defense of seed oils from Christopher Gardner, a nutrition scientist and professor of medicine at Stanford University, Eric Decker, a professor emeritus of food science and lipids researcher at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Caitlin Dow, a senior nutrition scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest drew a conclusion that:
And one thing everyone seems to agree on is that Americans should eat fewer ultra-processed foods, which tend to be high in sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, as well as preservatives, artificial dyes and other additives. There is lots of evidence that shows eating too much ultra-processed food is linked to poor health outcomes.
In defending seed oils Gardner, Decker and Dow has taken on an industry much bigger than the seed oil industry. The ultra processed food industry.
According to Giulia Menichetti, senior research scientist at Northeastern’s Network Science Institute:
UPFs make up 73% of the US food supply, and provide the average US adult with more than 60% of their daily calories. But research is increasingly linking UPFs to a whole host of health issues: from cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes to colorectal cancer and depression.
Who is feeding this "junk" to Americans?
Consumer interest group US Right to Know listed household brands Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Frito-Lay, Kraft Heinz, and Kellogg’s
The latest data on UPFs consumption in the US revealed that 62% of kids’ and teens’ daily calories came from ultra-processed foods, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics found, compared with 53% for adults.
Big US conglomerates like Starbucks and Pepsico are responding with a move away from seed oils in order to improve the health profile of their products. The alternative has been avocado oil which has a much higher saturated fat content than canola.
The switch to avocado oil from canola is a knee jerk reaction as avocado oil is really expensive compared to Starbucks or Pepsico are used to paying for edible oils. It may work in the short term but only as a marketing ploy to divert attention away from Starbucks and Pepsico's other ingredients. It will prove to be a poor choice in the long run as production is limited.
The better choice would be palm oil which is exposed to less supply chain volatilities and has a recent gust of wind to push its use for fast food chains and FMCG (Fast-Moving Consumer Goods) companies.
There is a game changer for the use of palm oil in US fast foods which has been dominated by cheaper soy and canola oils.
For the longest time, there has been resistance to the use of palm oil in the US due to health concerns on its high saturated fat content. The same health concerns are being raised against MAHA’s promotion of beef tallow as a measure to combat chronic diseases.
The game changer is a decade-long study led by Ludwig Princeton’s Lydia Lynch published in the current issue of Nature Metabolism which provided a compelling answer to how sources of dietary fats influence cancer growth.
Remember how Salvador Aznar Benitah said that palm oil promotes cancer? His findings were widely reported by media as how a fatty acid found in palm oil can encourage the spread of cancer.
His findings were promptly rubbished by EUFIC which analysed Benitah’s work and found that:
"The study does not suggest that palm oil causes cancer, as claimed in some of the reporting.
The study did not assess if palm oil or palmitic acid causes cancer, only if it affects the spread of cancerous cells. Certain media reports stated that palm oil could “cause 90% of cancer cases”, but this appears to be a misinterpretation of an experts’ statement that metastasis in general causes 90% of cancer deaths.
This is early-stage research and more studies are needed to be certain of the impact of palm oil consumption on the spread of cancer in humans and to understand if findings could pave the way to new treatments to prevent or slow cancer metastasis."
Salvador Benitah should read the new findings of Lydia Lynch and Ludwig Cancer Research team.
“Our study reveals that the source of dietary fat, not adiposity itself, is the primary factor that influences tumor growth in obese mice,” said Lynch. “We found that high-fat diets derived from lard, beef tallow or butter compromise anti-tumor immunity and accelerate tumor growth in several tumor models of obese mice. Diets based on coconut oil, palm oil or olive oil, meanwhile, do not have this effect in equally obese mice. Our findings have implications for cancer prevention and care for people struggling with obesity.”
Lynch and her colleagues including Marcia Haigis, a senior author of the study and a member of the Ludwig Cancer Research at Harvard University noted that swapping out animal fats for plant fats might be a helpful dietary intervention for obese patients undergoing treatment for cancer. Such dietary changes could also potentially lower cancer risk for people living with obesity.
The findings of Ludwig Cancer Research which distinguished saturated fats from animal sources versus plant sources should be a major consideration for studies on the health impacts of saturated fats. This would give greater credibility to medical research that separates the wheat from the chaff.
Lynch's findings came out too late for Xiu Juan Zhang et al who reported that omega 3 fatty acids prevented myopia in children in Asia. Xiu's report was covered by Newsweek with the disclaimer that the study is observational and cannot prove cause and effect.
The absence of proven causation means the report by Xiu Juan Zhang et al is a waste of time. Reports on medical science should be able to draw reliable conclusions about what truly influences an outcome.
It is unfortunate that Newsweek covered Xiu's report as misinformation published by well known media platforms adds to the "biggest scourge in American health." This is what RFK Jr. is up against.
Plant based fats like avocado, coconut and palm oil may not exactly fit what the MAHA campaign is saying as the US does not grow any of these plant based oils to support an America First policy.
But if the overall health of their consumers is important to Starbucks and Pepsiso and palm oil can boost anti-tumor immunity and slow tumor growth, will there be enough palm oil to supplant soybean and canola oil which dominates the food industries in America?
Without destroying Indonesian rainforests as Greenpeace alleges?
It is concerning that Indonesia has bent the knee to Trump to protect its palm oil export to the US.
Data from 2024 shows the main origins of United States' Palm Oil imports were: Indonesia ($1.51B), Malaysia ($183M), Mexico ($17.2M), Philippines ($15.5M), and Colombia ($15.3M).
Indonesia is a perennial target of US based groups like Rainforest Action Network and their false claim that palm oil and its derivatives are ubiquitous in US markets. This is false information perpetrated by groups like the WWF which was exposed by the environmental group Borneo Futures.
FCMG companies in the US making the switch to plant based fats should therefore use extreme care to protect brand image against charges of deforestation and human rights abuses as avocado oil has been accused of being unsustainable.
Read Malaysia's Lost Harvests
This was sparked by Robert F. Kennedy’s campaign to Make America Healthy Again which blamed seed oils like soy and canola for causing the health crisis in America among other common food ingredients.
In highlighting seed oils as bad for human health, RFK Jr. poked the bear in the established medical establishments and the seed oil industries among others.
Hot off the press, RFK Jr. has scientists scrambling to defend their positions when he accused their research on vaccines as "a deceitful propaganda stunt by the pharmaceutical industry," and said the scientists who authored it had "meticulously designed it not to find harm"
It's understandable of Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of the Annals and a professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University and Anders Peter Hviid, head of the epidemiology research department at the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark to defend their work as failure to do so would rubbish their status in the medical field.
But taking on a researcher or two is nothing in comparison to taking on the soybean industry in America.
American soy growers are up in arms against MAHA with claims of health benefits from seed oils and dire warnings of the plight of American farmers should seed oils be legislated as bad for human health.
Media platforms like the National Public Radio with claims to inform the public, increase understanding of the world, and enrich the experience of everyday life called up the usual bunch of seed oil proponents to shift the blame from seed oils to ultra processed foods.
The defense of seed oils from Christopher Gardner, a nutrition scientist and professor of medicine at Stanford University, Eric Decker, a professor emeritus of food science and lipids researcher at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Caitlin Dow, a senior nutrition scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest drew a conclusion that:
And one thing everyone seems to agree on is that Americans should eat fewer ultra-processed foods, which tend to be high in sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, as well as preservatives, artificial dyes and other additives. There is lots of evidence that shows eating too much ultra-processed food is linked to poor health outcomes.
In defending seed oils Gardner, Decker and Dow has taken on an industry much bigger than the seed oil industry. The ultra processed food industry.
According to Giulia Menichetti, senior research scientist at Northeastern’s Network Science Institute:
UPFs make up 73% of the US food supply, and provide the average US adult with more than 60% of their daily calories. But research is increasingly linking UPFs to a whole host of health issues: from cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes to colorectal cancer and depression.
Who is feeding this "junk" to Americans?
Consumer interest group US Right to Know listed household brands Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Frito-Lay, Kraft Heinz, and Kellogg’s
The latest data on UPFs consumption in the US revealed that 62% of kids’ and teens’ daily calories came from ultra-processed foods, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics found, compared with 53% for adults.
Big US conglomerates like Starbucks and Pepsico are responding with a move away from seed oils in order to improve the health profile of their products. The alternative has been avocado oil which has a much higher saturated fat content than canola.
The switch to avocado oil from canola is a knee jerk reaction as avocado oil is really expensive compared to Starbucks or Pepsico are used to paying for edible oils. It may work in the short term but only as a marketing ploy to divert attention away from Starbucks and Pepsico's other ingredients. It will prove to be a poor choice in the long run as production is limited.
The better choice would be palm oil which is exposed to less supply chain volatilities and has a recent gust of wind to push its use for fast food chains and FMCG (Fast-Moving Consumer Goods) companies.
There is a game changer for the use of palm oil in US fast foods which has been dominated by cheaper soy and canola oils.
For the longest time, there has been resistance to the use of palm oil in the US due to health concerns on its high saturated fat content. The same health concerns are being raised against MAHA’s promotion of beef tallow as a measure to combat chronic diseases.
The game changer is a decade-long study led by Ludwig Princeton’s Lydia Lynch published in the current issue of Nature Metabolism which provided a compelling answer to how sources of dietary fats influence cancer growth.
Remember how Salvador Aznar Benitah said that palm oil promotes cancer? His findings were widely reported by media as how a fatty acid found in palm oil can encourage the spread of cancer.
His findings were promptly rubbished by EUFIC which analysed Benitah’s work and found that:
"The study does not suggest that palm oil causes cancer, as claimed in some of the reporting.
The study did not assess if palm oil or palmitic acid causes cancer, only if it affects the spread of cancerous cells. Certain media reports stated that palm oil could “cause 90% of cancer cases”, but this appears to be a misinterpretation of an experts’ statement that metastasis in general causes 90% of cancer deaths.
This is early-stage research and more studies are needed to be certain of the impact of palm oil consumption on the spread of cancer in humans and to understand if findings could pave the way to new treatments to prevent or slow cancer metastasis."
Salvador Benitah should read the new findings of Lydia Lynch and Ludwig Cancer Research team.
“Our study reveals that the source of dietary fat, not adiposity itself, is the primary factor that influences tumor growth in obese mice,” said Lynch. “We found that high-fat diets derived from lard, beef tallow or butter compromise anti-tumor immunity and accelerate tumor growth in several tumor models of obese mice. Diets based on coconut oil, palm oil or olive oil, meanwhile, do not have this effect in equally obese mice. Our findings have implications for cancer prevention and care for people struggling with obesity.”
Lynch and her colleagues including Marcia Haigis, a senior author of the study and a member of the Ludwig Cancer Research at Harvard University noted that swapping out animal fats for plant fats might be a helpful dietary intervention for obese patients undergoing treatment for cancer. Such dietary changes could also potentially lower cancer risk for people living with obesity.
The findings of Ludwig Cancer Research which distinguished saturated fats from animal sources versus plant sources should be a major consideration for studies on the health impacts of saturated fats. This would give greater credibility to medical research that separates the wheat from the chaff.
Lynch's findings came out too late for Xiu Juan Zhang et al who reported that omega 3 fatty acids prevented myopia in children in Asia. Xiu's report was covered by Newsweek with the disclaimer that the study is observational and cannot prove cause and effect.
The absence of proven causation means the report by Xiu Juan Zhang et al is a waste of time. Reports on medical science should be able to draw reliable conclusions about what truly influences an outcome.
It is unfortunate that Newsweek covered Xiu's report as misinformation published by well known media platforms adds to the "biggest scourge in American health." This is what RFK Jr. is up against.
Plant based fats like avocado, coconut and palm oil may not exactly fit what the MAHA campaign is saying as the US does not grow any of these plant based oils to support an America First policy.
But if the overall health of their consumers is important to Starbucks and Pepsiso and palm oil can boost anti-tumor immunity and slow tumor growth, will there be enough palm oil to supplant soybean and canola oil which dominates the food industries in America?
Without destroying Indonesian rainforests as Greenpeace alleges?
It is concerning that Indonesia has bent the knee to Trump to protect its palm oil export to the US.
Data from 2024 shows the main origins of United States' Palm Oil imports were: Indonesia ($1.51B), Malaysia ($183M), Mexico ($17.2M), Philippines ($15.5M), and Colombia ($15.3M).
Indonesia is a perennial target of US based groups like Rainforest Action Network and their false claim that palm oil and its derivatives are ubiquitous in US markets. This is false information perpetrated by groups like the WWF which was exposed by the environmental group Borneo Futures.
FCMG companies in the US making the switch to plant based fats should therefore use extreme care to protect brand image against charges of deforestation and human rights abuses as avocado oil has been accused of being unsustainable.
Read Malaysia's Lost Harvests