Our commentary
Harvard's public health school ran a piece answering the seed oil question directly, and its value is partly in who is answering. Walter Willett has spent five decades on dietary fat epidemiology; when he says seed oils are "basically a very healthy part of a diet, and when you look at some of the alternatives—like butter or lard—these are much better," that is a considered position, not a press release.
The framing we'd underline is the one about ultra-processed foods being "the problem, rather the oils themselves." That is the crux of the entire debate, and it explains why the claim feels true to people who try cutting seed oils and feel better. Eliminating seed oils in practice means eliminating fried food, packaged snacks and takeaways. People do feel better. The oil gets the credit.
Where we'd add friction
Coverage in this genre — including ours — tends to present the rebuttal as tidier than the evidence warrants, so two things are worth saying alongside it.
The strongest evidence is about substitution, not addition. The impressive cardiovascular numbers come from trials replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated oil. The Cochrane review that tested simply increasing omega-6 intake rated its 19 trials as low-to-very-low quality and inconclusive. "Replacing butter with canola looks beneficial" is well supported. "More linoleic acid is good for you" is not the same statement, and is much less well supported.
Some of the reassurance is industry-funded. A widely covered 2026 review concluding seed oil concerns are "without scientific foundation" was supported by Soy Nutrition Institute Global with the United Soybean Board. Funding does not make findings wrong, and the independent evidence genuinely does point the same way. But readers being told the science is settled deserve to know who paid for some of the settling — particularly on a site like this, which spends most of its time pointing out that influencers have products to sell.
The mainstream position on seed oils is, we think, correct. It is also being defended slightly more confidently than the underlying evidence supports, and both things can be true at once.