Tallow and unsaturated fats: What is "natural" and what is good -- not the same!

The NY Times “Eat” section recently had an article titled ‘How Beef Tallow Made a Comeback’, asking in the subhead ‘When McDonald’s stopped frying with beef tallow in the 1990s, most people saw it as a win for America’s health. What changed?’. The short answer, in terms of the science of the relative benefits of saturated animal fats like tallow and lard versus the unsaturated (olive oil) and poly-unsaturated (several types of vegetable oil) fats, nothing. What has changed, at least to some degree including among the restauranteurs cited, is people’s opinions and beliefs. One of them ‘said he felt a “moral and ethical obligation” to change his menu earlier this year…after reading that seed oils, like the canola oil he used to cook his fries and tortilla chips, carried potential harms. Tallow, he said, made for a healthier, more “natural” frying oil.’

There is a lot to unpack here. First is whether “seed oils” carry potential harms. Where did he read it? A reliable source? A wackjob? An earlier “Eat” piece, in January (link in the previous paragraph) was called ‘Are Seed Oils Actually Bad for You?’. It concluded that, new (not yet confirmed when the article appeared) Secretary of Health and Human Services ‘Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and others, claim they’re harming our health but the evidence suggests otherwise.’ In both articles, accomplished and respected nutrition scientists dispute this claim, and emphasize the increased risk of heart disease (and cancer) from animal fats like tallow and lard. There are physicians in the US, certainly here in Tucson, who dispute the idea that saturated fats are bad for you in terms of causing a higher risk of heart disease, but they are a distinct minority. There are at least a couple of research studies indicating they are not, but hundreds indicating that they are.

‘In 2002, a review study raised the question of whether consuming foods with high levels of omega-6 fatty acids relative to omega-3 fatty acids (a ratio typical of many seed oils) might increase inflammation in the body. “But I’ve gone through these papers and there’s not a single shred of evidence that this is actually true,” Dr. [Walter] Willett [Harvard School of Public Health] said. “This is all theoretical.”’

It should go without saying (but apparently doesn’t) that it is illegitimate to pick and choose the research you cite based not on its quality or methods but on whether it gets the results you already agree with. The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends diets with lower levels of saturated and higher levels of unsaturated fats, but critics say that this recommendation is tainted because AHA got money from Procter and Gamble, which manufactures Crisco, which contains both saturated and unsaturated fats and is not actually a particular favorite choice in the polyunsaturated sphere. While the appearance of bias/corruption always can exist when money is involved (see my piece from August 20, 2010 The AAFP, Coca-Cola, and Ethics: Serving the public interest?), it does not necessarily, or usually, mean the research supporting recommendations is flawed. P&G denies any association, but much more important is the breadth and consistency of the research supporting the use of unsaturated fats.

The other big issue is ”natural”. This one is huge. People of all political stripes love “natural”. It sounds so – well, natural! If it’s natural, it must be good – or at least better – right? Well, first of all, for this discussion, seed oils are also natural. They are, indeed, usually processed, but there is nothing in that processing that would make them less healthful, or natural. Tallow and lard when sold commercially are purified as well. A lot of stuff that is natural can be good for you, but a lot of stuff can also be bad for you. Many people advocate for the use of herbal remedies (natural, right?) and in fact many plants do have physiologic effects that can treat symptoms and diseases. Some have been the basis of commercially-produced medicines, e.g., aspirin from willow bark, digitalis from foxglove, colchicine from autumn crocus (Drug prices and corporate greed: there may be limits to our gullibility, December 27, 2015). Even in these cases the standardization of dose is much better in commercially produced drugs (and I am no fan of pharmaceutical companies or their practices, especially advertising and pricing). How many leaves of foxglove is good for your heart and how much is going to kill you (digitalis has a very narrow therapeutic:toxic ratio)? And there are many other natural things that are not good for you…I do not recommend rubbing poison ivy on your skin! Tobacco is a natural product, and Native people used it to treat wounds, as well as smoked it. Respecting those traditions and putting it on wounds, or especially smoking it, may not be the best thing for your health.

One thing that is sometimes cited as an indication of what natural things are good is the behavior of other animals. This is worth observing, but it is also worth noting that people are not the same as other animals, and the fact that they like something doesn’t mean it is god for people (or even for them!):

‘Mathaus Myga, 37, who owns a German takeout restaurant in Wisconsin, started frying his pork and chicken schnitzel in locally sourced beef tallow a year and a half ago….When Mr. Myga returns home after a day of frying with tallow, his two dogs lick his fingers. “They would never do that with rapeseed oil,” Mr. Myga said, referring to a common vegetable oil. “These are animals that have natural instincts.”’

I don’t know about Mr. Myga’s dogs, but the things my dogs’ natural instincts lead them to eat are not always things I’d recommend to people. Horse droppings are one of their favorites!

You can believe whatever you want. You can act on those beliefs in living your life (as long as they don’t hurt others). You can prepare your food based on those beliefs. But this does not necessarily make what you believe true. Finding “an article” by a reputable researcher that supports your belief is not a legitimate scientific approach, it is cherry-picking. To know what the science actually says, you have to form your belief based upon the overwhelming consensus of the research.

Of course, that is not a problem if you don’t believe in science.

Slash the VA! Make our veterans pay for increasing corporate profits!

Given the heavy-handed, mean-spirited, cruel, anti-democratic, un-Constitutional, and penny-wise (maybe) but pound-foolish actions of the current GOP/Trump/Musk administration, it is hard to know where even to begin to discuss it. Certainly many, many intelligent and well informed people, including luminaries such as politician Bernie Sanders and historian Heather Cox Richardson, as well as many news sources such as the Contrarian (established by reporters and editors fired by or resigned from Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post and the New York Times). Even in the narrower realm of health, we have outrages like the vaccine denier and proponent of ineffective and even dangerous therapies, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. heading the Department of Health and Human Services, and Mehmet Oz, RFK, Jr’s fellow traveler, nominated to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, presumably so those services can continue to be slashed. And even more narrowly, in health and medicine and social justice – well, all of these actions and cuts tie to social justice!

So, let’s look at the Veterans Administration (VA). The VA is tasked with providing health care for our veterans, those who have served in the military, many of whom have suffered very serious, life-threatening injuries, physical and mental (of course not counting those never got to be veterans because their lives were lost). Veterans have also had higher rates of cancers and lung diseases linked to the use of burn pits (horrific incinerators used “in country” to dispose of garbage, waste, bodies, munitions, toxic materials, using jet fuel as the source of fire, running 24/7 close to camps). The death of President Biden’s son Beau was linked to burn pit exposure, and finally during the last administration Congress passed the PACT act (Honoring Our Promise to Address Comrade Toxic Exposure) to compensate and care for those veterans whose diseases were likely caused by such exposure, often called “the Agent Orange of the Gulf wars”.

The VA was already highly stressed by underfunding and understaffing due to previous cuts made by the pro-veterans-in-words-only GOP Congress and that stress was dramatically increased by the hundreds of thousands (at least a quarter million) claims under the PACT act. Amazingly the VA clinical operation, also very short-staffed, was able to continue to provide health care to veterans. Although there were many complaints of waits and slowdowns, they were in fact much less than the routine waits and slowdowns in the non-VA health care sector (anyone tried to get a doctor’s appointment lately?) and virtually every measure of quality has shown that the VA has outperformed the civilian sector. Of course, its mission is to provide health care for veterans, not to make a profit; this distinguishes it from the civilian sector in which profit is “Job One” and accessible, quality, effective health care a distant second. The NY Times’ recent article titled ‘Chaos at the V.A.: Inside the DOGE Cuts Disrupting the Veterans Agency’ notes that the VA

…treats 9.1 million veterans, provides critical medical research and, according to some studies, offers care that is comparable to or better than many private health systems. Even Project 2025, the conservative governing blueprint assembled by Trump allies, said the V.A. had transformed into “one of the most respected U.S. agencies.

Many of the VA’s successes, as well as its challenges, are documented by journalist Suzanne Gordon in journals including these in Jacobin, Veterans Starting to Mobilize, and the American Prospect.

Then came Trump, Musk, and DOGE. Under the banner of “cutting government waste” the already far-too-lean staffing of the VA is proposed to be cut by another 80,000 jobs! This will certainly result in major delays in accessing care, in lower quality, and unconscionable disservice to our veterans. It seems like heartless cruelty, and of course it is. But the nauseating thing is that while it certainly is not about cutting waste, it is not even about the heartless cruelty. It is about one thing: transferring “government” dollars – that is, YOUR tax dollars (not Musk’s, or his companies’, they don’t pay taxes!) – to private corporations. THAT is the goal.

Think about it. Slash funding and positions from the VA, which will naturally lead to complaints about inadequate service (even the VA can only do so much when cut not only to, but deep into, the bone) and protests from veterans’ groups and maybe even GOP members of Congress. So, what will they do? We don’t even have to guess – they’ll do their favorite thing and privatize it! Contract out the care of veterans to private corporations so they can have the wonderful experiences all the rest of us have in trying to access quality care. Of course, they won’t be able to, maybe even less than the rest of us, but heck, those companies will make a lot of money!

And that is the goal. It is not saving government money, it is about transferring it to private corporations, as acknowledged by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. This will cost more, be less efficient, and have lower quality. This is the consistent track record of almost every government service that has been privatized – they almost never either save money or work better, they put taxpayer money in private pockets. In health care, it is even worse; it is almost impossible to think of an example where privatization has not cost far more and had worse service, accessibility, and quality outcomes. If the funding is the same, it is always worse.

But, of course, this is not an accidental outcome, it is the intention. Privatization is sold as saving money, but it always costs more, and as increasing quality but it always goes down. What it is successful at is moving public dollars to the private sector. So, it doesn’t save money by eliminating waste, it eliminates basic care and then “solves” the problem by spending even more money! The heartless cruelty is not the goal; it is simply the byproduct. It hurts our veterans, but this is not a concern to the heartlessly cruel, non-empathic (Musk thinks empathy is “destroying Western civilization”) greedheads making these decisions.

Something can be done. Veterans can rise up and protest and contact their Congressional representatives. So can the various “veterans service organizations” (VSOs) including the American Legion, VFW, and many others. Maybe even some GOP Congresspeople will take the initiative and actually do something to help veterans instead of just flapping their gums! (OK, that may be a bridge too far…)