Oil: Tip it on or toss it out?
Delving into the science of nutrition "I try to rely on reliable scientific data. If I stray, I try to be clear that this is my opinion. If I am wrong, I will be the first to want to know, with evidence of course."
A by Dr T Colin Campbell
22 wholefoodliving.life | Spring, 2020
fter being immersed in the nutrition community for so many decades, I’ve come to see a serious dilemma that appears to be almost irreconcilable. On the one hand, nutrition creates more health than all the pills and procedures combined yet; on the other hand, it remains so controversial and confusing that it is almost impossible to understand—two sides of an enormous chasm. In my opinion, this is a self-destructive inferno of wordplay that need not exist if only we could understand the reason for this dilemma. I suggest that we start by understanding the science of nutrition. I also suggest that we know the difference between reliable scientific evidence, around which we build consensus for which we can have consensus versus personal
choice on how we use that evidence. We should not confuse these exercises. In 1980, I wrote at some length on the topic of decision making and personal risk when choosing whether to consume a preferred food believed to contain small amounts of toxic substances. As individuals, we should be able to agree on the facts (i.e., ‘science’), but also accept the idea that what each of us chooses to do with those facts is a personal matter, an issue of subjectively choosing, consciously or subconsciously, risk of potential harm (or benefit). Too often, we confuse objective science with subjective choice. Our disagreements on salt, oil and sugar, among other issues of this type, is a good example. One way of navigating through these misunderstood arguments, however, is first to consider a much larger question
